United States — Conditional Tax Incentives for Large Civil Aircraft

 

Short title:	US — Tax Incentives
Complainant:	European Union
Respondent:	United States
Third Parties (original proceedings):	Brazil; China; India; Japan; Korea, Republic of; Russian Federation; Australia; Canada
Agreements cited: (as cited in request for consultations)	Art. 1, 2, 1.1(a)(1)(ii), 1.1(b), 3.1(b), 3.2, 2.3  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)
Agreements cited: (as cited in panel request)	Art. 1, 2, 1.1(a)(1)(ii), 1.1(b), 2.3, 3.1(b), 3.2, 4.7  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)
Consultations requested:	19 December 2014
Panel requested:	12 February 2015
Panel established:	23 February 2015
Panel composed:	22 April 2015
Panel report circulated:	28 November 2016
Appellate Body report circulated:	4 September 2017

 

Summary of the dispute to date

 

The summary below was up-to-date at 3 October 2017 

 

Consultations

 

Complaint by the European Union.

 

On 19 December 2014, the European Union requested consultations with the United States with respect to conditional tax incentives established by the State of Washington in relation to the development, manufacture, and sale of large civil aircraft.

 

The European Union alleges that the measures constitute specific subsidies within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement. The European Union also considers that the measures are prohibited subsidies that are inconsistent with Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.

 

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings

 

On 12 February 2015, the European Union requested the establishment of a panel.

 

At its meeting on 23 February 2015, the DSB established a panel. Brazil, China, India, Japan, Korea and the Russian Federation reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, Australia and Canada reserved their third-party rights.

 

On 13 April 2015, the European Union requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 22 April 2015, the Director-General composed the panel. On 29 September 2015, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that it estimated to issue its report within 12 months. On 23 September 2016, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the final report was to be circulated to all Members by the end of November 2016.

 

On 28 November 2016, the panel report was circulated to Members.

 

On 16 December 2016, the United States notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the panel report. On 17 January 2017, the European Union notified the DSB of its decision to cross-appeal.

 

On 3 March 2017, after the expiry of the 30-day period provided for in Article 4.9 of the SCM Agreement, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be able to circulate the Appellate Body report in this appeal by the end of the 30-day period, or within the 60 day timeframe provided for in Article 4.9 of the SCM Agreement. The Appellate Body referred to the scheduling of parallel appeals, shortage of staff in the Appellate Body Secretariat, and to particular aspects arising in this proceeding, including the time needed for adopting and complying with additional procedures to protect business confidential information, the consequent extensions of the deadlines for filing submissions, and overlapping issues identified by the participants in parallel proceedings. The Appellate Body also informed the DSB that the circulation date of the Appellate Body report in this appeal would be communicated to the participants and third participants in due course. On 31 August 2017, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that its report in this appeal would be circulated on 4 September 2017.

 

On 4 September 2017, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.

 

At its meeting on 22 September 2017, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.