----

STATE AID — BELGIUM

Aid C 76/2003 ex NN 69/2003 — Reduction of a VAT debt owed by Umicore SA (formerly Union Minière SA)

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2004/C 223/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By means of the letter dated 10 December 2003 reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified Belgium of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the abovementioned measure.

Interested parties may submit their comments on the measure in respect of which the Commission is initiating the procedure within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter to:

These comments will be communicated to Belgium. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

SUMMARY

Procedure

By letter dated 11 February 2002 (D/50559) the Commission informed the Belgian authorities of the information it had in its possession concerning an agreement between the Belgian Special Tax Inspectorate and the company Umicore SA, Brussels (Umicore), formerly known as Union Minière SA, Brussels (UM), on a reduction of a value added tax (VAT) debt. In its letter, the Commission asked the Belgian authorities to furnish it with all information which might enable it to assess the agreement in the light of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty. The reply from the Belgian Government was received by letter dated 7 May 2002 (A/33550). Following the appearance of articles in the press, a final exchange of information took place at an ad hoc meeting between the Commission's representatives and the Special Tax Inspectorate on 19 November 2003 at the Commission's request, made by letter dated 21 October 2003 (D/56737).

Description of the measure in respect of which the Commission is initiating the procedure

The tax agreement which forms the subject matter of this Decision was concluded on 21 December 2000 between the administration of the Special Tax Inspectorate and Umicore, or UM as it then was, and related to VAT.

Following checks on the precious metals marketing activities conducted by Umicore between 1995 and 1999 inclusive, the Brussels Regional Directorate of the Special Tax Inspectorate addressed to Umicore, on 30 November 1998 and 30 April 1999 respectively, two adjustment notices concerning the irregular application of VAT to certain silver transfers from Belgium to other countries of the European Union as part of the marketing activities referred to above.

The adjustment notices of 30 November 1998 and 30 April 1999

In its adjustment notice of 30 November 1998, the Special Tax Inspectorate informed Umicore that it had detected various irregularities and concluded that Umicore ‘owed the Belgian State’, for the years 1995 to 1996:

In its adjustment notice of 30 April 1999, the Special Tax Inspectorate informed Umicore that it had detected further irregularities and concluded that Umicore ‘owed the Belgian State’, for the years 1997 to 1998:

In total, the amount of VAT owed by Umicore according to the abovementioned adjustment notices comes to approximately EUR 24 372 358 and the tax fine referred to comes to approximately EUR 2 437 235.

The agreement of 21 December 2000

Following several letters in which Umicore rejected the Special Tax Inspectorate's calls for adjustment, on 21 December 2000 the Special Tax Inspectorate accepted a proposed agreement submitted by Umicore concerning the two adjustment notices, covering the application of VAT during the period in question.

In particular, the agreement in question covered payment by Umicore of the sum of BEF 423 000 000, or approximately EUR 10 485 896, ‘in full and final settlement of Umicore's VAT situation for the years 1995 to 1999 inclusive’.

As a result, following the agreement, Umicore is thought to have secured a reduction in its VAT debt of approximately EUR 13 886 462 at the least, that is, not counting fines and default interest.

According to the Belgian authorities, such an agreement is justified as the adjustment notices in question constitute only the first stage in a complex administrative process aimed at establishing a tax debt to be paid by a person subject to VAT. A detailed examination of the information and arguments submitted by Umicore, which has always denied having perpetrated fraud, finally persuaded the Special Tax Inspectorate that no tax should have been demanded in this case. As no tax amount had been established, no VAT debt reduction was granted.

The Belgian authorities consider, moreover, that Belgian law is too stringent compared with that of other European countries and that it imposes an extremely heavy burden of proving that goods have left the country with a view to applying exemption from VAT to intra-Community supplies.

Assessment of the aid

The Commission considers that the information furnished by the Belgian authorities does not justify the conclusion of the agreement in question between the Belgian State and Umicore or permit the reduction in the VAT debt established in the light of the Special Tax Inspectorate's findings. In particular, the information furnished appears contradictory in that, on the one hand, the Belgian authorities have asserted that Umicore ‘owed the Belgian State’ a VAT debt and that, moreover, a tax fine should be imposed, while on the other hand those same authorities considered that no tax debt had been established.

The Commission takes the view that the agreement in question involves the use of state resources and seems to confer an advantage on Umicore consisting in the reduction of a charge which ought normally to have been borne by Umicore's budget.

As to the application of the VAT exemption to silver transfers to taxable persons in other Member States, the Special Tax Inspectorate had established in its two adjustment notices that the conditions for such exemption, laid down by the rules of Belgian law and to which all other companies doing business in Belgium are subject, allowing the VAT paid on the goods supplied to be deducted were not met.

As to the argument that the regulatory requirements for securing exemption from VAT on the dispatch of goods abroad are in practice more stringent than those applicable in other Member States, the Commission considers that it is advantages within a State, and not differences in treatment stemming from legislative or regulatory differences between States, that fall within the scope of the State aid rules.

As to the determination of the compromise amount under the agreement between the Belgian State and Umicore, the reduction in the previously established VAT debt seems to constitute an advantage in that the VAT amount taken as a basis for purposes of applying the compromise reduction concerns only part of the debt at issue. The information communicated by the Belgian authorities concerning the calculation involved in the established compromise does not seem to take into account the amount of Umicore's VAT debt under the adjustment notice of 30 April 1999 (EUR 6 816 243). Consequently, the compromise amount forming the subject matter of the agreement has become more favourable. The Commission is thus not convinced of the validity of the subsequent reduction in the debt in question, given the non-deductibility of the fine as a business cost.

As confirmed by the established case-law of the Court of Justice, discretionary practices by tax authorities may give rise to advantages falling within the scope of Article 87 of the EC Treaty. The Commission considers that, in so far as the tax reduction at issue concerns only Umicore, the criterion of selectivity is fulfilled.

As to the way in which the agreement was concluded, the Commission considers that the fact that the compromise did not specify its legal basis and its formal justification from a legal point of view constitutes a departure from the normal procedure for determining and settling a VAT debt subsequent to a finding of irregularity.

Accordingly, the Commission has serious doubts as to whether the measure constitutes aid and whether it is compatible with the common market, inasmuch as:

Since the measure has not been notified to the Commission, it constitutes aid that has been granted illegally.

None of the exemptions provided for in Article 87(2) and (3) seems applicable in the case in point.

The Commission has therefore decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

In accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, all unlawful aid can be subject to recovery from the recipient.

TEXT OF LETTER

‘Par la présente, la Commission a l'honneur d'informer la Belgique qu'après avoir examiné les informations fournies par vos autorités, elle a décidé d'ouvrir la procédure prévue à l'article 88, paragraphe 2, du traité CE.

1.   PROCÉDURE

2.   DESCRIPTION DE LA MESURE

3.   DESCRIPTION DE L'ACTIVITÉ DE L'ENTREPRISE ET DES TRANSACTIONS CONCERNÉES PAR LA MESURE

Description des activités de Umicore

Régime TVA applicable aux livraisons intracommunautaires et aux exportations de biens

Contrôles effectués et relevés de régularisation envoyés par L'ISI

L'accord du 21 décembre 2000

4.   APPRÉCIATION PRÉLIMINAIRE DE LA MESURE AU REGARD DE L'ARTICLE 87, PARAGRAPHE 1 DU TRAITÉ

Avantage

Aide accordée au moyen de ressources d'État

Affectation de la concurrence et des échanges

Selectivité

Conclusions préliminaires au regard de l'existence d'une aide

La classification de la mesure comme aide nouvelle

Appréciation préliminaire portant sur la compatibilité éventuelle avec le marché commun

‘Met dit schrijven stelt de Commissie België ervan in kennis dat zij na onderzoek van de door uw autoriteiten verstrekte inlichtingen heeft besloten de procedure van artikel 88, lid 2, van het EG-Verdrag in te leiden.

1.   DE PROCEDURE

2.   BESCHRIJVING VAN DE STEUNMAATREGEL

3.   BESCHRIJVING VAN DE ACTIVITEITEN VAN DE ONDERNEMING EN DE DOOR DE MAATREGEL GETROFFEN OPERATIES

Beschrijving van de activiteiten van Umicore

BTW-regeling van toepassing op intracommunautaire leveringen en op de export van goederen

Controles uitgevoerd en regularisatieopgaven gezonden door de BBI

Het akkoord van 21 december 2000

4.   VOORLOPIGE TOETSING VAN DE MAATREGEL AAN ARTIKEL 87, LID 1, VAN HET VERDRAG

Voordeel

Steun toegekend uit staatsmiddelen

Ongunstige beïnvloeding van de mededinging en het handelsverkeer

Selectiviteit

Voorlopige conclusies ten aanzien van de vraag of sprake is van steun

De steun vormt nieuwe steun

Voorlopige beoordeling op het punt van de mogelijke verenigbaarheid met de gemeenschappelijke markt

----

(1)  Voir Directive 77/388/CEE (ou Sixième Directive TVA) du Conseil du 17 mai 1977 en matière d'harmonisation des législations des États membres relatives aux taxes sur le chiffre d'affaires – Système commun de taxe sur la valeur ajoutée: assiette uniforme, telle que modifiée par la Directive du Conseil du 16 décembre 1991 no 91/680/CEE, JO L 376 du 31.12.1991, en vue de l'abolition des frontières fiscales

(2)  Publié au Bull. Q.R., Ch. Repr. S.O. 1995-1996, n 26 du 18.3.1996.

(3)  Aux termes de l'article 2 du code de la TVA belge, les livraisons de bien effectuées à titre onéreux par un assujetti sont soumises à la taxe, lorsqu'elles ont lieu en Belgique. En vertu de l'article 15 de ce code, une livraison de bien est réputée avoir été effectuée en Belgique notamment lorsque l'expédition ou le transport du bien à destination de l'acquéreur commence en Belgique. L'article 16 précise que la livraison s'opère au moment où le bien est mis à la disposition de l'acquéreur et l'article 17, et que le fait générateur de la taxe intervient et la taxe devient exigible au moment où s'opère la livraison du bien.

(4)  Arrêt de la Cour du 17 septembre 1980 Philip Morris. Aff 730.79

(5)  Zie Richtlijn 77/388/EEG van de Raad van 17 mei 1977 betreffende de harmonisatie van de wetgevingen der lidstaten inzake omzetbelasting — Gemeenschappelijk stelsel van belasting over de toegevoegde waarde: uniforme grondslag (Zesde BTW-Richtlijn), gewijzigd bij Richtlijn 91/680/EEG van de Raad van 16 december 1991 met het oog op de afschaffing van de fiscale grenzen, PB L 376 van 31.12.1991, blz. 1.

(6)  Gepubliceerd in Bulletin van vragen en antwoorden, Kamer, gewone zitting 1995-1996, nr. 26 van 18.3.1996.

(7)  Overeenkomstig artikel 2 van het Belgische BTW-wetboek zijn de leveringen van goederen die door een belastingplichtige onder bezwarende titel worden verricht, aan de belasting onderworpen wanneer ze in België plaatsvinden. Op grond van artikel 15 van het BTW-wetboek wordt de levering van een goed geacht te hebben plaatsgevonden in België wanneer met name de verzending of het vervoer naar de verkrijger aanvangt in België. In artikel 16 is bepaald dat de levering plaatsvindt op het tijdstip waarop het goed ter beschikking van de verkrijger wordt gesteld, terwijl volgens artikel 17 het belastbare feit plaatsvindt en de belasting opeisbaar wordt op het tijdstip waarop de levering van het goed plaatsvindt.

(8)  Arrest van het Hof van 17 september 1980 in zaak 730/79, Philip Morris Holland BV/Commissie, Jurispr. 1980, blz. 2671, punt 11.

----