Apple may have to give up $14B escrow account to satisfy EU court on Tuesday

Posted:
in General Discussion edited September 8

The European Union will issue a ruling on a decades-long dispute over a 2004 tax deal between its own Commission, Ireland, and iPhone maker Apple. At stake is at least $14.5 billion in back taxes.

White building with a large blue Apple logo on a sign, indicating directions for Main Entrance and Deliveries. The background includes trees and a partly cloudy sky.
Apple's European headquarters, located in Cork, Ireland.



The court case has ramifications for Apple for much of its global business, as the headquarters in Cork, Ireland is Apple's headquarters for all of its non-US commerce. Apple and Ireland are fighting the EU over the legality of the tax deal the country made with Apple in 2004.

Back then, Ireland made a 10-year tax deal with Apple that allowed the company to set up two subsidiaries within the same company, rather than two completely separate companies, to take advantage of a tax loophole. Ireland had previously had an existing tax haven known as the "Double Irish," where foreign companies could set up two subsidiary companies in Ireland to handle different aspects of the main business.

In brief, this allowed companies whose products prominently included intellectual property (IP) to list them as intangible assets for the production company, avoiding tax on them. The second company, set up to handle administrative responsibilities unlikely to incur much profit, was the only one taxed.

The "Double Irish" tax rule was closed to new businesses in 2014, but companies already taking advantage of it were allowed to continue to do so until 2020. After an investigation which began in 2014, EU Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager announced in 2016 that the deal had been found to be illegal.

Apple voluntarily exited the deal shortly after the investigation's findings were disclosed. Apple and Ireland both objected to the EU finding, calling it a violation of Ireland's legal sovereignty.

The EU tax ruling fallout



The European Commission demanded that Apple pay 13 billion Euros, plus interest, in unpaid Irish taxes to cover the 10-year period in 2016. The Irish government appealed the ruling to the EU General Court, pointing out that there was no violation of Irish tax law, and that EU treaties specifically excluded national tax policies.

Nonetheless, Apple agreed to put 13 billion Euros into escrow, pending the outcome of Ireland's appeal. In mid-2020, the General Court ruled that the EU had not succeeded "in showing to the requisite legal standard" that Apple has received unfair tax advantages, ruling in favor of Apple.

The EU appealed the General Court's decision to the Court of Justice, the final authority on legal challenges. In late 2023, the top advisor to the EU Court of Justice, the advocate general, advised the Court of Justice to annul the General Court's ruling.

He found that the lower court was incorrect about "the substance and consequences of certain methodological errors" made by Ireland in defending its law. If the Court of Justice agrees with its advocate general, it would not result in an immediate reversal.

Instead, Ireland and the European Commission would need to re-try the case before the General Court. That future ruling would almost certainly be appealed by the losing side, resulting in another review by the Court of Justice.

What happens next



Ultimately, it could be several more years before this decade-old dispute is finally resolved. The existing law and facts of the case would seem to favor Ireland and Apple's position that taxes were properly paid under existing Irish law at the time.

However, the review would likely hinge on whether Ireland allowed any other subsidiaries of single companies to take advantage of the deal. If the Irish laws are seen to have specifically favored Apple, the EU Court would likely rule that the original tax break was illegal, and Apple would have to pay the amount it has in escrow.

Depending on the outcome, Apple may have to disperse the money it has held in escrow for a decade. The case has now run for so long that initial investigator Vestager, the EU's antitrust chief, has since been replaced.



Read on AppleInsider

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,556member
    And IMO this is the reason Apple's event is on Monday.  The EU announcement is Tuesday. 
    muthuk_vanalingamspheric9secondkox2
  • Reply 2 of 30
    If there is a nickname for the tax loop hole called "Double Irish" then they probably did not name it just for Apple's sake.  Likely lots of other companies used the same loophole.  I suspect Apple and Ireland will win the appeal. 
    9secondkox2zeus423watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 30
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,230member
    The taxpayers (citizens) in the EU in the end will pay every Euro with interest…..
    9secondkox2strongyzeus423watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 30
    gatorguy said:
    And IMO this is the reason Apple's event is on Monday.  The EU announcement is Tuesday. 
    Can you please elaborate? I can’t see how that accomplishes anything related to the announcement.  It also doesn’t seem like the announcement is remotely important enough that Apple would schedule around it.  If the ruling is in Apple’s favor they get $14 billion back plus the interest it has accrued in escrow.  If the ruling is unfavorable it just means another trial and years of additional appeals.  Why would Apple schedule/move a major product release event on a particular date because of that?
    JanNL9secondkox2ronnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 30
    The fine will be paid in iTunes gift cards. 
    chasmapple4thewinzeus423watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 30
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,492member
    shrave10 said:
    If there is a nickname for the tax loop hole called "Double Irish" then they probably did not name it just for Apple's sake.  Likely lots of other companies used the same loophole.  I suspect Apple and Ireland will win the appeal. 
    Indeed, other companies did take advantage of the “Double Irish” loophole. As the article mentions, however, Apple didn’t have to follow the “rules” of the Double Irish loophole the same way the other companies had to.

