Short Reads

General Court sends Commission back to drawing board in Belgian tax rulings case

General Court sends Commission back to drawing board in Belgian tax r

General Court sends Commission back to drawing board in Belgian tax rulings case

07.03.2019 BE law

The European Commission has suffered its first court defeat in a tax rulings case. The General Court recently overturned an order to recover over EUR 700 million worth of tax breaks from 55 beneficiaries, because the Commission had wrongly qualified Belgian's excess profit exemption system as an "aid scheme".

The ruling is a welcome clarification of what can be considered an "aid scheme" under the EU State aid rules. Time will tell which steps the Commission will take next.

Since 2005, Belgian entities forming part of a multinational group of companies could, after having demonstrated new investments in Belgium, in the creation of jobs and/or the centralization or increase of activities in Belgium, obtain an advance ruling from the tax authorities, exempting them from corporate income tax on the so-called "excess profits" they made from being part of a multinational group.

On 11 January 2016, the European Commission concluded that such a system constitutes an illegal state aid scheme, and it ordered Belgium to recover around EUR 700 million from the 55 beneficiaries listed in Annex 1 of its decision.

On 14 February 2019, the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision, considering that the Commission wrongly concluded that the excess profit exemption system constituted an "aid scheme" within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU.

The Court first recalled the three conditions for a state aid to be regarded as an "aid scheme": 1) the essential elements of the aid scheme must emerge from the provisions identified by the Commission as the basis for the scheme, 2) there is no margin of appreciation for the national authorities regarding these essential elements, meaning that no implementing measures are required, and 3) the basis acts must define the beneficiaries in a general and abstract manner.

Then the Court considered that none of these conditions was fulfilled because: 1) some essential elements, such as the two-step methodology for calculating the excess profit or the requirement of investments, creation of jobs and centralization or increase of activities in Belgium did not appear in the basis acts, 2) when issuing an advance ruling, the tax authorities carried out a qualitative and quantitative case-by-case assessment in the light of documents provided by the entity concerned, which means that they enjoyed a genuine margin of appreciation, and 3) further implementing measures had to be taken in order to define which companies fulfilled the required conditions and could therefore obtain an advance ruling.

In the absence of an "aid scheme", the Commission should have therefore carried out an individual analysis of each of the alleged aid granted to the 55 beneficiaries. If the Commission decides to re-open the case, this is what it will have to do.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of March 2019. Another article in this newsletter:

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