SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
August, 30 2016, 11:15am EDT
Contact:
Florian Oel | Brussels |florian.oel@oxfaminternational.org | office +32 2 234 11 15 | mobile +32 473 56 22 60
Apple Ruling Highlights How EU governments Must Do More to Clean Up Murky Corporate Tax Practices
The European Commission today announced Apple has received 13 billion euros in illegal state aid from the Irish government. This decision follows the investigations on illegal state aid between the Dutch government and Starbucks, the Luxembourg government and Fiat, and the Belgian government for its 'excess profit' tax scheme.
Aurore Chardonnet, Oxfam EU policy advisor on inequality and tax, said:
The European Commission today announced Apple has received 13 billion euros in illegal state aid from the Irish government. This decision follows the investigations on illegal state aid between the Dutch government and Starbucks, the Luxembourg government and Fiat, and the Belgian government for its 'excess profit' tax scheme.
Aurore Chardonnet, Oxfam EU policy advisor on inequality and tax, said:
"This decision shows that some tax practises by EU member states can be terribly damaging. Poverty in Europe has been rising and some EU countries have even had bailout programmes in recent years, so it makes no sense for European governments spurn the chance to raise billions in corporate tax income for the benefit of their citizens.
"These sweetheart deals that let multinationals minimise their tax cannot be tolerated. If people's trust in the tax system is to be restored, European governments must act immediately to end these special deals otherwise people's trust in the tax system will continue to evaporate.
"So far, the multinationals that have been exposed by the European Commission have only had to pay back their missing taxes - no additional fines have been levied. This is not a sufficient deterrent whatsoever.
"More needs to be done to stop such deals in the future including the disclosure of core elements of tax rulings. In addition, companies must be forced to disclose where they generate their profits and where they pay their taxes. This would give governments and civil society the ability to hold these companies to account."
Notes to editors:
- The European Commission in 2013 launched investigations into the tax schemes operated by Apple in the Republic of Ireland. Since the early 1990's Apple received significant tax reductions by way of "tax rulings" issued by the Irish tax authorities. These determined, in advance of intra-group transactions, the amount of tax to be paid by the company. Similar investigation into tax rulings for Amazon and McDonald's with Luxembourg were launched respectively in 2014 and 2015.
- According to the European Commission, tax rulings may involve state aid within the meaning of EU rules if they are used to provide selective advantages to a specific company or group of companies.
- After the Luxleaks documents were made public by whistle-blowers Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet in 2014, tax rulings have been exposed as harmful tax practices that permit tax avoidance. The whistle-blowers have been found guilty in a first-instance ruling in June 2016. The case is on-going as the Luxembourg prosecutor appealed the ruling.
- In October 2015, the European Commission concluded that Luxembourg and the Netherlands had granted selective tax advantages respectively to Fiat and to Starbucks. In her speech, Commissioner Vestager called for a fundamental shift in corporate philosophies.
- In January 2016, the European Commission has concluded that selective tax advantages granted by Belgium under its "excess profit" tax scheme are illegal under EU state aid rules. The scheme has benefitted at least 35 multinationals mainly from the EU, who must now return unpaid taxes to Belgium.
- In December 2015, the EU adopted a directive aimed at improving the exchange of information on tax rulings given by member states to companies on advance cross-border tax rulings, as well as advance pricing arrangements. However, the public will not be allowed to access this information.
- In April 2016, the Commission presented a plan for so-called country-by-country reporting, obliging companies to disclose information on profits made and taxes paid for each country they operate in. However, the proposed rules are too weak to effectively fight tax dodging.
- Oxfam America has published the report Broken at the Top in April 2016, which specifically examines Apple's tax practices as one of the US's 50 largest corporations. In their report Getting to Good of November 2015, Oxfam, Christian Aid, and ActionAid lay out principles for responsible corporate behavior on tax.
- In March 2015, Oxfam published "Pulling the Plug - How to stop corporate tax dodging in Europe and beyond", a briefing note that explores ways to fight corporate tax avoidance in the European Union. It explains why it is vital for the EU to adopt legislation against tax dodging as soon as possible.
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Tells Walmart to 'Eat' the Cost of His Tariffs
"If you think Walmart is going to eat the costs of tariffs, then you don't understand Walmart's greed and how it exploits its customers and workers to make its billions," said one observer.
May 17, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump verbally thrashed Walmart on Saturday following the retailer's announcement this week that it expects to raise prices on some goods as a result of tariffs imposed by the White House.
On his social media platform Truth Social, Trump wrote that Walmart should "STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain."
"Between Walmart and China they should, as is said, 'EAT THE TARIFFS,' and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. I'll be watching, and so will your customers!!!" he wrote.
On Thursday, leaders at Walmart said that they will have to raise prices in response to tariffs imposed by the Trump administration even after lowered duties on Chinese imports were announced.
The Trump administration has placed 10% universal tariff on goods entering the United States and imposed higher tariffs on goods coming from China—though on Monday the two countries said they reached a deal to temporarily lower the tariffs they had imposed on one another while they try to hash out a trade deal. Imports from China will now be subject to a 30% tariff, whereas before many goods coming to the U.S. from China previously had at least a 145% tariff.
CEO Doug McMillon said that Walmart, which is known for its low prices, will do its best to keep prices low, but that "given the magnitude of the tariffs, even at the reduced levels announced this week, we aren't able to absorb all the pressure given the reality of narrow retail margins."
One observer expressed skepticism that Walmart would heed Trump's demand.
"If you think Walmart is going to eat the costs of tariffs, then you don't understand Walmart's greed and how it exploits its customers and workers to make its billions," saidMelanie D'Arrigo, the executive director of a group fighting for universal healthcare in New York State.
Economists expect the cost of tariffs, which are a form of tax applied on imports that can be used to support homegrown industries that employ American workers, to be largely passed on from businesses to American consumers.
In an analysis of the Trump administration's tariff regime as of late April, with the higher duties on Chinese goods in place, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that in 2026 the poorest Americans would see the biggest tariff-induced tax hikes compared to other income groups.
Some observers also used Trump's social media post to highlight that in the past he has claimed that other countries would bear the brunt of tariffs.
The social media posts echoes a recent episode when, last month, after a news report that Amazon would display tariff-based price increases next to the price of products online, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called such a move "a hostile and political act." After a call between Trump and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, a company spokesperson said displays had been considered for only a section of the site but wouldn't be happening.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Insanity': Observers Blast Reported Trump Administration Plan to Move Palestinians to Libya
"American-led ethnic cleansing should be flatly unacceptable," said one professor.
May 17, 2025
A plan reportedly under consideration by the Trump administration to send up to one million Gazans to the divided country of Libya was met with criticism on Friday and Saturday, with several observers calling it part of a plan to carry out ethnic cleansing.
On Friday, NBC Newsreported that the Trump administration has broached the plan with Libya's leadership, though no final agreement has been reached. NBC News' reporting relied on several unnamed sources "with knowledge of the effort."
"This is absolutely categorically an ethnic cleansing and sending people to Libya of all places is unconscionable," wrote investigative journalist James Stout on Bluesky on Friday, in response to the reporting.
An unnamed spokesperson for the Trump administration told NBC News after publication that "these reports are untrue."
As part of the plan, the Trump administration may unfreeze billions of dollars of funds originally meant for Libya that the U.S. froze over ten years ago, the outlet reported.
"A decade and change after U.S. military intervention in Libya under Obama, a direct appeal from the Trump administration to make it a destination for a 21st century Trail of Tears," remarked Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, the Georgetown University assistant professor and philosopher, referencing the forced displacement of indigenous people in the United States in the 19th Century.
Gregg Carlstrom, a Middle East correspondent for the The Economist, called the NBC News' reporting "insanity."
"Skeptical that there's a serious 'plan' here (rather than just spitballing). But the underlying premise is correct: the Trump administration has spent months approaching various countries to see if it could bribe them into helping out with the ethnic cleansing of Gaza," Carlstrom wrote in a post on X on Saturday.
NBC News also reported that the Trump administration has discussed multiple locations for resettling Palestinians in Gaza, and that the administration is considering Syria as a potential location.
In February, Trump floated a plan to "take over" Gaza and mused about permanently displacing Palestinians in Gaza. International law prohibits the forced deportation and transfer of civilians.
Israel has carried out a brutal military campaign on the Gaza Strip following a Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
Observers pointed out that Libya is itself experiencing instability.
"This would be an expensive nightmare to practically implement, Libya is an active war zone with a current [population] of only 7 million and in no shape to absorb refugees, and American-led ethnic cleansing should be flatly unacceptable," wrote David Burbach, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College on Bluesky on Friday
In 2011, a U.S.-backed intervention toppled Libya's then leader, Muammar Gaddafi, which was followed by a six-year civil war between rival political factions. Currently, eastern Libya is controlled by Khalifa Hifter and a United Nations-recognized government lead by Abdul Hamid Dbeibah is in control in the west. While the humanitarian situation in the country has eased in recent years, largely due to a cease-fire implemented in 2020, the country still experiences outbreaks of violence.
The spokesperson for the Trump administration also highlighted instability in Libya in their response to NBC News. "The situation on the ground is untenable for such a plan. Such a plan was not discussed and makes no sense."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Extends Block on Trump's Alien Enemies Act Deportations
One attorney in the case called the ruling "a powerful rebuke to the government's attempt to hurry people away to a gulag-type prison in El Salvador."
May 16, 2025
For the second time in less than a month, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled against the Trump administration's dubious use of an 18th century law to deport immigrants including at least one person with protected status without due process.
In a 7-2 ruling—with far-right Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito dissenting—the high court found that President Donald Trump violated Venezuelan migrants' right to due process as a class by trying to fast-track their deportation to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison in El Salvador by invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act during peacetime.
The ruling is not a repudiation of Alien Enemies Act deportations and focuses solely on migrants' due process rights.
"Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster."
"The detainees' interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty," the court's opinion states. "Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster."
"But it is not optimal for this court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case," the court continued and, referring to the federal appellate court that "erred in dismissing the detainees' appeal for lack of jurisdiction," said that "we remand the case to the 5th Circuit for that purpose."
Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead counsel in the case, said Friday that "the court's decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government's attempt to hurry people away to a gulag-type prison in El Salvador."
"The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance," Gelernt added.
The Supreme Court opinion noted the case of Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland man with protected status who was wrongfully deported to CECOT in March. Last month, the high court unanimously ruled that Trump must facilitate Abrego García's return to the United States. The Trump administration has resisted the order, despite the president proclaiming that "if the Supreme Court said, 'Bring somebody back,' I would do that."
Steve Vadeck, a professor at Georgetown Law Center, toldCNN Friday that "because lower courts have blocked use of the [Alien Enemies Act] in every other district in which the president has sought to invoke it, that means it's effectively pausing all removals under the act until the 5th Circuit—and, presumably, the Supreme Court itself—conclusively resolves whether they're legal and how much process is due if so."
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines—who was appointed by Trump—issued the first court ruling supporting Alien Enemies Act deportations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular