We are currently seeing an international push for the harmonisation of corporate taxation and to prevent tax avoidance. At times, it might be hard to draw a line between illegal tax avoidance and legal tax planning. Step over that line, and not only will you face potential tax consequences, but you will be certain to attract media attention. It is not only corporations that need to be awake, it is important for investors, too, to understand what kind of changes international legislation will bring in the long term.
14.9.2016
Controversial Directive Targets Common Tax Evasion Situations
Related services
International guidelines for preventing aggressive tax planning are already being drawn up in the OECD’s BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) project. However, the project is proving slow to reach the finish line, which has led the European Commission to draft the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive in record time, and a political understanding was reached on the new directive in June.
The Commission’s original goal for the directive was to weed out tax avoidance with strict statutes. The end result, however, is lighter than planned, and the directive has already been criticised as a compromise. The criticism is, in my view at least, premature. The implementation of the directive has only just started in Member States, and it is impossible to know how tight the various national requirements will end up being.
Taxation Situations Targeted by the Directive
National measures to implement the directive have begun in Finland, and new legislation is being drafted. The Commission’s directive deals with five issues generally associated with tax avoidance:
Faster Results through State Aid Regulations?
The directive sets a minimum level of regulation, which means that it is possible to enact even stricter national provisions. The goal of the Member States is on the one hand to secure their tax accrual while on the other hand remaining attractive destinations for investors. It will be interesting to see just how different Member States implement the directive.
Rather than rely on the directive, it seems to be easier for the Commission to intervene in aggressive tax planning via state aid regulations. The Commission has taken a heavy-handed approach in state aid cases involving multinational corporations. A recent example of this is the 13 billion euro back tax imposed by the Commission against Apple in Ireland. The amounts to be collected can be large when companies have acted in accordance with agreements made with or legislation enacted in individual Member States.
Latest insights
Article published 6.2.2026 – Tax & Structuring
Electricity sector Profit Tax Act in conflict with EU law – SAC denied leave to appeal
Article published 14.1.2026 – Tax & Structuring
VAT deductions for private equity investors under the microscope
Article published 16.12.2025 – Environment, Energy & Green Transition
Parliament approves substantial increases in tax on mined minerals
Article published 25.6.2025 – Tax & Structuring
Administrative Court ruling: the Profit Tax Act targeting electricity companies is in conflict with EU law
Janne Juusela & Mikko Alakare
Mikko Alakare & Lotta Manu
Tarja Pirinen, Mikko Alakare & Noora Ahonen
Janne Juusela, Mikko Alakare, Samuli Tarkiainen, Anette Laitinen, Noora Ahonen & Joakim Nivala
Latest references
Fingrid – Update of EMTN Programme
We advised Fingrid Oyj on the Finnish law aspects in the update of a EUR 3,000,000 Euro Medium Term Note programme (EMTN). Notes issued under the programme may be listed on the Irish Stock Exchange. Fingrid operates Finland’s main electricity transmission grid and all significant cross-border transmission connections. The main grid is the backbone of the electricity transmission network, to which major power plants, industrial plants and regional electricity distribution networks are connected.
Case published 17.3.2026
Prisma Properties – Sale and leaseback of ten grocery retail properties
We assisted Prisma Properties AB in a sale and leaseback arrangement with Kesko Oyj comprising ten grocery retail properties. The transaction value is approximately EUR 59 million, and the properties are located in Sastamala, Jyväskylä, Lappeenranta, Vihti, Oulu, Saarijärvi, Liminka, Imatra, Loviisa, and Eurajoki. As part of the arrangement, the properties were leased back to Kesko under lease agreements with a weighted average lease term of 11.6 years. The portfolio includes well-known store concepts such as K-Citymarket, K-Supermarket, and K-Market.
Case published 20.11.2025
Merger of Oomi and Lumme Energia
We are acting as the joint legal advisor to Oomi Oy and Lumme Energia Oy in a transaction whereby Lumme Energia will merge with Oomi. As from the completion of the merger, the combined entity will be the largest electricity retail and service company in the Finnish market. In 2024, Oomi reported a turnover of EUR 373.9 million and had approximately 110 employees. Lumme Energia’s turnover for the same year was approximately EUR 314.6 million and it had approximately 50 employees. The transaction is primarily driven by the recent developments in the electricity market and the strategic goal to develop competitive products and services. Another key objective is to further enhance the customer experience, which is a shared value between the two companies. As a result of the merger, Lumme Energia’s customers will transfer to Oomi, and Lumme Energia will become one of Oomi’s shareholders. The completion of the transaction is subject to an approval by the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority.
Case published 29.8.2025
Funders – EUR 665 million refinancing arrangement for Nevel
We acted as the Finnish legal counsel for the funders to Nevel Oy in a EUR 665 million refinancing arrangement through a mix of multicurrency bank loans and private placement notes. Nevel is a utility infrastructure company offering advanced industrial and real estate infrastructure solutions that are fit-for-purpose and future-proof. The transaction supports Nevel’s growth strategy and its goal to help customers to achieve climate goals.
Case published 20.8.2025