<p>Amazon scored a major legal victory on Wednesday when an EU court annulled an order from the bloc's powerful antitrust authority that Luxembourg recoup 250 million euros ($295 million) in back taxes.</p>.<p>The European Commission in 2017 accused Luxembourg of handing tax privileges to the internet retail giant that amounted to illegal state aid.</p>.<p>But the EU General Court found "no selective advantage" had been given to the firm by the small EU Duchy, a statement said.</p>.<p>The setback for the EU lands less than a year after iPhone maker Apple spectacularly won its appeal in the same court against the European Commission's blockbuster order in 2016 that Apple repay Ireland 13 billion euros.</p>.<p>French energy giant Engie meanwhile lost its appeal on Wednesday in the same court against a similar EU order to repay Luxembourg 120 million euros in taxes.</p>.<p>In that case, the EU's General Court said the commission did demonstrate a tax advantage by Luxembourg to the company.</p>.<p>The cases came in the wake of the 2014 LuxLeaks revelations that unearthed secret deals between Luxembourg and hundreds of companies guaranteeing super low tax bills.</p>.<p>In the Amazon case, in 2017 Europe's competition chief Margrethe Vestager Luxembourg of an illegal deal with the internet giant to pay less tax than other businesses.</p>.<p>In a statement, Amazon said "we welcome the Court's decision, which is in line with our long-standing position that we followed all applicable laws and that Amazon received no special treatment".</p>.<p>At the heart of the case was a violation of the so-called "arm's length principle", which for tax purposes is meant to ensure that transactions between subsidiaries are based on prices other companies would pay.</p>.<p>The court said that the EU's methods for calculating the advantage was "based on an analysis which is incorrect in several respects," the statement said.</p>.<p>The European Commission was not immediately available for comment, but it has previously said that win or lose its cases have had a positive effect, with international efforts currently under way to close tax loopholes.</p>.<p>In recent weeks, the United States has embraced the idea of a global minimum corporate tax that would make special deals offered to multinationals a thing of the past.</p>.<p>Talks are ongoing at the OECD to decide on the minimum tax that if confirmed would likely see higher taxes for US tech giants and other multinationals.</p>.<p>The EU has had trouble defending those decisions, losing against Apple, but also in its case against Starbucks.</p>.<p>The commission appealed the EU General Court's decision in the Apple case, which will now go to the EU's highest body, the European Court of Justice.</p>.<p>The lower court similarly struck down an order by Brussels that Starbucks pay 30 million euros in back taxes in the Netherlands, but upheld a decision against Fiat in Luxembourg.</p>
<p>Amazon scored a major legal victory on Wednesday when an EU court annulled an order from the bloc's powerful antitrust authority that Luxembourg recoup 250 million euros ($295 million) in back taxes.</p>.<p>The European Commission in 2017 accused Luxembourg of handing tax privileges to the internet retail giant that amounted to illegal state aid.</p>.<p>But the EU General Court found "no selective advantage" had been given to the firm by the small EU Duchy, a statement said.</p>.<p>The setback for the EU lands less than a year after iPhone maker Apple spectacularly won its appeal in the same court against the European Commission's blockbuster order in 2016 that Apple repay Ireland 13 billion euros.</p>.<p>French energy giant Engie meanwhile lost its appeal on Wednesday in the same court against a similar EU order to repay Luxembourg 120 million euros in taxes.</p>.<p>In that case, the EU's General Court said the commission did demonstrate a tax advantage by Luxembourg to the company.</p>.<p>The cases came in the wake of the 2014 LuxLeaks revelations that unearthed secret deals between Luxembourg and hundreds of companies guaranteeing super low tax bills.</p>.<p>In the Amazon case, in 2017 Europe's competition chief Margrethe Vestager Luxembourg of an illegal deal with the internet giant to pay less tax than other businesses.</p>.<p>In a statement, Amazon said "we welcome the Court's decision, which is in line with our long-standing position that we followed all applicable laws and that Amazon received no special treatment".</p>.<p>At the heart of the case was a violation of the so-called "arm's length principle", which for tax purposes is meant to ensure that transactions between subsidiaries are based on prices other companies would pay.</p>.<p>The court said that the EU's methods for calculating the advantage was "based on an analysis which is incorrect in several respects," the statement said.</p>.<p>The European Commission was not immediately available for comment, but it has previously said that win or lose its cases have had a positive effect, with international efforts currently under way to close tax loopholes.</p>.<p>In recent weeks, the United States has embraced the idea of a global minimum corporate tax that would make special deals offered to multinationals a thing of the past.</p>.<p>Talks are ongoing at the OECD to decide on the minimum tax that if confirmed would likely see higher taxes for US tech giants and other multinationals.</p>.<p>The EU has had trouble defending those decisions, losing against Apple, but also in its case against Starbucks.</p>.<p>The commission appealed the EU General Court's decision in the Apple case, which will now go to the EU's highest body, the European Court of Justice.</p>.<p>The lower court similarly struck down an order by Brussels that Starbucks pay 30 million euros in back taxes in the Netherlands, but upheld a decision against Fiat in Luxembourg.</p>