nike belastingontwijking | 'Nederland faciliteert belastingontwijking Nike'

Nike, the globally recognized sportswear giant, has long been under scrutiny for its tax practices, particularly its utilization of the Netherlands as a key hub for minimizing its tax burden. Numerous investigations and reports, including those by Dutch newspaper *Trouw*, have shone a light on the complex structures Nike employed to channel profits through the Netherlands, ultimately reducing its tax obligations significantly. This article delves into the intricacies of Nike's tax avoidance strategies in the Netherlands, exploring the mechanisms used, the role of Dutch tax laws, and the ethical and legal implications of such practices. We will examine the claims made by various sources, including *Trouw*, regarding the facilitation of tax avoidance by the Netherlands, the specific tax benefits Nike allegedly received, and the overall impact of these strategies on tax revenues and public perception.

The Dutch Connection: A Conduit for Profits

The Netherlands has a long-standing reputation as a favorable jurisdiction for multinational corporations seeking to optimize their tax positions. Its attractive tax regime, characterized by a wide network of tax treaties, allows companies to efficiently channel profits and royalties, minimizing their tax liabilities in higher-tax jurisdictions. Nike, like many other multinational corporations, strategically utilized the Netherlands to take advantage of these opportunities.

*Trouw* and other sources have highlighted that Nike's initial tax avoidance strategies involved routing profits through Bermuda, a well-known tax haven. However, as international scrutiny on tax havens intensified, Nike shifted its focus to the Netherlands. The Netherlands, while not a traditional tax haven, offered a sophisticated legal and tax infrastructure that allowed Nike to continue minimizing its tax burden in a legally compliant, albeit ethically questionable, manner.

The "Pure" Structure: A Key Element in Nike's Tax Strategy

Central to Nike's tax strategy in the Netherlands was the establishment of a holding company known as "Nike Innovate CV," often referred to as "Pure." This entity, structured as a commanditaire vennootschap (CV), or limited partnership, played a crucial role in channeling profits generated from Nike's intellectual property rights (IP).

The core principle behind this strategy revolves around the fact that IP rights, such as trademarks and patents, can be licensed to subsidiaries operating in various countries. These subsidiaries, in turn, pay royalties to the IP holding company (in this case, "Pure") for the right to use the IP. These royalty payments are then deductible expenses for the subsidiaries, reducing their taxable income in those countries.

By locating the IP holding company in the Netherlands, Nike was able to take advantage of the Dutch tax system's favorable treatment of royalty income. The Netherlands, in many cases, allows for a significant reduction in the tax rate applied to royalty income, effectively allowing Nike to shield a substantial portion of its profits from taxation.

*Trouw* specifically points out that the "Pure" structure enabled Nike to significantly reduce its tax burden in Europe. By funneling profits through the Netherlands as royalty payments, Nike's European subsidiaries could lower their taxable income, while the "Pure" entity in the Netherlands benefited from the country's favorable tax regime.

The Role of Advanced Tax Rulings (ATRs)

Another critical aspect of Nike's tax strategy involved obtaining Advanced Tax Rulings (ATRs) from the Dutch tax authorities. ATRs are agreements between a company and the tax authorities that provide clarity on how specific tax laws will be applied to the company's operations.

In Nike's case, the ATRs allegedly provided reassurance that the "Pure" structure would be recognized and accepted by the Dutch tax authorities. These rulings effectively gave Nike the green light to implement its tax avoidance strategy, knowing that it would not be challenged by the Dutch government.

Critics argue that these ATRs, while technically legal, allowed Nike to exploit loopholes in the Dutch tax system, ultimately depriving other countries of tax revenues that they were rightfully entitled to. The European Commission has also investigated similar ATR practices in other EU countries, arguing that they can constitute illegal state aid, giving multinational corporations an unfair advantage over smaller businesses that cannot afford to engage in such sophisticated tax planning.

The European Commission Investigation: State Aid Concernsnike belastingontwijking

The European Commission launched an investigation into Nike's tax arrangements in the Netherlands, focusing on whether the ATRs granted to the company constituted illegal state aid. The Commission's concern was that these rulings may have provided Nike with a selective advantage over other companies, distorting competition within the European Union.

The investigation focused on the tax treatment of royalty payments made by Nike's European headquarters to "Pure." The Commission argued that the Dutch tax authorities may have allowed Nike to artificially inflate the amount of royalty payments, thereby reducing its taxable income in the Netherlands.

While the investigation did not lead to a formal finding of illegal state aid, it did raise serious questions about the fairness and transparency of the Dutch tax system and its treatment of multinational corporations. The investigation also contributed to increased public awareness of the tax avoidance strategies employed by Nike and other large companies.

The Scale of Tax Avoidance: Billions at Stake

The exact amount of taxes avoided by Nike through its Dutch tax structures is difficult to quantify precisely. However, various reports and estimates suggest that the figure could be in the billions of euros.

*Trouw* reported that Nike had avoided billions of euros in taxes through its Dutch operations. This figure highlights the significant impact that these tax avoidance strategies can have on government revenues, potentially depriving public services of much-needed funding.