WRITTEN QUESTION E-0684/04 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Parmalat and incentives arising from poor tax legislation in the Netherlands for foreign businesses with dishonest intentions.
Date: 2004-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, code of conduct, company law, registration of a company, tax law, tax relief, tax system

C 88 E/204

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

(2004/C 88 E/0212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0684/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Parmalat and incentives arising from poor tax legislation in the Netherlands for foreign businesses

with dishonest intentions

1.
Is the Commission aware that Forum Administrations, a subsidiary of the major Dutch law firm
Nauta Dutilh, controls at least one foundation and five private limited companies in the Netherlands of
which a majority of the shares are in Italian hands and which are linked to the discredited Italian dairy
company Parmalat?

Is the Commission aware that, via this Dutch route, nearly EUR 6 000 million’s worth of Parmalat
2.
bonds have been issued, that the most recent issue of EUR 350 million was made as recently as September
2003 and that these bonds have since become worthless?

Is

3.
EUR 800 000 million in property is registered with 181 Dutch trust offices?

the Commission further

according

aware

that,

to the Netherlands Central Bank,

4.
Can the Commission confirm that, at the present time, a remarkable number of companies not based
and not mainly active in the Netherlands are seeking ways of channelling their finances and debts through
that country because of the tax advantages that they expect to enjoy there?

5.
In what way is current tax legislation in the Netherlands, which was amended in the 1990s,
exceptional in comparison with other EU Member States? What makes the Netherlands’ tax legislation so
attractive to foreign businesses?

6.
Does current Netherlands tax legislation offer businesses the opportunity in particular to circumvent
other countries’ rules, and, in so doing, does it provide opportunities for those that wish to gain an
advantage to the detriment of other companies, authorities, employees, shareholders, bondholders,
suppliers and consumers?

7.
Does the residence of a legal person in the Netherlands also make it easier to benefit from the tax
advantages of the six Caribbean islands that belong to the Kingdom of the Netherlands but not to the EU,
where Parmalat also has subsidiaries?

8. What, in the Commission’s view, should be changed in the Netherlands’ tax legislation?

Source: the Netherlands newspaper De Volkskrant, edition dated 22 January 2004.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

1. 2. and 3.
The Commission is aware of the issues raised in the article in the newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’
of 22 January 2004 and of the problems with Parmalat. The Commission is also aware that there is a link
between some of the issues that lie at the heart of the Parmalat case and disclosure requirements, and
therefore intends to propose approriate amendments to the 4th and 7th company law directives in the
autumn.

The Commission has no official information at its disposal on the number of companies registered in
4.
the Netherlands which are being used to channel finances so as to lower the overall tax burden of the
group.

5.
The tax legislation in the Netherlands provides for an exemption of taxes for profit distribution and
capital gains related to subsidiaries resident in other countries in order to prevent double taxation. This
principle for reducing double taxation is an internationally accepted principle and some other Member
States have similar systems. However, the Dutch ‘holding regime’ was scrutinised under the Code of
Conduct for business taxation that has been agreed by Member States in order to prevent harmful tax
competition. The final conclusion was that the Netherlands should strengthen its anti-abuse measures in
relation to this regime. The Netherlands has now done so.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/205

The Commission is not aware of Dutch tax legislation that provides for any particular way of
6.
circumventing other countries’ rules. As mentioned earlier, the Netherlands has taken steps to prevent the
potential abuse of the Dutch system through the introduction of more stringent anti-abuse rules in the
framework of the Code of Conduct for business taxation.

7.
As part of the Code of Conduct exercise, the tax rules of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba were
also subjected to scrutiny. The result is that both the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are now required to
remove their harmful tax measures i.e. the tax advantages that the Council considered to be harmful. The
advantage for a Netherlands resident of doing business in the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba would
therefore only arise now from the fact that there is an agreement between the three parts of the Kingdom
of the Netherlands to prevent double taxation which is quite similar to the bilateral tax conventions
preventing double taxation that Member States and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) member countries negotiate with each other and with other countries.

8. Member States are free to design their tax systems as long as the rules comply with the EU acquis,
notably the state aid rules, the fundamental freedoms in the EC Treaty and the principles of the Code of
Conduct for business taxation.

(2004/C 88 E/0213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: European hydrogen platform

The creation of the European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform is to be welcomed, but
surprisingly not one of the 35 members of the platform’s Advisory Council is Portuguese.

The Commission may recall that the University of the Azores’ marine environment and technologies
laboratory is a pioneering centre for the development of technologies linked to the exploitation of
hydrogen.

Does the Commission perhaps consider that research carried out in one of the outermost regions is less
valuable than that carried out by the large countries represented on the Advisory Council?

Does it not consider that all the relevant partners should be included in an initiative of this kind,
irrespective of their size?

Will the Commission consider expanding the Advisory Council to include, for example, the University of
the Azores’ marine environment and technologies laboratory?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Technology Platform for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells, recently launched in January 2004, is an initiative
that intends to include all actors and activities in Europe, working in advancing the technologies which
may lead to a future Hydrogen Economy. The Advisory Council (AC) is one of the key bodies of the
Platform since it will steer and guide its various components and actors.

The first Advisory Council has been elected for an initial period of 18 months and is composed by high
level personalities representing different players of the economy and society in Europe,
including the
research community and main industrial sectors actively involved in the development of the relevant
technologies.