    THAT is what might (might!) get them in trouble.
    spheric9secondkox2ronnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 30
    If the Irish government only charged Apple so much, then that’s all they owe, regardless of someone having an opinion about it later. 

    If anyone is on the hook, it’s Ireland. Not apple. 

    The injustice of the EU is appalling. 
    rob53timpetusstrongyzeus423watto_cobratht
  • Reply 8 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,556member
    gatorguy said:
    And IMO this is the reason Apple's event is on Monday.  The EU announcement is Tuesday. 
    Can you please elaborate? I can’t see how that accomplishes anything related to the announcement.  It also doesn’t seem like the announcement is remotely important enough that Apple would schedule around it.  If the ruling is in Apple’s favor they get $14 billion back plus the interest it has accrued in escrow.  If the ruling is unfavorable it just means another trial and years of additional appeals.  Why would Apple schedule/move a major product release event on a particular date because of that?
    Apple would not want to chance turning a Good Apple News Day into a Bad Apple News day, overshadowing what would typically be positive news stories in mainsteam articles.
    edited September 9
  • Reply 9 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,556member
    chasm said:
    shrave10 said:
    If there is a nickname for the tax loop hole called "Double Irish" then they probably did not name it just for Apple's sake.  Likely lots of other companies used the same loophole.  I suspect Apple and Ireland will win the appeal. 
    Indeed, other companies did take advantage of the “Double Irish” loophole. As the article mentions, however, Apple didn’t have to follow the “rules” of the Double Irish loophole the same way the other companies had to.

    THAT is what might (might!) get them in trouble.
    It's not just the "Double Irish" tax scheme that other companies also took advantage of just as you note. It's that Apple demanded, negotiated, and may have been granted a very special version of it, unique tax treatment not made available to any other company. That's what would get them in trouble, and what you might also have been alluding to.

    But outside the court, no one yet knows if this is the end of the story or a new beginning. Well, perhaps Apple already knows. 

    Something never yet mentioned is that Apple has been allowed to take some money out of that escrow account to pay taxes in other jurisdictions. Not sure why, but it is. Perhaps there are taxes that courts ordered in other countries around the world, but the profits had already been funneled to their Irish subsidiaries? 


    edited September 9 sphericronn
  • Reply 10 of 30
    Huh if Apple invested that money unto themselves it would be about 130 billion (this money was holding since 2013 right?)
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 30
    mpantonempantone Posts: 2,150member
    gatorguy said:
    And IMO this is the reason Apple's event is on Monday.  The EU announcement is Tuesday. 
    This makes little sense. Everyone can pretty much guess what Apple is going to announce: new iPhones, maybe an iPad or two, maybe a new Apple Watch, maybe some earbuds. 

    Plus Apple does this at 10am PDT. That's 7pm Central Europe time, after when most government/business decisions are made. There's no sense for EU regulators to wait until Apple's event is over (probably around 8:30pm their time), digest Apple's product announcements and factor these into some sort of decision to be announced on Tuesday (presumably before the West Coast has gotten to work).

    As someone here mentioned in a previous discussion thread, most likely this is to get their product announcement out before the media goes into a frenzy concerning Tuesday's election debate.
    ronnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,556member
    mpantone said:
    gatorguy said:
    And IMO this is the reason Apple's event is on Monday.  The EU announcement is Tuesday. 
    This makes little sense. Everyone can pretty much guess what Apple is going to announce: new iPhones, maybe an iPad or two, maybe a new Apple Watch, maybe some earbuds. 

    Plus Apple does this at 10am PDT. That's 7pm Central Europe time, after when most government/business decisions are made. There's no sense for EU regulators to wait until Apple's event is over (probably around 8:30pm their time), digest Apple's product announcements and factor these into some sort of decision to be announced on Tuesday (presumably before the West Coast has gotten to work).

    As someone here mentioned in a previous discussion thread, most likely this is to get their product announcement out before the media goes into a frenzy concerning Tuesday's election debate.
    The EU isn't waiting on Apple, it's the other way around with Apple avoiding their event for the same day as the EU decision. In the EU the date and decision was already set some time back. Sure the debate could have something to do with it as well, even if nothing Apple-y would be discussed unlike the EU tax case.

    I remember less than two weeks ago Apple's event was said to be held Tuesday, but then changed to Monday with no mention why. The EU's announcement of the 10th to issue the tax case finding was within the past two weeks as well.

    The debate has been official for a month, since Aug. 8th.

    I'm connecting the dots.  
    edited September 9 ctt_zhmuthuk_vanalingamspheric
  • Reply 13 of 30
    There was zero chance that the EU court was ever going to rule in Apple's favor and forgo that 14+ billion dollars.
    zeus423ronnwatto_cobratht
  • Reply 14 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,556member
    There was zero chance that the EU court was ever going to rule in Apple's favor and forgo that 14+ billion dollars.
    One EU court already did side with Apple. 
    edited September 9 timpetusmuthuk_vanalingamstrongysphericchasm
  • Reply 15 of 30
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,815member
    gatorguy said:
    chasm said:
    shrave10 said:
    If there is a nickname for the tax loop hole called "Double Irish" then they probably did not name it just for Apple's sake.  Likely lots of other companies used the same loophole.  I suspect Apple and Ireland will win the appeal. 
    Indeed, other companies did take advantage of the “Double Irish” loophole. As the article mentions, however, Apple didn’t have to follow the “rules” of the Double Irish loophole the same way the other companies had to.

    THAT is what might (might!) get them in trouble.
    It's not just the "Double Irish" tax scheme that other companies also took advantage of just as you note. It's that Apple demanded, negotiated, and may have been granted a very special version of it, unique tax treatment not made available to any other company. That's what would get them in trouble, and what you might also have been alluding to.

    But outside the court, no one yet knows if this is the end of the story or a new beginning. Well, perhaps Apple already knows. 

    Something never yet mentioned is that Apple has been allowed to take some money out of that escrow account to pay taxes in other jurisdictions. Not sure why, but it is. Perhaps there are taxes that courts ordered in other countries around the world, but the profits had already been funneled to their Irish subsidiaries? 


    You phrase it like Apple did something wrong.  It's common for a large company to negotiate a special tax deal to locate in a particular place, even in the USA. These incentives can take various forms, such as:

    Tax Breaks: Reduction or elimination of corporate taxes for a specified period.
    Property Tax Abatements: Discounts or exemptions on property taxes to reduce operational costs.
    Grants and Subsidies: Financial assistance or direct payments to support infrastructure, hiring, or expansion.
    Job Creation Credits: Tax credits tied to the number of jobs the company promises to create.
    Infrastructure Improvements: The local government may invest in roads, utilities, or other infrastructure upgrades to support the company’s needs.
    Notable examples include Amazon's search for a second headquarters (HQ2), where cities across the USA offered huge incentives, or Tesla's gigafactories in various states where tax deals were central to the final location decision.


    edited September 9 timpetusstrongyzeus423watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,556member
    MacPro said:
    gatorguy said:
    chasm said:
    shrave10 said:
    If there is a nickname for the tax loop hole called "Double Irish" then they probably did not name it just for Apple's sake.  Likely lots of other companies used the same loophole.  I suspect Apple and Ireland will win the appeal. 
    Indeed, other companies did take advantage of the “Double Irish” loophole. As the article mentions, however, Apple didn’t have to follow the “rules” of the Double Irish loophole the same way the other companies had to.

    THAT is what might (might!) get them in trouble.
    It's not just the "Double Irish" tax scheme that other companies also took advantage of just as you note. It's that Apple demanded, negotiated, and may have been granted a very special version of it, unique tax treatment not made available to any other company. That's what would get them in trouble, and what you might also have been alluding to.

    But outside the court, no one yet knows if this is the end of the story or a new beginning. Well, perhaps Apple already knows. 

    Something never yet mentioned is that Apple has been allowed to take some money out of that escrow account to pay taxes in other jurisdictions. Not sure why, but it is. Perhaps there are taxes that courts ordered in other countries around the world, but the profits had already been funneled to their Irish subsidiaries? 


