IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iie/pbrief/pb16-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Apple’s Tax Dispute With Europe and the Need for Reform

Author

Listed:
  • Gary Clyde Hufbauer

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

  • Zhiyao Lu

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

Abstract

On August 30, 2016, European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager demanded that Ireland reclaim €13 billion ($14.5 billion) from Apple Inc. to redress improper “state aids” conferred on the company through Irish tax rulings in 1991 and 2007. The European Commission’s demands triggered a huge uproar—from Ireland, Apple, other multinational corporations, and the US Treasury Department. According to the Commission, Apple paid an effective corporate tax rate of less than 1 percent between 2003 and 2014, through a sweetheart tax deal with Irish tax authorities. The Commission alleged this to be a breach of EU state aid rules and instructed Ireland to claim unpaid taxes from Apple. Both Apple and Ireland announced they would appeal. Apple denied the extremely low effective tax rate claimed by the Commission and insisted that it had paid all taxes in accordance with existing treaties, laws, regulations, and rulings. Ireland appealed in light of its position as a favored site for multinational corporations doing business in Europe. The US Treasury Department, aligning with Apple and Ireland, criticized the Commission’s new approach as applied in the Apple case, as well as the retroactive component of the decision and its detrimental impact on the ability of member states to honor bilateral tax treaties.

Suggested Citation

  • Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Zhiyao Lu, 2016. "Apple’s Tax Dispute With Europe and the Need for Reform," Policy Briefs PB16-16, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:iie:pbrief:pb16-16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/apples-tax-dispute-europe-and-need-reform
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iie:pbrief:pb16-16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peterson Institute webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iieeeus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.