It was recently claimed in the press that the petroleum giant, Royal Dutch Shell plc, had avoided up to 7 billion euros in Dutch withholding tax since 2005–06. It has also been reported that Dutch MEP, Paul Tang, was intent on referring the case to the European Commission and that Dutch Green MP, Jesse Klaver, urged the Dutch parliament to investigate the arrangements.    

Before considering whether the claims have any merit it is necessary to turn back the clock to 2005 when the two operating limbs of the Shell group were brought under one central holding company. The U.K. limb being The Shell Transport and Trading Company plc (“STTC”), the Dutch arm being Royal Dutch Petroleum Company NV (“RDPC”). By way of corporate reorganization, these two companies were brought under the common ownership of a new U.K. incorporated but Dutch tax resident company, namely Royal Dutch Shell plc (“RDS”) on July 20, 2005.

In brief, the reorganization was structured as follows:

  • RDPC shareholders received 2 RDS A shares for each RDPC share they held
  • STTC shareholders received 0.287 RDS B shares for each STTC share they held.

Prior to the reorganization, shareholders in STTC would receive dividends without deduction of U.K. withholding tax (“WHT”), since the U.K. does not impose WHT under its domestic laws. By contrast, shareholders in RDPC would be subject to Dutch withholding tax at the rate of 15 percent as reduced by a relevant double tax convention (“DTC”).

Following the reorganization, dividends paid by RDS to nonresident shareholders are liable to Dutch withholding tax since RDS is resident for tax purposes in the Netherlands. This is an adverse effect for the former STTC shareholders who would previously have not been liable to WHT from a U.K. company.

The answer to this problem was in the form of the so-called Dividend Access Share (“DAS”) and the Dividend Access Mechanism (“DAM”) which was approved by the Dutch Ministry of Finance in the form of rulings issued on October 26, 2004, April 25, 2005 and April 9, 2015.

As noted above, dividends paid by RDS are Dutch source and subject to 15 percent Dutch withholding tax, whereas dividends paid by STTC are not liable to U.K. withholding tax. However, since the reorganization only RDS pays dividends on the A and B class shares. To mitigate the Dutch withholding tax, STTC issued a DAS that is held on trust by trustees in the Channel Islands for the benefit of the RDS B shareholders. The DAM operates as follows:

  • upon RDS announcing a dividend of the B shares, the board of STTC simultaneously elects to declare and pay a dividend on the DAS;
  • such DAS dividend is paid to the trustee and, being U.K. source, is not subject to any withholding tax;
  • the RDS B shareholders are beneficially entitled to receive their share of the DAS dividend per the trust arrangement; and
  • the amount of the dividend paid on the DAS is netted off against what the RDS B Shareholder would have otherwise have received (i.e. they don’t get two bites of the cherry!).

Since the implementation of the DAS and DAM in 2005, it is reported that 45 billion euros of dividends have been paid via this arrangement, saving 7 billion euros in Dutch withholding tax. The question arises whether those claiming the Dutch parliament and the European Commission should launch a formal investigation have a leg to stand on.

The Commission has instigated numerous State Aid investigations in the past 24 months, with high profile targets such as McDonalds, Apple, Fiat and so on firmly in the crosshairs of Margrethe Vestager.

For a measure to constitute state aid it must have the following hallmarks, as prescribed by case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘‘CJEU’’) and the General Court:

  • it is provided by a Member State and financed through state resources (i.e., intervention by the Member State that departs from the norm);
  • an economic advantage is provided to an undertaking;
  • it is selective in favor of a particular undertaking, category of undertakings or category of goods; and
  • it distorts or threatens to distort competition and affects trade between Member States—this is assumed to be the result where intervention, economic advantage and selection exist.

We will need to see the ruling obtained from the Ministry of Finance in order to say whether the arrangement amounts to state aid. However, unless the ruling provides for beneficial treatment for RDS, Commissioner Vestager will have to look elsewhere for her next headline. What is clear is that the Dutch state granted the ruling to give RDS certainty as regards its obligation to withhold tax on dividends paid to its shareholders.

This article was published in Bloomberg BNA

Reproduced with permission from Copyright 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033)

July 30, 2018


Posted by Miles

Miles is a founder of Milestone having started his career in international tax in 1994.

Read More All Posts By Miles Dean

More From the Blog

  • You’re Winding Me Up!


    Phoenix from the flames In 2016, new rules were introduced to stop a type of “phoenixism”. Not the old sort that really got HMRC’s goat where someone would pay all their debtors but HMRC and then brazenly put their company down only to start trading again (often with a slightly different name). The 2016 rules […]

  • Judicial review applications against HMRC – 1 November 2018


    The past couple of years has seen a noticeable increase in the number of Judicial Review (JR) applications being made against HMRC. The majority of these have been in relation to HMRC using its new powers to issue the various types of notices to enforce payment ahead of a taxpayer’s case being heard by the Tribunal. This article looks at some of the leading applications and how the Courts are cutting HMRC a lot of slack when it comes to their actions.

  • Just a thought… – 1 November 2018


    The news that Marcelo, the Real Madrid footballer, pleaded guilty to defrauding the Spanish state of €490,000 and received a fine of €750,000 and a suspended jail sentence of four months won’t come as a surprise to those that have been following the Spanish Tax Administration’s (AEAT) raid on footballers over recent years. Like many before him, Marcelo had used a non-Spanish company to exploit his image rights with the income not being taxable in Spain.