Former EU Commissioner Faces Fresh Scrutiny Over Uber Lobbying
Amsterdam, Monday 10 August 2026
New investigations reveal former EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes’s state-backed lobbying helped Uber secure a $5 billion tax benefit through controversial Dutch fiscal structures.
The StartupDelta Connection and the Dutch Gateway
The intersection of state-backed startup promotion and aggressive multinational tax planning has faced renewed scrutiny in August 2026 [1]. A fresh investigative report has highlighted the historical lobbying activities of Neelie Kroes, the former European Commissioner and Dutch startup envoy, who operated under the banner of ‘StartupDelta’—the Dutch government’s flagship initiative to promote its national tech ecosystem [1]. The revelations have ignited a fierce debate among Benelux innovation policy officials and venture stakeholders regarding the governance, transparency, and ethical boundaries of state-backed promotion agencies [1].
Lobbying Behind the Scenes During the Cooling-Off Period
Kroes, a prominent VVD politician who served as European Commissioner for Competition and later for the Digital Agenda under President Barroso, officially left Brussels in November 2014 [1]. Although she adhered to the mandatory 18-month cooling-off period before formally joining Uber in May 2016, investigations by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), known as the ‘Uber files’, revealed she was already acting as an intermediary [1]. Specifically, in August 2015, during her cooling-off period, Kroes facilitated contact between then-Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and Uber CEO Travis Kalanick [1]. This occurred despite her previous petition to then-President Jean-Claude Juncker to waive the cooling-off rules being denied [1].
The Silicon Valley Connection and Diplomatic Channels
Internal documents released via a Dutch Freedom of Information Act (WOB) request show that by November 2015, plans were underway for Prime Minister Rutte to visit Silicon Valley in late January 2016 [1]. Kroes was scheduled to attend as a representative of StartupDelta to coordinate high-level meetings, including a crucial session with Uber [1]. Critics argue that these state-backed channels were leveraged to help the ride-hailing giant secure highly lucrative fiscal advantages [1][2]. The Dutch state’s facilitation of these structures has raised questions about whether the country functioned as a tax haven to assist Silicon Valley firms in aggressively shifting profits [1].
Aggressive Tax Planning and the Singapore Loophole
Uber’s corporate architecture in the Netherlands utilizes a holding structure that shifts profits internationally to avoid global tax liabilities [1]. This includes a parent entity in Singapore and a Commanditaire Vennootschap (CV), a legal form that historically allowed for the concealment of investors [1]. Analysts argue that such a structure is highly unusual for a US-based firm unless designed specifically to obscure profit flows and achieve fiscal neutrality [1]. By offsetting its massive Dutch revenues with over €11 billion in annual “material costs”—despite owning no physical fleet of vehicles—Uber has historically minimised its local tax exposure [1]. Through these complex fiscal arrangements, Uber has managed to park a Deferred Tax Asset (DTA) in the Netherlands valued at approximately $5 billion, which is used to significantly lower its corporate profit tax liabilities [1][2].
Shifting Billions and Negative Tax Rates
This aggressive tax planning has yielded extraordinary financial outcomes as the company scales its global digital footprint. Uber’s global revenue grew from over $40 billion in 2024 to over $50 billion in 2025, representing an increase of 25% [1]. Half of this global revenue is reportedly booked through the Dutch holding company, pointing to a tax-driven structure rather than genuine local operational activity [1]. Remarkably, these fiscal arrangements have at times pushed Uber’s effective tax rate to nearly -150%, meaning that for every 100 units of profit, the firm effectively receives an additional 150 units, resulting in a total gain of 250 units [1].
Geopolitical Implications and State Accountability
The political ramifications of these arrangements extend beyond tech lobbying. Former Prime Minister Mark Rutte has faced allegations of facilitating these aggressive tax structures for multinationals, aided by figures like Kroes [1]. This sits alongside broader controversies regarding Dutch “asset protection” offerings [1]. For instance, in 2013, Rutte met with Vladimir Putin to discuss cooperation between Dutch firm DSM and the Russian state-owned arms manufacturer Rostec, led by Sergey Chemezov [1]. Furthermore, the Dutch embassy in Kyiv actively promoted the Netherlands as an asset protection destination for Ukrainian and Russian entities, including Rinat Akhmetov’s energy company DTEK, which bypassed EU sanctions imposed on individuals like Chemezov after the downing of flight MH17 [1]. As the tech sector continues to scale rapidly across SaaS, fintech, and AI, the role of national governments in regulating or facilitating these digital giants remains a central policy challenge [GPT].