State Aid Benchmarking and Tax Rulings: Can We Keep It Simple?

  • Raymond LujaEmail author
Part of the MPI Studies in Tax Law and Public Finance book series (MPISTUD, volume 6)


Tax rulings and advance pricing agreements may run the risk of providing an advantage to taxpayers upon ex-post analysis. This contribution will first focus on how group companies may differ from stand-alone companies for state aid purposes and address the Commission’s potential use of secret comparables as part of a transfer pricing analysis. A flowchart to determine when a ruling may be deemed selective is provided. Then mismatches will be addressed in tax treaty situations, like the (de)recognition of permanent establishments. Lastly, the (ir)relevance of the new EU tax ruling database for state aid investigations will be discussed.


Transfer Price Group Company Taxable Profit Excess Profit Transfer Price Rule 
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.


  1. Council of the European Union (2011) Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, OJ L 64/1 of 11 March 2011Google Scholar
  2. Council of the European Union (2013) Council Regulation (EU) 734/2013 of 22 July 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 204/15 of 31 July 2013Google Scholar
  3. Council of the European Union (2015a) Council Directive 2015/2376 of 8 December 2015 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation, OJ L 332/1 of 18 December 2015Google Scholar
  4. Council of the European Union (2015b) Council Regulation (EU) No. 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ L 248/9, 24.9.2015Google Scholar
  5. Dutch Ministry of Finance (2015) Letter of the Under Secretary of Finance of 27 November 2015, IVZ/2015/973Google Scholar
  6. European Commission (2003) Commission Decision 2003/755/EC of 17 February 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium. (Text with EEA relevance). Notified under document number C (2003) 564Google Scholar
  7. European Commission (2015a) 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
  8. European Commission (2015b) 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
  9. European Commission (2015c) Commission Press Release, State Aid: Commission opens formal investigation into Luxembourg’s tax treatment of McDonald’s, 3 December 2015, IP/15/6221Google Scholar
  10. European Commission (2016) European Commission Press Release, State Aid: Commission concludes Belgian “Excess Profit” tax scheme illegal; around €700 million to be recovered from 35 multinational companies, 11 January 2016, IP/16/42Google Scholar
  11. Financial Times (2016) Letter by US Treasury Secretary J.J. Lew to the European Commission as reported on “Jack Lew accuses Brussels of bias against US Companies”. Accessed 11 February 2016
  12. OECD (2010) OECD transfer pricing guidelines. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. OECD (2015) OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project–Aligning Transfer Pricing Outcomes with Value Creation – Actions 8-10: 2015 Final Reports. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  14. Oxford Dictionaries. Definition of “simple”. Accessed 29 Feb 2016

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations