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

The European Union claims judges used "contradictory reasoning" when finding in favor of Apple and Ireland over a $14.4 billion tax payment.

Having previously confirmed that it would appeal the court decision that found in favor of Apple and Ireland, the European Union has now published a summary of the arguments it put forward.

According to Bloomberg, newly released filings show that the EU believes, "the General Court committed several errors of law" in its ruling.

The European Commission's appeal centers on two points. Allegedly, the court failed to correctly weigh the EU's analysis, and they also wrongly assessed the value of intellectual property issues. The EC also argues that the ruling was "contradictory" in places.

The appeal was reportedly filed on September 25, 2020, the final day that the EU was eligible to contest the decision.

It asks for the judgement under appeal to be set aside, and the case to be referred back to the General Court "for reconsideration of the pleas not already assessed."

The original case concerned how Ireland allegedly allowed Apple an unfair tax arrangement. The European Commission subsequently ordered Apple to pay $14.4 billion in back taxes.

Apple paid that amount into an escrow account while appeals continued. In July 2020, the General Court in Luxembourg determined that the EU "did not succeed in showing to the requisite legal standard" that Apple had benefited.

Apple has not commented.

12 Comments

anantksundaram 20391 comments · 18 Years

About 3 years ago

Ah, here we go again.

Even if Apple loses - which it won’t, is my prediction - it’ll be Ireland that really loses.

GeorgeBMac 11421 comments · 8 Years

Ultimately it comes down to this:

Can a company operate and make profits in one country while shielding themselves from taxation by positioning a so called "headquarters" in a tax haven?

Currently the main defense is: "Well, it's legal" (although some dispute that in this case). And corporate leaders are obligated to promote their organizations to the best of their abilities under the law. But laws are made to protect society so it won't last.

The companies and their home countries can do their best to shield from them from responsibility, but ultimately it will fail. The only question is: "when, not if".

steven n. 1229 comments · 13 Years

Ultimately it comes down to this:

Is it legal for a company to act within the laws enacted within a company and then be punished when some other country thinks they are not fair?

Currently, the main defense is "It isn't fair/moral" (although many dispute that is the case) and elected officials are unable (or politically unwilling) to actually fix the problem legislatively. Instead, they hope the courts will overstep their mandate and effectible write new laws the legislative branches are unwilling to do themselves.

entropys 4316 comments · 13 Years

Bureaucrats will continue to pursue this as they aren’t using their money.

the last thing they want to do is complete for business with Ireland. In fact, they don’t want to compete at all.

all your money belongs to us.

crowley 10431 comments · 15 Years

steven n. said:

Ultimately it comes down to this:

Is it legal for a company to act within the laws enacted within a company and then be punished when some other country thinks they are not fair?

Currently, the main defense is "It isn't fair/moral" (although many dispute that is the case) and elected officials are unable (or politically unwilling) to actually fix the problem legislatively. Instead, they hope the courts will overstep their mandate and effectible write new laws the legislative branches are unwilling to do themselves.

No, the main defence is that it isn't legal. Ireland is subject to EU laws about state aid and competition, and Apple operating with Ireland are also subject to EU laws. That's the way things work in the EU, EU law is held as supreme above local law, in the same way that federal law is held as supreme above state law in the USA. No one is hoping that the courts will overstep their mandate at all, I'm not sure where you've drawn that conclusion from.