SAF-T for Poland and SAP

From 1st July 2016 onwards it is required to provide SAFT-PL files (in Polish: “Jednolity Plik Kontrolny” or “JPK”) in XML format on request of the PL Tax authorities.

Filing SAF-T will be mandatory for large taxpayers: employ more than 250 people or 50 million EUR sales revenue irrespective of whether they are established in Poland or not. Per 1st July 2018 this extended to taxpayers with more than 9 employees or 2 million EUR sales revenue.

Foreign businesses not having a branch and/or fixed establishment but that are registered for VAT in Poland fall within the scope of the above reporting requirement when above conditions are met.

On 19 May 2016 the Upper Chamber of the Polish Parliament passed a bill on the amendment of provisions of the Tax Ordinance and of some other acts. According to the bill adopted by the Parliament, the obligation to generate VAT reports in a SAF-T data format and their monthly reporting to the tax authorities will apply initially only to the largest enterprises for each month begun on or after 1 July 2016.

It means that Large Enterprises will be obliged to file VAT reports in the SAF-T data format already on 25 August 2016. Thus, Large Enterprises will be obliged to submit in monthly period VAT register in SAF-T format (according to JPK_VAT structure 4 – VAT register) even if the VAT reporting period is quarterly.

Taxpayers will be obliged to submit the SAF-T format:

  • on request in the case of a preliminary tax inquiry, a tax audit and tax proceedings;
  • monthly mandatory – with respect to the VAT sales and purchases records only (Article 109(3) of the Value Added Tax Act of 11 March 2004 (VAT records) by submit monthly a SAF-T file that contains VAT sales and purchase records.

The first requests to submit audit files at their discretion will likely take place September 2016.  The monthly VAT reports on 25 August 2016.  Not complying with this obligation will not only negatively affect the position of taxpayers during a tax audit but also result in unforeseen tax costs as penalties will be levied.

‘Final’ version of the logical structures of the Standard Audit File (SAF) was published by the Ministry on 9 March 2016 including FAQ.

Besides introduced now in Poland similar EU obligations exist already in Portugal (2013) Luxembourg (2013), Austria (2009), France (2014), Lithuania (2015). More and more tax administrations around the world are implementing electronic auditing of a business’ financial records and systems.

SAF-T Poland and SAP

SAP developed currently only an extraction tool for SAP ECC 6 and higher version. The generation of the SAFT-PL XML files is not included. Certain companies use “older versions” of SAP and will not be supported by SAP.

Based on SAP’s OSS notes, SAP provides only at the moment a functionality for gathering and downloading the transactional data. However, it is not the complete set of data required and the creation of the SAF-T file for the tax authorities is also not included. The functionality will also only be available for companies established in Poland and not for companies with a foreign Polish VAT registration.

In order to be able to comply with the requirements and provide the XML file on request in time, tooling needs either to be developed or purchased.

Our solution

A SAFT-PL tool that already works for Portugal that includes also strategy for downloading the relevant data from SAP  for older SAP versions.

The basic design for a workaround solution is to extract the raw source data from the relevant SAP tables and use software tools to load the relevant data from the source SAP tables, perform additional mappings and data preparations and create the required XML files.

We offer 2 solutions:

  • A software application called Audit Command Language (ACL). This software is commonly used by auditing firms, tax authorities and internal audit departments. The process will be that the client will download the data from SAP and make it available to the Phenix. Phenix will then generate the XML files and some control reports and provide these files and reports available to client for submission.
  • A tool in MS Access in combination with a specific user interface for extracting the data from SAP. The result is a full in-house solution for the client.

Above process is based on our proven tool developed for the generation of the SAF-T files for Portugal.

Detailed information about SAF-T compliance and planning

Contact us for more information

EU Commission State Aid Starbucks Decision – low adjustment is a wash out

The trepidation is exemplified by the very low adjustments the EU Commission found, after its nearly year of investigation.

The adjustments are enough to be noticed by the EU state authorities and the companies, but de minimis in the context of corporate annual profits, corporate profit accumulation over time (e.g. perpetual deferral), corporate tax reserves, and de minimis in the context of revenue collection for either The Netherlands or Luxembourg.

Starbucks’ potential 30 million Euro re-capture tax bill by The Netherlands (EU Commission required), dating back to accumulation from 2008, will, assuming the tax bill stands after Starbucks’ appeal and after Starbucks’ challenge the decision up through the EU Court Of Justice, be offset by a US tax credit of like amount.

Consequently, the low adjustment is a wash out, albeit could require a cash flow payment in the nearer future than the perpetual one under US tax deferral accounting.  30 million Euro is too small to be noticeable to Starbucks shareholders or to the US Treasury, especially when the tax credits are applied. By William Byrnes, Texas A&M University Law –  EU Commission State Aid Starbucks Decision – My U.S. Perspective | Kluwer International Tax Blog

Press Release – Starbucks decision has negative impact on dutch investment climate | AmCham

“This decision is a staggering,” says Arjan van der Linde, Chairman of AmCham’s Tax Committee and fiscal spokesman for The American Chamber of Commerce in the Netherlands (AmCham).

“By disregarding OECD rules, the European Commission is creating considerable uncertainty about the tax implications for foreign investment in the Netherlands. This has a direct effect on new investments and future employment. Uncertainty about such a fundamental component of an investment is unacceptable for many companies,” predicts Van der Linde.

He also highlights the expertise of the Dutch tax authorities,

“The Dutch tax authorities have years of experience with the application of OECD rules and work thorough and carefully in considering transfer pricing requests.  A separate APA practice exists.  In addition, the Dutch tax authorities are consistent in their approach, with all sorts of coordination groups looking over the shoulder of the inspector. This thorough approach cannot simply be cast aside.”

AmCham urges the Dutch government to appeal the decision of the European Commission. To prevent interim uncertainty regarding the application of the OECD rules in the Netherlands, AmCham also urges the Dutch government to enter into direct dialogue with the European Commission.

Van der Linde:

“The starting point should be that the Commission commits to harmonization of direct taxation within the EU on the basis of an anti-BEPS-directive and not through a disruptive autonomous interpretation of the widely accepted OECD rules.”

Read further: Press Release – Starbucks Decision Has Negative Impact on Dutch Investment Climate | AmCham

State raid | The Economist

“The commission suggested that the two countries had connived in the two firms’ manipulation of transfer prices, the notional amounts for which different subsidiaries of the same firm sell goods or services to one another.

It claimed a Fiat finance unit in Luxembourg had provided loans to other divisions at artificially low prices, shrinking the unit’s revenue so that it paid a twentieth of the taxes it should have.

By the same token, the commission said that a Dutch subsidiary of Starbucks had overpaid a Swiss unit for coffee beans and a British one for “coffee-roasting know-how”.

A lengthy legal appeal is all but certain. In the meantime, the commission is conducting similar investigations into tax deals involving two tech giants, Amazon and Apple.

Whatever the outcome of all four cases, the commission’s stance will doubtless discourage other multinationals from resorting to such complicated arrangements to minimise their tax, to the delight of bigger countries dismayed by paltry corporate-tax receipts.

As one Dutch tax lawyer quips, “If [multinationals] have to choose, they’ll always pick avoiding court over avoiding taxes.” State raid | The Economist

State aid or not – what about ‘reputational tax risks’


Reputational risk is a key element in tax risk management as it is it not only considers individual tax risk but also sees how tax risk may influence the positions in other areas, negatively or positively

On June 2014, the European Commission said it had opened three in-depth investigations into tax decisions affecting Apple, Starbucks and Fiat Finance and Trade in Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg respectively.

An U.S. Senate investigation has revealed that Apple, that, “under the agreement Apple has with Ireland”, Apple paid a maximum tax rate of 2 percent or less. Apple’s annual reports show that over the past three years, Apple paid taxes worth 2 percent of its $74 billion in overseas income.

On his 2008 Presidential campaign trail, Barack Obama made his hostility toward “offshore” jurisdictions very clear:

There’s a building in the Cayman Islands that houses supposedly 12,000 U.S.-based corporations. That’s either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam in the world, and we know which one it is.

European Commission’s decision

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission’s preliminary view is that the tax ruling of 1990 (effectively agreed in 1991) and of 2007 in favour of the Apple group constitute State aid according to Article 107(1) TFEU [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]. The Commission has doubts about the compatibility of such State aid with the internal market. The Commission has therefore decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU with respect to the measures in question.

According to Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), state aid which affects trade between Member States and distorts, or threatens to distort, competition by favoring certain undertakings, is incompatible with the EU Single Market.

The European Commission considers that advance pricing agreements (APAs) should not have the effect of granting taxpayers lower taxation than other taxpayers in a similar legal and factual situation.

