Technically speaking, this special report is not part of the LuxLeaks case. It remains, however, a very serious case of tax avoidance (concerning one of the largest multinationals operating in Greece) and, as such, it is an important piece in the puzzle regarding multinationals that cost the Greek state hundreds of millions of euros in lost revenue.

However, the case of Eldorado reveals that, apart from Luxembourg, which is the tax haven par excellence in the heart of Europe, Holland is also the most important tax conduit on the continent – and perhaps the world. As we have seen, the basic tool of tax avoidance are mailbox companies.

The real similarity with LuxLeaks is this: Holland makes use of exactly the same tool used by Luxembourg, i.e tax rulings. The kind of deals dictated by PwC in Luxembourg on behalf of its clients.

According to SOMO preliminary findings, (page 54), it is highly likely there are Advanced Tax Rulings (ATR) or Advanced Price Agreements (ATA) between Eldorado and the Netherlands.

The official reason for such agreements and rulings is to provide certainty to the taxed company that the tax regime is clear and concise and not about to change. But, as we have already seen with the LuxLeaks case, in practice they provide certainty for corporate tax planning departments that their aggressive exploitation of legal loopholes are not challenged, and the complicity of the state that approves them. 

The European Commission has the same suspicion, although expressed in a somewhat elegant manner, that Holland is doing the same thing. In June 2014, the Commission announced the launch of an investigation against three countries that have issued tax rulings: Luxembourg, Ireland and the Netherlands.

The reason why the investigations were launched were three cases of tax avoidance by three large multinationals: Apple (Ireland), Starbucks (Holland) and Fiat Finance and Trade (Luxembourg).

In Luxembourg’s case it is well-known that in essence it did not comply with the Commission’s request as it delivered information on its tax practises but censored the names of the companies and the contentious terms of the agreements. Ireland did comply.

As far as Holland is concerned, although the Commission is speculating that it will not ‘encounter systematic irregularities in tax rulings’, in the case of Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA BV, the tax ruling ‘is providing that company with a selective advantage, because there are doubts whether it is in line with a market-based assessment of transfer pricing’.

In other words, the only Dutch tax ruling that we know of (due to investigative reporting) is problematic.

The reason why we cannot be categorically sure about the existence of Dutch tax rulings concerning Eldorado is simply because whilst authoritiesencourage companies to sign them, Dutch law does not oblige them to publish them in their financial statements. In other words, the existence and the content of these tax rulings are kept secret.

The real difference with Luxembourg’s tax rulings is that Holland’s rulings have not been leaked yet.