On 19 September 2018, the European Commission issued its final decision in the state aid investigation into two tax rulings obtained from Luxembourg by McDonald’s (see the European Commission’s press release ). The Commission concluded that the tax rulings issued by the Luxembourg Tax Administration to McDonald’s do not constitute state aid within the meaning of EU law.
Under EU law, the Commission is obliged to review whether Member States give selected companies a preferential treatment, incompatible with the applicable state aid rules. Tax rulings have increasingly become a center of attention as their investigation became part of what the Commission refers to as a wider strategy towards tax transparency and fair taxation. This has led to inquiries into the compatibility of the tax ruling practices of certain Member States with EU law, which started in June 2013. In December 2014, the Commission extended the information inquiry into tax rulings issued by all Member States since 1 January 2010, and in June 2015, requested 15 Member States to provide detailed information on some of their rulings. Following a series of in-depth investigations, the Commission concluded on certain cases that Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Ireland have granted selective tax advantages that are illegal under EU state aid rules.
The decision in the McDonald’s case follows an in-depth investigation by the European Commission further to the announcement of its preliminary conclusions in December 2015.
The EU Commission’s decision
The case concerns a Luxembourg company with a US branch to which royalties received by the company were allocated. The Luxembourg Tax Administration issued a tax ruling in 2009, according to which the royalty income of the US branch was, based on the double tax treaty with the US , exempt from tax in Luxembourg even if this income was not subject to tax in the US. A previous ruling had reached the same conclusion, but on the assumption that the income was subject to tax in the US.
The European Commission concluded that the tax rulings granted by the Luxembourg Tax Administration did not constitute state aid. Although the interpretation given to the double tax treaty between Luxembourg and the US resulted in the double non-taxation of the royalty income attributed to the US branch, the European Commission found that the treaty had not been misapplied.
This decision forms part of the standard state aid investigation procedure. The non-confidential parts of the decision are expected to be published in the next few months.
On 19 June 2018, the Luxembourg government issued draft legislation, amending the domestic definition of a permanent establishment, in cases where the latter is located in a treaty country. According to the proposed bill, the treaty definition will, in general, prevail and a permanent establishment will be recognized if the taxpayer is engaged in an independent economic activity in the other country. In this context, the Luxembourg tax authorities will have the right to request a certificate from the foreign tax authorities with regard to the recognition of the foreign permanent establishment. This certificate will have to be provided if the tax treaty does not include any provision that would allow Luxembourg to refuse the exemption of the branch income or wealth, where the other contracting state uses another provision of the tax treaty to exempt such income or wealth (so-called ‘switch-over clause’).
If adopted by the Luxembourg parliament, the new provision is expected to close the existing cases of double non-taxation similar to the McDonald’s case.
KPMG Luxembourg comment
As expected in December 2015, it was questionable whether the measure could be deemed selective state aid under Article 107(1) TFEU to the extent that the Luxembourg Tax Administration had consistently applied its interpretation of the US-Luxembourg double tax treaty and similar tax treaties to all taxpayers. The European Commission has now confirmed that the double non-taxation in this case results from a mismatch between the Luxembourg and US tax laws, and therefore does not constitute illegal state aid.
We remain at your disposal to answer any questions you may have on this decision.
Any tax advice in this communication is not intended or written by KPMG to be used, and cannot be used, by a client or any other person or entity for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity.
Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.