Just Tax It? - The Reference Framework in EU State Aid Tax Rulings and the Fate of Nike
(2026) JURM02 20261Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- During the last decade, the European Commission has launched state aid investigations into tax arrangements between several EU member states and
large multinational corporations. In many of these investigations, the Commission argued that state aid was present because the national tax agencies
endorsed transfer pricing practices that were not compliant with the arm’s
length principle. While this argument was generally accepted upon appeal to
the General Court, the ECJ did not agree. In fact, the ECJ ruled in its landmark
ruling in Fiat that the Commission may not rely on the arm’s length principle
unless expressly adopted into national law. Despite this, Apple was decided
in favour of the Commission even though the arm’s length... (More) - During the last decade, the European Commission has launched state aid investigations into tax arrangements between several EU member states and
large multinational corporations. In many of these investigations, the Commission argued that state aid was present because the national tax agencies
endorsed transfer pricing practices that were not compliant with the arm’s
length principle. While this argument was generally accepted upon appeal to
the General Court, the ECJ did not agree. In fact, the ECJ ruled in its landmark
ruling in Fiat that the Commission may not rely on the arm’s length principle
unless expressly adopted into national law. Despite this, Apple was decided
in favour of the Commission even though the arm’s length principle was not
adopted into Irish law at the time of the contested tax rulings. Although Apple
marked a significant win for the Commission, the outcome was largely due
to procedural circumstances. Due to a lack of cross appeal from the Apple
subsidiaries and Ireland, the ECJ accepted the Commission’s definition of the
reference framework and subsequent selectivity analysis. Hence, Apple did
not change the precedents developed through previous jurisprudence. Due to
the remaining fiscal autonomy within taxation, non-compliance with the
arm’s length principle cannot give rise to state aid unless the principle is incorporated in national law.
At the time of writing, several state aid investigations into tax arrangements
remain open. This thesis focuses on the open state aid investigation into advanced pricing agreements concluded between Nike and the Dutch tax
agency. Against the backdrop of previous case law, it seems that the finding
of an advantage will be the most contentious point of law in Nike. This is
primarily because the ALP is adopted into Dutch law, which likely makes the
determination of the reference framework less controversial. Although the
Commission could be successful in Nike, it is unlikely that it will continue to
launch large state aid investigations into similar tax arrangements in the future. The previous case law has shown that the chance of success is highly
dependent on the adoption of the arm’s length principle in national law and
the subsequent interpretation of said law. Ultimately, the fiscal autonomy of
the EU member states hinders full state aid control in the area of taxation.
Hence, there may be other international instruments and initiatives, such as
the BEPS project, that are better suited to dealing with tax evasion of large
multinational corporate groups. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Under det senaste decenniet har Europeiska kommissionen inlett utredningar
om statligt stöd rörande skattearrangemang mellan flera EU-medlemsstater
och stora multinationella företag. I flera av utredningarna hävdade kommissionen att statsstöd hade förekommit eftersom de nationella skattemyndigheterna hade godkänt skatteupplägg som inte var förenliga med armlängdsprincipen. Även om det argumentet i allmänhet godtogs vid överklagande till tribunalen, så delade inte EU-domstolen samma uppfattning. EU-domstolen
slog i stället fast i målet Fiat kommissionen inte kan förlita sig på armlängdsprincipen om den inte uttryckligen införlivats i nationell rätt. Trots detta så
avgjordes Apple till kommissionens fördel, även om armlängdsprincipen vid... (More) - Under det senaste decenniet har Europeiska kommissionen inlett utredningar
om statligt stöd rörande skattearrangemang mellan flera EU-medlemsstater
och stora multinationella företag. I flera av utredningarna hävdade kommissionen att statsstöd hade förekommit eftersom de nationella skattemyndigheterna hade godkänt skatteupplägg som inte var förenliga med armlängdsprincipen. Även om det argumentet i allmänhet godtogs vid överklagande till tribunalen, så delade inte EU-domstolen samma uppfattning. EU-domstolen
slog i stället fast i målet Fiat kommissionen inte kan förlita sig på armlängdsprincipen om den inte uttryckligen införlivats i nationell rätt. Trots detta så
avgjordes Apple till kommissionens fördel, även om armlängdsprincipen vid
tidpunkten för de omtvistade besluten inte var införlivad i irländsk skattelagstiftning. Även om Apple var en framgångssaga för kommissionen, så berodde utgången i målet mestadels på processuella omständigheter. Eftersom
Apple och Irland inte hade lämnat in någon anslutningsöverklagan godtog
EU-domstolen kommissionens definition av referensramen och den efterföljande selektivitetsanalysen. Apple förändrade därför inte de prejudikat som
utvecklats genom tidigare rättspraxis. Mot bakgrund av den kvarvarande
autonomin inom direkt beskattning bland EU:s medlemsstater kan bristande
efterlevnad av armlängdsprincipen inte ge upphov till statsstöd om principen
inte har införlivats i nationell lagstiftning.
Det finns fortfarande flera öppna utredningar om statligt stöd på grund av
skattearrangemang. Uppsatsen senare delar handlar om den pågående utredningen om statligt stöd som uppkommit genom förhandsbesked om skatt som
tilldelats Nike av den nederländska skattemyndigheten. Mot bakgrund av tidigare rättspraxis framstår frågan om förekomsten av en fördel som den mest
kontroversiella frågan i Nike. Detta beror främst på att armlängdsprincipen är
införlivad i nederländsk lag, vilket sannolikt gör fastställandet av referensramen mindre kontroversiellt jämfört med mål som Fiat och Apple. Även om
kommissionen skulle kunna nå framgång i Nike är det osannolikt att det i
framtiden kommer inledas fler utredningar rörande liknande skattearrangemang i samma utsträckning som tidigare. Tidigare rättspraxis har visat att
möjligheten till framgång i hög grad är beroende av att armlängdsprincipen
är införlivad i nationell rätt och hur den nationella lagstiftningen ska tolkas. I slutändan begränsar den nationella autonomin som råder inom direkt beskattning möjligheterna till fullständig statsstödskontroll på området för direkt beskattning. Därför finns det anda internationella instrument och initiativ,
såsom BEPS-projektet, som är bättre lämpade för att hantera skatteundandragande inom stora multinationella företagskoncerner. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9226733
- author
- Karlsson, Sara LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20261
- year
- 2026
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Tax law, EU law, State aid, Transfer pricing
- language
- English
- id
- 9226733
- date added to LUP
- 2026-06-09 10:02:11
- date last changed
- 2026-06-09 10:02:11
@misc{9226733,
abstract = {{During the last decade, the European Commission has launched state aid investigations into tax arrangements between several EU member states and
large multinational corporations. In many of these investigations, the Commission argued that state aid was present because the national tax agencies
endorsed transfer pricing practices that were not compliant with the arm’s
length principle. While this argument was generally accepted upon appeal to
the General Court, the ECJ did not agree. In fact, the ECJ ruled in its landmark
ruling in Fiat that the Commission may not rely on the arm’s length principle
unless expressly adopted into national law. Despite this, Apple was decided
in favour of the Commission even though the arm’s length principle was not
adopted into Irish law at the time of the contested tax rulings. Although Apple
marked a significant win for the Commission, the outcome was largely due
to procedural circumstances. Due to a lack of cross appeal from the Apple
subsidiaries and Ireland, the ECJ accepted the Commission’s definition of the
reference framework and subsequent selectivity analysis. Hence, Apple did
not change the precedents developed through previous jurisprudence. Due to
the remaining fiscal autonomy within taxation, non-compliance with the
arm’s length principle cannot give rise to state aid unless the principle is incorporated in national law.
At the time of writing, several state aid investigations into tax arrangements
remain open. This thesis focuses on the open state aid investigation into advanced pricing agreements concluded between Nike and the Dutch tax
agency. Against the backdrop of previous case law, it seems that the finding
of an advantage will be the most contentious point of law in Nike. This is
primarily because the ALP is adopted into Dutch law, which likely makes the
determination of the reference framework less controversial. Although the
Commission could be successful in Nike, it is unlikely that it will continue to
launch large state aid investigations into similar tax arrangements in the future. The previous case law has shown that the chance of success is highly
dependent on the adoption of the arm’s length principle in national law and
the subsequent interpretation of said law. Ultimately, the fiscal autonomy of
the EU member states hinders full state aid control in the area of taxation.
Hence, there may be other international instruments and initiatives, such as
the BEPS project, that are better suited to dealing with tax evasion of large
multinational corporate groups.}},
author = {{Karlsson, Sara}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Just Tax It? - The Reference Framework in EU State Aid Tax Rulings and the Fate of Nike}},
year = {{2026}},
}