还记得苹果在2016年陷入的那一场“补税风波”么?当时,欧盟委员会竞争专员玛格丽特•维斯塔格指出,爱尔兰政府一直在为苹果提供非法援助,据称,多年来,该政府不断地包庇苹果的逃税行为,只向它收取很小一部分的税额——在2014年,苹果甚至只需要上交0.005%的税款。
2016年8月,欧盟委员会反垄断部门裁定,苹果在爱尔兰非法逃税130亿欧元,判决规定,苹果必须将这部分税款返还给爱尔兰政府。对此,苹果与爱尔兰双方均提出异议,重新将此官司上诉至欧盟最高法院。
本周三,在时隔四年之后,欧盟最高法院重新对此案进行开庭审理,最终宣布欧盟委员会未能出具足够证据材料证明爱尔兰政府的包庇行为,故而2016年欧盟委员会的裁定无效,苹果无须补交130亿欧元。至此,苹果才算重新占了上风。
事实上,苹果在爱尔兰的确注册了两家下属公司,它们分别负责苹果的国际销售及欧洲运营。苹果与爱尔兰政府共同表示,苹果的软件和硬件都是在美国设计的,爱尔兰下属公司只负责加工及分销,因此这两家子公司还是主要向美国纳税。然而,欧盟委员会认为,这两家子公司的员工都身处爱尔兰,公司活动也在爱尔兰举办,没有道理不向爱尔兰全额纳税。
对于苹果而言,2016年欧盟委员会的裁定可以称得上是一颗重磅炸弹。一方面,130亿欧元是一笔不小的金额,另一方面,也能侧面体现出欧盟监管机构对于美国科技公司的不友好态度。近年来,像玛格丽特•维斯塔格这一类的欧盟委员时不时地就会援引《反垄断法》来严抓跨国公司在欧洲的逃税行为,借此收得更多的税款。
跨国公司的税收问题
“感谢欧盟最高法院为此案所付出的时间与精力,我们对于最终的判决结果非常满意”苹果在一份官方声明中写道,“这个案子的关键其实并不在于我们要交多少税,而是在于我们要把税交到哪里。跨国公司的税收问题是一桩亟待解决的大事,需要一个全球通用的方案,针对这个问题的工作应该被继续下去。”
本次重审对于爱尔兰政府来说也是一个好消息。爱尔兰一直以低税收闻名,企业只需要缴纳12.5%的公司税即可,在整个欧盟范围内,只有匈牙利的税率比它低。正是因为低税收,爱尔兰吸引了许多跨国科技公司在该国设立国际总部。判决结果一出,爱尔兰财政部就向该法院作出回应,表示“这是显而易见的事实”,爱尔兰“从来没有向苹果的子公司提供过特殊待遇”。
不过,这一场闹剧真的会就此结束了么?
首先,虽然欧盟最高法院具有着相应的最高权威,但欧盟委员会仍然可以就此判决结果提出异议并再次上诉。该委员会在周三做出了同步回应,称其“正在考虑下一步”。如此一来,这个官司再拖上几年也是绰绰有余。其次,欧洲议会早就看不惯所谓的跨国公司在欧盟低税收国家享受到的“双标”待遇了。这些公司一边赚着欧洲的钱,一边又把赚得的利润转移回自己的国家,这是欧洲议会不能忍受的。
就在这周三,欧盟委员会还发布了一个“公平税收竞争参数”修改提案,从这一点上,也大可以窥见它的怒气。“全球化与数字化已经成为了当今世界经济的大势所在,随着无形资产的重要性被日益提高,再加之商业壁垒正在不断减少,跨国公司呈现出了一个迅猛的发展态势,以上种种都加剧了各国的竞争压力,为了吸引外资入驻,很多国家不得不用力于自己的税收政策”欧盟委员会在提案中指出,“这样的行为加大了各国间的税收竞争,有碍公平。”
目前,全球经济合作与发展组织(OECD)也正在就“技术税”问题进行讨论。欧盟委员会表示,如果OECD能够讨论出一个有效的“全球最低税收标准”的话,欧盟当然会考虑将其纳入自己的体系,但如果美国最终退出谈判,各国讨论不出来一个合适的结果的话,该委员会则期望欧盟能够自建一个指标。
“不管是什么公司,都应该缴纳他们应缴的税款,欧盟委员会完全支持这一点” 玛格丽特•维斯塔格在周三的一份声明中表示,“如果某个欧盟成员国给跨国公司提供税收优惠,这将有损整个欧盟内部的公平竞争,也会剥夺国家公民应该享有的福利资金。在疫情期间,这笔钱款恰恰是很重要的。”
“收税魔女”维斯塔格
无论如何,对于玛格丽特•维斯塔格个人而言,本次欧盟最高法院的判决结果绝对是一件尴尬之事,毕竟她是该案的最初发起人。作为欧盟委员会的首席调查官,她一直坚持着“公平竞争”的市场愿景,被特朗普称作为“收税魔女”,一度令整个硅谷闻风丧胆。
去年9月,维斯塔格也输掉了一个与之相似的官司。彼时欧盟委员会指控荷兰政府为星巴克提供了特殊优惠,但最高法院认为其证据不足,宣布指控无效,具体情况与“苹果案”如出一辙。
最近,维斯塔格正在努力压制德法两国对于《欧共体条约》的修改意愿,这次的败诉事件很有可能会削弱她的气焰。去年,她一手阻挠了德国西门子与法国阿尔斯通这两大高铁巨头的合并事宜,毁了这两家公司联手缔造“欧洲冠军”的美梦,可以说是把德法两国都得罪了。此举也可能会导致维斯塔格无缘欧盟委员会主席一职。
值得注意的是,“补税风波”并不是维斯塔格对苹果的唯一制裁。上个月,她指出苹果可能在有意地限制消费者的选择,并宣布要对苹果的支付系统及应用商城展开反垄断调查。(财富中文网)
编译:陈怡轩
还记得苹果在2016年陷入的那一场“补税风波”么?当时,欧盟委员会竞争专员玛格丽特•维斯塔格指出,爱尔兰政府一直在为苹果提供非法援助,据称,多年来,该政府不断地包庇苹果的逃税行为,只向它收取很小一部分的税额——在2014年,苹果甚至只需要上交0.005%的税款。
2016年8月,欧盟委员会反垄断部门裁定,苹果在爱尔兰非法逃税130亿欧元,判决规定,苹果必须将这部分税款返还给爱尔兰政府。对此,苹果与爱尔兰双方均提出异议,重新将此官司上诉至欧盟最高法院。
本周三,在时隔四年之后,欧盟最高法院重新对此案进行开庭审理,最终宣布欧盟委员会未能出具足够证据材料证明爱尔兰政府的包庇行为,故而2016年欧盟委员会的裁定无效,苹果无须补交130亿欧元。至此,苹果才算重新占了上风。
事实上,苹果在爱尔兰的确注册了两家下属公司,它们分别负责苹果的国际销售及欧洲运营。苹果与爱尔兰政府共同表示,苹果的软件和硬件都是在美国设计的,爱尔兰下属公司只负责加工及分销,因此这两家子公司还是主要向美国纳税。然而,欧盟委员会认为,这两家子公司的员工都身处爱尔兰,公司活动也在爱尔兰举办,没有道理不向爱尔兰全额纳税。
对于苹果而言,2016年欧盟委员会的裁定可以称得上是一颗重磅炸弹。一方面,130亿欧元是一笔不小的金额,另一方面,也能侧面体现出欧盟监管机构对于美国科技公司的不友好态度。近年来,像玛格丽特•维斯塔格这一类的欧盟委员时不时地就会援引《反垄断法》来严抓跨国公司在欧洲的逃税行为,借此收得更多的税款。
跨国公司的税收问题
“感谢欧盟最高法院为此案所付出的时间与精力,我们对于最终的判决结果非常满意”苹果在一份官方声明中写道,“这个案子的关键其实并不在于我们要交多少税,而是在于我们要把税交到哪里。跨国公司的税收问题是一桩亟待解决的大事,需要一个全球通用的方案,针对这个问题的工作应该被继续下去。”
本次重审对于爱尔兰政府来说也是一个好消息。爱尔兰一直以低税收闻名,企业只需要缴纳12.5%的公司税即可,在整个欧盟范围内,只有匈牙利的税率比它低。正是因为低税收,爱尔兰吸引了许多跨国科技公司在该国设立国际总部。判决结果一出,爱尔兰财政部就向该法院作出回应,表示“这是显而易见的事实”,爱尔兰“从来没有向苹果的子公司提供过特殊待遇”。
不过,这一场闹剧真的会就此结束了么?
首先,虽然欧盟最高法院具有着相应的最高权威,但欧盟委员会仍然可以就此判决结果提出异议并再次上诉。该委员会在周三做出了同步回应,称其“正在考虑下一步”。如此一来,这个官司再拖上几年也是绰绰有余。其次,欧洲议会早就看不惯所谓的跨国公司在欧盟低税收国家享受到的“双标”待遇了。这些公司一边赚着欧洲的钱,一边又把赚得的利润转移回自己的国家,这是欧洲议会不能忍受的。
就在这周三,欧盟委员会还发布了一个“公平税收竞争参数”修改提案,从这一点上,也大可以窥见它的怒气。“全球化与数字化已经成为了当今世界经济的大势所在,随着无形资产的重要性被日益提高,再加之商业壁垒正在不断减少,跨国公司呈现出了一个迅猛的发展态势,以上种种都加剧了各国的竞争压力,为了吸引外资入驻,很多国家不得不用力于自己的税收政策”欧盟委员会在提案中指出,“这样的行为加大了各国间的税收竞争,有碍公平。”
目前,全球经济合作与发展组织(OECD)也正在就“技术税”问题进行讨论。欧盟委员会表示,如果OECD能够讨论出一个有效的“全球最低税收标准”的话,欧盟当然会考虑将其纳入自己的体系,但如果美国最终退出谈判,各国讨论不出来一个合适的结果的话,该委员会则期望欧盟能够自建一个指标。
“不管是什么公司,都应该缴纳他们应缴的税款,欧盟委员会完全支持这一点” 玛格丽特•维斯塔格在周三的一份声明中表示,“如果某个欧盟成员国给跨国公司提供税收优惠,这将有损整个欧盟内部的公平竞争,也会剥夺国家公民应该享有的福利资金。在疫情期间,这笔钱款恰恰是很重要的。”
“收税魔女”维斯塔格
无论如何,对于玛格丽特•维斯塔格个人而言,本次欧盟最高法院的判决结果绝对是一件尴尬之事,毕竟她是该案的最初发起人。作为欧盟委员会的首席调查官,她一直坚持着“公平竞争”的市场愿景,被特朗普称作为“收税魔女”,一度令整个硅谷闻风丧胆。
去年9月,维斯塔格也输掉了一个与之相似的官司。彼时欧盟委员会指控荷兰政府为星巴克提供了特殊优惠,但最高法院认为其证据不足,宣布指控无效,具体情况与“苹果案”如出一辙。
最近,维斯塔格正在努力压制德法两国对于《欧共体条约》的修改意愿,这次的败诉事件很有可能会削弱她的气焰。去年,她一手阻挠了德国西门子与法国阿尔斯通这两大高铁巨头的合并事宜,毁了这两家公司联手缔造“欧洲冠军”的美梦,可以说是把德法两国都得罪了。此举也可能会导致维斯塔格无缘欧盟委员会主席一职。
值得注意的是,“补税风波”并不是维斯塔格对苹果的唯一制裁。上个月,她指出苹果可能在有意地限制消费者的选择,并宣布要对苹果的支付系统及应用商城展开反垄断调查。(财富中文网)
编译:陈怡轩
Apple has prevailed–for now–in its epic fight against a $14.8 billion back-tax bill in Ireland.
On Wednesday morning, the EU's General Court annulled a 2016 decision by the European Commission's antitrust division, that had found Ireland had for years granted Apple illegal state aid by letting it effectively pay very little corporate tax on its European profits—as little as 0.005% in 2014.
Apple has two subsidiaries that are incorporated in Ireland but are not tax-resident there: Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe. Apple and the Irish government say the profits flowing through these subsidiaries, which handle the manufacture and distribution of Apple products, are mostly taxable in the U.S., where Apple's software and hardware is designed. The Commission argues that the subsidiaries should be fully taxed in Ireland, because that's where their employees are, and where their activities are conducted.
The Commission's 2016 decision was a bombshell not only due to the size of the sum, but also because the Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager was using antitrust law to tackle a tax issue—European regulators have long been trying to get largely American Big Tech firms to pay more tax, and this seemed like a creative way to do it.
"State aid" claim
According to the General Court, the Commission blew it. The Luxembourg-based court said the Commission didn't sufficiently demonstrate that Ireland had given Apple's Irish subsidiaries a particular advantage over other companies. That means Ireland's treatment of the iPhone maker didn't amount to state aid—and Apple therefore doesn't have to pay that whopping back-tax bill. (In case you're wondering, most of the $14.8 billion has been sitting in an escrow account for years, while the legal drama unfolded.
"We thank the General Court for their time and consideration of the facts. We are pleased they have annulled the Commission’s case," Apple said in a statement. "This case was not about how much tax we pay, but where we are required to pay it…Changes in how a multinational company’s income tax payments are split between different countries require a global solution, and Apple encourages this work to continue."
It wasn't just Apple that had tried to get the Commission's decision overturned. So had Ireland, whose 12.5% corporate tax rate—in the EU, only Hungary's 9% rate is lower—has helped attract some of the world's biggest tech firms to set up their international headquarters in the country. The Irish finance department responded to the General Court's ruling by saying it had "always been clear that there was no special treatment provided" to Apple's Irish subsidiaries.
However, there are two big reasons why the drama is set to continue.
Firstly, while the EU's General Court is the bloc's highest authority in terms of establishing the facts of a case, the European Commission can still appeal to the Court of Justice, which is the highest authority on questions of law. Most observers expect the Commission to do this, which means the case could drag on for a few years yet. Responding to the ruling, the Commission said Wednesday it was considering what to do next. Secondly, the European Parliament has long been fed up with multinationals establishing themselves in the EU's lowest-tax countries, through which they funnel the profits they earn in other EU countries.
Also on Wednesday, the Commission responded to that anger by unveiling a plan that would revamp the "parameters for fair tax competition" between EU member states. "Globalization, digitalization, the growing role of multinationals in the world economy, the increased importance of intangible assets, and the reduction of barriers for business have all intensified the pressure on states to use taxation to compete for foreign investment," the Commission said in its proposal. "This has prompted tax competition to escalate and evolve, testing the very parameters of fairness."
There are international discussions about the tech-taxation issue taking place at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). If a new global standard for minimum effective taxation emerges from those discussions, the Commission said, then that would need to be integrated into the EU's rules. If not—and the signs are not good, with the U.S. potentially pulling out of the talks—then the Commission wants the EU to set up its own standard.
"The Commission stands fully behind the objective that all companies should pay their fair share of tax," Vestager said in a Wednesday statement. "If member states give certain multinational companies tax advantages not available to their rivals, this harms fair competition in the EU. It also deprives the public purse and citizens of funds for much needed investments–the need for which is even more acute during times of crisis."
A bad day for Vestager
Whatever happens down the line, the General Court's ruling is a major embarrassment for Vestager, the scourge of Silicon Valley and—in President Trump's succinct phrasing—the "tax lady." (She responded to that description with the immortal, "I do work with tax and I am a woman.")
The Dane's department already lost a similar case last September, involving Starbucks's tax payments in the Netherlands. The Commission said the Dutch tax authorities had given Starbucks illegal state aid by granting it a favorable deal, but the General Court said it had failed to demonstrate its argument—much as had now happened regarding Apple and Ireland.
The fresh blow could weaken Vestager's hand as she tries to resist attempts by France and Germany to reform EU competition rules. She infuriated those countries last year by blocking a rail-focused merger between Germany's Siemens and France's Alstom—a move that stymied the desired creation of a "European champion" and might have cost Vestager the chance to become president of the European Commission.
Nonetheless, the Irish tax case wasn't Vestager's only broadside against Apple. Last month she announced antitrust probes into Apple's in-app payment rules and restrictions on other developers using the tap-and-go functionality of iPhones.