EU Appeals Against Apple Tax Case

EU claims judges used contradictory reasoning  in favor of Apple and Ireland over a $14.4 billion tax payment, according to Euronews report, on Monday.

The General Court last July ruled that the Commission was wrong to order Ireland to collect more than €13 billion from Apple in unpaid taxes plus interest. “The Commission did not succeed in showing to the requisite legal standard that Apple was granted an illegal advantage,” the Court said in the ruling. The commission appealed the judgment in September.

Meanwhile, the Commission argues that the court disregarded two legal principles essential to the case: the separate entity approach and the arm’s length principle. These arguments go to the crucial question of where Apple should have paid its taxes.

A hearing on the case is expected in the coming months. The disputed amount will remain in an escrow account until the final verdict by the EU Court of Justice, which could take at least two years

On other hand, EU competition czar Margrethe Vestager in 2016 ordered Ireland to recover €13.1 billion in allegedly unpaid taxes from the firm, plus €1.2 billion in interest, after determining that the U.S. tech giant benefited from tax benefits not available to other companies.

Later, Apple faces a lawsuit  by a consumer advocacy group in Europe for allegedly throttling older iPhones.The advocacy group sought €60 million or €60 per device for the owners of the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6S, and 6S Plus models sold in Italy, according to India Today report.

Meanwhile, Altroconsumo as a Euroconsumers’ member  has  filed a lawsuit  against Apple in December as well. The company said that it plans to file another lawsuit in Portugal.

“When consumers buy Apple iPhones, they expect sustainable quality products. Unfortunately, that is not what happened with the iPhone 6 series” Els Bruggeman, head of policy and enforcement at Euroconsumers, said in a statement. “Not only were consumers defrauded, and did they have to face frustration and financial harm, from an environmental point of view it is also utterly irresponsible.”