Dies ist eine HTML Version eines Anhanges der Informationsfreiheitsanfrage 'Code of Conduct Group on business taxation - meeting background documents'.


doc 9
28/02/01 
Ref. Ares(2016)3151532 - 01/07/2016
Table: Extensions of benefits – Condensed information of notifications from 
Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Portugal, France and Greece   
 

Country Measure  Date 
Justification 
Comments 
Belgium 
Co-
31/12/09 
1) B considers the scheme to be transparent, 
No effective tax 
ordination 
2) scheme has been approved under the state  burden estimation 
Centres 
aid rules + enterprises meeting the objective 
given as for 
criteria’s have invested significant amounts 
Distribution Centres 
in trust of the benefits, 3) substance & 
etc. 
significance for B economy (total balance € 
 
104 bill., 8000 direct & 12.000 indirect jobs,  5a) and 5b) can 
248 centres), 4) 10 years approval, 5a) 
hardly go hand in had 
activities and jobs will just move outside 
together 
EU1, 5b) B will have to pay damages to 
companies, 5c) it will also lead to breach of 
contracts by Co-ordination Centres, which 
will then be subject to damages liabilities2 
Distribution 
?  
1a) “technical” problems (5 years approval 
B indicate that only a 
Centres 
(see 
don’t match exactly 31/12/05), 1b) ditto 
few months extension 
comments) 
legal problems, 2) substance & significance 
is needed (5 years 
for B & centres are not subject to low tax as 
approvals will then 
such (€ 2 bill. turnover, 2.914 jobs, average 
all expire)4  
tax burden = 30,4%), 3) in accordance with 
OECD TP guidelines3 
Service 

1a) “technical” problems (5 years approval 
B indicate that only a 
Centres 
(see 
don’t match exactly 31/12/05), 1b) ditto 
few months extension 
comments) 
legal problems), 2) substance & significance  is needed  (5 years 
for B & often centres are not subject to low 
approvals will then 
tax as such (BEF 14 bill. turnover, 
expire)6  
meaningless to calculate average tax burden,   
but profitable centres suffers an effective tax  No job estimation 
burden equal to normal tax rates or above) 
included 
that make a surplus profit many centres ), 3) 
in accordance with OECD TP guidelines5  
Informal 

1) the B rules are in accordance with 
B wishes that the 10 
capital 
(see 
international tax principles, the problem is 
years ruling period 
rulings 
comments) 
within the other state that does not tax7,  2a) 
should be allowed to 
substance & significance for B economy (14  expire 
rulings, 2.862 jobs, investment € 500 mill.), 
2b) approval for 10  years Æ legitimate 
expectations, 3a) B intends to make the legal 
basis for the rules more clear and to bring 
them into line with OECD norms (change 
the rules, case by case determination), 3b) B 
intends to notify other MS concerned about 
an informal capital ruling 
Luxembourg 
1929-holding  Longest 
 
If no MS ask for 
Companies  
period asked 
extension LUX will 
Finance 
by any other 
not ask for extension 
MS 
 
Branches 
                                                 
1 As the activities are highly mobile! 
2 Difficult to understand that argument.  
3 They must be joking. 
4 This will require that they soon stop renewing approvals. The mentioning of Marts 2006 imply that 
they are in fact still renewing approvals. 
5 They must be joking. 
6 See footnote 4.  
7 I find it very difficult to understand this argument. 

Netherlands 
All ruling 

 
Ruling periods 
schemes 
(see 
normally 4 years. Tax 
comment) 
authorities are 
checking whether 
 
some ruling have 
been given for a 
longer period.  
Ireland 
Foreign 

1) investment plan, 2) insignificant (3 
IRL does not mention 
Income  
(see 
companies, 250 jobs, less £ 10 mill. in saved  the length of the 
comment) 
tax p.a.), 3) legitimate expectations Æ 4) 
approvals 
 
 
also “risk” of legal challenge8 
Manufacture 31/12/10  1) state aid approval,  2) Commission 
Only branch profits 
Statement to ECOFIN Conclusions 
(dividends; rollback 
via 2001Fin. Bill) 
Portugal 
Madeira 31/12/11 
1a) P do not accept the positive evaluation, 
The “modification” 
1b) the scheme has just been “modified” 
of the regime is in 
(see comment), 2) development etc. of M 
fact an extension, as 
being a small ultra-peripheral island (44 
it will allow entry of 
licences to financ. Inst., 1664 total direct 
new beneficiaries. 
jobs excluding shipping-jobs by 31/12/99, 
These will, however, 
1000 indirect jobs by 31/12/99, financial 
not be totally tax 
service sector is the main contributor of jobs  exempt but taxed 
(1944), and much much more… 3) EC 
between 1% and 
Treaty Art. 299, 2 (principle of social and 
12,5%.   
economic cohesion) + para. G of the Code, 
 
4) legitimate trust (link to IRL), 5) lack of 
The “modification is 
equal treatment (both in state aid  and Code 
at present being 
context) 
considered in the 
state aid context 
 
Two different direct 
job figures mentioned 
(1664/1944). Figures 
don’t make sense 
France 
At the Subgroup meeting 27/2/01, France informed that she takes the same position as Luxembourg 
(Greece) 
(At the Subgroup meeting 27/2/01, Greece informed that they are underway with a major corporate tax 
reform. Although their intervention was not perfectly clear, Greece apparently might also at a later stage 
request for extension of benefits) 
 
 
                                                 
8 Why only “risk” of challenge; does the approvals take into account the risk that the measure (and 
benefits) have to be rolled back within the approval period?