Advertisement

Tax Incentives Under State Aid Law: A Competition Law Perspective

  • Thomas JaegerEmail author
Chapter
  • 900 Downloads
Part of the MPI Studies in Tax Law and Public Finance book series (MPISTUD, volume 6)

Abstract

Respecting the line between the policy areas of taxation and state aid law is important not only from the Member States’ perspectives, but also from the points of view of the European Parliament and the protection of individual rights. State aid law’s current approach to tax measures and their assessment is not in balance: The borderline to the tax policy area is blurred. It is at a constant risk of being crossed by the Commission in its effort to be the wingman of a sluggish EU tax legislator in the quest against harmful tax competition. This contribution explains why safeguarding the balance between state aid and taxes is important, what the flaws in the current approach are, how they can be modified and in how far this would make a difference for future state aid tax cases.

Keywords

Executive Dominance Discrimination Assessment System Immanence Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. European Commission (1998) Commission Notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (OJ C, 384, 10.12.1998)Google Scholar
  2. European Commission (2007) Commission Decision of February 13, 2007 on the incompatibility of certain Swiss company tax regimes with the Agreement between the EEC and the Swiss Confederation of July 22, 1972, C(2007) 411Google Scholar
  3. European Commission (2014a) Proposal for a Council Directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), COM (2011) 121/4Google Scholar
  4. European Commission (2014b) Commission Press Release, State Aid: Commission extends information enquiry on tax rulings practice to all Member States, 17 December 2014, IP/14/2742Google Scholar
  5. European Commission (2015a) Commission Press Release, Combating Corporate Tax Avoidance: Commission presents Tax Transparency Package, 18 March 2015, IP/15/4610 and MEMO/15/4609.Google Scholar
  6. European Commission (2015b) Commission Press Release, Commission decides selective tax advantages for Fiat in Luxembourg and Starbucks in the Netherlands are illegal under EU State Aid rules, 21 October 2015 IP/15/5880Google Scholar
  7. European Commission (2015c) Commission Press Release, State Aid: Commission orders Estonia and Poland to deliver missing information on tax practices; requests tax rulings from 15 Member States, 8 June 2015, IP/15/5140Google Scholar
  8. Haslehner W (2011) Die Anwendbarkeit des Privatinvestortests bei Steuerbeihilfen. In: Jaeger T, Rumersdorfer (eds) Jahrbuch Beihilferecht. Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Wien, pp 273–293Google Scholar
  9. Haslehner W (2012) Materielle Selektivität von Steuerbeihilfen im Lichte des Gibraltar-Urteils des EuGH. In: Jaeger T, Haslinger B (eds) Jahrbuch Beihilferecht 2012. Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Wien, pp 301–324Google Scholar
  10. Jaeger T (2011) Steuerliche Maßnahmen. In: Montag F, Säcker F (eds) Münchener Kommentar Europäisches und Deutsches Wettbewerbsrecht III Beihilfen- und Vergaberecht. Verlag Ch Bech, München, pp 805–851Google Scholar
  11. Jaeger T (2012) Zuschüsse und Übernahme wirtschaftlicher Risiken durch den Staat aus beihilferechtlicher Sicht. In: WiR Eilmansberger T, Holoubeck M, Kalss S, Lang M, Lienbacher, Lurger B, Potacs, M, Rebhahn (eds) Finanzmarktregulierung. Linde, Wien, pp 149–182Google Scholar
  12. Jaeger T (2013) Beihilfe- und Förderungsrecht. In: Holoubek M, Potacs M (eds) Öffentliches Wirtschaftsrecht I. Verlad Österreich, Wien, pp 617–733Google Scholar
  13. Jaeger T (2015) From Santander to LuxLeaks – and back. Eur State Aid Law Q 14(3):345–357Google Scholar
  14. Knade-Plaskacz A (2013) Enforcement of State aid law at national level: the relationship between national courts and the European Commission. Juridical Tribune 2(3):116–125Google Scholar
  15. Lane J, Ersson S (1999) The new institutional politics: outcomes and consequences. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mamut M (2008) Aktuelle Fragen im Bereich der Steuerbeihilfen – Mitgliedstaaten zwischen Steuerwettbewerb und Systemimmanenz steuerlicher Beihilfen. In: Jaeger T (ed) Jahrbuch Beihilferecht. NWV Verlag, Vienna, pp 177–199Google Scholar
  17. Musil A (2014) Europäisches Beihilferecht und nationales Steuerrecht. Finanz-Rundschau FR, Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln 21/2014, pp 953–957Google Scholar
  18. Quigley C (2009) European state aid law and policy. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Rüffler F, Steinwender R (2013) Allgemeines Wettbewerbsrecht. In: Holoubek M, Potacs M (eds) Öffentliches Wirtschaftsrecht I. Verlag Österrich, Wien, pp 557–615Google Scholar
  20. Schön W (1999) Taxation and state aid law in the European Union. Common Mark Law Rev 36(5):911–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schön W (2012) State aid in the area of taxation. In: Hancher L, Ottervanger T, Slot PJ (eds) EU state aids. Sweet & Maxwell, London, pp 321–362Google Scholar
  22. Sutter F (2014) 171a. Lieferung: art 107 AEUV. In: Mayer H, Stöger K (eds) Kommentar zu EUV und AEUV. Manzche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung, WienGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations