Tax Rulings in the European Union – State Aid as the European Commission's Sword Leading to Transparency Rulings

Read Publication

The European Union’s plan on putting an end to corporate tax breaks granted by means of letter rulings ran into German privacy concerns as E.U. Finance ministers met on June 19, 2015. The initiative, aimed at implementing an automatic exchange of letter rulings granted by E.U. Member States, will affect E.U. businesses as well as European operations of foreign multinationals, including those based in the United States. Examples of the latter are already under review by the E.U. Commission with regard to letter rulings issued by Ireland and the Netherlands, respectively, to local operations of Apple and Starbucks. Although the E.U. Commission, the executive body of the European Union, has no direct authority over national tax systems, it can investigate whether certain fiscal regimes, including those that issue advance private tax rulings, constitute an infringement of E.U. principles, in particular “unjustifiable” State Aid to companies. Such allegedly incompatible State Aid would comprise, inter alia, selective tax advantages granted by an E.U. Member State to companies with operations in its jurisdiction.

The Commission is very clear on its intent to use its powers and pursue its initiative vigorously. The financial press has widely reported a statement made by a spokesman for Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager that combating tax evasion and avoidance is a top priority of the Commission. In line with that concern, the Commission is taking a structured approach when using its State Aid enforcement powers to investigate selective tax advantages that distort fair competition.

The following provides an overview on the legislative framework with respect to State Aid, developments and an outlook on the future of tax rulings in an environment of increased tax transparency.

B.E.P.S. Action 14: Make Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

The O.E.C.D. has continued to publish discussion drafts under its 15-part action plan (the “B.E.P.S. Action Plan”) for combatting base erosion and profit shifting (“B.E.P.S.”), with Action 14 being the most unique.

Action 14, entitled “Make Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective,” provides as follows:

Develop solutions to address obstacles that prevent countries from solving treaty-related disputes under MAP, including the absence of arbitration provisions in most treaties and the fact that access to MAP and arbitration may be denied in certain cases.

While most components of the B.E.P.S. Action Plan address the problems caused by base erosion and profit shifting, the recently proposed discussion draft for Action 14 (“Discussion Draft” or “Draft”) addresses the mutual agreement procedures (“M.A.P.”) used to resolve treaty-related disputes. Action 14 addresses the current obstacles faced by taxpayers seeking M.A.P. relief to avoid economic double taxation and provides suggestions as to how to revise provisions in order to improve the integration of M.A.P. dispute resolution mechanisms. The O.E.C.D. describes it as a unique opportunity to overcome traditional obstacles and to provide effective relief through M.A.P. The Discussion Draft proposes complementary solutions that are intended to have a practical and measurable impact, rather than merely providing additional guidance which may not be followed.