EU Lawyer Advocates for Apple to Pay €13bn in Irish Taxes

According to a legal adviser to the European Court of Justice, a ruling that allowed Apple to avoid paying €13bn in back taxes should be overturned. This is the latest development in the ongoing dispute between the European Union (EU), Apple, and the Irish government. Three years ago, a ruling that found Apple had received illegal tax breaks from the Irish government was overturned. However, Advocate General Giovanni Pitruzzella argues that the case should be reviewed once again, pointing out several legal errors. He believes that the previous ruling failed to accurately assess the substance and consequences of certain methodological mistakes made in the tax rulings. It is important to note that this legal opinion is not a final decision, but the court generally aligns with these opinions in most cases. In 2016, the European Commission determined that Apple had received preferential treatment from the Irish government, enabling the tech giant to pay significantly lower taxes compared to other companies. According to the Commission, this constituted illegal aid provided by the Irish state to Apple. This case became emblematic of the Commission's efforts to combat what it saw as extensive tax avoidance by multinational corporations. The Irish government has countered that Apple should not be obligated to repay the back taxes, arguing that the loss was justifiable in order to attract large companies to the country. Ireland, which has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the EU, serves as Apple's regional base for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Although corporate tax rates are determined nationally and fall outside of the EU's jurisdiction, the bloc holds considerable authority in regulating state aid. In this instance, it contended that Ireland granting Apple very low tax rates amounted to an unfair subsidy. Two years ago, the lower court, known as the General Court, deemed the European Commission's decision for Apple to pay back taxes legally flawed and set it aside. However, this latest development may result in the overturning of that ruling.