Short Reads

European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 250 million from Amazon

European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 25

European Commission orders the recovery of State aid of around EUR 250 million from Amazon

01.11.2017 NL law

On 4 October 2017, after a long investigation, the European Commission held that a tax ruling between Amazon and Luxembourg constituted illegal State aid [see our November 2015 Newsletter]. The Commission ordered Luxembourg to recover this aid from Amazon, which is estimated to be around EUR 250 million.

The Commission explained that the tax ruling in question allowed Amazon to pay substantially less tax than other companies. More specifically, the Commission stated that the tax ruling enabled Amazon to shift the vast majority of its profits from an Amazon group company (Amazon EU) to another company (Amazon Europe Holding Technologies). Amazon EU is subject to taxation in Luxembourg while Amazon Europe Holding Technologies is not. As a limited partnership, only the partners of Amazon Europe Holding Technologies are subject to taxation. These partners are located in the US and have so far deferred their tax liability.

Amazon EU operates Amazon's retail business in Europe. Amazon Europe Holding Technologies does not have any employees or offices, nor does it carry out any business activities. The holding company is an intermediary between Amazon EU and Amazon in the US. It has intellectual property rights and grants its exclusive use of these rights to Amazon EU. Under the tax ruling, Amazon EU paid royalties to Amazon Europe Holding Technologies, as a result of which Amazon EU's taxable profits were substantially reduced.

The Commission decided that the royalty payments did not reflect the economic reality. According to the Commission, the holding company did not perform any activities to justify the level of the royalties received since it was not involved in the management, development or use of its intellectual property. The royalty payment was therefore contrary to the so-called "arm's length principle" under which payments between two companies in the same group should be in line with arrangements that take place under commercial conditions between independent businesses.

The non-confidential version of the decision has not been published yet. Therefore, the exact methodology used to calculate the illegal advantage enjoyed by Amazon is not fully known. The tax authorities in Luxembourg will use this method to determine the exact amount of the State aid that has to be recovered from Amazon.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of November 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. General Court annuls UPC/Ziggo merger decision
  2. General Court rules that luxury watchmakers can limit supply of parts to approved repairers
  3. General Court upholds fine for 'gun jumping' EU merger control procedure
  4. Nike can restrict sales via online platforms within its selective distribution system
  5. Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal rules on cover pricing
  6. KLM and Amsterdam Schiphol airport offer commitments to reduce competition concerns

Team

Related news

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more