It’s only been days since European Commission president Jean Claude Juncker defended against criticism that he holds a conflict of interest in the regulator’s investigation of member states’ tax relationships with companies. Recent reports say, however, that the Commission is poised to come down hard on those tax deals it finds to be anticompetitive.
The Commission made its preliminary findings in the probe public last Friday and revealed that it believes the Netherlands’ tax deals with Starbucks violate state aid and competition rules. The findings are just a small part of the investigation, which is also examining Amazon’s tax arrangements with Luxembourg and Apple’s agreements in Ireland.
It’s a high-profile, high-stakes case, experts say. Not only could companies be forced to repay money to the state, but findings that suggest those tax relationships were illegal could make those nations less attractive to foreign investment.
Following the Commission’s release of preliminary findings on Friday, Starbucks said it would continue to cooperate in the investigation and denied any wrongdoing in the matter. Authorities are concerned that offering foreign companies tax breaks could constitute illegal state aid and give that corporation an unfair advantage.
Commission President Jean Claude Juncker was faced with harsh criticism only weeks ago when investigative reporters released a trove of documents suggesting nations offered billions of dollars in tax cuts to international firms. Juncker, as the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg – which is being investigated as part of the case – was accused of holding a conflict of interest. But the policymaker was on the defense, vowing Wednesday to not interfere with Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager’s investigation but to make himself available to her if necessary and requested.
Full content: NYTimes
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Veteran Lawyers Launch Boutique Antitrust Firm in NY and DC
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
EU’s Top Court Upholds Antitrust Veto on Thyssenkrupp-Tata Steel Deal
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Brazil’s Court Delays X’s Return Over Fine Payment Dispute
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Tencent and Guillemot Family Consider Potential Buyout of Ubisoft
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Second Price-Fixing Case Against Hotel-Casinos Dismissed by Federal Judge
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh