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
Jolt Capital and Tesi – Investment in VEV
We advised Jolt Capital and Tesi in connection with their investment in VEV, a leading provider of commercial fleet electrification solutions. The investment, led by Jolt Capital with Tesi as co-investor, will support VEV’s next phase of growth and expansion across Europe. As part of the transaction, VEV became an independent company following the acquisition of Vitol’s stake in the business. Founded by Vitol, VEV provides integrated fleet electrification solutions combining fleet strategy, charging infrastructure, energy supply and operational services. Through its VEV IQ platform, the company supports more than 6,000 commercial electric vehicles across Europe and has been deployed across more than 600 sites spanning the transport, logistics and waste sectors. Jolt Capital is a private equity firm focused on growth investments in European deeptech companies. Tesi is a Finnish state-owned investment company that promotes Finnish business and economic growth through investments. We advised Jolt Capital and Tesi on the equity financing and structuring aspects of the transaction. International law firm Goodwin advised the investors on the acquisition of VEV.
Case published 10.9.2026
HANZA – Divestment of its Nivala and Sievi operations
We advised HANZA on the divestment of its Nivala and Sievi operations. The transaction was part of HANZA’s larger strategic reorganisation, where the company optimised its Finnish manufacturing cluster. Founded in 2008, HANZA is a Swedish mechanical engineering and electronics contract manufacturing company listed on the Nasdaq Stockholm main list. HANZA has approximately 5,000 employees and annual sales of SEK 10 billion.
Case published 3.9.2026
Kiwa – Acquisition of Sertio
We advised Kiwa in its acquisition of Sertio Oy, a Finnish notified body designated by the authority in accordance with the EU Regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDR). Sertio provides conformity assessment services in accordance with IVDR. Kiwa is one of the world’s leading testing, inspection, and certification companies, operating in over 35 countries.
Case published 7.5.2026
Metsäkonepalvelu – Acquisition of Junnonen Forest and the business operations of Lamerit
We advised Metsäkonepalvelu Oy in its acquisition of the entire share capital of Junnonen Forest Oy, a Finnish timber harvesting services company, and the timber harvesting services business of Lamerit Oy. The acquisition supports Metsäkonepalvelu’s growth strategy and strengthens the company’s position, particularly in southeastern Finland. Metsäkonepalvelu is a portfolio company of A. Ahlström Oy, a Finnish family-owned industrial owner. The company provides mechanical timber harvesting services to forest companies, large private forest owners, and the public sector in Finland and Sweden. Metsäkonepalvelu Group employs nearly two hundred forestry professionals.
Case published 6.5.2026