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 ...

Fiat Chrysler has reached a settlement with the Italian tax agency over taxable gains related to a transfer of the U.S. Chrysler business from Fiat SpA Italy to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV (Netherlands). The Italian tax agency claimed that the value of the U.S. Chrysler business had been underestimated and issued a preliminary assessment with an additional taxable gain of 5.1 billion euros. The agency had valued Chrysler at 12.5 billion euros, while Fiat SpA had declared it to be worth less than 7.5 billion. Under the terms of the latter settlement the additional taxable gain has agreed at 2.5 billion euros ...

On 3 September 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. It also noted that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not notified it of the proposed tax ruling and had not complied with the standstill obligation. The Commission found that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was required to recover the unlawful and incompatible aid from FFT. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and FFT each brought an action before the General Court for annulment of the Commission’s decision. They criticise the Commission in particular for: (1) having adopted an analysis leading to tax harmonisation in disguise; (2) having found that the tax ruling at issue conferred an advantage, notably on the ground that it did not comply with the arm’s length principle, contrary to Article 107 TFEU and to the obligation to state reasons and in breach of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations; (3) having found that that advantage was selective, contrary to Article 107 TFEU; (4) having found that the measure at issued restricted competition and distorted trade between Member States, contrary to Article 107 TFEU and to the obligation to state reasons; and (5) having breached the principle of legal certainty and infringed the rights of the defence, by ordering that the aid at issue be recovered. In it’s judgment, the General Court dismisses the actions and confirms the validity of the Commission’s decision. In the first place, with regard to the plea relating to tax harmonisation in disguise, the Court notes that, when considering whether the tax ruling at issue complied with the rules on State aid, the commission did not engage in any ‘tax harmonisation’ but exercised the power conferred on it by EU law by verifying whether that tax ruling conferred on its beneficiary an advantage as compared to ‘normal’ taxation, as defined by national tax law. In the second place, as regards the pleas relating to the absence of an advantage, the Court first considered whether, for a finding of an advantage, the Commission was entitled to analyse the tax ruling at issue in the light of the arm’s length principle as described by the Commission in the contested decision. In that regard, the Court notes in particular that, in the case of tax measures, the very existence of an advantage may be established only when compared with ‘normal’ taxation and that, in order to determine whether there is a tax advantage, the position of the recipient as a result of the application of the measure at issue must be compared with his position in the absence of the measure at issue and under the normal rules of taxation. The Court goes on to note that the pricing of intra-group transactions is not determined under market conditions. It states that, where national tax law does not make a distinction between integrated undertakings and stand-alone undertakings for the purposes of their liability to corporate income tax, that law is intended to tax the profit arising from the economic activity of such an integrated undertaking as though it had arisen from transactions carried out at market prices. The Court holds that, in those circumstances, when examining, pursuant to the power conferred on it by Article 107(1) TFEU, a fiscal measure granted to such an integrated undertaking, the Commission may compare the fiscal burden of such an integrated undertaking resulting from the application of that fiscal measure with the fiscal burden resulting from the application of the normal rules of taxation under the national law of an undertaking placed in a comparable factual situation, carrying on its activities under market conditions. The Court makes clear that the arm’s length principle as described by the Commission in the contested decision is a tool that allows the Commission to check that intra-group transactions are remunerated as if they had been negotiated between independent companies. Thus, in the light of Luxembourg tax law, that tool falls within the exercise of the Commission’s powers under Article 107 TFEU. The Commission was therefore, in the present case, in a position to verify whether the pricing for intra-group transactions endorsed by the tax ruling at issue corresponds to prices that would have been negotiated under market conditions. The Court further notes that it does not follow from the contested decision that the Commission found that every tax ruling necessarily constitutes State aid. Second, with regard to demonstrating the actual existence of an advantage, the Court examined whether the Commission was right to find that the methodology for calculating FFT’s remuneration, as endorsed by the tax ruling at issue, did not enable an arm’s length remuneration to be obtained and whether this resulted in a reduction of FFT’s taxable profit. In that regard, the Court concludes that the Commission correctly found that the arrangements for the application of the transactional net margin method (TNMM) endorsed by the tax ruling at issue were incorrect and, specifically, that the whole of FFT’s capital should have been taken into account and a single rate should have been applied. In any event, the Commission also correctly considered that the method consisting, on the one hand, in using FFT’s hypothetical regulatory capital and, on the other, in excluding FFT’s shareholdings in Fiat Finance North America (FFNA) and Fiat Finance Canada (FFC) from the amount of the capital to be remunerated could not result in an arm’s length outcome. Consequently, the Court finds that the methodology approved by the tax ruling ...

Since June 2013, the European Commission has been investigating tax ruling practices of EU Member States. A Task Force was set up in summer 2013 to follow up on allegations of favourable tax treatment of certain companies, in particular in the form of unilateral tax rulings. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) provides that “any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.”. The State aid rules ensures that the functioning of the internal market is not distorted by anticompetitive behavior favouring some to the detriment of others. In June 2014 the Commission initiated a series of State aid investigations on Multinational Corporations related to transfer pricing practices and rulings. Final decisions now have been published in cases against: Ireland/Apple (Appealed to the EU Court) Belgium/Excess Profit Exemption (Final decision by the EU Court) The Netherlands/Starbucks (Appealed to the EU Court) Luxembourg/Fiat (Appealed to the EU Court) And formal investigations have later on been opened against: Luxembourg/Amazon Luxembourg/McDonald’s Luxembourg/GDF Suez(now Engie) In December 2014 the Commission extended the investigation to tax rulings from all Member States. Follow these investigations on the European Commission homepage for State Aid, Tax rulings State Aid – Tax rulings See the “TAXE 1” report by the European Parliament’s Special Committee on Tax Rulings and Measures Similar in Nature or Effect (“the TAXE Committee”) below ...

The European Commission have decided that selective tax advantages for Fiat in Luxembourg are illegal under EU state aid rules ...

According to a U.S. regulatory filing, Daimler AG has paid the federal, Ontario and Alberta governments more than $700 million after accepting a settlement in June, 2010. Daimler further expects to pay the remainder of a $1.5-billion extra tax bill this year to settle a long-standing dispute over how its former partner, Chrysler, accounted for auto and parts shipments across the Canada-U.S. border. The tax case is about transfer pricing, or how Chrysler accounted for intercompany shipments of vehicles and parts across the Canada-U.S. border. The auto maker was reassessed taxes by the Canada Revenue Agency for those 11 years, starting in 1996. The agency asserted that Chrysler Canada Inc. should have reported higher profits in Canada and lower profits in the United States ...