Danish Ports
Member login

Audible response

Consultation response to proposed amendments to the Corporation Tax Act, the Bankruptcy Tax Act, and the Tax Assessment Act (Repeal of tax exemption for certain ports) – ref. no. 2023-7800

On November 21, 2025, the Ministry of Taxation sent the above-mentioned draft (hereinafter referred to as "the proposal") to Danske Havne with a request for comments.

The purpose of the proposal is to repeal the current rules on tax exemption for Danish ports as a result of the European Commission's state aid investigation into the tax treatment of ports, which in several EU countries, including Denmark, were either tax-exempt or subject to low taxation.

Danske Havne has reviewed the proposal and will now present its comments on the proposal.

1. General comments

    Entry into force of legislation
    Danske Havne notes that, according to section 4(1) and (2), the bill is proposed to enter into force on July 1, 2026, with effect for income years beginning on or after July 1, 2026.

    Furthermore, it appears from the proposed provision in section 3(10), seventh sentence, of the Corporation Tax Act that:

    "If the amount limit in paragraph 1 is exceeded, the port becomes taxable under section 1 with effect from the beginning of the income year in which the amount limit is exceeded."

    At the same time, it appears from the comments on the bill, page 31, that:

    It should be noted that the aid would be considered to have been granted at the time when the port should have submitted the information form in accordance with the general provisions of the Tax Control Act if the port had been liable for tax in the income year to which the information relates.

    For a port whose tax year follows the calendar year, this would mean, for example, that the aid associated with tax exemption in the 2027 income year would have to be considered as granted on June 30, 2028, which would be the deadline for disclosure under Section 12(1) of the Tax Control Act if the port had been liable for tax. When assessing whether aid in the form of tax exemption in the 2027 income year can be granted on June 30, 2028, without exceeding the de minimis ceiling, other de minimis aid granted in the period from July 1, 2025, must therefore be taken into account.

    The Ministry of Taxation is requested to confirm our understanding that ports that exceed the de minimis threshold on June 30, 2028, and use the calendar year as their tax year will become liable for tax on January 1, 2027.

    If the answer to the above question is affirmative, we would also suggest that the Ministry of Taxation clarify the wording in the comments on page 31 of the bill, including incorporating any consequences of postponing the deadline for providing information:

    "(...) For a port whose tax year follows the calendar year, it would mean, for example, that the aid associated with tax exemption in the 2027 income year would have to be considered as granted on June 30, 2028, which would be the reporting deadline under Section 12(1) of the Tax Control Act if the port had been taxable. When assessing whether aid in the form of tax exemption in the 2027 income year can be granted on June 30, 2028, without exceeding the de minimis ceiling, other de minimis aid granted in the period from July 1, 2025, onwards will therefore have to be taken into account."

    Time of assessment of whether de minimis aid is exceeded
    Danske Havne understands that the assessment of whether a port has received aid exceeding the de minimis ceiling is based on a rolling period of three years. According to section 4(1) and (2) of the bill, the law will enter into force on July 1, 2026, and will apply to income years beginning on or after July 1, 2026. However, Danske Havne is concerned that the legislation will in fact have retroactive effect, as it is stated in the comments to section 1(5) (page 31, third paragraph of the bill) that other de minimis aid dating back to July 1, 2025, must be taken into account when assessing the aid.

    The Ministry of Taxation is also requested to consider the following examples:

    Example A
    Company A uses the calendar year as its tax year. Company A receives other state aid that is not granted under a block exemption scheme or for other eligible purposes as follows:

    • October 1, 2025: EUR +100,000
    • October 1, 2026: EUR +100,000
    • June 30, 2028: EUR +110,000 (based on the result after a financial statement prepared in accordance with the rules of the Danish Financial Statements Act for the calendar year 2027)

    For the sake of good order, Danske Havne asks the Ministry of Taxation to state in which income year Company A will become liable for tax.

    Example B
    Company B has received the same aid for the calendar years 2025 and 2026 as Company A in Example A above. For the calendar year 2027, Company B has a result according to financial statements prepared in accordance with the rules of the Danish Financial Statements Act, where the tax value amounts to EUR 50,000. In the calendar year 2027, Company B has also received other state aid that has not been granted in relation to a block exemption scheme or other eligible purpose, and the aid amounts to EUR 60,000.