Apple says EU probe of Irish tax policy could be ‘material’ on April 29, 2015 – Apple Inc (AAPL.O) said the European Commission’s investigation into Ireland’s tax treatment of multinationals could have a “material” impact if it was determined that Dublin’s tax policies represented unfair state aid.

Apple has warned investors that it could face “material” financial penalties from the European Commission’s investigation into its tax deals with Ireland — the first time it has disclosed the potential consequences of the probe. Under US securities rules, a material event is usually defined as 5 per cent of a company’s average pre-tax earnings for the past three years. For Apple, which reported the highest quarterly profit ever for a US company in January, that could exceed $2.5bn, according to FT calculations. [Source:]

The above, raises the question whether besides evaluating tax risks (level of tolerance) also reputational risks of the company – as part of proper tax risk management – should have been considered when such schemes were setup.

In Apple’s defense lots of multinationals have been doing the same and I believed myself that change of the tax system – as those structures are often legally allowed – was the only way to close such gaps. That changed a bit with the European Commission decision that Luxembourg and the Netherlands have granted selective tax advantages to Fiat Finance and Trade and Starbucks, respectively. These are illegal under EU state aid rules: Fiat and Starbucks ruling.

About change and competencies

Effective tax advice by a tax professional should nowadays not only address the ways of how not paying more tax than necessary and evaluate associated tax risks of implementing such tax planning schemes (rate level of tolerance on a risk scale), but should also take in consideration the impact of such planning on the reputation of the company if it becomes public knowledge.

  • What is the impact if the tax planning at hand becomes public knowledge?
  • What are the consequences if a newspaper or politician picks it up to make statements about lack of ‘tax morale’ and the company is used as case study?

VAT reputational risks

VAT exposures associated with the wider impact on the company’s that arises from a company’s actions or errors and have become public knowledge, examples:

  • Aggressive VAT planning / VAT non compliance becomes public knowledge
  • Due to company’s VAT failures vendors are not paid in time that might disrupt the business
  • Due to company’s VAT failures VAT deduction of clients are disputed and assessed by tax authorities
  • Failure to drive the optimum relationship with the (indirect) Tax Authorities

A tax professional should contribute and give guidance to achieve that taxpayers do not pay more tax than necessary. Every opportunity had to be considered. At least that was the job description and actually how you could differentiate yourself among competition to make that happen for example via realizing beneficial tax rulings.

Has that – due to the Starbucks and Fiat ruling – now changed and to what extent?

In the indirect tax field, especially value added tax, similar aggressive tax structures were for a long time often approved by (national) case law. That has changed when the European Court of Justice ruled a couple of years ago (ECJ Halifax: February 21, 2006) that the tax advantage had to be revoked or denied.

The indirect tax profession had to change as well and reposition itself to ‘manage the numbers of indirect tax’ – focus more on risk management – and because of new trends relationships with tax authorities became more important to realize the taxpayer’s tax objectives.

Will tax planning become more about ‘being in compliance’ planning?

The new trend is to have an open dialogue between revenue bodies, taxpayers and tax intermediaries. OECD promotes ‘enhanced relationship’ (OECD report: Study into the Role of Tax Intermediaries). Even if the authorities have not embraced such an approach (yet), a proactive mode and using elements of this way of working might not only safe time and money, result in a good relationship but as well mitigate reputational VAT risks.

Richard H. Cornelisse

Further (new) information


5th strategy

Anticipate, prepare for and lead change


The consultation request – when a company’s tax strategy is in the end actually published and what currently proposed is in force – should be seen in my view as a ‘tax trend beyond UK’ also when this is read in combination with other (e.g. OECD) initiatives. Let me explain.

Based on the recent UK consultation request it is proposed that large businesses publish their company’s tax strategy, the executive signs off of the tax strategy and the business will practice the voluntary code of conduct as discussed earlier in a previous article “Improving large business compliance“.

The impact goes beyond the UK when the company’s tax strategy is actually published on either the business website or in the annual report. Some quotes from consultation document:

  • The strategy should set out the business’s attitude to tax risk, its appetite for tax planning and its approach to its relationship with HMRC.
  • It may also cover the governance framework describing the way a business takes decisions on taxation. The research found that “businesses with a greater appetite for risk tend[ed] not to have written (or published) tax strategies, while those with lower risk-appetite tended to have more formalised strategies.
  • Businesses will be required to inform HMRC as and when it is published.
  • It also shows us that increased scrutiny of tax strategy by a business’s Board actively discourages aggressive tax planning, with businesses stating that tax was now of “particular concern for senior management.
  • Building on this, the proposal is to include a requirement to have a named individual at Executive Board level who is responsible for owning and signing off the tax strategy. This will further encourage bringing responsibility for tax into the boardroom and align with the best practice many businesses already exhibit.
  • The proposed requirement for Board-level oversight echoes the existing Senior Accounting Officer (SAO) regime, which provides assurance that a business has adequate tax accounting arrangements in place. The SAO regime does not, however, extend to a business’s tax strategy. It is our intention that this proposal is kept apart from the existing SAO regime.

More efficient and effective tax inspections

The SAF-T standard, originally created also by the OECD, is intended to give tax authorities easy access to the relevant data in an easily readable format. This leads to much more efficient and effective tax inspections.

Certain countries have already implemented Standard Audit File for Tax Purposes submission. In Europe: Austria, France, Luxembourg and Portugal.

In line with SAF-T obligations, from 1 January 2016 registered businesses in the Czech Republic will be required to file a new VAT return which will have details of each taxable transaction made with other Czech registered business. The Slovak Republic and Hungary have also introduced similar VAT filing requirements in order to prevent VAT fraud.

Other countries such as Netherlands still have their own local methods, but that might change soon. The Dutch tax authorities announced on May 19, 2015 that 5,000 of its 30,000 employees will lose their current job, while at the same time 1,500 specialized data analysts will be hired as tax returns will be automatically assessed via data analysis. The world – how we know it – is changing fast.

“A pending reorganization at the Dutch tax authority Belastingdienst will likely result in the elimination of 4,000 to 5,000 jobs. The staff cuts are due to improvements to computer systems that reduced the need for many spot checks done by workers, reports broadcaster NOS. Improvements to information technology infrastructure will lead to better data analysis, and thus more accurate tax assessments, sources told NOS. This should not only reduce the amount of tax evasion, but also increase the amount of tax revenue received by anywhere from hundreds of millions to billions of euros every year.”

Richard. H. Cornelisse

Initiatives and views


5th strategy

Could I Please Get a Fiat for the Price of my Frappuccino? | Kluwer International Tax Blog


Now it is always hard to explain why the Member State involved in issuing allegedly incorrect rulings will receive its money back, which is still how the state aid regime operates today.

From an EU point of view, neither the companies involved nor the Member States will be penalized, as the only intention is to take away any unlawfully granted benefits to restore free and fair competition in the EU’s internal market.


For the companies involved, a decision to appeal the Commission’s findings will be as much of a public relations matter as it is a matter of law. It will be an executive decision whether or not to drag companies into a prolonged legal battle that may involve several European and national courts (final calculations of repayable amounts will be mainly a national matter). These cases will take at least 3 to 4 years to conclude and time and again the companies’ names will come up in the context of tax avoidance practices. Even if a case would end successfully for them, PR will have suffered.

From an academic point of view, not contesting these decisions would be a rather unwelcome scenario. If the Commission should stick with much of its original reasoning provided when it decided to open formal investigations into these test cases in 2014, then there are a number of ‘innovative’ approaches that will have to be subjected to Court scrutiny. Otherwise, we may end up with uncontested decisions that the Commission will then use for guidance in future cases and which will live a life of their own as untested precedents. By Raymond Luja, Maastricht University

Read further: Could I Please Get a Fiat for the Price of my Frappuccino? | Kluwer International Tax Blog

Tax advantages for Fiat and Starbucks are illegal under EU state aid rules


The European Commission has decided that Luxembourg and the Netherlands have granted selective tax advantages to Fiat Finance and Trade and Starbucks, respectively. These are illegal under EU state aid rules.

Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, stated:

“Tax rulings that artificially reduce a company’s tax burden are not in line with EU state aid rules. They are illegal. I hope that, with today’s decisions, this message will be heard by Member State governments and companies alike. All companies, big or small, multinational or not, should pay their fair share of tax.”

Following in-depth investigations, which were launched in June 2014, the Commission has concluded that Luxembourg has granted selective tax advantages to Fiat’s financing company and the Netherlands to Starbucks’ coffee roasting company. In each case, a tax ruling issued by the respective national tax authority artificially lowered the tax paid by the company.

Tax rulings as such are perfectly legal. They are comfort letters issued by tax authorities to give a company clarity on how its corporate tax will be calculated or on the use of special tax provisions. However, the two tax rulings under investigation endorsed artificial and complex methods to establish taxable profits for the companies. They do not reflect economic reality. This is done, in particular, by setting prices for goods and services sold between companies of the Fiat and Starbucks groups (so-called “transfer prices”) that do not correspond to market conditions. As a result, most of the profits of Starbucks’ coffee roasting company are shifted abroad, where they are also not taxed, and Fiat’s financing company only paid taxes on underestimated profits.

