And now, no longer behind a paywall, here’s an article from Ruth Mason and I on the highly controversial €13bn Apple State aid decision The title is “Rotten to the Core: The EU's Court of Justice Decision in Apple” and gives you a hint as to our position. 1. We don’t think the AOA, properly applied, results in a massive reallocation of Apple’s profits to the relatively small workforce in Cork that performs routine sales and manufacturing functions 2. We don’t accept the Court of Justice’s reasoning as to why it could depart from its findings in Amazon, Engie and Fiat (regardless of whether the court is characterised as civil or common law) 3. We argue that Irish law most likely did mandate a one-sided transfer pricing approach and that the Court may have been led astray by the Advocate General on this point 4. Irish taxpayers that adopted a similar tax structure to Apple may have to stump up more in back taxes 5. Ongoing investigations into other tax rulings granted by Luxembourg and the Netherlands are more likely to result in negative outcomes for the taxpayers (particularly Nike) 6. The decision likely augurs poorly for international tax relations, particularly with the US 7. We argue, and this is a drum we have been beating since the cases commenced, that several opportunities were missed – the Commission could have centred the cases, like Apple, around the administrative impropriety which led to the favourable rulings; or the Commission could have attacked the structural subsidies which appeared to be present. King's College London The Dickson Poon School of Law University of Virginia School of Law
I fully agree.
An excellent article. It will be interesting to see if any other Irish taxpayers or other rulings are affected.
Ruth Mason
3w
Yeah! What Steve said!
Tax, rights, unions, development; a few absurdities, or bikes - steuerfreak,
3wStill incredulous at ruling. Putting aside a murky legal basis for reasoning - clearly set out here - the practical results are nonsense. As was once said in UK House of Lords in an anti avoidance case - “[tax] was created to operate in the real world, not that of make-belief". Next thing will be Trump persuaded to try to tax everything and everyone in the USA