Debate on Apple state-aid decision, during the EP plenary session (12-15/09/2016) in Strasbourg. Statements by Margrethe VESTAGER, European Commissioner for Competition, Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN (EPP, ES), Pervenche BER&Egrave;S (S&amp;D, FR), Matt CARTHY (GUE/NGL, IE), Philippe LAMBERTS (Greens/EFA, BE), and Philippe LAMBERTS (Greens/EFA, BE).

Strasbourg

debate

plenary session

LAMBERTS, Philippe (Greens/EFA, BE)

BERÈS, Pervenche (S&D, FR)

fight against tax fraud and evasion (T)

CARTHY, Matt (GUE/NGL, IE)

VESTAGER, Margrethe (DK, CE)

ZALBA BIDEGAIN, Pablo (EPP, ES)

Apple state-aid decision: extracts from the debate

SOUNDBITE (English), Margrethe VESTAGER, European Commissioner for Competition, The European Commission adopted on the 30th of August a decision that Apple's tax benefits in Ireland are illegal state-aid.

SOUNDBITE (English), Margrethe VESTAGER, European Commissioner for Competition, We concluded that they gave Apple a selective advantage over other companies. It artificially reduced Apple's tax burden over two decades. This is illegal under EU state-aid rules.

SOUNDBITE (English), Margrethe VESTAGER, European Commissioner for Competition, EU state-aid rules keep the level plain field in the Single Market. And they ensure that companies can compete on equal terms. And it protects European tax payers.

SOUNDBITE (English), Margrethe VESTAGER, European Commissioner for Competition, The ruling indulged an internal allocation of profits within the Apple Sales International, between its head office and branch. The vast majority of the company's profits were allocated to the company's head office. The thing was that, Apple Sales International head office had no employees, no premises, and no real economic activity. It existed only on paper.

SOUNDBITE (English), Margrethe VESTAGER, European Commissioner for Competition, The ruling therefore allowed Apple Sales International to pay very little tax on its profits. In fact, the effective tax rate of Apple Sales International was as little as 0,005% in 2014.

SOUNDBITE (English), Margrethe VESTAGER, European Commissioner for Competition, Apple and Ireland have announced that they would appeal. And they are of course in their good right to do so. We have a robust decision, and we will defend it in court.

SOUNDBITE (Spanish), Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN (EPP, ES), The fact that we are seeing a certain economic recovery is thanks to the efforts of millions of Europeans, and in this context these citizens, who have been asked for great sacrifices, they cannot understand that multinationals do not participate in this collective effort. On the contrary, unfortunately, they have the opposite perception. And in this context, I think that we as European citizens have to thank the Commissioner for her effort, and for being so strong on the Apple case.

SOUNDBITE (French), Pervenche BER&#200;S (S&amp;D, FR), Tax advantage is state-aid when it's done in conditions that distort competition, such as the regime applied to Apple in Ireland, that also distorts competition. But we have to go further. Madame Commissioner, you have on the table a dossier that I believe is very important, and it's going to be the next one: it's the MacDonald's case. In this instance, not only will you be able to change the tax rules, but you'll be able to re-establish the bases, to have social fairness, and properly tackle social dumping, and here I'm keen to see what you are going to do, whatever the member state in question this time, and that would be Luxemburg.

SOUNDBITE (English), Matt CARTHY (GUE/NGL, IE), This ruling has no effects whatsoever on our tax rate, or on our ability to attract in world investment or to create jobs. Any investor seeking to remain or come to Ireland can be assured of a talented work force and a 12% corporate tax rate, that we will protect. They just won't be assured any longer of sweetheart deals, that would allow them to dodge billions of euros in tax. The announced appeal is morally wrong, politically dishonest and economically shipped. We have a house-on-held crisis in Ireland, many of our public services are savagely unfunded; thirteen billion euros, or even a fraction of it, could help solve those problems. Rather than spending Irish tax payers' money on this appeal, our government should instead restore our international reputation by insuring that Ireland will never again be part of the international tax avoidance racket.

SOUNDBITE (French), Philippe LAMBERTS (Greens/EFA, BE), If indeed you do not mean to re-write tax laws in Europe, you are doing what you can in order to insure, not that member states stop the tax wars that they are waging at the moment, but at least to take away from them the most unacceptable weapons that they use. And here I think in particular of the BENELUX, the tax heaven governments, and obviously the Irish government is also part now of this group. Those are governments that cannot prevent themselves from saying: "Oh no! Oh no! We don't want the money! We don't want the money! Keep the money, stockholders and shareholders of these multinational, we are going to go for a small scale tax contributor, we are going to go for the SMEs, and we are going to reduce the state's services, because we don't want your money, multinationals."

SOUNDBITE (French), Philippe LAMBERTS (Greens/EFA, BE), And I think that this attitude is unacceptable. I do not know what is required in order for the heads of governments and ministers of finance to finally come back to the original job that they have, which is to defend the common interest, not the 1%.