On Wednesday, May 12 in Luxembourg, European Justice upheld the legitimacy of Amazon’s tax breaks, rejected the European Commission and demanded a refund of 250 250 million in unrestricted government aid.

The commission began its investigation into the 2014 “Lux Leaks” revelations, which found large-scale tax evasion to benefit multinational companies based in Luxembourg.

At the end of the investigation, Brussels estimated that Amazon had benefited from illegal gains, and a 2003 agreement (renewed in 2011) allowed the country to evade three-quarters of its profits from taxes. In October 2017, the European executive ordered a refund of പണം 250 million in unnecessary gains.

“It should be canceled altogether”

Luxembourg and Amazon had taken legal action. None of the findings mentioned in the competition decision are sufficient to prove the existence of an achievement (…) So it will be canceled altogether ‘, EU, Wednesday, EU General Court, Chamber of First Instance, Says in a press release.

The American online sales giant immediately welcomed the decision: fate “It is in line with our long-standing position that we have complied with all applicable laws [que nous n’avons] No priority treatment received ‘. Luxembourg also welcomed the ruling “It simply came to our notice then (…) In question (…) It was not state aid ”.

“We will study the shutdown carefully and think about the next possible steps.”, Said European Competition Commissioner Margaret Vestager. The EU executive has the opportunity to appeal to the European Court of Justice (CJEU), which did so after Apple lost last year. The European Commission, which canceled the repayment of ആന 13 billion in tax benefits to Ireland, lost before the same court in July 2020.

Meanwhile, in June 2018, a European executive ordered Luxembourg to recover 120 120 million from NG, questioning the dubious financial arrangements that allowed the French executive to avoid 99% tax. . In this case, the CJEU ruled against Luxembourg and the energy company that their dubious financial arrangements were, in the opinion of the judges, an unnecessary gain.