DEVLET TEŞVİKLERİ SORUŞTURMALARINDA ÇOK ULUSLU ŞİRKETLER VE SEÇİCİLİK KRİTERİ

Yetkili vergi otoriteleri ile çok uluslu şirketler arasındaki vergi anlaşmalarına dair Avrupa Birliği Komisyonu kararları oldukça fazla tartışılmıştır. Bu tartışmalar çerçevesinde, seçicilik kriteri ve özellikle Komisyon’un devlet teşvikleri kurallarının uygulanması için gereklilik olarak gördüğü emsallere uygunluk ilkesi çok sayıda eleştiriye tabi tutulmuştur. Bu çalışma, çok uluslu şirketlere dair hükmedilen kararlarda seçicilik kriterinin nasıl ele alındığı üzerine yoğunlaşacaktır. Bu kapsamda ilk bölümde, çok uluslu şirketlerin vergi uygulamalarını konu edinen kararlarda seçicilik ilkesinin nasıl uygulandığı ele alınacaktır. İkinci bölümde peşin fiyat anlaşmalarının varlığında uygulanan seçicilik karinesi üzerine tartışılacaktır. Üçüncü bölümde, çok uluslu şirketler ile bağımsız şirketlerin hukuki ve fiili olarak karşılaştırılabilir olup olmadıkları sorgulanacaktır. Dördüncü bölümde ise, Komisyon’un emsallere uygunluk ilkesini uygulamak için öne sürdüğü hukuki dayanakların geçerliliği sorgulanacaktır.

MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES AND SELECTIVITY CRITERION IN STATE AID CASES

cisions of the European Union Commission regarding taxation agreements between competent tax authorities and multinational enterprises have been widely discussed. Within this discussion, implementation of the selectivity criterion and specifically the arm’s length principle, which is accepted by the Commission as a necessity in the application of state aid rules, has received a lot of criticism. This study will focus on the assessments on selectivity criterion in the decisions regarding multinational enterprises. Within this perspective, the first section will elaborate on the application of the selectivity criterion in cases concerning taxation practices of multinational enterprises. The second section will question the application of presumption of selectivity in case of advanced pricing agreements. The third section will discuss whether multinational enterprises and standalones are in a comparable legal and factual situation. The fourth section will question the legal basis put forward by the Commission to implement arm’s length principle.

PDF

___

Bacon, Kelyn (ed): European Union Law of State Aid, Oxford University Press, 2013.
Cisotta, Roberto: Criterion of Selectivity in Hofmann Herwig C. H. and Micheau Claire (eds): State Aid Law of European Union, Oxford University Press, 2016
Eden, Lorraine: “The Arm’s Length Standard: Making It Work in a 21st Century World of Multinationals and Nation States”, Global Tax Justice, Oxford University Press accessed 21 December 2019
Giraud, Adrien and Petit, Sylvain Petit: “Tax Rulings and State Aid Qualification: Should Reality Matter?”, European State Aid Law Quarterly, 16, 2, 2017, accessed 21 December 2019
Gonzalez, Saturnina Moreno: “State aid, tax competition and BEPS: comments on the European Commission’s decisions on transfer pricing rulings” University of Leicester School of Law Research Paper, 17, 2017 accessed 3 May 2020
Gormsen, Liza Lovdahl: “EU State Aid Law and Transfer Pricing: A Critical Introduction to a New Saga” 2016 accessed 22 May 2020
Joris, Tony and De Couk, Wout: “Is Belgium and Forum 187 v. Commission a Suitable Legal Source for an EU “At Arm’s Length Principle”” European State Aid Law Quarterly, 16, 4, 2017 accessed 10 December 2019
Lopez, Hugo Lopez: “General Thought on Selectivity and Consequences of a Broad Concept of State Aid in Tax Matters” European State Aid Law Quarterly, 9, 4, 2010, accessed 22 May 2020
Nicolaides, Phedon: “State Aid and Tax Rulings”, European State Aid Law Quarterly, 15, 3, 2016, accessed 17 April 2020
Valente, Piergiorgio: “Competitive Taxation and Tax Competition: The Winner Takes It All?” Kluwer International Tax Blog accessed 28 May 2020
Verhagen, Han: “State Aid and Tax Rulings – An Assessment of the Selectivity Criterion of Article 107(1) of the TFEU in Relation to Recent Commission Transfer Pricing Decisions”, European Taxation, 2017, accessed 10 December 2019
Commission, ‘State aid: Commission opens in-depth investigation into tax treatment of Nike in the Netherlands’ (Brussels, press release, 2019)
Commission, ‘State aid: Commission opens in-depth investigation into the Netherlands’ tax treatment of Inter IKEA’ (Brussels, press release, 2017)
DG Competition, ‘DG Competition Working Paper on State Aid and Tax Rulings’ (2016) accessed 3 April 2020
European Parliament, ‘Freedom of Establishment and Freedom To Provide Services’ (Strasburg, Fact Sheet, 2020)
European Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the Document Report from The Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of the Regions Report on Competition Policy 2018’ (2019) accessed 3 March 2020
General Court of the European Union, ‘The General Court of the European Union annuls the decision taken by the Commission regarding the Irish tax rulings in favour of Apple’ (Luxembourg, press release, 2020)
OECD, ‘OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations 2017’ (2017) OECD Publishing accessed 14 April 2020
U.S. Department of the Treasury, The European Commission’s Recent State Aid Investigation of Transfer Pricing Rulings (White Paper, 2016)
Aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium (Case 564) Commission Decision 2003/757/EC [2003]
Amazon/Luxembourg (Case 6740) Commission Decision SA.38944 (2014/C) (2014/NN) [2017] OJ L/153/2018
Apple/Ireland (Case 5605) Commission Decision SA.38373 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 014/CP) [2016] OJ L/187/2017
C-15/14 P Commission v MOL Magyar [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:362
Engie/Luxembourg (Case 3839) Commission Decision SA.44888 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) [2018] OJ L/78/2019
Excess Profit exemption in Belgium (Case 9837) Commission Decision SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) [2015] OJ L/260/2016
Gibraltar Corporate tax regime (Case 7848) Commission Decision SA.34914 (2013/C) [2018] OJ L/119/2019
Groepsrentebox Scheme (Case 4511) Commission Decision C4/2007 (ex N 465/2006) [2009] OJ L/288/2009
Hungarian tax deductions for intra-group interest (Case 8130) Commission Decision C 10/07 (ex NN 13/07) [2009] OJ L/42/3
Fiat/Luxembourg (Case 7152) Commission Decision SA.38375 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) [2015] OJ L/351/2016
Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2006] ECR 2003 I-06887
Joined Cases C-20/15 P & C-21/15 P World Duty Free Group v Commission [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:981
Joined Cases C-78/08 & C-80/08 Paint Graphos v. Franchetto [2011] ECR I-7611
Joined Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15 Luxembourg/Ireland/Fiat v. Commission [2019] ECLI:EU:T:2019:670
Joined Cases T-760/15 and T-636/16 Netherlands/Ireland/Starbucks v. Commission [2019] ECLI:EU:T:2019:669
McDonald’s/Luxembourg (Case 6976) Commission Decision SA.38945 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2014/CP) [2018] OJ L/195/2019
State aid scheme UK CFC Group Financing Exemption (Case 2526) Commission Decision SA.44896 [2019] OJ L/216/2019
Starbucks/Netherlands (Case 7143) Commission Decision SA.38374 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) [2015] OJ L/83/2017
T-287/11 Heitkamp BauHolding GmbH v Commission [2016] ECLI:EU:T:2016:60