First, Umicore explains that the tax inspectorate itself actually found the tax treaty to be more advantageous for the Ministry of Finance than the opening of a procedure whose final outcome seems less favourable. If, as in the present case, any person entitled to VAT has the possibility to challenge a corrective communication, to present his arguments before the authorities and to conclude with the authorities an agreement on his specific case, which does not involve a derogation from the law and which is limited, as is apparent from the evidence submitted, the measure is general and does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty. According to Belgium, the procedure applicable to Umicore is open to other undertakings and applies in the same way to all disputes. First of all, it should be noted that, unlike the period 1995-1996, the inspectors of the Special Tax Inspectorate themselves considered that they had not provided sufficient evidence to refuse the exemption. This is apparent from the internal memos sent by the inspectors to their director before and after the conclusion of the agreement. It should be recalled that the applicable Belgian administrative provisions stipulate that the conclusion of a transaction with the taxable person generally involves concessions on both sides. However, under Article 84 of the VAT Code, such statements are possible only in so far as they do not involve an exemption or reduction. Under this principle, a transaction cannot relate to the amount of tax resulting from established facts, but to facts. It is first necessary to examine whether the measure confers on the beneficiary an advantage which makes it possible to alleviate the costs normally borne by its budget (49). In the present case, the question is whether the disputed transaction was concluded unlawfully or on the basis of disproportionate concessions by the tax authorities. (42) Umicore cites the statistical data of the Special Tax Inspectorate according to which 22% of the additional VAT levied for turnover increases during the period 2000 to 2002 was determined on the basis of an agreement concluded with the taxable person. .
. .