Ireland exits the EDP

Unsurprisingly the European Commission have concluded that Ireland’s “excessive deficit” per the reference values in the TFEU has been corrected.  The Commission decision is here.

The Commission have also published their country-specific recommendations on Ireland based on this staff report.

There is lots in the staff report but on the fiscal side in introducing their CSRs the Commission note:

[Following the abrogation of the excessive deficit procedure, Ireland is in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact and subject to the transitional debt rule.] In its 2016 stability programme, which is based on a no-policy-change assumption, the government plans gradual improvements of the headline balance until reaching a surplus of 0.4% of GDP in 2018. The revised medium-term budgetary objective  a structural deficit of 0.5% of GDP – is expected to be reached in 2018. However, the annual change in the recalculated11 structural balance of 0.1% of GDP in 2016 does not ensure sufficient progress towards the medium-term budgetary objective. According to the stability programme, the government debt-toGDP ratio is expected to fall to 88.2% in 2016 and to continue declining to 85.5% in 2017. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning these budgetary projections is plausible. However, the measures needed to support the planned deficit targets from 2017 onwards have not been sufficiently specified. Based on the Commission 2016 spring forecast, there is a risk of some deviation from the recommended fiscal adjustment in 2016, while Ireland is projected to be compliant in 2017 under unchanged policies. Ireland is forecast to comply with the transitional debt rule in 2016 and 2017. Based on its assessment of the stability programme and taking into account the Commission 2016 spring forecast, the Council is of the opinion that Ireland is expected to broadly comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact. Nevertheless, further measures will be needed to ensure compliance in 2016.

The Commission press release detailing all of the decisions taken and documents published today is here.

Foundation for Fiscal Studies – Research Prize 2016

The Foundation for Fiscal Studies awards an annual prize to recognise outstanding contributors in the area of Irish fiscal policy. A prize of €1,000 will be awarded, together with a commemorative Gold Medal.

Nominations are invited for work completed during the period 2014 and 2015 which has added to the public knowledge or understanding in areas such as taxation, public expenditure and other related fiscal policy topics. These contributions may include research papers, reports, books, book chapters, blog posts, opinion pieces or any other method which has publically provided new and relevant insights into these topics in Ireland.

Further details in relation to eligibility are contained in the attached call for nomination.

Last year’s prize was awarded in September 2015 to Rónán Hickey and Diarmaid Smyth for their paper – ‘The Financial Crisis in Ireland and Government Revenues‘ – which is available to read on the FFS website by following the link.

The authors presented their paper and received their prize from Minister Harris at an FFS event in the Mansion House – details here.

Interested parties should note that the closing date for nominations is 30th April 2016 and that nominations of worthy work are encouraged from any party including the authors themselves. Nominations for the Prize should be made by email to info@fiscal.ie.

 

Vestager replies to Lew

The European Commission have responded to the recent interventions by the US Treasury into the tax related state-aid investigations with this letter from Margrethe Vestager to Jack Lew.

On one of the issues raised by the US Treasury the response is as would be expected:

I also hope we agree that the taxation systems of EU Member States entitle them to tax the profits generated by companies operating in their territory, including US companies.  The Commission has the duty to ensure that these rules are applied in a non-discriminatory manner by excluding preferential treatment in any form that constitutes incompatible State aid.  This does not put into question the US taxation system or go against double taxation treaties concluded by EU Member States.

So we await whether DG Comp are going to conclude that the estimated $120 billion of profits earned by Apple Sales International between 2004 and 2013 were generated in Ireland and so should be taxable in Ireland as opposed to only those profits earned by ASI’s branch in Ireland.  The Commission could also conclude that the allocation of profit to ASI’s Irish branch was “wrong” but if that was to be the case then this ongoing exchange of letters would have been wholly disproportionate.

The Commission are also investigating Apple Operations Europe (AOE).  AOE also has an Irish branch which undertakes manufacturing of a specialised range of computers.  However, ASI is the global hoover of Apple’s profits – it contracts with third-party manufacturers in China (with all agreements signed in the US) and sells on the products to Apple distributors at an “arm’s length price”.  The difference between the fee paid to the manufacturer and the price charged to the distributor is considerable.  Hence, the estimated $120 billion of profits earned by ASI between 2004 and 2013, with 90 per cent of that occurring in the final four years of the period.

ASI is a subsidiary of AOE so it is possible that the Commission could rule that the profits are taxable in Ireland when they are distributed as a dividend by ASI to AOE.  This could potentially bring our 25 per cent Corporation Tax rate into the equation.  But that seems very unlikely.  The focus will probably be on the trading profits earned by ASI, though if it ends up being a dispute over the profit allocated to ASI’s Irish branch we really will be left wondering what all the excitement was about.

How long more will they keep us waiting?  And if a decision is published by DG Comp is there a timeframe within which an appeal to the CJEU must be made?