Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Government motion. Not to appeal the European Commission's ruling on the Apple state aid case would fundamentally undermine the credibility of the Revenue Commissioners and be an acceptance of the serious and flawed overreach by the European Commission in its attempt to change tax policy retrospectively through a state aid ruling. The precedent set by this ruling with regard to the European Commission's role in the tax affairs of sovereign member states, and the principle of ruling something unlawful on state aid grounds 25 years after a tax ruling was asked for and given in accordance with domestic tax law of the time, provides a level of uncertainty, not only in Ireland but across the European Union, that requires the clarification of a court ruling.

The debate around the levels of tax that multinationals pay globally on the profits they earn is a necessary debate, on the back of valid concerns, to ensure they pay their fair share. Ireland is committed to working through OECD structures to play our part in that. Ireland was an early actor in adopting new approaches when we made tax changes into 2013 and we will continue to be proactive in that regard. However, efforts to respond to the challenges of international tax fairness do not mean we should accept the flawed intervention of the European Commission. The core issue is whether Ireland gave special treatment to one company through a sweetheart tax deal which was not available to other companies so as to confer a legal, unfair advantage, or state aid benefit, on that one company. I believe that did not happen.

In 1991, Apple asked for and received a Revenue tax ruling to clarify what tax it should be paying. In 2007, when Apple was a very different and much larger company, it got another tax ruling from the Revenue Commissioners which again outlined the implications of Irish tax law on the amount of tax that Apple should be paying in Ireland, and Apple paid accordingly. Whether one believes Apple should or should not have been paying more tax globally from 2004 until 2014 is a different issue from whether Apple was paying its taxes lawfully in Ireland. If this ruling is to go unchallenged, how can we maintain or create any certainty for multinationals around how they will be treated within the European Union? The Commission has challenged the tax arrangements for companies in Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland on the grounds of breaches of state aid rules, retrospectively applying a standard that is accepted today to arrangements of many years ago that were legal at that time.

Europe and Ireland survive in a very competitive global economy where we need to compete with each other within the European Union and also with destinations outside the EU for investment and job creation. This ruling sends out a message of uncertainty on previous tax rulings, never mind what the future holds. It is worth noting the British Government's reaction to this Commission ruling, which was to invite Apple to relocate in Britain. Turkey had a similar response. While the EU should, of course, give leadership on global tax justice, it most certainly should not be naive in undermining the stability and certainty which is demanded by companies with regard to investments they make and the tax treatment they receive. The former European Commissioner for Competition has expressed serious reservations on the approach of using state aid rules to influence tax policy. The European Commission's response to that intervention was also instructive in how the Commission views Silicon Valley and other such places.

State aid rules deal with internal competition within the European Union. Mobile multinational investment is a highly competitive global marketplace within which the EU is an important regional marketplace, but with fierce competition from other parts of the world. We need to appeal the ruling to clarify the role of the Commission in state aid rules in the retrospective changing of sovereign tax policy, to reaffirm Ireland's sovereign competence within the EU to determine our own tax rates as outlined in the treaties, to challenge the flawed accusation of an illegal sweetheart deal for one company by the Revenue Commissioners who are adamant that this did not happen, to expose the farcical claim that Ireland should be a tax collector on up to 60% of Apple's global profits for a decade and to provide a stable and predictable environment for future investment and business activity in Ireland and across the European Union.

See this speech in context