Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, in a written answer on 27 July 2026, defended the EU's existing anti-tax-avoidance framework as sufficient to address allegations that meat giant JBS used Luxembourg mailbox companies to avoid hundreds of millions in taxes, while stopping short of announcing new investigations or legislative proposals. The answer, which impacts multinational corporations, EU tax authorities, and civil society groups monitoring tax justice, reiterates that tax compliance is a national responsibility and points to existing EU directives as the primary tools to counter aggressive tax planning.
The response came to a parliamentary question from MEPs Tilly Metz, Thomas Waitz, Cristina Guarda, David Cormand, Rasmus Nordqvist, and Marie Toussaint (all Verts/ALE), who cited a January 2025 SOMO report alleging JBS avoided approximately USD 293 million in corporate income taxes and USD 148 million in withholding taxes through Luxembourg-based entities with little economic substance. The MEPs asked whether the Commission had assessed the evidence, initiated inquiries, or planned concrete measures to curb mailbox companies.
Hoekstra's answer contained no new concrete proposals, numerical targets, or deadlines. Instead, it reaffirmed the Commission's commitment to tackling cross-border tax avoidance and highlighted two existing directives: the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (2016/1164) and the Pillar Two Directive (2022/2523), which ensures a minimum effective tax rate for large multinational groups since 31 December 2023. Regarding Luxembourg specifically, Hoekstra noted that the Commission has issued country-specific recommendations on aggressive tax planning since 2019, with the 2025 recommendations targeting risks from outbound payments to low-tax jurisdictions.
the Commission sees the current legal framework as adequate and does not signal intent to launch new investigations or strengthen rules on withholding taxes or mailbox companies. Institutional follow-up is limited to maintaining an 'open and constructive dialogue' with the European Parliament, with no timeline or specific next steps provided. The answer may disappoint critics who sought a more assertive stance against perceived tax avoidance by large agri-food multinationals.