EU lawmakers are awaiting an announcement which is seen as major step in the drawn-out dispute over tax arrangements between technology giant Apple and Ireland. The advocate general at the European Court of Justice is to issue an opinion on Friday morning about whether Apple will be forced to pay more than 13 billion euro in back taxes to Ireland. While the opinion of the advocate general is non-binding, it is usually followed by the court and therefore could have significant implications for corporation tax bills. Ireland had fought the European Commission over the matter due to concerns over an intrusion on Irish sovereignty and potential impacts to investment in the country. There was no sweetheart deal Finance Minister Michael McGrath In 2016, following an EU investigation which launched in 2014, the commission concluded that Ireland gave undue tax benefits of 13.1 billion euro to Apple, which is illegal under EU state aid rules. The commission said that tax rulings issued by Ireland to Apple in 1991 and 1997 substantially and artificially lowered the tax paid by the iPhone manufacturer in the country since 1991, in a way which did not correspond to economic reality. As a result, competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager said Ireland had granted illegal tax benefits which enabled it to pay substantially less tax than other business over many years. The investigation found that Apple had paid an effective corporate tax rate of 1% on its European profits in 2003, down to 0.005% in 2014 – 50 euro for every one million euro of profit. The process involved recording almost all sales profits of two Irish incorporated companies, which the commission said only existed on paper. The companies, fully owned by Apple, held the rights to use the firm’s intellectual property to manufacture and sell its products outside North and South America. The commission said this situation allowed Apple to avoid taxation on almost all profits generated by sales of its products in the entire EU single market. It said this was due to Apple’s decision to record all sales in Ireland rather than in the countries where the products were sold. The findings were disputed by the Irish State – which said all tax owed had been collected – and Apple, which had come under scrutiny in the US for its tax practices years earlier. At the time, Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook, branded the EU findings as “political crap”, maddening and untrue. The Irish Government, which was also used to defending a comparatively low 12.5% corporation tax rate, said Europe had overstepped the mark in attempting to dictate tax laws and enforce retrospective taxes decades later. Ireland and Apple fought the commission on the matter and in July 2020, the General Court of the European Union annulled the decision. However, the commission subsequently appealed the decision to the European Court of Justice with Ms Vestager saying the lower court’s ruling contained “errors of law”. The European Court of Justice’s advocate general is to give a legal opinion on the dispute ahead of the court’s final decision. That decision is expected next year and will have significant implications for how member states grant tax breaks to major firms. Apple has argued it has been paying tax on the profits in question in the US, while Ireland has seen it necessary to defend its reputation on taxation issues to protect foreign direct investment. Last weekend, Finance Minister Michael McGrath said the advocate general’s opinion will be “significant” but added it is not the final step in the process. Mr McGrath said: “We are confident in our position in respect of the Apple case. We take encouragement from the findings they have made so far, but it is a significant day.” He added: “There was no sweetheart deal. This was the application of Ireland’s statutory corporation tax code.” In the interim, the 13.1 billion euro has been held in an escrow fund pending the outcome of the case. The money, with interest, is due to be entered into the Irish exchequer if the commission wins the case. However, other member states may make claims that they are owed some of the money. If the commission loses the appeal, the large sum will be returned to Apple.

Tech giant Apple has unveiled its first major product in more than seven years, a mixed-reality headset that might just deliver a...

TL;DR: As of August 21, get the Control D Some Control Plan: 5-Yr Subscription for

The UK Financial Conduct Authority is examining the market for sustainable loans amid concerns that environmental targets are

Olivia Rodrigo is once again making waves — this time with the release of the

By Timothy Gardner WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Private U.S. nuclear fusion company Helion Energy will provide Microsoft with electricity in about five

FLORHAM PARK, N.J. & NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sep 12, 2023--

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) has been unable to convince some market participants that it is

After nearly two years and $69 billion, Microsoft’s purchase of Activision Blizzard is finally complete. The Xbox maker and the game developer are joining together in the biggest purchase in gaming history. It is a vast business undertaking that will define the future of the two companies and the gaming industry more broadly. But what will it actually mean for the gamers who use Microsoft’s platforms and play Activision’s games – as well as those that don’t? What happened in the deal? Microsoft first announced that it wanted to buy Activision Blizzard in January last year. Microsoft makes the Xbox and Activision Blizzard makes many of the worlds biggest games – it is often associated with Call of Duty, but also makes World Of Warcraft, Overwatch and mobile giant Candy Crush, and more. In the time since, the deal has been hit by opposition from rivals, primarily PlayStation maker Sony, and has been undergoing scrutiny from regulators, who worried that it would give Microsoft too much power in the gaming market, and harm players as a result. Regulators across the world expressed those reservations, and in some cases required Microsoft to make changes to the deal. Chief among those changes were Microsoft’s decision to give French gaming company Ubisoft the rights to distribute Activision games in the cloud. This was a response to concerns from the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority, which expressed concern specifically that the deal would give Microsoft too much power over cloud gaming. But there were a host of less dramatic and expensive commitments. That included signing deals with other companies such as Sony and Nintendo to commit to keep Call of Duty games on their platforms. What will it mean for Xbox players? At least initially, the biggest consequences of the deal are likely to be for Xbox’s Game Pass, the subscription platform that allows players to download and play games in return for a monthly fee. More Activision games are expected to come to that platform as a result of the acquisition. But even that won’t happen straight away, at least with all games. Activision said in a statement this week – before the deal closed – that its big titles won’t be coming to Game Pass this year, and has not made any commitments about which games will do so or when. “While we do not have plans to put Modern Warfare III or Diablo IV into Game Pass this year, once the deal closes, we expect to start working with Xbox to bring our titles to more players around the world,” Activision wrote in a tweet. “And we anticipate that we would begin adding games into Game Pass sometime in the course of next year.” What will it mean for gamers on other platforms? Much of the discussion with regulators has been about this question. And many of the concessions that Microsoft gave over the deal were done with the aim of ensuring that the answer is: not that much, at least at first. Xbox has committed to keep making its games available on other platforms such as PlayStation and Nintendo Switch, as well as on cloud platforms. And Xbox chief Phil Spencer echoed that commitment in the announcement that the deal was completed. “Whether you play on Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, PC or mobile, you are welcome here - and will remain welcome, even if Xbox isn’t where you play your favourite franchise. Because when everyone plays, we all win,” he wrote. But the bigger question might be about new games, especially those that come out after the initial commitments are over. Microsoft has committed to keep Call of Duty on rival platforms for 10 years, for instance – but things could change in the years after that, and with other, new games. When Microsoft bought another game developer Bethesda in 2020, for instance, there were questions over what it would mean for players on other platforms, and whether its games would be exclusive to Microsoft. Its most recent game Starcraft was available only on the Xbox and PC, and the upcoming Elder Scrolls VI is likely to be the same. Read More Nasa launches Psyche mission to study an ancient metal asteroid Microsoft buys Call of Duty developer in biggest deal in gaming history Microsoft gets go-ahead to buy Call of Duty maker Activision Nasa launches Psyche mission to study an ancient metal asteroid Microsoft buys Call of Duty developer in biggest deal in gaming history Microsoft gets go-ahead to buy Call of Duty maker Activision

Apple may be just hours away from unveiling its most ambitious new hardware product in years.

The world’s largest agriculture producers are pushing back against new European Union rules that require proof that crops

UPDATE: Jun. 22, 2023, 2:25 p.m. EDT This article has been updated with new information