This is illegal under EU state aid rules: Tax rulings cannot use methodologies, no matter how complex, to establish transfer prices with no economic justification and which unduly shift profits to reduce the taxes paid by the company. It would give that company an unfair competitive advantage over other companies (typically SMEs) that are taxed on their actual profits because they pay market prices for the goods and services they use.

Therefore, the Commission has ordered Luxembourg and the Netherlands to recover the unpaid tax from Fiat and Starbucks, respectively, in order to remove the unfair competitive advantage they have enjoyed and to restore equal treatment with other companies in similar situations. The amounts to recover are €20 – €30 million for each company. It also means that the companies can no longer continue to benefit from the advantageous tax treatment granted by these tax rulings.

Furthermore, the Commission continues to pursue its inquiry into tax rulings practices in all EU Member States.

It cannot prejudge the opening of additional formal investigations into tax rulings if it has indications that EU state aid rules are not being complied with. Its existing formal investigations into tax rulings in Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg are ongoing. Each of the cases is assessed on its merits and today’s decisions do not prejudge the outcome of the Commission’s ongoing probes.


P029404000102-345216Fiat Finance and Trade, based in Luxembourg, provides financial services, such as intra-group loans, to other Fiat group car companies. It engages in many different transactions with Fiat group companies in Europe.

The Commission’s investigation showed that a tax ruling issued by the Luxembourg authorities in 2012 gave a selective advantage to Fiat Finance and Trade, which has unduly reduced its tax burden since 2012 by €20 – €30 million.

Given that Fiat Finance and Trade’s activities are comparable to those of a bank, the taxable profits for Fiat Finance and Trade can be determined in a similar way as for a bank, as a calculation of return on capital deployed by the company for its financing activities. However, the tax ruling endorses an artificial and extremely complex methodology that is not appropriate for the calculation of taxable profits reflecting market conditions. In particular, it artificially lowers taxes paid by Fiat Finance and Trade in two ways:

  • Due to a number of economically unjustifiable assumptions and down-ward adjustments, the capital base approximated by the tax ruling is much lower than the company’s actual capital.
  • The estimated remuneration applied to this already much lower capital for tax purposes is also much lower compared to market rates.

As a result, Fiat Finance and Trade has only paid taxes on a small portion of its actual accounting capital at a very low remuneration. As a matter of principle, if the taxable profits are calculated based on capital, the level of capitalisation in the company has to be adequate compared to financial industry standards. Additionally, the remuneration applied has to correspond to market conditions. The Commission’s assessment showed that in the case of Fiat Finance and Trade, if the estimations of capital and remuneration applied had corresponded to market conditions, the taxable profits declared in Luxembourg would have been 20 times higher.


P029401000202-962950Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA BV (“Starbucks Manufacturing”), based in the Netherlands, is the only coffee roasting company in the Starbucks group in Europe. It sells and distributes roasted coffee and coffee-related products (e.g. cups, packaged food, pastries) to Starbucks outlets in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

The Commission’s investigation showed that a tax ruling issued by the Dutch authorities in 2008 gave a selective advantage to Starbucks Manufacturing, which has unduly reduced Starbucks Manufacturing’s tax burden since 2008 by €20 – €30 million. In particular, the ruling artificially lowered taxes paid by Starbucks Manufacturing in two ways:

  • Starbucks Manufacturing pays a very substantial royalty to Alki (a UK-based company in the Starbucks group) for coffee-roasting know-how.
  • It also pays an inflated price for green coffee beans to Switzerland-based Starbucks Coffee Trading SARL.

The Commission’s investigation established that the royalty paid by Starbucks Manufacturing to Alki cannot be justified as it does not adequately reflect market value. In fact, only Starbucks Manufacturing is required to pay for using this know-how – no other Starbucks group company nor independent roasters to which roasting is outsourced are required to pay a royalty for using the same know-how in essentially the same situation. In the case of Starbucks Manufacturing, however, the existence and level of the royalty means that a large part of its taxable profits are unduly shifted to Alki, which is neither liable to pay corporate tax in the UK, nor in the Netherlands.

