FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Little Apples Will Grow Again: the EU, Ireland and the Apple Tax Case

Last Wednesday there was a collective sigh of relief from the Irish government. The EU’s General Court had ruled against the EU Commission in their case against Ireland/Apple. The Court found that the 0.005% corporate tax rate that Apple had availed of here in Ireland did not constitute illegal state aid.

Thus, Ireland would not be receiving the €14.3 billion in back taxes that’s been sitting in an escrow account. Our Finance Minister Pascal Donohoe described the ruling as a vindication for Ireland which would ‘lead many to reassess their view of our corporation tax regime’.

The Government spent over €8.4 million of taxpayers’ money on legal/consultancy fees to successfully oppose receiving this windfall from the world’s first trillion-dollar company. It will seem like a pyric victory to many. And as regards this ruling’s potential for a reassessment of our corporate tax regime, take the words of one prominent member of the EU Parliament who was quoted in Bloomberg; ‘This is a really black day for tax justice and tax efficiency’. So, I wouldn’t be so sure that this ruling is going to repair our dismal reputation as a corporate tax.

What the case was about

The Commission’s case of illegal state aid arose because of two tax rulings our Tax authorities had given to Apple in 1991 and 2007– so called ‘sweetheart deals’ – which allowed two Irish incorporated subsidiaries to pay little to no tax on approximately €104 billion in profits. It’s important to remember that the reason the Commission initiated the case was because of a US Senate sub-committee inquiry into Apple Ireland. This first drew attention to the fact that Apple earned about 60% of its global profits here whilst paying virtually no tax.

As the Senate sub-committee pointed out, key subsidiaries of Apple had ‘no declared tax residency anywhere in the world’. In response to a sub-committee question regarding where one of its Irish subsidiaries was managed and controlled, Apple replied that it ‘has not made a determination’ but that it ‘has determined that Apple Operations Ireland [AOI] is not managed and controlled in Ireland’.

Wednesday’s ruling does not contest the fact that Ireland facilitated these arrangements that ensured the certain subsidiaries were not taxable in Ireland or anywhere else in the world – hence this tax avoidance scheme often being referred to as ‘stateless income’. It was about whether in allowing Apple to pay 0.005% constituted an act of illegal state aid.

What the case was not about

In 2016, our then Finance Minister Noonan described the Commission’s ruling as an attack on our 12.5% corporate tax rate, and hence a threat to our sovereign taxing rights. A line many of those in our leading centre right parties Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have largely held to. However this case was not about the right of small states to set their own corporate tax rates and attempts to frame it as such are a smokescreen. This was about a specific deal for a specific firm.

Nor was the case really about Ireland’s tax driven approach to attracting the kind of real FDI that creates actual jobs. Less than a year ago, an IMF study found that around 60% of Ireland’s FDI is what they refer to as ‘phantom FDI’, which amounts to profit shifting by multinational that’s designed to minimise their tax liabilities rather than financing productive activity. This gets nearer to the heart of the Commission’s case.

Corporate Tax avoidance: victimless crime or race to the bottom?

For some people this case may seem obscure and unimportant. So what, they might think, if we facilitated a large multinational avoiding tax due elsewhere who cares so long as they create jobs? Is that not simply the nature of tax competition? The problem is that for decades many countries have been following the old neoliberal line that low corporate tax rates equal economic success, with major tax subsidies to wealthy multinationals becoming the norm. This locks in a race to the bottom mentality.

As the academic literature shows, average corporation tax rates around the world have been falling for the last number of decades. Unfortunately, the cost of running nation states hasn’t been falling. So how do we bridge this shortfall? Well, invariably it falls on ordinary people to compensate through increases in the likes of income tax, consumption taxes, stealth taxes, and a whole host of other new taxes like carbon tax, water tax, etc.

A close up of a map Description automatically generated

Appealing the ruling and the road ahead

This case can, and I believe it will be, appealed by the Commission to the Court of Justice [ECJ]. Margrethe Vestager, the European Commissioner for Competition, in a statement said ‘The Commission stands fully behind the objective that all companies should pay their fair share of tax’ and that it ‘will continue to look at aggressive tax planning measures’.

Whether it’s successful is another matter. But it’s worth noting that previous appeals have been successful. For instance, in 2016 the ECJ overturned a General Court ruling regarding selective tax treatment involving Spanish bank Santander – so this is not the final word.

Nevertheless, the real threat to Ireland is unlikely to be from illegal state aid cases, but from an obscure and hitherto unused element of the Lisbon Treaty [Article 116]. This article allows the Commission to make corporate tax changes at the European level without unanimous agreement of the member states. So, Ireland would not be able to link up with the other EU corporate tax haven jurisdictions like Luxembourg and the Netherlands to block such changes.

The Irish state needs to build an alternative economic model, because the current one based around low taxes, low wages and the pilfering of other countries tax receipts is fast running out of steam. My party Sinn Fein, who are Ireland’s lead opposition party, are ready to bring this about. We are prepared to build an entrepreneurial state that not only funds public services properly and allows for collective bargaining but seeks to develop a high value-added indigenous sector, based on good wages and good employment conditions.

 

More articles by:

Mairead Farrell is Sinn Fein’s spokesperson for Public Expenditure and Reform. She holds a BSc/MSc in economics and finance and tweets @Farrell_Mairead. The views expressed here are her own.

August 12, 2020
Melvin Goodman
Trump’s War On Arms Control and Disarmament
P. Sainath
“We Didn’t Bleed Him Enough”: When Normal is the Problem
Riva Enteen
Kamala Harris? Really? Desperate Times, Desperate Measures
Kenneth Surin
The Decrepit UK Political System
Robert Hunziker
Freakish Arctic Fires Alarmingly Intensify
Ramzy Baroud
The Likud Conspiracy: Israel in the Throes of a Major Political Crisis
Sam Pizzigati
Within Health Care USA, Risk and Reward Have Never Been More Out of Kilter
John Perry
The US Contracts Out Its Regime Change Operation in Nicaragua
Binoy Kampmark
Selective Maritime Rules: The United States, Diego Garcia and International Law
Manuel García, Jr.
The Improbability of CO2 Removal From the Atmosphere
Khury Petersen-Smith
The Road to Portland: The Two Decades of ‘Homeland Security’
Raouf Halaby
Teaching Palestinian Children to Love Beethoven, Bizet, and Mozart is a Threat to a Depraved Israeli Society
Jeff Mackler
Which Way for Today’s Mass Radicalization? Capitalism’s Impending Catastrophe…or a Socialist Future
Tom Engelhardt
It Could Have Been Different
Stephen Cooper
Santa Davis and the “Stalag 17” Riddim
August 11, 2020
Richard D. Wolff
Why Capitalism is in Constant Conflict With Democracy
Paul Street
Defund Fascism, Blue and Orange
Richard C. Gross
Americans Scorned
Andrew Levine
Trump and Biden, Two Ignoble Minds Here O’erthrown
Patrick Cockburn
The Rise of Nationalism Has Led to the Increased Repression of Minorities
Sonali Kolhatkar
Trump’s Presidency is a Death Cult
Colin Todhunter
Pushing GMO Crops into India: Experts Debunk High-Level Claims of Bt Cotton Success
Valerie Croft
How Indigenous Peoples are Using Ancestral Organizing Practices to Fight Mining Corporations and Covid-19
David Rovics
Tear Gas Ted Has a Tantrum in Portland
Dean Baker
There is No Evidence That Generous Unemployment Benefits are Making It Difficult to Find Workers
Robert Fantina
War on Truth: How Kashmir Struggles for Freedom of Press
Dave Lindorff
Trump Launches Attack on Social Security and Medicare
Elizabeth Schmidt
COVID-19 Poses a Huge Threat to Stability in Africa
Parth M.N.
Coping With a Deadly Virus, a Social One, Too
Thomas Knapp
The “Election Interference” Fearmongers Think You’re Stupid
Binoy Kampmark
Mealy-Mouthed Universities: Academic Freedom and the Pavlou Problem Down Under
Mike Garrity
Emperor Trump Loses Again in the Northern Rockies in Big Win for Bull Trout, Rivers and the ESA
Alex Lawson
34 Attorneys General Call to Bust Gilead’s Pharma Monopoly on COVID Treatment Remdesivir
August 10, 2020
Gerald Sussman
Biden’s Ukrainegate Problem
Vijay Prashad – Érika Ortega Sanoja
How the U.S. Failed at Its Foreign Policy Toward Venezuela
Daniel Warner
Geneva: The Home of Lost Causes
Mike Hastie
The Police Force Stampede in Portland on August 8, 2020 
Jack Rasmus
Trump’s Executive Orders: EOs as PR and FUs
Rev. William Alberts
Cognitive Without Conscience
David Altheide
Politicizing Fear Through the News Media
F. Douglas Stephenson
Is Big Pharma More Interested in Profiteering Than Protecting Us From Coronavirus?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Money Plague
Howard Lisnoff
Revolutionaries Living in a System of Growing Fascism
Ralph Nader
Donald Trump is Defeating Himself
Lynnette Grey Bull
The Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women Human Rights Emergency is Not a Photo-Op for Ivanka Trump
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail