Ref. Ares(2015)1052699 - 10/03/2015
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION
Direct taxation, Tax Coordination, Economic Analysis and Evaluation
Control of the application of EU legislation and state aid/direct taxation
Brussels, 10 March 2015
Taxud D3(2015) 1129586
4(1)(b) - CAB req\cssr\2015\Apple-report
REPORT OF MEETING
1. Meeting:
Meeting with representatives of Apple regarding the ongoing
investigations in tax rulings
2. Date and place: 3 March 2015, Mrs. Scoppio’s office BERL, 15.30 – 16.00
3. Participants:
Elena Scoppio, CAB-Moscovici
4(1)(b)
DG Taxud D3
Apple
Freshfields
4. Report
The representative of Apple started explaining why tax rulings play a very important role
for companies by giving companies legal certainty. He then stated that Apple has been in
Ireland since the early 80ies and currently employing around 4.000 persons in the Cork
area. With regard to the ongoing state aid investigation of DG COMP he explained that
both Ireland and Apple believe that the Commission’s allegations are unfounded. The
Commission argued that the ruling did not reflect the arm’s length principle. In Apple’s
view, the “opinion” in question (Apple explained that there is no such thing like a ruling,
but “opinions” from the tax administration) would not grant an advantage, as Apple
would have been subject to exactly the same tax charge without this opinion. Ireland has
not implemented the OECD Guidelines and thus there is no such arm’s length principle
in the Irish tax law. Furthermore, the Commission would have failed in its opening
decision to state why the criterion of selectivity is fulfilled.
Furthermore, the opinion of 2007 would not anymore apply after end 2014. Ireland has
changed its provisions regarding residency rules which will impact the double Irish
provisions. 4(2)(2)
Mrs. Scoppio mentioned that CAB Moscovici and TAXUD follow the state aid
investigations, but chef de file is CAB Vestager and DG COMP. She agreed that the
issue whether there is an advantage and selectivity therefore would be for DG COMP to
assess. DG TAXUD thereby would assist. This investigation also has to be seen as a pure
competition issue and not a disguised attempt to introduce tax harmonisation by the back
door by the state aid instrument.
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
Office
- Tel. direct line
4(1)(b)
Then Apple explained that the state aid investigation would have to be seen in a wider
frame, in particular to the investment climate not only in Ireland, but also in the European
Union.
Mrs. Scoppio did not fully share this argument as Ireland still would be able to apply its
low corporate income tax rates. She also did not follow the argumentation that the state
aid investigations actually would reduce investments in the European Union.
At the end, the discussion was coming to interpret what would be the “fair share” of
taxation. Apple pointed out that they would be the 5th biggest tax payer worldwide and
that they are fully subject to US taxation on their worldwide income – however, under
US rules this US taxation can be deferred until repatriation to the US.
Mrs. Scoppio pointed out to the need that there must be a level playing field also in the
direct taxation field at EU level which also applies to US corporations.
5. Report by:
4(1)(b)
DG TAXUD D3
6. Copy:
M.-E. SCOPPIO (CAB-MOSCOVICI),
, M.
BERGMANN, V. MOUTARLIER,
2