Since Unilever has already left, the fine will not apply to the Anglo-Dutch multinational, if the bill is ever adopted.
When it became clear last year that Unilever’s head office would not be coming to Rotterdam but going to London, Snells introduced the emergency law for “carriage penalty”. The proposal, which has been submitted to the international financial press, envisages that companies moving to a country without a profit tax (such as the UK) must first settle the lost profits tax with the Dutch tax authorities. Unilever has calculated that the “transport fine” will be €11 billion.
On waves of anger over then-Unilever President Paul Pullman’s attempts to repeal the dividend tax through Mark Rutte, a majority of House members supported it. The majority were, including the D66 and ChristenUnie, two parties now talking about a new government. But more than a year later, with a new room, Snels’ revolutionary plan still makes little headway.
Unilever paid by moving its headquarters to London last year despite an impending fine. This is because the bill, according to the multinational, conflicts with European law and various treaties. The State Council also suppressed the plan, but according to Snells, it did not get it properly.
law of emergency
Since it remains unclear when the bill will be debated by the House of Representatives, and whether the outgoing government will respond to it, it is not a responsibility to leave companies considering a relocation in the uncertainty of a possible transfer fine. Snells writes this on his last day as a Member of Parliament in a second amendment memorandum. Snels announced two weeks ago that he would be discontinuing GroenLinks’ membership of Parliament due to dissatisfaction with the cooperation with PvdA.
Removing retroactively would increase the chance of the Emergency Act being passed in the House and Senate – especially in the Senate, it is questionable whether there is a majority for it. Furthermore, the amendment may be important for potential lawsuits. According to experts, the transfer fine, if passed, could lead to years of legal action. Eumedion, a representative of large investors such as pension funds, is satisfied with the change, as it also reduces uncertainty for shareholders of the companies involved.
Unilever announced Wednesday that it has taken note of the amendment and is awaiting further developments. For Shell, the other large Anglo-Dutch multinational, the transfer fine may still play a role. The oil and gas giant is a British company headquartered in The Hague. This construction was chosen long ago because the dividend tax would be eliminated, CEO Ben van Beurden said last summer. Financial Times. Now that the cancellation process has not gone ahead, moving the head office is an “option,” according to Van Beurden. Shell did not feel compelled to respond to Wednesday’s transfer fine amendment.
