In 1991 and 2007, Ireland issued two tax rulings in relation to two companies of the Apple Group (Apple Sales International – ASI and Apple Operations Europe – AOE), incorporated under Irish law but not tax resident in Ireland. The rulings approved the method by which ASI and AOE proposed to determine their chargeable profits in Ireland deriving from the activity of their Irish branches.
In 2016, the European Commission considered that the tax rulings, by excluding from the tax base the profits deriving from the use of intellectual property licences held by ASI and AOE, granted those companies, between 1991 and 2014, State aid that was unlawful and incompatible with the internal market and from which the Apple Group as a whole had benefitted, and ordered Ireland to recover that aid.
In 2020, on the application of Ireland and ASI and AOE, the General Court of the European Union annulled the Commission’s decision, finding that the Commission had not shown that there was an advantage deriving from the adoption of the tax rulings.
The Commission lodged an appeal with the Court of Justice, asking it to set aside the judgment of the General Court.
Judgment of the ECJU
The Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court and gives final judgment in the matter.
According to the Court of Justice, the General Court erred when it ruled that the Commission had not proved sufficiently that the intellectual property licences held by ASI and AOE and related profits, generated by sales of Apple products outside the United States, should have been allocated, for tax purposes, to the Irish branches. In particular, the General Court erred when it ruled that the Commission’s primary line of reasoning was based on erroneous assessments of normal taxation under the Irish tax law applicable in the case, and when it upheld the complaints raised by Ireland and by ASI and AOE regarding the Commission’s factual assessments of the activities of the Irish branches of ASI and AOE and of activities outside those branches.
After setting aside the judgment under appeal, the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings is such that it may give final judgment in the actions, and that it should do so within the limits of the matter before it. In that context, the Court confirms in particular the Commission’s approach according to which, under the relevant provision of Irish law relating to the calculation of tax payable by non-resident companies, the activities of the branches of ASI and AOE in Ireland had to be compared not to activities of other Apple Group companies, for example a parent company in the United States, but to those of other entities of those companies, particularly their head offices outside Ireland.