EU will appeal against Apple and Ireland's $14.4 billion tax case ruling

Posted:
in General Discussion edited September 2020
The European Union is to appeal against a court decision which found in favor of Apple and Ireland over a $14.4 billion tax payment. The judgement in July 2020 was made by the EU's second-hightest court, and the appeal is expected to be heard in the European Court of Justice.


Apple's Ireland headquarters


The case concerns the allegation that the Irish government allowed Apple an unfair tax arrangement. Originally, the European Commission ordered Apple to pay $14.4 billion in back taxes, which it has. The money, however, has been held in escrow while appeals have continued.

In the July appeal, the General Court in Luxembourg concluded that the EC "did not succeed in showing to the requisite legal standard," that Apple had unfairly benefited from Ireland's taxation laws.

Now, according to the Financial Times, the EC intends to argue that the court set the bar for requisite standards "unreasonably high." As well as for this case with Apple, the EU is reportedly concerned about how the decision will hamper its future legal work.

"This case is very important because it will set a precedent for cases we want to fight going forward," an EU official told the Financial Times.

Friday September 25 is the final day that the EU remains eligible to file for an appeal. It is believed that Margrethe Vestager, executive vice-president in charge of competition policy, has been lobbying within the EU to keep the case going.

Vestager is leading the EU's drive to create new tax laws governing major technology companies, including Apple.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    I think Marie Vestager has the power to do the decision herself as Vice Executive President of the European Comission so I am wondering what there is to lobby as her view is broadly sympathisied with all over Europe.

    It seems to be a power difference between democratically elected governments and corporations, where the exact magnitude of this difference will heavily influence the outcome of this case.
    edited September 2020 gregoriusmwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 12
    The problem of socialism is that sooner or
    later you run out
    of other people’s money (M. Thatcher). So you are always on the hunt to find more.  
    razorpitlkruppelijahgentropyswatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 12
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,338member
    Rick601 said:
    The problem of socialism is that sooner or
    later you run out
    of other people’s money (M. Thatcher). So you are always on the hunt to find more.  
    Would that be the M Thatcher whose Tory government never once posted a budget surplus during her tenure and sold off national assets at bargain basement prices?

    I wouldn't trust her opinions on any matter, let alone financial ones.
    DAalsethlkrupp
  • Reply 4 of 12
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,321member
    The Apple tax case is not the first BTW. Vestager previously brought quite similar cases against Starbucks and Fiat and won both.
  • Reply 5 of 12
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    crowley said:
    Rick601 said:
    The problem of socialism is that sooner or
    later you run out
    of other people’s money (M. Thatcher). So you are always on the hunt to find more.  
    Would that be the M Thatcher whose Tory government never once posted a budget surplus during her tenure and sold off national assets at bargain basement prices?

    I wouldn't trust her opinions on any matter, let alone financial ones.
    Well to be fair it is the government. The only product they make is more government. Don’t know if it’s a good thing their “income” exceeds their expenditures. Any money coming in to government is going to be spent somewhere.
    elijahgwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 12
    fred1fred1 Posts: 881member
    Rick601 said:
    The problem of socialism is that sooner or
    later you run out
    of other people’s money (M. Thatcher). So you are always on the hunt to find more.  
    So obviously you’re against taxation, at least of businesses. How do you propose that governments obtain the funds needed to operate? I’m very curious. 
  • Reply 7 of 12
    Taxpayers' $$ I mean, €€... it's not like they care.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 12

    fred1 said:
    Rick601 said:
    The problem of socialism is that sooner or
    later you run out
    of other people’s money (M. Thatcher). So you are always on the hunt to find more.  
    So obviously you’re against taxation, at least of businesses. How do you propose that governments obtain the funds needed to operate? I’m very curious. 
    1) Who do you think actually pays "business" taxes? How much of it passed through to you, the consumer? Shareholder? A: Almost 100%

    2) What proportion of government tax revenues do businesses taxes account for in the US? EU? A: < 5% US; < 3% EU15
    edited September 2020 elijahgwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 12
    crowley said:
    Rick601 said:
    The problem of socialism is that sooner or
    later you run out
    of other people’s money (M. Thatcher). So you are always on the hunt to find more.  
    Would that be the M Thatcher whose Tory government never once posted a budget surplus during her tenure and sold off national assets at bargain basement prices?

    I wouldn't trust her opinions on any matter, let alone financial ones.
    It would be the Margaret Thatcher that rescued the UK from the dystopian poverty and decline of the seventies with the benefits still being felt today. That Margaret Thatcher.

    back on topic: European Court of Justice sounds like Ministry of Truth.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 12
    I actually believe business/corporate tax should be zero, and that includes nasty taxes like stamp duty and payroll tax. Businesses employ people, and we should never, ever tax employment. I would also get rid of any wholesale and sales taxes which are not transparent.

    Governments would be funded on taxes on theIr citizens: income and consumption taxes. With no deductions, and individuals or families cannot incorporate. The tax systems would be very simple, and with no avenues for deductions, everyone pays at the relevant rate(S).

    the other benefit is that tax revenue is highly transparent. The only addition might be royalties for resource extraction and a generic import tax.

    accountants and politicians would be very opposed to this idea, as it would mean their incomes and kickbacks would be reduced.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 12
    You can be opposed to the EU argument that Apple owes back taxes and still be in favor of new taxes. Those positions are not mutually exclusive. The EU wanted and still wants to impose taxes on Apple retroactively. This is fundamentally unfair. If the EU wants to change tax law and apply it to future revenue, this is totally fair and they should do so.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 12
    razorpit said:
    crowley said:
    Rick601 said:
    The problem of socialism is that sooner or
    later you run out
    of other people’s money (M. Thatcher). So you are always on the hunt to find more.  
    Would that be the M Thatcher whose Tory government never once posted a budget surplus during her tenure and sold off national assets at bargain basement prices?

    I wouldn't trust her opinions on any matter, let alone financial ones.
    Well to be fair it is the government. The only product they make is more government. Don’t know if it’s a good thing their “income” exceeds their expenditures. Any money coming in to government is going to be spent somewhere.
    Funny, our government currently makes schools, hospitals, local medical services, roads, anti-pollution rules, runs the police, protects us against invasion etc. and a range of other things. It used to make railways, electricity, gas, telecoms and a whole range of other things prior to the financially-challenged M. Thatcher. If your government isn't doing anything for you I suggest you change it friend! : )
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.