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

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring