In its second submission, Company A expanded upon its contention that captive insurance companies are not in a legally and factually comparable position to that of insurance companies providing services to unrelated companies, and that a differential tax treatment is justified, by making reference to the Commission’s decision concerning the Dutch Groepsrentebox scheme [10].3.2.
La société a renvoyé, à cet égard, à la décision de la Commission relative au régime fiscal Groepsrentebox adopté au Pays-Bas [10].3.2. Observations de la société B