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. Opinion of the AG In his Opinion, Advocate General Giovanni Pitruzzella proposes that the Court set aside the judgment and refer the case back to the General Court for a new decision on the merits. According to the Advocate General, the General Court committed a series of errors in law when it ruled that the Commission had not shown to the requisite legal standard that the intellectual property licences held by ASI and AOE and related profits, generated by the sales of Apple products outside the USA, had to be attributed for tax purposes to the Irish branches. The Advocate General is also of the view that the General Court failed to assess correctly the substance and consequences of certain methodological errors that, according to the Commission decision, vitiated the tax rulings. In the Advocate General’s opinion, it is therefore necessary for the General Court to carry out a new assessment ...

In 2016 the European Commission found that a Spanish tax regime constituted illegal state aid. The tax regime allowed for the deduction of goodwill in the case of acquisitions of shares in foreign companies. Spain and several companies appealed the decision. Judgement of the General Court The Court annulled the decision of the Commission. Click here for unofficial English translation ...

Diageo (British multinational beverage and alcohol group – owner of numerus brands including Jonny Walker, Captain Morgan, Gordons Gin, Smirnoff and Guinness) is facing difficult tax challenges according to the group’s August 2020 SEC-filings During 2017 Diageo was in discussions with UK tax authorities to seek clarity on Diageo’s transfer pricing and related issues, and in the first half of the year ending 30 June 2018 a preliminary assessment for diverted profits tax notice was issued. Final charging notices were issued in August 2017 and Diageo paid £107 million in respect of the two years ended 30 June 2016.  In June 2018 an agreement was reached with UK tax authorities that diverted profits tax does not apply the Diageo and at the same time a resolution was reached on the transfer pricing issues being discussed. The agreement in respect of transfer pricing covers the period from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2017 and has resulted in an additional UK tax charge of £143 million. In the year ended 30 June 2018 an additional tax charge of £47 million was recognised in current tax which is based on the approach agreed with UK tax authorities. In April 2019, the European Commission issued its decision in a state aid investigation into the Group Financing Exemption in the UK controlled foreign company rules. The European Commission found that part of the Group Financing Exemption constitutes state aid. The Group Financing Exemption was introduced in legislation by the UK government in 2013. In common with other UK-based international companies whose arrangements are in line with current UK CFC legislation Diageo may be affected by the ultimate outcome of this investigation. The UK government and other UK-based international companies, including Diageo, have appealed to the General Court of the European Union against the decision. The UK government is required to commence collection proceedings and therefore it is expected that Diageo will have to make a payment in the year ending 30 June 2021 in respect of this case. At present it is not possible to determine the amount that the UK government will seek to collect. If the decision of the European Commission is upheld, Diageo calculates its maximum potential liability to be approximately £275 million. Based on its current assessment, Diageo believes that no provision is required in respect of this issue. In July 2019 Diageo reached a resolution with the French tax authorities on the treatment of interest costs for all open periods which resulted in a total exceptional charge of €100 million (£88 million), comprising a tax charge of €69 million (£61 million), penalties of €21 million (£18 million) and interest of €10 million (£9 million).  This brought to a close all open issues with the French tax authorities for periods up to and including 30 June 2017. Diageo also has a large number of ongoing tax cases in Brazil and India. The current assessment of the aggregate possible exposures is up to approximately £285 million for Brazil and up to approximately £150 million for India. The group believes that the likelihood that the tax authorities will ultimately prevail is lower than probable but higher than remote. Due to the fiscal environment in Brazil and in India the possibility of further tax assessments related to the same matters cannot be ruled out. Based on its current assessment, Diageo believes that no provision is required in respect of these issues. Diageo states that payments were made under protest in India in respect of the periods 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2017 in relation to tax assessments where the risk is considered to be remote or possible. These payments have to be made in order to challenge the assessments and as such have been recognised as a receivable on the consolidated balance sheet. The total amount of protest payments recognised as a receivable as at 30 June 2020 is £117 million (corporate tax payments of £107 million and indirect tax payments of £10 million) ...

The European Commission found that Luxembourg did not grant illegal State aid to McDonald’s as a consequence of the exemption of income attributed to a US branch. “Based on this analysis, the Commission concludes that in this specific case, it is not established that the Luxembourg tax authorities misapplied the Luxembourg – US double taxation treaty. Therefore, on the basis of the doubts raised in the Opening Decision and taking into account its definition of the reference system, the Commission cannot establish that the contested rulings granted a selective advantage to McD Europe by misapplying the Luxembourg – US double taxation treaty.” McDonald’s Corporation is a Delaware public limited company with its principal office located in Oak Brook, Illinois, USA. It operates and franchises McDonald’s restaurants, which serve food and beverages. Of the 37,241 restaurants in over 100 countries approximately 34,108 are franchised and 3,133 are operated by the company. McDonald’s Corporation is therefore primarily a franchisor, with over 80% of McDonald’s restaurants owned and operated by independent franchisees. In 2017, McDonald’s Corporation had around 400 subsidiaries and 235,000 employees and recorded total revenues of USD 22.8 billion, of which USD 12.7 billion was from company-operated sales and USD 10.1 billion from franchised revenues. A Luxembourg group company made a buy-in payment to enter a cost sharing arrangement with a US related company, and thereby acquired beneficial ownership of certain existing and future franchise rights. These rights were allocated to the US branch of the Luxembourg company. The royalty fees due by franchisees would first be paid to a Swiss branch of the Luxembourg company, which provided services associated with the franchise rights. The royalty fees would then be transferred to the US branch, deduction being made of a service fee to the benefit of the Swiss branch consisting of cost coverage, plus a profit mark-up. Although royalty fees was booked in the US no tax was levied. This was due to the fact that the activities carried out in the US did not constitute a trade or business. The income allocated to the US branch was also not taxed in Luxembourg. According to the US-LUX tax treaty the residence State was prevented from taxing as (1) the US activity would constitute a permanent establishment under the Luxembourg interpretation of the treaty and (2) the existence of such a permanent establishment would oblige Luxembourg to apply the article on the elimination of double taxation. In a tax ruling Luxembourg found that the income would be exempt although not taxed in the US. The Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure because it took the preliminary view that the contested tax rulings granted State aid to McDonald’s Europe within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty and expressed its doubts as to the compatibility of the contested tax measures with the internal market. In particular, the Commission expressed doubts that the revised tax ruling misapplied Article 25(2) of the Luxembourg – US double taxation treaty and thereby granted a selective advantage to McDonald’s Europe. Following the investigation, the Commission concluded that Luxembourg did not give a selective advantage to McDonald’s by exempting the income allocated to the US branch. The conclusions of the European Commission on the issue of state aid does not relate to the arm’s length nature of the transfer pricing setup used by McDonald’s in relation to the European marked ...