Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

9. To ask the Minister for Finance his stance on the European Union investigation into Apple's tax affairs here over recent years, particularly given the potential enormous sums at stake for the Irish Exchequer; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1345/16]

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The EU Commission suspects that Apple owes this State up to €19 billion in taxes. It suspects that Apple evaded those taxes. That money could be used to solve our housing and hospital crises and to build the water infrastructure that this country needs without a requirement for water charges. It seems that the Minister does not want this money, however. Why does he not want it, given that the State so desperately needs it?

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In June 2014, the competition directorate of the European Commission announced its intention to open formal state aid investigations into tax rulings provided by a number of companies in various member states of the European Union.  This announcement is part of a much wider review of tax ruling practice that is currently being undertaken by the European Commission. In late 2014, the Commission announced that it was broadening its inquiries to include all 28 member states.  As the Commission has acknowledged, Ireland has co-operated fully with the process to date. We will continue to do so. I emphasise that while the Commission has opened a formal investigation in relation to one particular case involving Ireland, it has not made a final determination on the matter.  Ireland has provided a detailed and comprehensive response to the Commission investigation, demonstrating that the appropriate amount of Irish tax was charged in accordance with the relevant legislation, no selective advantage was given and there was no state aid. It would not be appropriate at this stage to speculate on whether the Commission would seek recovery in the event of it hypothetically making a finding of state aid.  I remain of the view that there was no breach of state aid rules in this case and that the legislative provisions were correctly applied. Even if the Commission formed the view that there was state aid, Ireland is entitled to challenge this decision in the European courts.  As the Government has already indicated, we will take such a course of action if necessary to continue to vigorously defend Ireland's position. As I have said previously, there is simply no question that the Irish authorities sought to give the company in question any kind of special tax deal.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The dogs on the street know that companies like Apple and other fantastically wealthy multinationals have used every means and mechanism available to them in this country and all over the world to avoid paying billions of taxes that are needed by this State and other states to fund the provision of services and infrastructure. The Minister is telling us that if the EU Commission finds that Apple should have paid this money - it is blatantly obvious to me that it should have done so because it was using a "double Irish" arrangement to evade tax - he will fight that. Rather than saying we want that money and asking for it to be given back to enable us to fund housing, water infrastructure and health systems and other services - we would still have money left over - the Minister intends to say he does not want it so that he will not upset Apple and the other multinationals. When one considers that people are suffering because of the lack of housing and other services, it beggars belief that the Minister does not want this money.

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The dogs on the street that the Deputy calls as his witnesses have never been renowned as great tax advisers. I suggest that he needs to base his argument on stronger evidence. The position is that the EU Commission and the competition authorities in Europe have challenged the tax treatment of Apple by the Irish Revenue Commissioners and the Irish authorities on state aid grounds. There is no suggestion that there is anything wrong with our tax system. It is a state aid case. The most recent position is that they have sought additional information from the Department of Finance and Revenue. We have provided them with that information. I understand they have also sought additional information from the company in question. Their consideration of the position is continuing. We will wait for the result of that process before we decide on our next course of action.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we had listened to the dogs on the street during the boom period, we might have avoided the disastrous crash. The OECD and the European Commission are finally catching up with the dogs on the street when it comes to the multinationals that are doing their best to avoid paying tax and thereby starving states of billions in revenue that is needed for services and infrastructure. It is obvious that Apple and other companies were using elaborate mechanisms, including the so-called "double Irish" arrangement, to avoid tax. I find it hard to believe the Minister is already indicating that if the EU Commission finds against this State in this regard, he will go to court to ensure the State does not get €19 billion. We should be trying to get that money because it is desperately needed.

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What the Deputy has outlined is not the basis of a state aid case. State aid cases always have at their centre the contention that one company or one set of companies was treated more favourably than another company or set of companies involved in similar activity. That is the essential piece.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know.

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not about how taxes are applied. The matter I have set out is at the core of what is being examined.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Those two things work together.

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will co-operate fully with the authorities in Europe. We will provide them with all the information they have requested. We will await their adjudication. Then we will see what the next step will be.