Advanced

Det materiella selektivitetstestet i samband med skatteåtgärder

Soppi, Suvi Elina LU (2017) JURM02 20171
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
In World Duty Free Group [2016], the CJEU clarified that it has developed two methods in its case law for the purpose of assessing selectivity in tax measures: the three-step approach and the Gibraltar method. The three-step approach may be used when the tax measure in question takes the form of a tax advantage that derogates from an ordinary tax system. In turn, the Gibraltar method may be used when the tax measure in question does not constitute a derogation from an ordinary tax system, but is an integral part of that system. However, the CJEU’s way of reasoning in World Duty Free Group [2016] suggests that, in order to establish selectivity, it is not necessarily essential to apply a certain method.

It is essential to acknowledge... (More)
In World Duty Free Group [2016], the CJEU clarified that it has developed two methods in its case law for the purpose of assessing selectivity in tax measures: the three-step approach and the Gibraltar method. The three-step approach may be used when the tax measure in question takes the form of a tax advantage that derogates from an ordinary tax system. In turn, the Gibraltar method may be used when the tax measure in question does not constitute a derogation from an ordinary tax system, but is an integral part of that system. However, the CJEU’s way of reasoning in World Duty Free Group [2016] suggests that, in order to establish selectivity, it is not necessarily essential to apply a certain method.

It is essential to acknowledge that an APA may lead to a selective tax advantage either because it departs from the normal system of taxation or due to application of a State aid scheme. The former case considers granting of individual State aid, while the latter consider granting of State aid due to application of a State aid scheme. This ought to have consequences for how the selectivity test should be applied. Moreover, the methodology applied by the CJEU in P Oy [2013] supports the view that it should always first be examined whether State aid has been granted due to application of a State aid scheme.

EU State aid law aims only at correcting such distortions in the Internal market that result from granting a State aid. Consequently, in accordance with the division of competences between the EU and its Member States, it falls within Member States’ sphere of competence to take tax measures that are general, and thus do not fall within Article 107(1) TFEU. This is the case even if the tax measure in question would be classified as ‘harmful tax competition’—as long as it is not to be determined as selective. When it comes to fighting harmful tax competition and aggressive tax planning, approximation measures within the field of direct taxation would be more suitable to that end than EU State aid law. However, such measures would require that the Council decided on those unanimously. (Less)
Popular Abstract (Swedish)
EU-domstolen har i World Duty Free Group [2016] klarlagt att den i sin rättspraxis har utvecklat två analysmetoder för att fastställa huruvida en nationell skatteåtgärd utgör en stödordning eller inte: trestegstestet och Gibraltar-metoden. Trestegstestet är tillämpligt när det ska fastställas huruvida en skatteåtgärd som avviker från ett allmänt system är selektiv. Gibraltar-metoden är däremot tillämplig när den aktuella skatteåtgärden inte utgör en avvikelse eller ett undantag från det allmänna systemet, utan en integrerad del i det. EU-domstolens argumentation i World Duty Free Group [2016] antyder dock att det, för att visa att en skatteåtgärd är selektiv, inte nödvändigtvis behöver brukas en viss analysmetod.

APAs kan leda till att... (More)
EU-domstolen har i World Duty Free Group [2016] klarlagt att den i sin rättspraxis har utvecklat två analysmetoder för att fastställa huruvida en nationell skatteåtgärd utgör en stödordning eller inte: trestegstestet och Gibraltar-metoden. Trestegstestet är tillämpligt när det ska fastställas huruvida en skatteåtgärd som avviker från ett allmänt system är selektiv. Gibraltar-metoden är däremot tillämplig när den aktuella skatteåtgärden inte utgör en avvikelse eller ett undantag från det allmänna systemet, utan en integrerad del i det. EU-domstolens argumentation i World Duty Free Group [2016] antyder dock att det, för att visa att en skatteåtgärd är selektiv, inte nödvändigtvis behöver brukas en viss analysmetod.

APAs kan leda till att statsstöd beviljas på grund av dels att det i den avviks från en generell skatteordning, dels att den utgör en tillämpning av en stödordning. I det första fallet är det fråga om individuellt stöd, i det andra fallet är det fråga om att stöd beviljats på grund av tillämpningen av en stödordning. Detta borde få konsekvenser även för selektivitetsbedömningen. EU-domstolens metodik i P Oy [2013] ger stöd åt uppfattningen att det alltid först bör undersökas om stöd beviljats av den senare anledningen.

EU:s statsstödsreglering syftar endast till att åtgärda den snedvridning av konkurrensen som följer av beviljandet av statligt stöd. I enlighet med kompetensfördelningen i FEUF faller det således inom medlemsstaternas exklusiva kompetens att vidta åtgärder som är allmänna. Detta gäller även skadlig skattekonkurrens, i den mån åtgärderna inte uppfyller kriteriet för en fördels selektivitet. Tillnärmningsåtgärderna på den direkta beskattningens område skulle således vara bättre lämpade för att främja EU:s agenda om att bekämpa skadlig skattekonkurrens och aggressiv skatteplanering men sådana åtgärder förutsätter att rådet beslutar om dem enhälligt. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Soppi, Suvi Elina LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Assessing Material Selectivity in Tax Measures
course
JURM02 20171
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU-rätt
language
Swedish
id
8922329
date added to LUP
2017-09-12 10:48:52
date last changed
2017-09-12 10:48:52
@misc{8922329,
  abstract     = {In World Duty Free Group [2016], the CJEU clarified that it has developed two methods in its case law for the purpose of assessing selectivity in tax measures: the three-step approach and the Gibraltar method. The three-step approach may be used when the tax measure in question takes the form of a tax advantage that derogates from an ordinary tax system. In turn, the Gibraltar method may be used when the tax measure in question does not constitute a derogation from an ordinary tax system, but is an integral part of that system. However, the CJEU’s way of reasoning in World Duty Free Group [2016] suggests that, in order to establish selectivity, it is not necessarily essential to apply a certain method.

It is essential to acknowledge that an APA may lead to a selective tax advantage either because it departs from the normal system of taxation or due to application of a State aid scheme. The former case considers granting of individual State aid, while the latter consider granting of State aid due to application of a State aid scheme. This ought to have consequences for how the selectivity test should be applied. Moreover, the methodology applied by the CJEU in P Oy [2013] supports the view that it should always first be examined whether State aid has been granted due to application of a State aid scheme.

EU State aid law aims only at correcting such distortions in the Internal market that result from granting a State aid. Consequently, in accordance with the division of competences between the EU and its Member States, it falls within Member States’ sphere of competence to take tax measures that are general, and thus do not fall within Article 107(1) TFEU. This is the case even if the tax measure in question would be classified as ‘harmful tax competition’—as long as it is not to be determined as selective. When it comes to fighting harmful tax competition and aggressive tax planning, approximation measures within the field of direct taxation would be more suitable to that end than EU State aid law. However, such measures would require that the Council decided on those unanimously.},
  author       = {Soppi, Suvi Elina},
  keyword      = {EU-rätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Det materiella selektivitetstestet i samband med skatteåtgärder},
  year         = {2017},
}