Advertisement

Anti-avoidance Measures and State Aid in a Post-BEPS Context: An Attempt at Reconciliation

  • Edoardo TraversaEmail author
  • Pierre M. Sabbadini
Chapter
Part of the MPI Studies in Tax Law and Public Finance book series (MPISTUD, volume 6)

Abstract

From an EU law perspective, anti-avoidance measures adopted by Member States have long been subject of scrutiny of the CJEU under EU fundamental freedoms (See also the judgment in Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Case C-524/04, ECLI:EU:C:2007:161, paragraph 25; judgment in Lankhost-Hohorst, C-324/00, ECLI:EU:C:2002:749; judgment in Lasertec, C-492/04, ECLI:EU:C:2007:273; judgment in NV Lammers & Van Cleeff, C-105/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:24; judgment in Itelcar—Automóveis, C-282/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:629). This article focuses on the treatment of anti-tax avoidance measures under EU State aid law in the light of current international developments as regards fight against base erosion and profit shifting. Anti-tax avoidance measures indeed often contain rather open-ended notions and entail distinctions based on criteria relating to economic substance, which leads to a wide margin of appreciation by tax authorities. Therefore, they are likely to be caught by the prohibition of State aid. After a brief introduction on the principles guiding the application of State aid rules to fiscal measures, a typology of anti-avoidance measures adopted by the EU and its Member States according to their source, scope and their effects is provided. Then, the article discusses the most significant case-law on the topic, i.e. the Finnish P Oy and German Sanierungsklausel cases and their consequence on the current approach taken by EU institutions in the fight against purely tax driven arrangements. Finally, it proposes interpretative tools to reconcile state aid enforcement with substance-based anti-avoidance measures, in particular as regards the definition of the reference framework, the selection of the main objective of the tax measure at stake and the assessment of the genuine character of economic activities.

