An adviser to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has suggested that the European tribunal erred in legal judgment when ruling in favor of Apple over a €13 billion ($14 billion) EU tax order. The tax dispute, dating back several years, was a part of the European Union’s efforts to scrutinize deals between multinationals and EU countries perceived as unfair state aid.
In 2016, the European Commission claimed that Apple benefited from Irish tax rulings for over two decades, artificially reducing its tax burden. In 2020, the EU’s General Court sided with Apple, stating regulators had not met the legal standard to prove an unfair advantage.
However, Advocate General Giovanni Pitruzzella at the ECJ disagreed, asserting that the General Court had made legal errors. In a non-binding opinion, he recommended setting aside the General Court ruling and referring the case back for reassessment. The ECJ, the highest court in the EU, is expected to rule on this matter in the coming months, and it typically follows such recommendations.
The case centers on whether Apple received preferential tax treatment in Ireland, and if the tech giant should pay the €13 billion tax bill. While Ireland maintains it provided no state aid to Apple, the case underscores the broader efforts by the EU to scrutinize tax practices and deals between multinational corporations and member countries.
The adviser’s opinion does not form part of the final judgment, but it signals a potential setback for Apple. Regardless of the outcome, this ongoing legal battle reflects the EU’s commitment to addressing concerns around tax avoidance and ensuring fair competition.
An Apple spokesperson expressed appreciation for the court’s consideration and reiterated the belief that the General Court’s ruling, asserting no selective advantage or state aid, should stand.
Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s antitrust chief, has been leading the charge against what the EU sees as unfair state aid to corporations. While she has faced mixed results in court, her efforts have prompted EU countries to reconsider and eliminate preferential tax deals.
This case adds to the complex landscape of international taxation and highlights the tensions between multinational corporations seeking favorable tax arrangements and regulators aiming to ensure a level playing field.