    For the sake of good order, Danish Ports requests that the Ministry of Taxation specify in which income year Company B will become liable for tax.

    Example C
    Company C has received the same aid for the calendar years 2025 and 2026 as Company A in Example A above. For the calendar year 2027, Company C has a result according to financial statements prepared in accordance with the rules of the Danish Financial Statements Act, where the tax value amounts to EUR 50,000. On April 1, 2028, Company C received other state aid that was not granted under a block exemption scheme or for any other eligible purpose, and the aid was calculated at EUR 60,000.

    For the sake of good order, Danske Havne asks the Ministry of Taxation to state in which income year Company C will become liable for tax.

    Example D
    Company D has a result after a financial statement prepared in accordance with the rules of the Danish Financial Statements Act of EUR 0 for the calendar years 2025–2027. At the same time, Company D has received other state aid that has not been granted in relation to a block exemption scheme or other eligible purpose. The aid exceeds the de minimis ceiling for the years in question.

    It is Danske Havne's understanding that the company will not become liable for tax, as it has no tax payable in the relevant income years. Will the Ministry of Taxation confirm this?

    Danske Havne finds it inappropriate that ports that become liable for tax with effect from January 1, 2027, due to exceeding the de minimisThis will undoubtedly result in additional costs for the ports in the form of residual tax surcharges. Danish Ports would like to receive comments from the Ministry of Taxation on this matter. Danish Ports would like to hear the Ministry of Taxation's comments on this matter.

    Facilities/assets that are specific to ports due to their nature
    As the Ministry of Taxation is aware, ports own infrastructure in the form of a number of special assets that are specific to the activities in which the ports are engaged. Danske Havne welcomes the Ministry of Taxation's efforts to determine the tax base values for these assets. There are a number of these special assets – e.g. navigation channels/fairways that the port has had excavated, straightened, and deepened (often on land that the port does not own), dredging, etc. of the port/basins, etc., but these assets are absolutely central to the ports in terms of enabling them to carry out their activities, which is why Danske Havne proposes that these assets be included as part of the infrastructure assets listed in the bill.

    Calculation of tax base values
    Danske Havne wishes to ensure as smooth a transition to tax liability as possible for the ports –including that the consideration shown by the Ministry of Taxation in relation to the determination of tax base values allows the ports, to the greatest extent possible, to use limited resources, apply a simplified method, and avoid subsequent discussions with the tax authorities. Danske Havne therefore proposes that ports also be allowed to use book values as tax entry values, see below.

    Interaction with the provisions of the Ports Act
    Danske Havne notes that the bill does not simultaneously propose an amendment to the Ports Act. The tax exemption of ports has traditionally been justified partly by the ports' role as administrators of (critical) port infrastructure and partly by the fact that, under section 5 of the Ports Act, ports are subject to a so-called obligation to receive ships. Today, ports are also subject to a number of restrictions on their commercial port activities. The restrictions are primarily intended to prevent ports from exploiting the advantage of their corporate tax exemption in competition with private operators inside and outside the port.

    The Port Act thus lists in § 6a, subsection 1, § 9, subsection 5 (self-governing ports) and § 10, subsection 3 (joint-stock ports) the port activities that ports may engage in. It is therefore not immediately possible for ports to engage in activities other than those listed.

    Under Section 9(6) (autonomous ports) and Section 10(4) (joint-stock ports), ports have the option of carrying out a number of additional port activities. However, these options are limited by whether private operators already carry out the activity in question or wish to do so in the future, and at the same time, the option is subject to the requirement that the activity must, among other things, be separated into an independent, taxable company.

    The limited opportunities for port activities and the restrictions on carrying out additional commercial activities have, as stated, been primarily justified by the ports' tax exemption. Thus, the bill in the 2012 revision of the Ports Act stated that

    The Ministry of Transport has emphasized that the new activities that municipal self-governing ports and municipal joint-stock ports can engage in must be conducted in such a way that they do not distort competition in relation to private operators.

    With the transition to compulsory taxation, ports will no longer have a competitive advantage, but will continue to be subject to the obligation to manage port areas and receive ships, while also remaining subject to restrictions on their commercial port activities. Overall, the bill puts ports in a worse position than they are in today. Danske Havne finds this regrettable.

    One of the recommendations (No. 15) from the Ministry of Transport's Port Partnership was that the regulatory framework for port-related activities should be evaluated and updated to ensure that the Port Act is up to date and future-proof, so that it supports the development of both existing and new green technologies. Danish Ports supports the recommendation and points out that with the transition to compulsory taxation, it is important to ensure that ports have a modern framework for their activities.

    Danske Havne therefore calls for the Port Act to be revised as soon as possible so that ports are at least able to carry out the port activities already permitted under the Port Act, but without the additional terms and conditions that apply today but which are no longer relevant to maintain in order to avoid distortion of competition when ports become taxable. Otherwise, ports will in future have to operate in a competitive market with full tax liability and one hand tied behind their backs for commercial activities. Similarly, according to Section 6a(2) of the Ports Act, any land acquired by the port at a distance from the port area (so-called dry ports) must be placed in an independent, taxable company. Here, too, the Minister of Transport's justification in the bill states that the separation was intended to prevent distortion of competition.

    For competitive reasons, the acquisition and operation of land that is not adjacent to the port's existing land, as well as the port's activities on this land, must be separated into an independent, taxable limited liability company in order to avoid cross-subsidization and create transparency for users.

    It will be a considerable administrative burden for ports that certain port activities and port areas must continue to be separated into independent subsidiaries when the consideration of ensuring taxation of the port activity/area in question no longer applies, as taxation of the port activity/area will also take place in the port itself.

    Fair competition
    Taxation increases the costs of maritime transport and distorts competition. Danske Havne requests an analysis of how the proposed tax rules compare with Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Germany, all of which are alternatives for transshipment of Danish imports and exports.


    In connection with the transition to tax liability for former sectors (e.g., water and wastewater supply companies), a special provision was introduced in the Merger Tax Act (for water and wastewater supply companies, section 14 l) of the Merger Tax Act), which allowed water and wastewater supply companies covered by Section 1(1)(2)(h) of the Corporation Tax Act to be converted into public limited companies tax-free, as these supply companies could be organized in different ways.

    Danske Havne calls for the inclusion of a similar provision concerning ports that will become taxable as a result of the proposal, whereby, for example, taxable ports operated by municipalities and thus presumed to be taxable under the proposed provision in section 1(1)(2)(j) of the Corporation Tax Act no. 2 j, can be converted into public limited companies free of tax in accordance with the rules of the Merger Tax Act, so that the ports will in future be able to adapt to whatever developments may be required for the individual port without this having negative tax consequences.

    2. Technical remarks

    Comments on section 1(6) of the bill (new provision in section 5 D(8) of the Corporation Tax Act)
    It appears from section 2.1.3 of the bill, The proposed scheme (p. 17, first paragraph), that:

    "The proposed scheme will apply regardless of whether the individual infrastructure asset is depreciated in accordance with the rules on depreciation of operating assets in the Depreciation Act or in accordance with the rules on depreciation of buildings and installations."

    It is Danske Havne's understanding that the definition of infrastructure assets in the bill in this context is only relevant when calculating the initial values of the assets listed in the provision, which, upon transition to tax liability, may apply written-down replacement values. Danske Havne further believes that a separate assessment must still be made in accordance with the rules of the Depreciation Act to determine the rates at which the individual assets are to be depreciated – including that the bill does not intend to extend the infrastructure facilities covered by section 5 C(2) of the Depreciation Act.

    The Ministry of Taxation is kindly requested to confirm that this understanding is correct.

    The definition of infrastructure assets in the proposed provision in section 5 D(8), second sentence, of the Corporation Tax Act
    It is proposed that:

    "Infrastructure assets include piers, quays, basins, breakwaters, roads and squares, docks, fixed silos, flat silos, storage areas, railway parts (ballast, sleepers, rails, signaling systems, remote control systems, masts, and overhead lines), access ramps, driving facilities, large harbor cranes, large tanks for oil, gas, etc., and similar assetsused for port operations.  

    It also appears from the bill under section 2.1.3 The proposed scheme (p. 15, last paragraph, and p. 16, top paragraph) that:

    (…) These assets are characterized by being facilities/assets which, by their nature, are specific to ports and/or not directly comparable with the facilities/assets of other companies, so that determining a market price must be considered to involve a particularly high degree of uncertainty.

    and

    (…) For assets not included in the list of infrastructure assets, ports will have to use the market value of the assets as the tax base. This will apply, for example, to warehouses, packing houses, terminal, office, and production buildings, small cranes and lifting equipment, trucks, forklifts, trainsets, fences, fixtures, small silos, etc.

    Danske Havne notes that the special classification of assets is due to the unique nature of assets for ports, which are not comparable to other companies' facilities or assets and where the calculation of the fair value of these assets is considered to be associated with a particularly high degree of uncertainty.

    Danske Havne acknowledges the consideration shown by the Ministry of Taxation, as a valuation based on market value would be extremely burdensome for the ports.

    However, Danske Havne believes that it is inappropriate for the list of assets to be so narrow and, furthermore, to give rise to ambiguities, which could potentially lead to unnecessary discussions with the Danish Tax Agency about the basis for the valuation of individual assets.

    In this connection, Danske Havne proposes that, as a minimum, rockfill, shore power facilities, batteries for electricity storage, waste facilities, flood defences, ship waste reception facilities, electricity/pipelines, warehouses and storage halls, foam extinguishing systems, and the excavation, straightening and deepening of navigation channels/fairways be added to the list or enumeration in the provision.

    Infrastructure changes over time, so it is important to find a method that ensures that changes in infrastructure related to normal port operations do not lead to lengthy negotiations with the Danish Tax Agency regarding valuation.

    Danske Havne is therefore concerned that the current wording will create uncertainty about which assets are covered, and thus also potentially give rise to disagreements with the Danish Tax Agency in the future.

    The written-down disposal values of the assets pursuant to section 5 D(8) of the Corporation Tax Act first sentence
    Danske Havne considers it positive that the Ministry of Taxation has proposed in the bill to determine the market value of assets which, due to their special nature, cannot be valued on a free market, and that an alternative calculation method is proposed for these "infrastructure assets."

    However, Danske Havne is concerned about the proposed model for calculating the written-down replacement values of "infrastructure assets," as this model, like the determination of market values, may lead to inappropriate discussions about the basis for valuation. Furthermore, the calculations will be very complex, which could entail significant costs and be resource-intensive for the ports to carry out, as in practice it will mean recalculating the acquisition cost of all relevant facilities at the port. In addition, such a calculation will still be subject to review by the Danish Tax Agency. Danske Havne is also generally uncertain as to how the Ministry of Taxation believes that a written-down replacement value should be calculated.

    Danske Havne proposes that the Ministry of Taxation prepare calculation examples showing how a written-down replacement value for an infrastructure asset, cf. the proposed provision in section 5 D(8), first sentence, of the Corporation Tax Act, should be calculated based on objective criteria, so that unrelated parties will arrive at the same result.

    Tax base value based on book values
    It should be noted that the definition of "infrastructure assets" is based on whether the asset is directly comparable to other companies' facilities/assets. Danske Havne notes that a number of assets, such as machinery and equipment, which will also be port-related equipment, will not be covered by the term "infrastructure assets" based on the proposed wording, even though there is no separate market that can form the basis for calculating the market value. When such an asset is not considered an infrastructure asset, the basis for depreciation of such an asset cannot be calculated at depreciated replacement value in accordance with the bill. Determining a market price for these assets must therefore be considered to involve a particularly high degree of uncertainty, regardless of whether the asset is an infrastructure facility in the narrow sense.

    Danske Havne therefore questions why it is assumed that only "infrastructure assets" have characteristics that cause uncertainty about the trading price and urges the Ministry of Taxation to consider whether a special provision should also be introduced that allows ports to choose book values as tax base values for assets that are not infrastructure assets pursuant to section 5 D(8) of the Corporation Tax Act, and that these book values be based on the port's audited financial statements as of December 31, 2026, cf. also the principle in SKM2021.585 SR, question 3.

    Interaction with the provisions of the Depreciation Act
    Danske Havne notes that the already difficult assessment under section 5 D of the Corporation Tax Act (8) of the Corporation Tax Act may be further complicated when a new assessment must subsequently be made in accordance with the rules of the Depreciation Act for assets classified as "infrastructure assets" under section 5 D (8) of the Corporation Tax Act, but based on other criteria. Against this background, it is proposed that the Ministry of Taxation prepare a schedule of the most typical port-specific assets, specifying the provision and depreciation rate to be applied to the assets in question under the rules of the Depreciation Act. Without such an overview, there is likely to be considerable uncertainty as to which assets are considered infrastructure facilities, real estate, long-life operating assets, etc. under the rules of the Depreciation Act, which may lead to unintended disputes about the basis for depreciation in the future.

    The Ministry of Taxation is requested, as a minimum, to prepare an overview of the depreciation rates/groups according to which infrastructure assets are depreciated under section 5 D(8) of the Corporation Tax Act, in accordance with the rules of the Depreciation Act, including:

    • moles
    • quay facility
    • basins
    • bulwark
    • roads
    • seats
    • doll
    • silos
    • flat silos
    • storage areas
    • railway parts (ballast, sleepers, rails, signaling systems, remote control systems, masts, and overhead lines)
    • access ramps
    • driving range,
    • harbor cranes,
    • tanks for oil and gas, etc.

    In the event of stone throwing, etc., cf. Danske Havne's comment above in the section The definition of infrastructure assets in the proposed provision in section 5 D(8), second paragraph, of the Corporation Tax Actm is added to the text of the Act, Danske Havne also requests that the Ministry of Taxation add these assets to the overview.

    The Ministry of Taxation should also consider whether certain ancillary assets specific to ports will be eligible for depreciation under, for example, section 14(3) of the Depreciation Act.

    Examples include special excavations physically located at the port for the purpose of storing, for example, ship waste, a ship waste reception facility located in direct connection with commercially used ships, or certain harbor channels/excavations, etc., that are used/exploited exclusively by commercially depreciable ships.

    Danske Havne also requests confirmation from the Ministry of Taxation that a port that becomes taxable and applies market values to all of the port's assets will be able to allocate a tax base value to the port's intangible assets/rights (depreciable goodwill) provided that the valuation shows that the port activity will be able to generate a significant profit in the future.

    Deductions for historical civil servant obligations
    In Danske Havne's opinion, special consideration should be given to the tax treatment of historical civil servant obligations that arose before the port companies became liable for tax. Reference can be made to SKM2021.232.SR, where a heating company had taken over uncovered civil servant pension obligations upon transition to tax liability. The case also refers to the special provision in section 7 Z of the Tax Assessment Act, which means that water and wastewater supply companies do not have to include income to cover civil servant pension obligations when calculating taxable income. In the case, the Tax Council ruled that the heating company had to include the amounts collected on behalf of the municipality in its taxable income without at the same time obtaining a deduction for the expenses. This resulted in asymmetric taxation to the disadvantage of the company that became liable for tax. The issue is also relevant for port companies that enter into or are subject to such cooperation with municipalities in accordance with established practice.


    Properties Under current legislation, buildings and installations must be valued at their market value at the time of transition to tax liability, in accordance with section 5 D, subsections 3 and 4, of the Corporation Tax Act.

    As with the assets discussed above, Danske Havne sees considerable uncertainty regarding the calculation of property values at the ports, including buildings in particular, due to the special restrictions to which the ports are subject under sections 6 and 6a of the Danish Ports Act, which will have a significant impact on the market value.

    Experience with valuation under the new property tax system has shown that valuing logistics properties in port areas is extremely complex. Danske Havne fears that the proposal presented contains the same complexity, but here the ports are required to perform this costly task.