Short Reads

European Commission orders Ireland to recover illegal tax benefits worth up to €13 billion from Apple

European Commission orders Ireland to recover illegal tax benefits worth up to €13 billion from Apple

European Commission orders Ireland to recover illegal tax benefits worth up to €13 billion from Apple

03.10.2016 NL law

On 30 August 2016, the European Commission concluded that two tax rulings issued by Ireland in 1991 and 2007 to Apple constituted State aid. According to the Commission, these tax rulings have substantially and artificially lowered the tax paid by Apple in Ireland since 1991.

The legal presence of Apple in Europe consists of two Irish incorporated companies, namely Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe. The first company is responsible for buying Apple products from equipment manufacturers around the world and selling these products in Europe. The second company focuses on manufacturing certain lines of computers for the Apple group. 

After an in-depth investigation which started in June 2014, the Commission concluded that the two tax rulings gave Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe a selective advantage. This means that other undertakings, which were in the same factual and legal circumstances, did not enjoy the same benefits as these companies. The Commission considered that Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe were allowed, due to these rulings, to allocate their profits to their "head office". The head office was not subject to tax in any country under specific provisions of the Irish tax law and existed 'only on paper' as it did not have any employees or own premises. The Commission stressed that tax rulings as such are perfectly legal. However, it was of the opinion that the tax rulings issued by Ireland endorsed an 'artificial internal allocation of profits' within Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe. In particular, it held that this allocation had 'no factual or economic justification' as only the Irish branch of Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe had the capacity to generate income. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the sales profits of these companies should have been taxed in Ireland. The rulings endorsed a way to establish the taxable profits which did not correspond to economic reality according to the Commission.

The Commission ordered Ireland to recover the illegal State aid received by Apple as a result of the two tax rulings between 2003 and 2013. The Commission can only order the recovery of illegal State aid granted ten years before its first request for information on the matter. In this case this first request was made in 2013.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of October 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice ends Pilkington's fight against fine in the car glass cartel
  2. General Court upholds Commission's decision that reverse payment settlements constitute a 'by object' infringement
  3. European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda
  4. European Commission orders Ireland to recover illegal tax benefits worth up to €13 billion from Apple
  5. Commission publishes Preliminary Report on the e-commerce sector inquiry
  6. Brussels Court of Appeal confirms interim measures against exclusive TV broadcasting rights

Team

Related news

10.10.2018 NL law
Ongevraagd advies Raad van State: normering van geautomatiseerde overheidsbesluitvorming

Short Reads - Op 31 augustus 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna: "Afdeling advisering") een 'Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen' betreffende de positie en de bescherming van de burger tegen een "iOverheid" uitgebracht. Het gebeurt niet vaak dat de Afdeling advisering zo een ongevraagd advies uitbrengt. Dit onderstreept het belang van de voortdurend in ontwikkeling zijnde technologie en digitalisering in relatie tot de verhouding tussen de overheid en de maatschappij.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

Short Reads - On 7 September 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the UK Competition and Market Authority's (CMA) decision fining Ping Europe Limited, a manufacturer of golf clubs, for violating EU and UK competition law by prohibiting two UK retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online. While the CAT reduced the fine from £1.45 million to £1.25 million, it confirmed that outright online sales bans in the context of selective distribution agreements are restrictive of competition by object.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

Short Reads - On 26 September 2018, the European Court of Justice partially set aside the judgment of the General Court in the smart card chips cartel case. Infineon had argued that the General Court wrongfully assessed only five out of eleven allegedly unlawful contacts. The Court agreed with Infineon insofar as its argument related to the amount of the fine imposed. Philips had also appealed the General Court judgment but that appeal was dismissed in its entirety meaning that the Court of Justice upheld the European Commission's decision and fine.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

Short Reads - On 3 September 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) annulled the market analysis decision regarding 24-hour business mail issued by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) on 27 July 2017. In appeal proceedings filed by PostNL, the CBb ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate that digital mail was not part of the relevant market for 24-hour business mail.

Read more

26.09.2018 EU law
Algemene bepalingen inzake oneerlijke handelspraktijken wijken voor specifiekere regelgeving

Articles - In geval van strijdigheid tussen de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken[1] (en bij uitbreiding de omzettingsbepalingen in Boek VI WER) en andere Europeesrechtelijke voorschriften betreffende specifieke aspecten van oneerlijke handelspraktijken, hebben deze laatste voorrang (zie artikel 3, lid 4 van de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken). Dat dit tot interessante discussies kan leiden, bleek uit een recent arrest van het Hof van Justitie[2].

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring