Here are the letters sent to the tax authorities of the countries: for l ‘ preliminary investigation of Brussels tax regimes are granted a practice detrimental to competition. From the reconstructions, Apple “is” the taxes in Dublin. The Netherlands also involved in relationships with Starbucks
MILAN – Ireland and Luxembourg are accused of having favored Apple and Fiat, respectively, in the field of taxation. The European Antitrust thorough investigation, announced before the summer, are now further confirmation in the publication of letters to Dublin and Luxembourg, which are reconstructed their stories and accusations.
The mechanisms to focus of concern in particular the transfer pricing and agreements that companies take with national tax authorities (“tax ruling”), so you know in advance that regime will be treated with their business. In practice, large multinational companies are able to move from accounting point of view, where the gains are taxed less. What happens when you invoice the subsidiaries with the sale of goods or services to other members of the group, sometimes priced out of the market because the profits are included at the end where the hand of the IRS is lighter.
Apple. From Ireland, in particular, the EU regulators want ( letter ) more details on the tax agreements reached with the colossus of the iPhone in 1990 and in 2007, warning of the that we can deal with aid
anti-competitive, that will have to be recovered by the company United States. The words of Commissioner Joaquin Almunia is unequivocal: “According to the preliminary view of the Commission, it is state aid.” For the Cupertino giant could get, if the investigation will be concluded with the sentencing of the operations of Ireland, a request for reimbursement billionaire.
The Commission, on the basis of negotiations between Apple and reconstructs the Irish tax authorities, writes that the taxable amount of the 1991 is the result of a “negotiation.” It would not have been calculated by reference to other comparable transactions, as it would have using a proper methodology. In simple words, the whole organization chart of Apple, the Irish authorities have agreed to be considered as the basis of assessment of the United States, in relation to the Irish branch, values are not aligned with what would have occurred normally on the market.
For more would create a “negotiation” with which to fix the taxation, the taxable bargaining rather than applying strict formulas and precise calculations. Apple would have benefited by putting weights on the plate of the discussions as an opportunity (Dublin) to create jobs, but that should not be included in the calculation of taxes that have generated an asymmetry between the forces in the field. In the end, the parties would have resulted in “reverse” the costs attributable to the Irish subsidiary to get to determine the taxable amount you want.
Again in relation to the agreement instead of 2007, the Commission notes that there is absolute disproportion between the growth of the operations of the Irish subsidiary Apple Sales International (subsidiary of Cupertino) in terms of sales (+ 415% between 2009 and 2012) 64 billion and operating costs (between +10 and + 20%): a symptom of a notional allocation of profits to the Irish operations, where in reality no costs were incurred sufficient to justify the sales boom.
Fiat. The to the document that relates to Fiat , the prosecution relates to a “preliminary agreement on prices” between tax authorities Luxembourg and Fiat Finance and Trade (FFT), the company’s Lingotto which deals with finance and treasury. As for Apple, even in this case would constitute a State aid adversely affecting competition. “At this stage, the Commission has no indication that the measure could be considered compatible with the internal market.”
In the Commission’s preliminary conclusions, therefore, end up at gunpoint deferred tax arrangements between the FFT and the Luxembourg authorities relating to the determination of transfer prices for transactions within the group for the purposes of taxation. In the case of FFT is an agreement (tax ruling) of 2012, accepted 3 September by the Luxembourg authorities on the basis of the proposal made by the consultant to the Lingotto on tax, KPMG. For the authorities, the EU “does not comply with the arm’s length principle”, in fact is an advantage that is perpetuated annual (covering the years ranging from 2012 to 2016) and is “selective.”
As for Apple, the agreement influence the allocation of taxable income between subsidiaries established in different countries. The Commission points the finger on the method by which the compensation is determined by FFT to play its role in the group. The level of equity held (in relation to financial risks) and their remuneration would be misaligned to the market. In the current state of the investigation, the Commission believes that in fact the agreement has “the effect of reducing the burden” that Fft “should normally bear in the exercise of its activity and that it must therefore be regarded as operating aid” .
The reconstruction of the story made in the letter that the Commission sent to the Luxembourg also reveals how they are fruitless attempts to have the authority EU guidance on the nature of the agreement, starting with the fact that the abbreviation FFT represent their Fiat Finance and Trade, because the country of mailing letters or EU did not respond or entrenched behind the protection of privacy.
The reaction of Apple: “Our success in Europe and around the world is the result of hard work and innovation by our employees, not derived from any special agreement with the government. Apple has not received any special treatment by the Irish officials over the years. “
The investigations also concern the EU ‘ Netherlands , in regard to relations with Starbucks , and are not concluded at this level. For the states involved, there is a month in which to respond to the comments made.
No comments:
Post a Comment