[qnpnp]

No. This isn't a tax case, and EU has no authority on direct tax matters. The point is not that Ireland should change its tax rules.

This is an antitrust case. The point is that Ireland gave Apple preferential terms compared to its own tax rules.

[astaunton]

The original ruling was that Ireland did not give state aid to Apple, that any multinational could have applied the same rules. This was not accepted by the Commission, they asked for a higher court to rule.

After several years it has now been suggested that the higher court puts aside its judgement and that it goes back to the lower court, because apparently (according to the Advocate General) the lower court did not take into account several factors and had errors in its judgement (relating to Intellectual property rights, where tax should be paid e.g. in the country of sales or in the country of registration). Which seems to make it once again an issue on tax and not on sweetheart deals.

[johndunne]

I'm not well versed on EU rules relating to the case; do you know if it's possible that this could 'ping pong' between the two courts or is there a mechanism for a final decision on the matter?

[NoboruWataya]

That is the allegation, which Ireland disputes and the General Court dismissed.

I'm well aware that the EU has no authority on direct tax matters, which is exactly why Ireland feels aggrieved, as the Commission is effectively using state aid law as a vehicle to circumvent the limitations on the EU's powers.

[blibble]

> I'm well aware that the EU has no authority on direct tax matters, which is exactly why Ireland feels aggrieved, as the Commission is effectively using state aid law as a vehicle to circumvent the limitations on the EU's powers.

as someone who generally dislikes the EU... this one seems fair?

giving Apple a custom tax rate to encourage Apple to set up in Ireland seems exactly what state aid rules were designed to stop