Keywords

Reference Framework Transfer Price Rule Control Foreign Corporation 
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. Arhold C (2011) The German scheme on the fiscal carry forward of losses – a ‘Selected Case’. EStAL 10(1):71–79Google Scholar
  2. Arnull A (2009) What are general principles of EU law? In: De la Feria R, Vogenauer S (eds) Prohibition of abuse of law – a new general principle of EU law. Hart, Oxford, pp 7–24Google Scholar
  3. Ault H, Arnold B (2010) Comparative income taxation, 3rd edn. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  4. Bousin J, Piernas J (2008) Developments in the notion of selectivity. EStAL 7(4):634–653Google Scholar
  5. Brodersen C, Mückl N (2014) The German Restructuring Privilege (Section 8c(1a) of the Corporate Income Tax Act) and the EU state aid rules (Article 107(1) of the TFEU). Eur Taxation 54(2–3):56–62Google Scholar
  6. Council of the European Union (2009) Council Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office of an SE or SCE between Member States, OJ L 310, 25 November 2009Google Scholar
  7. Council of the European Union (2014) Council Directive 2014/86/EU of 8 July 2014 amending Directive 2011/96/EU on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, OJ L 219, 25 July 2014Google Scholar
  8. Council of the European Union (2015) Council Directive (EU) 2015/121 of 27 January 2015 amending Directive 2011/96/EU on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, OJ L 21, 28 January 2015Google Scholar
  9. De Broe L (2008) International tax planning and prevention of abuse: a study under domestic law, tax treaties and EC law in relation to conduit and base companies. IBFD, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  10. De la Feria R (2008) Prohibition of abuse (community) law – the creation of a new general principle of EC law through tax. Common Mark Law Rev 45(2):395–441Google Scholar
  11. Dourado AP (2015a) Aggressive tax planning in EU law and in the light of BEPS: the EC recommendation on aggressive tax planning and BEPS actions 2 and 6. Intertax 43(1):42–57Google Scholar
  12. Dourado AP (2015b) The role of CFC rules in the BEPS initiative and in the EU. Br Tax Rev 60(3):340–363Google Scholar
  13. Engelen F (2012) State aid and restrictions on free movement: two sides of the same coin? Eur Taxation 52(5):204–209Google Scholar
  14. European Commission (1998) Commission Notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation, OJ C, 384, 10 December 1998Google Scholar
  15. European Commission (2006) Decision 2007/256/EC of 20 December 2006 on the aid scheme implemented by France under Article 39CA of the General Tax Code, OJ 2007 L112/41Google Scholar
  16. European Commission (2009) Temporary Community Framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis, OJ C 83, 7 April 2009Google Scholar
  17. European Commission (2011) Decision of the European Commission of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel), OJ 2011 L 235/26Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (2012a) Commission Recommendation of 6 December 2012 on Aggressive Tax Planning, C (2012) 8806Google Scholar
  19. European Commission (2012b) Communication from the Commission of 6 December 2012 – An Action Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion, COM (2012) 722Google Scholar
  20. European Commission (2014a) Commission Decision in case SA.38375 (Fiat Finance & Trade) of June 11, 2014, OJ C 369/37 of October 17, 2014 under appeal by application lodged on 29 January 2016 registered as cases T-755/15 and T-759/15Google Scholar
  21. European Commission (2014b) Commission Decision in case SA.38374 (Starbucks) of June 11, 2014, OJ C 460/11 of December 19, 2014 under appeal by application lodged on 29 January 2016 registered as case T-760/15Google Scholar
  22. European Commission (2014c) Commission Press Release, State Aid: Commission extends in-depth investigation into Gibraltar corporate tax regime to include tax ruling practice, 1 October 2014 IP/14/1073Google Scholar
  23. European Commission (2014d) Commission Decision in case SA.38373 (Apple) of June 11, 2014, OJ C 369/22 of October 17, 2014Google Scholar
  24. European Commission (2015a) Commission Decision in case SA.37667 (Belgian Excess Profit Rulings) of February 3, 2015, OJ C 188/24 of 5 June 2015Google Scholar
  25. European Commission (2015b) Press release State aid: Commission opens formal investigation into Luxembourg’s tax treatment of McDonald's, 3 December 2015, IP/15/6221Google Scholar
  26. European Commission (2015c) Commission Decision in case SA.38944 (Amazon) of October 7, 2014, OJ C 44/13 of February 6, 2015Google Scholar
  27. European Commission (2016a) Proposal for a Council Directive laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market, 28 January 2016, COM (2016) 26 finalGoogle Scholar
  28. European Commission (2016b) Commission Recommendation of 28 January 2016 on the implementation of measures against tax treaty abuse, C (2016) 271 finalGoogle Scholar
  29. European Commission (2016c) Commission Communication of 28 January 2016 – Anti-avoidance Tax Package: Next steps towards delivering effective taxation and greater tax transparency in the EU, COM/2016/023Google Scholar
  30. Hancher L, Ottervanger T, Jan Slot P (2012) EU state aids, 2012. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Kemmeren ECCM (2014) Where is EU law in the OECD BEPS discussion? EC Tax Rev 23(4):190–193Google Scholar
  32. Kube H (2004) Die Gleichheitsdogmatik des europäischen Wettbewerbsrechts – zur Beihilfenkontrolle staatlicher Ausgleichszahlungen. EuR 39(2):230–252Google Scholar
  33. Kube H (2005) Nationales Steuerrecht und europäisches Beihilfenrecht. In: Becker P, Schön W (eds) Steuer- und Sozialstaat im europäischen Systemwettbewerb. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 99–117Google Scholar
  34. Lang M (2009) Die Auswirkungen des gemeinschaftlichen Beihilferechts auf das Steuerrecht, Gutachten. ÖJT 17(IV/1):1–112Google Scholar
  35. Lang M (2012) State aid and taxation: recent trends in the case law of the EC. Eur State Aid Law Q 11(2):411–421Google Scholar
  36. Luja R (2003) Assessment and recovery of tax incentives in the EC and the WTO: a view on state aids, trade subsidies and direct taxation. Intersentia, Oxford-New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Luja R (2015) Report on EU state aid law and national tax rulings. TAXE Special Committee of the European Parliament, October 2015. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2015/563453/IPOL_IDA(2015)563453_EN.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2016
  38. Micheau C (2012) Fundamental freedoms and state aid rules under EU law: the example of taxation. Eur Taxation 52(5):210–214Google Scholar
  39. Micheau C (2013) Droit des aides d’État et des subventions en fiscalité. Larcier, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  40. Michelsen A (1998) General report on treatment of corporate losses. In: Cahiers de droit fiscal international, vol LXXXIIIa. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston, pp 19–183Google Scholar
  41. O’Shea T (2011) Tax avoidance and abuse of EU law. EC Tax J 12:77–115Google Scholar
  42. OECD (2010) Transfer pricing guidelines. http://www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-pricing/transfer-pricing-guidelines.htm. Accessed 7 Mar 2016
  43. OECD (2015a) Preventing the granting of treaty benefits in inappropriate circumstances, action 6-final report. OECD Publications, ParisGoogle Scholar
  44. OECD (2015b) Model convention on income and on capital. www.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/model-tax-convention-on-income-and-on-capital-2015-full-version_9789264239081-en. Accessed 6 Apr 2016
  45. OECD (2015c) Reports on BEPS Action 7, 8 and 9. http://www.oecd.org/ctp/beps-2015-final-reports.htm. Accessed 8 Apr 2016
  46. OECD (2015d) Limiting base erosion involving interest deductions and other financial payments, Action 4-2015 Final ReportGoogle Scholar
  47. OECD (2015e) Neutralising the effects of hybrid mismatch arrangements, Action 2-2015 Final ReportGoogle Scholar
  48. OECD (2015f) Explanatory statement, OECD/G20 base erosion and profit shifting project. www.oecd.org/ctp/beps-explanatory-statement-2015.pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2016
  49. OECD (2016a) Transfer pricing guidelines for multinational enterprises and tax administrations. http://www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-pricing/transfer-pricing-guidelines.htm. Accessed 6 Apr 2016
  50. OECD (2016b) Glossary of tax termsGoogle Scholar
  51. Panayi C (2004) State aid and tax: the third way? Intertax 32(6-7):283–306Google Scholar
  52. Quigley C (2015) European state aid law and policy. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Rossi-Maccanico P (2012) Fiscal aid review and cross-border tax distortions. Intertax 40(2):92–100Google Scholar
  54. Rust A, Micheau C (eds) (2013) State aid and tax law. Kluwer Law International, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Schön W (1999) Taxation and state aid in the European Union. Common Mark Law Rev 36(5):911–936Google Scholar
  56. Schön W (2003) Tax competition in Europe – general report. In: Schön W (ed) Tax competition in Europe. IBFD, Amsterdam, pp 1–42Google Scholar
  57. Schön W (2011) § 8c KStG und Europäisches Beihilfenrecht. JbFfSt 62:119–132Google Scholar
  58. Schoueri LE (2015) Arm’s length: beyond the guidelines of the OECD. Bull Int Taxation 69(12):[first and last page]Google Scholar
  59. Sørensen KE (2006) Abuse of rights in community law: a principle of substance or merely rhetoric? Common Mark Law Rev 43(2):423–459Google Scholar
  60. Sutter F (2005) Das EG-Beihilfenverbot und sein Durchführungsverbot in Steuersachen. Linde, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  61. Traversa E (2013) Interest deductibility and the BEPS action plan: nihil novi sub sole? Br Tax Rev 58(5):607–619Google Scholar
  62. Traversa E (2014) State aid and taxation, can an anti-avoidance provision be selective? Eur State Aid Law Q 13(3):518–525Google Scholar
  63. Traversa E, Vintras B (2013) The territoriality of tax incentives within the single market. In: Richelle I, Schön W, Traversa E (eds) Allocating taxing powers within the European Union. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 171–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Weeghel S (2010) 2010 IFA Congress on tax treaties and tax avoidance: application of anti-avoidance provisions: general report. In: Cahiers de droit fiscal international, vol 95a. Sdu Uitgevers, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  65. Waelbroeck D (2004) La compatibilité des systèmes fiscaux généraux avec les règles en matière d’aides d’État dans le Traité CE. Mélanges John Kirkpatrick, Brussels, BruylantGoogle Scholar
  66. Wouters J, Van Hees B (2001) Les règles communautaires en matière d’aides d’Etat et la fiscalité directe: quelques observations critiques. Cahiers de droit européen (5–6):647–681Google Scholar
  67. Zimmer F (2002) IFA Oslo Congress form and substance in tax law: general report. In: Cahiers de droit fiscal international, vol 87a. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan Den RijnGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Catholic University of LouvainBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Liedekerke Law FirmBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations