In 2012, the Luxembourg tax authorities issued a tax ruling in favour of Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe (‘FFT’), an undertaking in the Fiat group that provided treasury and financing services to the group companies established in Europe. The tax ruling at issue endorsed a method for determining FFT’s remuneration for these services, which enabled FFT to determine its taxable profit on a yearly basis for corporate income tax in Luxembourg. In October 2015, the Commission concluded that the tax ruling constituted State aid under Article 107 TFEU and that it was operating aid that was incompatible with the internal market. The Commission found that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was required to recover the unlawful and incompatible aid from FFT. FFT brought an action before the General Court for annulment of the Commission’s decision. In it’s Judgement of September 2019, the General Court dismissed the actions brought by FFT and confirmed the validity of the Commission’s decision. This decision was then appealed to the European Court of Justice by FFT. In December 2021 the Advocate General Opinion was published. The AG opined that the decisions of the General Court should be set aside because the arm’s length principle had been used incorrectly as the benchmark for “normal” taxation in Luxembourg at that time. Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union The Court set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court on 24 September 2019 in the case Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission (Joined Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15) and annuls the decision of the Commission of 21 October 2015 on the State aid granted by Luxembourg to FFT. The Court holds that the General Court was wrong to confirm the reference framework used by the Commission to apply the arm’s length principle to integrated companies in Luxembourg, in failing to take into account the specific rules implementing that principle in that Member State As a preliminary point, the Court recalls that action by Member States in areas that are not subject to harmonisation by EU law is not excluded from the scope of the provisions of the FEU Treaty on monitoring State aid. It next recalls that the classification of a national measure as ‘State aid’ requires four conditions to be fulfilled. First, there must be an intervention by the State or through State resources. Second, the intervention must be liable to affect trade between the Member States. Third, it must confer a selective advantage on the beneficiary. Fourth, it must distort or threaten to distort competition. As part of the analysis of tax measures, from the perspective of EU State aid law, the examination of the condition relating to selective advantage involves, as a first step, identifying the reference system, that is the ‘normal’ tax system applicable in the Member State concerned, then demonstrating, as a second step, that the tax measure at issue is a derogation from that reference system, in so far as it differentiates between operators who, in the light of the objective pursued by that system, are in a comparable factual and legal situation, without finding any justification with regard to the nature or scheme of the system in question. For the purposes of assessing the selective nature of a tax measure, it is, therefore, necessary that the common tax regime or the reference system applicable in the Member State concerned be correctly identified in the Commission decision and examined by the court hearing a dispute concerning that identification. In that regard, the Court concludes that, in so far as, outside the spheres in which EU tax law has been harmonised, it is the Member State concerned which determines, by exercising its own competence in the matter of direct taxation and with due regard for its fiscal autonomy, the characteristics constituting the tax, only the national law applicable in the Member State concerned must be taken into account in order to identify the reference system for direct taxation, that identification being itself an essential prerequisite for assessing not only the existence of an advantage, but also whether it is selective in nature. According to the Court of Justice, the General Court committed an error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU by failing to take account of the requirement arising from the case-law, according to which, in order to determine whether a tax measure has conferred a selective advantage on an undertaking, it is for the Commission to carry out a comparison with the tax system normally applicable in the Member State concerned, following an objective examination of the content, interaction and concrete effects of the rules applicable under the national law of that State. The General Court was wrong to endorse the approach consisting in applying an arm’s length principle different from that defined by Luxembourg law, confining itself to identifying the abstract expression of that principle in the objective pursued by the general corporate income tax in Luxembourg and to examining the tax ruling at issue without taking into account the way in which the said principle has actually been incorporated into that law with regard to integrated companies in particular. In addition, by accepting that the Commission may rely on rules which were not part of Luxembourg law, even though it recalled that that institution did not, at that stage of development of EU law, have the power autonomously to define the ‘normal’ taxation of an integrated company, disregarding national tax rules, the General Court infringed the provisions of the FEU Treaty relating to the adoption by the European Union of measures for the approximation of Member State legislation relating to direct taxation. The Court concludes that the grounds of the judgment under appeal relating to the examination of the Commission’s principal line of reasoning, according to which the tax ruling at issue derogated from the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system, are vitiated by an error of law in that the General Court validated the Commission’s approach. More specifically, that error consisted, in ...

At issue in this case is whether the arm’s length principle as described in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines can be applied by the EU in determining if state aid had been granted. In 2012, the Luxembourg tax authorities issued a tax ruling in favour of Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe (‘FFT’), an undertaking in the Fiat group that provided treasury and financing services to the group companies established in Europe. The tax ruling at issue endorsed a method for determining FFT’s remuneration for these services, which enabled FFT to determine its taxable profit on a yearly basis for corporate income tax in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. In 2015, the Commission concluded that the tax ruling constituted State aid under Article 107 TFEU and that it was operating aid that was incompatible with the internal market. The Commission found that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was required to recover the unlawful and incompatible aid from FFT. FFT brought an action before the General Court for annulment of the Commission’s decision. In it’s Judgement of September 2019 Union , the General Court dismissed the actions brought by FFT and confirmed the validity of the Commission’s decision. This decision was then appealed to the European Court of Justice by FFT. At the same time, Ireland filed an appeal in regards of application of the arm’s length principle in state aid cases. According to Ireland, applying the arm’s length principle in these cases was in breach of the principle of legal certainty. AG Opinion from the European Court of Justice The Advocate General proposes that the Court dismiss the appeal brought by Ireland in its entirety. The Advocate General considers in particular that the General Court correctly held that the Commission was not required to take account of the intra-group and cross-border dimension of the effects of the tax ruling at issue when determining whether that ruling conferred an economic advantage, and that the three errors made, according to the Commission, in the calculation of the remuneration of the treasury and financing services provided by FFT prevented an arm’s length outcome from being obtained and could therefore form the basis for a finding of economic advantage. Excerpt “178. The principle of legal certainty, which is a general principle of EU law and thus applies to the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union, requires, according to settled case-law, that rules of law must be clear and precise and that they must be foreseeable. (81) More specifically, that principle requires an assessment of whether an EU legal act enables those concerned to know precisely and unequivocally the extent of their rights and obligations and to take steps accordingly. (82) This requirement must be observed all the more strictly in the case of an act liable to have financial consequences. (83) 179. It is apparent from the case-law of the Court of Justice that the principle of legal certainty is intrinsically linked to the development of legal standards by the European Union, and by national authorities when they implement EU law, and that it permits judicial review of flaws liable to result in unpredictable application of the legal act in question. (84) 180. The principle of legal certainty is narrower in scope with regard to an administrative decision, as is apparent from the case-law on State aid. In that area, the Court of Justice has found the principle of legal certainty to have been infringed only where the conduct in question had been engaged in by the Commission before or during the procedure leading to the adoption of a decision to recover State aid. (85) 181. In the present case, the principle of legal certainty is relied on in opposition to the use, for the purposes of determining whether the requirement for an advantage was fulfilled, of the arm’s length principle, on the ground that the scope of that principle was not defined. In other words, what is challenged is the substantive validity of an assessment made by the Commission in relation to the characterisation of a State measure as State aid. However, the substantive validity of such an assessment cannot be challenged on the basis of conformity with the principle of legal certainty. To hold otherwise would be to prohibit the Commission from conceiving new approaches in the application of rules of law, leaving it frozen in its current position. In particular, such an interpretation would mean that the Commission is prevented from using any novel benchmark to guide its assessment of whether there is an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. 182. Having regard to the case-law referred to above and to the fact that FFT’s criticism relates, ultimately, to the finding of advantage made for the purposes of characterising the tax ruling at issue as State aid, I must conclude that the principle of legal certainty cannot be legitimately relied on in the present case. Thus, no error of law can be attributed to the General Court on the basis that it did not disapprove the characterisation of the scope of the arm’s length principle which emerges from the decision at issue. I therefore consider that the first part of the third ground of appeal must be rejected. 183. In any event, the General Court was right to hold, in response to the arguments advanced respectively by FFT and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and set out in paragraphs 155 and 176 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission had sufficiently defined the scope and content of the arm’s length principle applied in the decision at issue, and that that definition was thus not open to criticism on the basis that the discretion left to the Commission in applying that principle was overly broad. I am thinking particularly of the General Court’s observations that the arm’s length principle is ‘a tool for checking that intra-group transactions are remunerated as though they had been negotiated between independent undertakings’ and that the examination in the light ...

In 2012, the Luxembourg tax authorities issued a tax ruling in favour of Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe (‘FFT’), an undertaking in the Fiat group that provided treasury and financing services to the group companies established in Europe. The tax ruling at issue endorsed a method for determining FFT’s remuneration for these services, which enabled FFT to determine its taxable profit on a yearly basis for corporate income tax in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. In 2015, the Commission concluded that the tax ruling constituted State aid under Article 107 TFEU and that it was operating aid that was incompatible with the internal market. The Commission found that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was required to recover the unlawful and incompatible aid from FFT. FFT brought an action before the General Court for annulment of the Commission’s decision. In it’s Judgement of September 2019 Union , the General Court dismissed the actions brought by FFT and confirmed the validity of the Commission’s decision. This decision was then appealed to the European Court of Justice by FFT. AG Opinion from the European Court of Justice The Advocate General opined that the decisions of the General Court should be set aside because the arm’s length principle had been used incorrectly as the benchmark for “normal” taxation in Luxembourg at that time. Excerpts “…I share Ireland’s view that the approach adopted by the Commission in the decision at issue and endorsed by the General Court in the judgment under appeal ultimately amounts to introducing into the national tax system constituting ‘normal’ taxation a rule, namely the arm’s length principle, which is extraneous to that system. For the reasons set out inter alia in the preceding point, the reference to the purported objective pursued by the national legislature is not capable of justifying the arm’s length principle’s belonging to the said system.” “110. It has not escaped my attention that, if the arm’s length principle were incorporated into the national legal order, the number of national tax authorities whose tax rulings might be subject to Commission scrutiny from a State aid perspective would be reduced and the OECD guidelines would become de facto binding by restricting the Commission’s discretion in examining those rulings. Nevertheless, this is, in my view, the only reasoning that the General Court can regard as legally correct, since it respects the exclusive competence of the Member States in matters of direct taxation. 111. By contrast, the legal reasoning followed by the Commission, principally, and endorsed by the General Court in the judgment under appeal defines the reference framework constituting ‘normal’ taxation by relying on a version of the arm’s length principle based on an uncodified element such as the (purported) objective of Luxembourg tax law. Is this not precisely the undue interference in the Member States’ tax autonomy which the Court has always carefully condemned until now? I think that it is.” ” It follows from the reasoning set out in points 101 to 113 and points 167 to 174 of this Opinion that the General Court committed an error of law, in the judgment under appeal, in approving the examination of the existence of an economic advantage on the basis of a reference framework comprising an arm’s length principle which does not derive from national tax law and thereby also infringed the provisions governing the division of competences between the European Union and its Member States.” Click here for English Version of the Opinion ...

In 2016 the European Commission announced that it had opened an in-depth investigation to examine whether tax rulings (unilateral APA’s) granted by the Netherlands had given Nike an unfair advantage over its competitors, in breach of EU State aid rules. The formal investigation concerned the tax treatment in the Netherlands of two Nike group companies, Nike European Operations Netherlands BV and Converse Netherlands BV. These two operating companies develops, markets and records the sales of Nike and Converse products in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (the EMEA region). Nike European Operations Netherlands BV and Converse Netherlands BV obtained licenses to use intellectual property rights relating to Nike and Converse products in the EMEA region. The two companies obtained the licenses, in return for a tax-deductible royalty payment, from two Nike group entities, which are currently Dutch entities that are “transparent” for tax purposes (i.e., not taxable in the Netherlands). From 2006 to 2015, the Dutch tax authorities issued five tax rulings, two of which are still in force, endorsing a method to calculate the royalty to be paid by Nike European Operations Netherlands and Converse Netherlands for the use of the intellectual property. As a result of these tax rulings, Nike European Operations Netherlands BV and Converse Netherlands BV are only taxed in the Netherlands on a limited operating margin based on sales. The Commission was concerned that the royalty payments endorsed by the rulings may not reflect economic reality. According to the Commission the payments appeared to be higher than what independent companies negotiating on market terms would have agreed. On 26 September 2019 Nike brought the decision to open the investigation to the European General Court claiming the investigation was in breach of fundamental  EU rights, principles of good administration and equal treatment by (1) erring in law in the preliminary assessment of the aid character of the contested measures. (2) not providing sufficient reasons for finding that the contested measures fulfil all elements of State aid, especially why they should be regarded as selective. (3) prematurely opening a formal investigation and providing insufficient reasoning for the existence of State aid where there were no difficulties to continue the preliminary investigation. Judgement of the Court On 14 July 2021 The General Court dismissed the claims brought by Nike. The Court agreed that the intercompany royalties payments as determined in the tax rulings (unilateral APA’s) issued by the Netherlands left the distribution affiliates with less profits than would have occurred at arm’s length ...