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

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring