En unionsrättslig armlängdsprincip inom räckhåll? - En analys av Fiat- och Starbucksdomarna från EU-domstolen
(2020) JURM02 20201Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Avancerade skatteupplägg och aggressiv skatteplanering av multinationella företag har länge varit en verklighet för EU och dess medlemsstater. Genom prissättningsbesked kan företag tillsammans med nationella skattemyndigheter avtala om hur företagets internprissättning ska se ut de kommande åren och hur företaget ska beskattas i landet. Till följd av skatterättens nationella karaktär och bristen på behörighet för EU att lagstifta på området utan enhällighet, skiljer sig de nationella regleringarna ofta mycket åt och utsikterna för en gemensam skattereglering på EU-nivå är små.
Sedan mitten av 2010-talet har kommissionen granskat och underkänt ett antal prissättningsbesked ingångna mellan stora företagskoncerner och enskilda... (More) - Avancerade skatteupplägg och aggressiv skatteplanering av multinationella företag har länge varit en verklighet för EU och dess medlemsstater. Genom prissättningsbesked kan företag tillsammans med nationella skattemyndigheter avtala om hur företagets internprissättning ska se ut de kommande åren och hur företaget ska beskattas i landet. Till följd av skatterättens nationella karaktär och bristen på behörighet för EU att lagstifta på området utan enhällighet, skiljer sig de nationella regleringarna ofta mycket åt och utsikterna för en gemensam skattereglering på EU-nivå är små.
Sedan mitten av 2010-talet har kommissionen granskat och underkänt ett antal prissättningsbesked ingångna mellan stora företagskoncerner och enskilda medlemsstater, med motiveringen att de strider mot artikel 107 i funktionsfördraget om otillåtet statsstöd. Kommissionens beslut har blivit kraftigt kritiserade bland annat för att de, i strid med EU-fördragen, försöker harmonisera skattelagstiftning genom att införa en unionsrättslig armlängdsprincip och för den materiella tillämpningen av artikel 107. Efter att tribunalen avgjort två överklagade beslut mot Fiat- respektive Starbuckskoncernen kan det konstateras att kommissionen har rätt att granska prissättningsbesked utifrån artikel 107 i funktionsfördraget, och att tillämpningen av artikeln har gjorts på ett korrekt sätt.
I förevarande uppsats presenteras den EU-rättsliga lagstiftningen om otillåtet statsstöd och armlängdsprincipens innehåll och status. Därefter analyseras de två nya domarna i syfte att undersöka deras juridiska argumentation och vilka konsekvenser de kan tänkas leda till. I ett avslutande kapitel ifrågasätts tribunalens slutsatser och det konstateras att osäkerheten som en ny unionsrättslig armlängdsprincip medför för medlemsstater och företag kan komma att få allvarliga följder om inte EU-domstolen ändrar besluten. (Less) - Abstract
- Advanced tax arrangements and aggressive tax planning by multinational corporations have long been a reality for the EU and its member states. Through advance pricing agreements (APA), businesses can agree with national tax authorities on how to arrange their transfer pricing during the next couple of years and how they shall be taxed as a result of that. Due to the inherent national character of tax law and the lack of competence of the EU to legislate in that field unanimously, national regulations of transfer pricing often differ widely and the prospects of a common tax regulation at EU level are small.
Since the middle of the last decade, the European Commission has reviewed and annulled several APA’s entered into by large... (More) - Advanced tax arrangements and aggressive tax planning by multinational corporations have long been a reality for the EU and its member states. Through advance pricing agreements (APA), businesses can agree with national tax authorities on how to arrange their transfer pricing during the next couple of years and how they shall be taxed as a result of that. Due to the inherent national character of tax law and the lack of competence of the EU to legislate in that field unanimously, national regulations of transfer pricing often differ widely and the prospects of a common tax regulation at EU level are small.
Since the middle of the last decade, the European Commission has reviewed and annulled several APA’s entered into by large corporations and individual member states, due to their alleged incompatibility with the prohibition of state aid in article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. These decisions have been criticized due to the application of article 107 and they have been seen as attempts to harmonize tax regulation, in contradiction to the EU treaties, by imposing an EU arm’s length principle. After ruling on two of the appealed decisions against the Fiat and Starbucks corporations, the general court of the EU found that the commission was in its right to review the APA’s and had correctly applied article 107.
In this paper, the EU regulation on state aid and the arm’s length principle is presented. Thereafter, the two rulings of the general court are analyzed in order to determine their legal reasoning and the impact they might have. In the last part of the paper, the court’s conclusions are challenged, and it is found that the uncertainty that a new EU arm’s length principle entails for member states and corporations can have serious consequences provided that the rulings are not overturned by the European Court of Justice. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9010121
- author
- Dieden Sandell, Einar LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- An EU Arm's Length Principle Within Reach? - An Analysis of the Fiat and Starbucks Rulings of the ECJ
- course
- JURM02 20201
- year
- 2020
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- skatterätt, EU-rätt, internprissättning, armlängdsprincipen, statsstöd
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9010121
- date added to LUP
- 2020-06-15 08:50:38
- date last changed
- 2020-06-15 08:50:38
@misc{9010121,
abstract = {{Advanced tax arrangements and aggressive tax planning by multinational corporations have long been a reality for the EU and its member states. Through advance pricing agreements (APA), businesses can agree with national tax authorities on how to arrange their transfer pricing during the next couple of years and how they shall be taxed as a result of that. Due to the inherent national character of tax law and the lack of competence of the EU to legislate in that field unanimously, national regulations of transfer pricing often differ widely and the prospects of a common tax regulation at EU level are small.
Since the middle of the last decade, the European Commission has reviewed and annulled several APA’s entered into by large corporations and individual member states, due to their alleged incompatibility with the prohibition of state aid in article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. These decisions have been criticized due to the application of article 107 and they have been seen as attempts to harmonize tax regulation, in contradiction to the EU treaties, by imposing an EU arm’s length principle. After ruling on two of the appealed decisions against the Fiat and Starbucks corporations, the general court of the EU found that the commission was in its right to review the APA’s and had correctly applied article 107.
In this paper, the EU regulation on state aid and the arm’s length principle is presented. Thereafter, the two rulings of the general court are analyzed in order to determine their legal reasoning and the impact they might have. In the last part of the paper, the court’s conclusions are challenged, and it is found that the uncertainty that a new EU arm’s length principle entails for member states and corporations can have serious consequences provided that the rulings are not overturned by the European Court of Justice.}},
author = {{Dieden Sandell, Einar}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{En unionsrättslig armlängdsprincip inom räckhåll? - En analys av Fiat- och Starbucksdomarna från EU-domstolen}},
year = {{2020}},
}