Furthermore, the investigation revealed that Starbucks Manufacturing’s tax base is also unduly reduced by the highly inflated price it pays for green coffee beans to a Swiss company, Starbucks Coffee Trading SARL. In fact, the margin on the beans has more than tripled since 2011. Due to this high key cost factor in coffee roasting, Starbucks Manufacturing’s coffee roasting activities alone would not actually generate sufficient profits to pay the royalty for coffee-roasting know-how to Alki. The royalty therefore mainly shifts to Alki profits generated from sales of other products sold to the Starbucks outlets, such as tea, pastries and cups, which represent most of the turnover of Starbucks Manufacturing.

European Commission – Press release – Commission decides selective tax advantages for Fiat in Luxembourg and Starbucks in the Netherlands are illegal under EU state aid rules

According to Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), state aid which affects trade between Member States and distorts, or threatens to distort, competition by favouring certain undertakings, is incompatible with the EU Single Market.

The European Commission considers that advance pricing agreements (APAs) should not have the effect of granting taxpayers lower taxation than other taxpayers in a similar legal and factual situation.

Further information

Fiscus moet miljoenen Starbucks terughalen|

De deal tussen de Nederlandse Belastingdienst en het Amerikaanse koffiebedrijf Starbucks kan niet door de beugel. Nederland moet minimaal 20 miljoen euro aan illegale staatssteun terugvorderen bij het bedrijf, maar krijgt geen boete.

De Nederlandse fiscus moet aan de hand van recente cijfers bepalen hoe hoog het bedrag precies uitpakt. Dat oordeelde EU-commissaris Margrethe Vestager (Mededinging) woensdag. “Alle ondernemingen, groot en klein, multinationals en andere, moeten billijk belastingen betalen”, aldus Vestager.

Zij bevestigde daarmee mediaberichten die al sinds vorige week rondgaan. Het gaat om een speciaal ontworpen constructie waarbij Starbucks royalty’s voor een recept om koffiebonen te branden naar een bedrijfsonderdeel in het Verenigd Koninkrijk mocht overboeken.

Die royalty’s waren volgens Brussel “zeer hoog”. ‘Schuiven met winsten’ Nederland stond toe dat dat bedrag van de winst werd afgeboekt, zodat nauwelijks belasting hoefde te worden betaald.

Brussel vindt dat een “kunstmatige verlaging” en spreekt van “ten onrechte schuiven met winsten”. Het voordeel dat Nederland moet terugvorderen ligt tussen de 20 en 30 miljoen euro.

“Fiscale afspraken die de belastingdruk van een onderneming kunstmatig laag houden, stroken niet met de EU-staatssteunregels. Ze zijn onwettig”, aldus Vestager.

Op zich zijn belastingafspraken met bedrijven toegestaan, maar daar zijn dus grenzen aan. Door het belastingvoordeel terug te vorderen bij Starbucks, wordt gegarandeerd dat dat bedrijf op dezelfde wijze wordt behandeld als andere ondernemingen in vergelijkbare situaties.

Campagne tegenbelastingfraude

De Europese Commissie stelde vorig jaar een nader onderzoek in naar de deal, nadat Brussel al voorlopig had vastgesteld dat de regels waren overtreden. Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem (Financiën) beloofde toen dat het beleid wordt aangepast als het oordeel definitief zou worden.

Het oordeel past in de campagne van de Europese Commissie tegen belastingfraude en -ontwijking.

De commissie wil voorkomen dat bedrijven door speciale afspraken minder belasting betalen dan ze zouden doen bij normale toepassing van de belastingregels. Vestager is nog bezig met onderzoek naar belastingdeals in andere EU-lidstaten. Het gaat onder meer om afspraken tussen Apple en Ierland en Amazon en Luxemburg: Fiscus moet miljoenen Starbucks terughalen|Dft|

Further information

Starbucks and Fiat Chrysler’s tax avoidance deals to be ruled illegal |The Guardian

At the heart of the dispute over Starbucks’s tax rulings is the amount of taxable profits the US group attributes to a bean-roasting subsidiary in Amsterdam.

Because of favourable tax treatments available in the Netherlands, the coffee group’s tax planners have been keen to ensure as much of its profit as possible arises there. But the commission is expected to say Starbucks artificially inflated the internal price at which its Dutch roastery bought beans from another Starbucks company in Switzerland.

The Financial Times, citing sources close to the investigation, estimated the group’s likely additional tax bill could be about €30m (£22m). The decision against Fiat’s sweetheart tax deal is expected to be more costly. Starbucks and Fiat Chrysler’s tax avoidance deals to be ruled illegal | Business | The Guardian

Further information