    You phrase it like Apple did something wrong.  It's common for a large company to negotiate a special tax deal to locate in a particular place, even in the USA. These incentives can take various forms, such as:

    Tax Breaks: Reduction or elimination of corporate taxes for a specified period.
    Property Tax Abatements: Discounts or exemptions on property taxes to reduce operational costs.
    Grants and Subsidies: Financial assistance or direct payments to support infrastructure, hiring, or expansion.
    Job Creation Credits: Tax credits tied to the number of jobs the company promises to create.
    Infrastructure Improvements: The local government may invest in roads, utilities, or other infrastructure upgrades to support the company’s needs.
    Notable examples include Amazon's search for a second headquarters (HQ2), where cities across the USA offered huge incentives, or Tesla's gigafactories in various states where tax deals were central to the final location decision.


    No, I feel I'm phrasing it as possible Apple did something wrong, as do some legal experts. But you're phrasing it as it's not possible Apple did anything wrong? 
    edited September 9 ctt_zhsphericronn
  • Reply 17 of 30
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,815member
    gatorguy said:
    MacPro said:
    gatorguy said:
    chasm said:
    shrave10 said:
    If there is a nickname for the tax loop hole called "Double Irish" then they probably did not name it just for Apple's sake.  Likely lots of other companies used the same loophole.  I suspect Apple and Ireland will win the appeal. 
    Indeed, other companies did take advantage of the “Double Irish” loophole. As the article mentions, however, Apple didn’t have to follow the “rules” of the Double Irish loophole the same way the other companies had to.

    THAT is what might (might!) get them in trouble.
    It's not just the "Double Irish" tax scheme that other companies also took advantage of just as you note. It's that Apple demanded, negotiated, and may have been granted a very special version of it, unique tax treatment not made available to any other company. That's what would get them in trouble, and what you might also have been alluding to.

    But outside the court, no one yet knows if this is the end of the story or a new beginning. Well, perhaps Apple already knows. 

    Something never yet mentioned is that Apple has been allowed to take some money out of that escrow account to pay taxes in other jurisdictions. Not sure why, but it is. Perhaps there are taxes that courts ordered in other countries around the world, but the profits had already been funneled to their Irish subsidiaries? 


    You phrase it like Apple did something wrong.  It's common for a large company to negotiate a special tax deal to locate in a particular place, even in the USA. These incentives can take various forms, such as:

    Tax Breaks: Reduction or elimination of corporate taxes for a specified period.
    Property Tax Abatements: Discounts or exemptions on property taxes to reduce operational costs.
    Grants and Subsidies: Financial assistance or direct payments to support infrastructure, hiring, or expansion.
    Job Creation Credits: Tax credits tied to the number of jobs the company promises to create.
    Infrastructure Improvements: The local government may invest in roads, utilities, or other infrastructure upgrades to support the company’s needs.
    Notable examples include Amazon's search for a second headquarters (HQ2), where cities across the USA offered huge incentives, or Tesla's gigafactories in various states where tax deals were central to the final location decision.


    No, I feel it's possible Apple did something wrong, as do some legal experts. But you're phrasing it as it's not possible Apple did anything wrong? 

    As I said, the underlying practice of negotiating tax deals is quite common among multinational corporations. In Apple’s case, the company reached an agreement with the Irish government that allowed it to pay a significantly lower effective corporate tax rate for years. This led to the European Commission ruling that Apple owed €13 billion in back taxes, claiming that Ireland’s tax arrangement amounted to illegal state aid. However, both Apple and the Irish government have argued that the deal was legal under existing tax laws at the time.

    For its critics, Apple’s tax strategies are viewed as emblematic of corporate greed or unethical behavior. But from a business perspective, what Apple did in Ireland is part of a standard practice where companies seek favorable tax environments to optimize profits and reduce operational costs. Ireland has long attracted tech companies with its low corporate tax rates, and the country has benefited economically from the jobs and investment that these companies bring.

    This type of deal-making is not unique to Apple, nor to Ireland. Many countries and regions around the world compete to attract large corporations by offering similar incentives. The controversy often arises when these deals are viewed as unfair or when they appear to deprive governments of much-needed tax revenue, particularly when contrasted with the higher taxes paid by smaller businesses or individuals.

    So, while Apple’s actions are seen as controversial by some, they align with broader corporate strategies that are quite normal, especially in the context of global business practices.

    strongywatto_cobratht
  • Reply 18 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,556member
    MacPro said:
    gatorguy said:
    MacPro said:
    gatorguy said:
    chasm said:
    shrave10 said:
    If there is a nickname for the tax loop hole called "Double Irish" then they probably did not name it just for Apple's sake.  Likely lots of other companies used the same loophole.  I suspect Apple and Ireland will win the appeal. 
    Indeed, other companies did take advantage of the “Double Irish” loophole. As the article mentions, however, Apple didn’t have to follow the “rules” of the Double Irish loophole the same way the other companies had to.

    THAT is what might (might!) get them in trouble.
    It's not just the "Double Irish" tax scheme that other companies also took advantage of just as you note. It's that Apple demanded, negotiated, and may have been granted a very special version of it, unique tax treatment not made available to any other company. That's what would get them in trouble, and what you might also have been alluding to.

    But outside the court, no one yet knows if this is the end of the story or a new beginning. Well, perhaps Apple already knows. 

    Something never yet mentioned is that Apple has been allowed to take some money out of that escrow account to pay taxes in other jurisdictions. Not sure why, but it is. Perhaps there are taxes that courts ordered in other countries around the world, but the profits had already been funneled to their Irish subsidiaries? 


    You phrase it like Apple did something wrong.  It's common for a large company to negotiate a special tax deal to locate in a particular place, even in the USA. These incentives can take various forms, such as:

    Tax Breaks: Reduction or elimination of corporate taxes for a specified period.
    Property Tax Abatements: Discounts or exemptions on property taxes to reduce operational costs.
    Grants and Subsidies: Financial assistance or direct payments to support infrastructure, hiring, or expansion.
    Job Creation Credits: Tax credits tied to the number of jobs the company promises to create.
    Infrastructure Improvements: The local government may invest in roads, utilities, or other infrastructure upgrades to support the company’s needs.
    Notable examples include Amazon's search for a second headquarters (HQ2), where cities across the USA offered huge incentives, or Tesla's gigafactories in various states where tax deals were central to the final location decision.


    No, I feel it's possible Apple did something wrong, as do some legal experts. But you're phrasing it as it's not possible Apple did anything wrong? 

    This type of deal-making is not unique to Apple, nor to Ireland.

    Isn't that what the entire ruling will hinge on?

    and just to be clear, your opinion is it's not possible that Apple has done anything wrong, tax-wise, in this case?
    edited September 9 ctt_zhsphericronn
  • Reply 19 of 30
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,815member
    gatorguy said:
    MacPro said:
    gatorguy said:
    MacPro said:
    gatorguy said:
    chasm said:
    shrave10 said:
    If there is a nickname for the tax loop hole called "Double Irish" then they probably did not name it just for Apple's sake.  Likely lots of other companies used the same loophole.  I suspect Apple and Ireland will win the appeal. 
    Indeed, other companies did take advantage of the “Double Irish” loophole. As the article mentions, however, Apple didn’t have to follow the “rules” of the Double Irish loophole the same way the other companies had to.

    THAT is what might (might!) get them in trouble.
    It's not just the "Double Irish" tax scheme that other companies also took advantage of just as you note. It's that Apple demanded, negotiated, and may have been granted a very special version of it, unique tax treatment not made available to any other company. That's what would get them in trouble, and what you might also have been alluding to.

    But outside the court, no one yet knows if this is the end of the story or a new beginning. Well, perhaps Apple already knows. 

    Something never yet mentioned is that Apple has been allowed to take some money out of that escrow account to pay taxes in other jurisdictions. Not sure why, but it is. Perhaps there are taxes that courts ordered in other countries around the world, but the profits had already been funneled to their Irish subsidiaries? 


    You phrase it like Apple did something wrong.  It's common for a large company to negotiate a special tax deal to locate in a particular place, even in the USA. These incentives can take various forms, such as:

    Tax Breaks: Reduction or elimination of corporate taxes for a specified period.
    Property Tax Abatements: Discounts or exemptions on property taxes to reduce operational costs.
    Grants and Subsidies: Financial assistance or direct payments to support infrastructure, hiring, or expansion.
    Job Creation Credits: Tax credits tied to the number of jobs the company promises to create.
    Infrastructure Improvements: The local government may invest in roads, utilities, or other infrastructure upgrades to support the company’s needs.
    Notable examples include Amazon's search for a second headquarters (HQ2), where cities across the USA offered huge incentives, or Tesla's gigafactories in various states where tax deals were central to the final location decision.


    No, I feel it's possible Apple did something wrong, as do some legal experts. But you're phrasing it as it's not possible Apple did anything wrong? 

    This type of deal-making is not unique to Apple, nor to Ireland.

    Isn't that what the entire ruling will hinge on?

    and just to be clear, your opinion is it's not possible that Apple has done anything wrong, tax-wise, in this case?
    Of course, anything is possible; Google could be a company that cares about its 'users' (edited out customers as too subtle).
    edited September 9 watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 30
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,815member
    Not that I care, but I just noticed that post counts seem to be stuck.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.