Since 2005, Belgium has applied a tax regime under which group companies could apply for tax exemptions on excess profits. The exemption could be obtained through a tax ruling from the Belgian tax authorities if the existence of a new situation could be demonstrated, i.e. a reorganisation leading to the relocation of the central entrepreneur to Belgium, the creation of jobs or investments. Profits were considered ‘excessive’ in the sense that they exceeded the profits that would have been made by comparable independent companies operating in similar circumstances and were exempted from corporate income tax. In 2016, the Commission found that the Belgian scheme constituted state aid that was unlawful and incompatible with the single market and ordered the recovery of the aid from 55 companies that had benefited from the practice. On 14 February 2019, the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision. It found, inter alia, that the Commission had wrongly concluded that the excess profits exemption scheme did not require further implementing measures and that the scheme therefore constituted an ‘aid scheme’ within the meaning of Regulation 2015/1589. It also rejected the Commission’s arguments concerning the existence of an alleged ‘systematic approach’ by the Belgian tax authorities. The Commission appealed to the Court of Justice and on 16 September 2002 the Court of Justice overturned the judgement of the General Court and ruled that the Commission had correctly established the existence of an unlawfull state aid scheme. Judgement of the EU General Court In this case, European Commission v Belgium, the General Court upheld the Commission’s 2016 decision, finding that the Belgian excess profits tax scheme constitutes unlawful state aid. Click here for other translations ...

Since 2005, Belgium has applied a system of exemptions for the excess profit of Belgian entities which form part of multinational corporate groups. Those entities were able to obtain a tax ruling from the Belgian tax authorities, if they could demonstrate the existence of a new situation, such as a reorganisation leading to the relocation of the central entrepreneur to Belgium, the creation of jobs, or investments. In that context, profits regarded as being ‘excess’, in that they exceeded the profit that would have been made by comparable stand-alone entities operating in similar circumstances, were exempted from corporate income tax. In 2016, the Commission found that that system of excess profit exemptions constituted a State aid scheme that was unlawful and incompatible with the internal market and ordered the recovery of the aid thus granted from 55 beneficiaries, including the company Magnetrol International. Belgium and Magnetrol International brought an action before the General Court of the European Union seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision. On 14 February 2019, the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision. It found, inter alia, that the Commission had wrongly concluded that the excess profit exemption scheme did not require further implementing measures and that that scheme therefore constituted an ‘aid scheme’ within the meaning of Regulation 2015/1589. It also rejected the Commission’s arguments relating to the existence of an alleged ‘systematic approach’ by the Belgian tax authorities. On 24 April 2019, the Commission brought an appeal before the Court of Justice. According to the Commission, the General Court made errors in the interpretation of the definition of an ‘aid scheme’. The Judgement of the European Court of Justice The Court of Justice overturned the judgement of the General Court and ruled that the Commission correctly found that there was an aid scheme. The Court therefore sets aside the judgment delivered on 14 February 2019 by the General Court and referred the case back to the latter for it to rule on other aspects of the case. In its decision the Court of Justice notes that, for a state measure to be classified as an aid scheme, three cumulative conditions must be satisfied. First, aid may be granted individually to undertakings on the basis of an act. Secondly, no further implementing measure is required for that aid to be granted. Thirdly, undertakings to which individual aid may be granted must be defined ‘in a general and abstract manner’. As regards, first of all, the first condition, the Court clarifies the concept of an ‘act’. It confirms that the term may also refer to a consistent administrative practice by the authorities of a Member State where that practice reveals a ‘systematic approach’. Although the General Court found that the legal basis of the scheme at issue resulted not only from a provision of the Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992 (Income Tax Code 1992; ‘CIR 92’), 3 but also from the application of that provision by the Belgian tax authorities, it did not, however, draw all the appropriate conclusions from that finding. In particular, it did not take account of the fact that the Commission inferred the application of that provision not only from certain acts, 4 but also from a systematic approach on the part of those authorities. The General Court did, however, rely on the incorrect premise that the fact that certain key facts of the scheme at issue were not apparent from those acts, but from the rulings themselves, meant that those acts necessarily had to be the subject of further implementing measures. Consequently, by limiting its analysis to only the abovementioned normative acts, the General Court misapplied the term ‘act’. Next, as regards the second condition for defining an ‘aid scheme’, namely that no ‘further implementing measures’ are required, the Court of Justice notes that that issue is intrinsically linked to the determination of the ‘act’ on which that scheme is based. In the context of that examination, the General Court failed to take account of the fact that one of the essential characteristics of the scheme at issue lay in the fact that the Belgian tax authorities had systematically granted the excess profit exemption when the conditions were satisfied. Contrary to what the General Court held, the identification of such a systematic practice was capable of constituting a relevant factor in order to establish, where applicable, that the tax authorities did not in fact have any discretion. As regards the third condition defining an ‘aid scheme’, namely that the beneficiaries of the excess profit exemption are defined ‘in a general and abstract manner’, the Court of Justice notes that that issue is also intrinsically linked to the first two conditions, relating to the existence of an ‘act’ and the absence of ‘further implementing measures’. Accordingly, the errors of law made by the General Court concerning the first two conditions vitiated its assessment of the definition of the beneficiaries of the excess profit exemption. The Court of Justice therefore concludes that the General Court made several errors of law. Furthermore, as regards proof of the existence of a ‘systematic approach’, the Court of Justice finds that the sample of rulings examined by the Commission (22 selected in a weighted manner from a total of 66) is, by its nature, capable of representing a ‘systematic approach’ taken by the Belgian tax authorities. The Court of Justice therefore sets aside the judgment of the General Court. However, it finds that the state of the proceedings does not permit final judgment to be given as regards the pleas alleging, in essence, the incorrect classification of the excess profit exemption as State aid, in view of, inter alia, the absence of any advantage or selectivity, and as regards the pleas in law alleging, inter alia, infringement of the principles of legality and protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as the recovery of the alleged aid was incorrectly ordered, including from the groups to which the beneficiaries of that aid belong. The Court of Justice ...

In the Advocate General Opinion delivered 3 December 2020, in the EU Commissions “Aid scheme” case against Belgium and Magnetrol International, it is proposed that the Court of Justice set aside the 2019 judgment of the General Court, on the ground that the Commission has, contrary to the findings of the General Court, sufficiently demonstrated in its decision that the Belgian practice of making downward adjustments to profits of undertakings forming part of multinational groups meets the conditions for the existence of an ‘aid scheme’. “In conclusion, the General Court incorrectly assumed that the conditions of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 were not met in the present case. On the contrary, in the contested decision the Commission sufficiently demonstrated that the Belgian practice of making downward adjustments of the profits of undertakings forming part of a multinational group constitutes an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589. The appeal is therefore well founded.” ...

In 2016, the Commission requested that Belgium reclaim around €700 million from multinational corporations in what the Commission found to be illegal state aid provided under the Belgian “excess profit” tax scheme. The tax scheme allowed selected multinational corporations to exempt “excess profits” from the tax base when calculating corporate tax in Belgium. The European Court of Justice concludes that the Commission erroneously considered that the Belgian excess profit system constituted an aid scheme and orders that decision must be annulled in its entirety, in as much as it is based on the erroneous conclusion concerning the existence of such a scheme. For state aid to constitute an ‘aid scheme’, it must be awarded without requiring “further implementing measures.” According to court, “the Belgian tax authorities had a margin of discretion over all of the essential elements of the exemption system in question.” Belgium could influence the amount and the conditions under which the exemption was granted, which precludes the existence of an aid scheme. For an aid scheme to exist EU regulation also requires, beneficiaries are defined “in a general and abstract manner” and the aid is awarded for an infinite period of time. This was not the case in the Belgian “excess profit” tax scheme. Click here for translation ...

In January 2016 the European Commission concluded that Belgium’s excess profits tax exemption scheme was incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering recovery of the aid granted . Belgium’s excess profits tax exemption In the first step, the arm’s length prices charged in transactions between the Belgian entity of a group and the companies with which it is associated were fixed based on a transfer pricing report provided by the taxpayer. Those transfer prices were determined by applying the transactional net margin method (TNMM). A residual or arm’s length profit was thus established, which corresponded to the profit actually recorded by the Belgian entity. In the second step the Belgian entity’s adjusted arm’s length profit was established by determining the profit that a comparable standalone company would have made in comparable circumstances. The difference between the profit arrived at following the first and second steps (namely the residual profit minus the adjusted arm’s length profit) constituted the amount of excess profit which the Belgian tax authorities regarded as being the result of synergies or economies of scale arising from membership of a corporate group and which, accordingly, could not be attributed to the Belgian entity. Under the scheme at issue, that excess profit was not taxed. According to the Commission, that non-taxation granted the beneficiaries of the scheme a selective advantage, particularly since the methodology for determining the excess profit departed from a methodology that leads to a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome and thus from the arm’s length principle. The Commission considered that the measure in question constituted an aid scheme, based on Article 185(2)(b) of the CIR 92, as applied by the Belgian tax administration. According to the Commission, those acts constitute the basis on which the exemptions in question were granted. In addition, the Commission considered that those exemptions were granted without further implementing measures being required, since the advance rulings were merely technical applications of the scheme at issue. Furthermore, the Commission stated that the beneficiaries of the exemptions were defined in a general and abstract manner by the acts on which the scheme was based. Those acts referred to entities that form part of a multinational group of companies. Belgium appealed the decision to the European General Court. The Judgement of the General Court The General Court annulled the Commission’s decision. “Conclusion on the classification of the measures in question as an aid scheme 135   It follows from the foregoing considerations that the Commission erroneously considered that the Belgian excess profit system at issue, as presented in the contested decision, constituted an aid scheme. 136    Accordingly, it is necessary to uphold the pleas raised by the Kingdom of Belgium and Magnetrol International, alleging the infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589, as regards the conclusion set out in the contested decision regarding the existence of an aid scheme. Consequently, without it being necessary to examine the other pleas raised against the contested decision, that decision must be annulled in its entirety, inasmuch as it is based on the erroneous conclusion concerning the existence of such a scheme.” ...