I denne henseende skal det bemærkes, at de Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol i sin vurdering af skatteordningen for koordinationscentre, der er hjemmehørende i Belgien (se forenede sager C-182/03 og C-217/03, præmis 86 til 118), fastslog, at fast indkomstansættelse af koordinationscentrenes indkomst i henhold til »cost plus«-metoden udgør en økonomisk fordel som omhandlet i EF-traktatens artikel 87, og at »denne analyse hverken [ændres] af, at medtagelsen af de finansielle omkostninger i visse tilfælde kunne føre til et for højt beskatningsgrundlag, eller af størrelsen på den skattebyrde, som koncernen måtte bære, ligesom den ikke påvirkes af den omstændighed, at et center kan være blevet beskattet uden at have haft nogen fortjeneste.« Retten vurderede desuden, at koordinationscentrenes fritagelse for ejendomsskat udgjorde en økonomisk fordel for dem, samt at »den omstændighed, at mindre end 5 % af koordinationscentrene reelt nyder godt af fritagelsen, fordi alle de andre er lejere af den faste ejendom, hvor de udøver deres erhvervsmæssige aktiviteter, har ingen indvirkning på denne vurdering, da valget mellem at eje eller leje fast ejendom udelukkende foretages i henhold til de nævnte centres ønske.«
In this regard, it must be observed that, in its assessment of the tax regime for coordination centres established in Belgium (see Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03, paragraphs 86 to 118), the Court of Justice considered that the flat-rate assessment of income under the cost-plus method constitutes an economic advantage for the purposes of Article 87 of the EC Treaty and that ‘that analysis cannot be called into question either by the fact that the inclusion of the financial charges could, in some cases, lead to a tax base that was unduly high or by the scale of the tax burden that might be imposed on the group, nor can it be called into question by the fact that a centre may be taxed when it has not made any profits’. The Court further considered that the exemption from property tax in favour of coordination centres conferred an economic advantage on them and that ‘the fact that only 5 % of the coordination centres benefit from it in practice, as all the others hold their buildings under lease, does not affect that assessment, since the choice between owning a building and leasing it is a matter entirely at the discretion of the centres.’