Home > All journals > EC Tax Review > 33(6) >
$25.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$49.00 - Article (PDF) *
Raymond Luja
EC Tax Review
Volume 33, Issue 6 (2024) pp. 238 – 243
httpss://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2024026
Abstract
On 10 September 2024, the CJEU upheld a European Commission decision to recover state aid from two Irish subsidiaries of Apple. The CJEU set aside substantial parts of the General Court’s judgment, raising the question whether it engaged in an appraisal of facts normally reserved to the latter. In the absence of a cross-appeal with respect to facts established at first instance, the CJEU had to assume that Ireland applied a regime similar to the Authorized OECD Approach (AOA) at the time. This turned out to be a gamechanger that sets the Apple case apart from previous cases like FIAT.
Keywords
state aid, European commission, transfer pricing, Apple, arm’s length principle
Extract
On 10 September 2024, the CJEU upheld a European Commission decision to recover state aid from two Irish subsidiaries of Apple. The CJEU set aside substantial parts of the General Court’s judgment, raising the question whether it engaged in an appraisal of facts normally reserved to the latter. In the absence of a cross-appeal with respect to facts established at first instance, the CJEU had to assume that Ireland applied a regime similar to the Authorized OECD Approach (AOA) at the time. This turned out to be a gamechanger that sets the Apple case apart from previous cases like FIAT.