Apple Scores Landmark Victory Over EU in €13B Tax Case
The tech giant did not violate EU state aid rules, the bloc's second highest court has ruled.
July 15, 2020 at 07:37 AM
3 minute read
In a highly anticipated decision, the European Union's second highest court has ruled that a tax deal struck between the U.S. tech giant Apple and Irish tax authorities almost two decades ago did not violate EU state aid rules.
In a decision handed down on Wednesday, the Luxembourg-based EU General Court also quashed the 2016 state aid order that set the years long legal fight between the U.S. tech company and European competition authorities in motion. The decision means that Apple will not have to pay €13.1 billion – with €1.2 billion in interest – in back taxes to the Irish tax authorities, as the Commission ordered it to in 2016.
The European Commission did not successfully demonstrate that the tax agreement between Apple and Ireland amounted to a form of state aid that distorted competition in the EU internal market, the EU General Court ruled.
"The Commission was wrong to declare that ASI and AOE had been granted a selective economic advantage and, by extension, state aid," the Court said in a statement, referring to Apple's two Irish subsidiaries by their acronyms.
The legal challenge centered around two 1991 and 2007 tax rulings between the U.S. tech giant and Irish tax authorities that allowed the iPhone maker to attribute profits from its two Irish subsidiaries – Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe – to an untaxed head office.
But according to EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager this tax setup violated EU state aid rules and allowed Apple to pay significantly less tax than other companies. In a sweeping 2016 state aid order, the Danish official instructed Irish authorities to claw back €1.3 billion from Apple in back taxes. The state aid decision, which was swiftly appealed by Apple before the EU General Court, followed similar, high-profile tax probes into U.S. multinationals like Starbucks and Amazon.
"This is clearly a very significant loss for the European Commission," said Howard Liebman, of counsel at Jones Day's Tax Practice in Brussels. The judgement is likely to impact how the Commission moves forward with its tax probes, he added. "I think they're going to take a step back with regard to attacking tax rulings under state aid rules," he said.
In a statement, Apple's Europe director of communications, Adam Howorth, welcomed the court's judgment.
"This case was not about how much tax we pay, but where we are required to pay it," he said, describing Apple as the world's largest taxpayer. "Changes in how a multinational company's income tax payments are split between different countries require a global solution, and Apple encourages this work to continue."
Competition chief Vestager said in a statement that authorities would study the judgment and reflect on next steps.
"The Commission will continue to look at aggressive tax planning measures under EU state aid rules to assess whether they result in illegal state aid," she said.
The Commission is likely to appeal the case to the Court of Justice, the bloc's highest court.
|Read More
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe SLAPP Heard Around the World: SDT Hearing Draws Industry Attention
5 minute readCMS Wistrand Hires Former Linklaters Nordics MP and Bird & Bird's Danish Hire
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Watch Your Pronouns
- 2Burford Sets Sights on UAE’s Surge in Construction & Disputes
- 3Santa Barbara Judge Accused of Moonlighting as Attorney for Secretary/Girlfriend
- 4Will Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
- 5Wrongful-Death Case Against Adult Day Care Sparks Call for State Regulation
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250