Four years ago, Apple was accused by the European Commission of receiving illegal tax cuts in Ireland. The Cupertino-based company was then forced to pay € 13 billion to Ireland. The value was accumulated taxes during the period 2003 – 2014. According to the report, the company allegedly paid a reduced corporate tax of only 1%. Ireland usually charges 12.5% corporate tax.
Apple apparently appealed the decision. Now, the General Court of the European Union has ruled in favor of the Cupertino-based company. It overturned the European Commission’s decision, effectively ruling in favor of Apple. Under the new ruling, the EU Commission has not shown that Apple took advantage of the reduced corporate tax. Now the EU Commission has 14 more days to appeal the new decision.
According to the General Court, the Commission was wrong to make such statements. You can read more Details to explain the decision of the General Court below.
The General Court welcomes the Commission ‘s assessments of standard taxation in accordance with the Irish tax law applicable to the present case, in particular taking into account the tools developed within the OECD, such as the’ strand ‘principle, level
The taxable profits approved by the Irish tax authorities correspond to those which would have been achieved under market conditions.
However, the General Court considers that the Commission erred in its basic reasoning that the Irish tax authorities had granted an advantage to ASI and AOE for failing to grant the copyright licenses of the Apple Group.
In addition, the General Court considers that the Commission has failed to prove, in its secondary reasoning. Includes methodological errors in the tax decisions at issue that would lead to a reduction in ASI and AOE overnight profits in Ireland. Although the General Court regrets the incomplete and occasionally inconsistent nature of the contested tax decisions. In addition, the shortcomings identified by the Commission alone are not sufficient to demonstrate an advantage. In addition, the General Court considers that the Commission has not shown, in its alternative statement of reasons, that the tax decisions at issue were the result of the discretion exercised by the
to the Irish tax authorities and that, as a result, ASI and AOE had a selective advantage. “