Apple says EU exaggerates the importance of Ireland to its business
Apple continues to argue its appeal against the European Commission's $14.4 billion tax ruling, saying that the order was based on the erroneous idea that Ireland is key to Apple's strategic planning.
Apple's Irish headquarters
In a second day at the European Union General Court, Apple is continuing its appeal against a prior tax order, and concentrates on what it says is the erroneous basis for that judgement. The order required Apple to pay $14.4 billion in back taxes to Ireland, even though that country negotiated its tax rate with the company and is in court supporting Apple.
According to Reuters, Apple lawyer Daniel Beard continues to argue that Apple's business in Ireland is not significant.
Referring to Tim Cook's 2013 testimony on the matter in the US Senate, Beard acknowledged that Ireland was important, but said the EU was overestimating its significance.
"Yes, Apple CEO Tim Cook said there were decisions taken in Ireland," he said, "but not strategic decisions."
Beard and the legal team from Apple also criticized the European Commission for having refused Apple's offer to visit the company's operations in Ireland.
However, Paul-John Lowenthal, lawyer for the Commission rejected the claim. "What would a site visit accomplish?" he asked.
The European Union General Court is the second-highest authority in Europe, which means that whichever side loses this current appeal, the other is likely to take on to the EU Court of Justice.
Consequently, no final judgement is expected for some years, but it's also not the only similar case under review. European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager has also targeted other multinational corporations such as Starbucks and Amazon.
Apple's Irish headquarters
In a second day at the European Union General Court, Apple is continuing its appeal against a prior tax order, and concentrates on what it says is the erroneous basis for that judgement. The order required Apple to pay $14.4 billion in back taxes to Ireland, even though that country negotiated its tax rate with the company and is in court supporting Apple.
According to Reuters, Apple lawyer Daniel Beard continues to argue that Apple's business in Ireland is not significant.
Referring to Tim Cook's 2013 testimony on the matter in the US Senate, Beard acknowledged that Ireland was important, but said the EU was overestimating its significance.
"Yes, Apple CEO Tim Cook said there were decisions taken in Ireland," he said, "but not strategic decisions."
Beard and the legal team from Apple also criticized the European Commission for having refused Apple's offer to visit the company's operations in Ireland.
However, Paul-John Lowenthal, lawyer for the Commission rejected the claim. "What would a site visit accomplish?" he asked.
The European Union General Court is the second-highest authority in Europe, which means that whichever side loses this current appeal, the other is likely to take on to the EU Court of Justice.
Consequently, no final judgement is expected for some years, but it's also not the only similar case under review. European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager has also targeted other multinational corporations such as Starbucks and Amazon.
Comments
There must’ve been a huge incentive over usual hubs in Europe that Google too decided to locate their HQs in Europe to Ireland, Ireland isn’t really in the middle of action. But I hope that if this all along has been a tax haven loophole it gets closed, all profit in unpaid taxes get repaid.
As the article said, we’ll see in a couple of years what is the verdict, but currently doesn’t look like good practice has been followed.
So more a sideshow argument while avoiding reference to Apple's lightly-to-not-at-all-taxed subsidiaries who had nothing directly to do with minimal manufacturing of some Macs.
IMO the reason Apple has their only Apple-owned manufacturing plant in the world located in Cork is to use it as Irish tax shelter support for their worldwide profits. Without the tax avoidance made possible by the cost+ tax bill Apple arranged for manufacturing the 2 Irish financial subsidiaries would not have had cover.
2. Amazingly canny of Steve to predict, more than 30 years ahead of time, that Apple would need to "use" the manufacturing plant (which, as I say, was the major function of the Cork facility originally) as a "tax shelter" when he opened it in 1980. Of course, he always was ahead of his time ...LOL
My main problem with this whole sham trial is that a) there's no evidence that Apple knowingly entered into an illegal arrangement, conspiring with Ireland against the EU, that was not offered to other companies -- and b) that if there is fault here for an illegal tax-avoidance scheme, that blame would seem to fall 100 percent on the Irish government of 1980. So ... why is Apple on trial here?
Apple, like most companies, take advantage of loopholes in various countries' tax laws to lower their tax bill, entirely in line with their fiduciary responsibilities to do so. But neither Apple nor the other companies that have taken advantage of this wrote the loopholes, nor did they actually break any laws. So again ... how is Ireland not 100 percent to blame if the deal was retroactively ruled (10 years later) a "special deal," and why is Apple on trial?
Suppose you drew up a contract with a customer, but forgot to include service tax, even though you should have been required to.
Years later, somebody checks your books and discovers that legally, the contract should have included service tax. Does the law require the customer to pay that tax to you, retroactively, because it was actually a required part of the contract, or can you just forfeit it?