Multinationals and the EC engulfed in state aid disputes

Concern: McDonald’s Europe paid tax neither in EU nor US

© European Union

The European Commission (EC) has investigated many tax rulings between companies and member states in the past to determine whether businesses received unfair tax advantages that breached EU state aid rules. However, none have received such widespread interest as the recent decision involving Apple's tax rulings with Ireland.

This decision, announced on August 30 by European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, said that Apple was allowed to substantially reduce its tax bill compared to other businesses in Ireland, effectively paying as little as 0.005% in tax in 2014.

The decision was praised by EU authorities looking to stamp out tax avoidance and evasion, boost tax transparency and introduce measures to harmonise taxation across EU member states. On the other side of the argument, the US and Irish governments, Apple and several business organisations have been anything but supportive in the weeks leading up to (and after) the decision. They have criticised the decision on a number of points, while Ireland and Apple declared that they would challenge the decision.

The issue doesn't only affect Apple, however. Around a year ago, the EC hit Starbucks and Fiat with decisions, saying their tax rulings with the Netherlands and Luxembourg, respectively, constituted illegal state aid. Both companies and member states have appealed their respective decisions. Meanwhile, there are two pending decisions against US multinationals McDonald's and Amazon concerning their tax rulings with Luxembourg.

With tax rulings and unfair tax practices firmly in its sights, the EC launched another investigation on September 19 against French multinational electric utility company GDF Suez group (now Engie) concerning its arrangements with Luxembourg.

Tom Wesel, a partner at international tax consultancy firm Milestone, said that the EC is, on the one hand, acting as a "white knight" for international tax justice but, on the other hand, is using EU law to "bully" Ireland and other member states into keeping corporate tax rates on par with other European countries.

"The Commission is pushing the limits of EU law to give itself more clout," Wesel said.

It seems that it will be a long time before multinationals will be able to rest easy without the fear of EU probes into their tax affairs.

Tim Wach, global managing director at Taxand, said that the magnitude of the Apple tax penalty has blown open the debate over multinational taxation.

"It will bring consequences that stretch much further than Europe and will particularly infiltrate the US election campaign, as candidates can be expected to seek to establish their positions on where and how company profits and cash should be taxed, especially the intellectual property held by tech companies," Wach said.

"What's clear is that the [EC] decision will create greater instability and, no doubt, increase the cost of doing business in the EU as all tax rulings, advance pricing agreements, or settlements of litigation will no doubt carry a greater risk," he added.

The state aid decision against Apple was the result of a three-year probe by Vestager into the company's tax arrangements, dating back 25 years. It involved two tax rulings issued by Ireland to Apple from 1991 and 2007 that were found to have "substantially and artificially lowered the tax paid by Apple in Ireland since 1991".

The Apple-Ireland tax rulings endorsed a way to establish the taxable profits for two Irish incorporated companies of the Apple group (Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe), which the Commission said "did not correspond to economic reality: almost all sales profits recorded by the two companies were internally attributed to a 'head office'".

Ireland's corporate tax rate of 12.5% – already attractive compared to the US's top federal rate of 35% – was discounted further for the US tech firm in what some have described as a "sweetheart" tax deal in exchange for jobs. Apple employs more than 5,000 workers in Ireland.

"This selective treatment allowed Apple to pay an effective corporate tax rate of 1% on its European profits in 2003, down to 0.005% in 2014," the EC said in its decision. "This is illegal under EU state aid rules, because it allowed Apple to pay substantially less tax than other businesses," Vestager said in a statement announcing the decision.

The Commission said that Apple's head offices existed on paper alone and could not have generated the profits ascribed to them.

The EU anti-trust chief ordered the Irish authorities to collect up to €13 billion ($14.5 billion) in back taxes, plus interest, from Apple in this latest high-profile dispute involving a US multinational operating in a low-tax country.

Vestager stressed, however, that this decision "does not call into question Ireland's general tax system or its corporate tax rate".

The Irish government said it "disagreed profoundly" with the conclusions of the EU investigators.

"Ireland did not give favourable tax treatment to Apple," the Irish government said in a statement. "Ireland does not do deals with taxpayers. No fine or penalty has been levied against the Irish state. This decision has no effect on the 12.5% rate of corporation tax and is not about Ireland's wider corporation tax regime."

Michael Noonan, Ireland's finance minister, began the process on August 31 to gain government and parliamentary approval to begin appeal proceedings against the decision, Irish broadcaster RTE reported.

While Apple was unveiling the iPhone 7 in California on September 7, thousands of miles away Ireland's parliament was locked in a bitter debate over how to respond to the Commission's decision.

"The Commission’s bodies in Ireland are fighting back. Not in the interests, though, of the Irish people or the Irish economy, but in the interests of the wealthiest corporations in the world and our global web of tax avoidance"

Parliament was recalled three weeks earlier than scheduled for the historic vote as the ruling coalition largely sought to assure multinationals that the country would remain an attractive destination for their capital and jobs. So spooked are multinationals that the Irish Stock Exchange has even written to the government requesting a business-friendly tax reform to encourage businesses to expand.

Irish politicians were offered a Department of Finance briefing before the debate and a copy of the US Treasury Department's White Paper, which was released before the EC concluded the Apple investigation. To date, Irish politicians have not been given the 150-page decision document as it has not yet been released by the Commission.

The heated 10-hour discussion on September 7 was fiery but the vote results were decisive. It ended with a 93-36 vote in favour of appealing the EC's order.

The Dáil vote meant the €13 billion in Irish back taxes, plus interest estimated at €6 billion, would be held in escrow pending the results of an appeal to the European courts that could drag on for years.

Speaking on Bloomberg TV, Noonan said there are two phases to the appeal: the ordinary European court and then the European Court of Justice. "It will probably take four years, probably more."

"The key issue is to defend our right as an independent country with control over our tax system and how it is applied by Revenue and Revenue is adamant there was no selective treatment," Michael McGrath, finance spokesperson for the Fianna Fáil party told Irish broadcaster RTE.

However, if the EC's decision is upheld, the money will eventually have to be paid to Ireland. Other EU member states may claim some of the cash, however, as the EC cannily left the door open to that possibility.

Although the majority of Irish politicians have backed the appeal, Matt Carthy, an Irish member of the European Parliament (MEP) attacked the need for a court dispute.

"The announced appeal is morally wrong, politically dishonest and economically stupid," he said during a parliamentary debate on September 14 regarding the Commission's decision. "Rather than spending the Irish taxpayers' money on this appeal, our government should instead be restoring our international reputation by ensuring that Ireland will never again be part of the international tax avoidance racket."

"Madam President, I've stood in this Chamber on countless occasions to defend the rights of national parliaments to set their own tax rates, and I do so again today. Sinn Féin [a left-wing Irish nationalist party] will always defend Ireland's sovereignty, as we have on every occasion when it's been attacked by the European Commission, including on taxation matters, but this ruling is not one of those occasions," he said during the parliamentary debate.

"I'm sure you, Commissioner [Vestager], and many of your fellow federalists in this room are scratching their heads wondering what's happened to your best friends in the Irish political establishment. The people who the EU could always depend on," he continued. "But today, the Commission's bodies in Ireland are fighting back. Not in the interests, though, of the Irish people or the Irish economy, but in the interests of the wealthiest corporations in the world and our global web of tax avoidance," Carthy said.

"This [Apple] ruling has no effect whatsoever on our tax rate or our ability to attract inward investment or to create jobs. Any investors seeking to remain in, or come to, Ireland can be assured of a talented workforce and a 12.5% 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."

Apple has repeatedly defended its position during the EC's investigation, and after the decision was announced.

"The European Commission has launched an effort to rewrite Apple's history in Europe, ignore Ireland's tax laws and upend the international tax system in the process," Apple said in a statement. "The Commission's case is not about how much Apple pays in taxes, it's about which government collects the money."

"This claim has no basis in fact or in law," Apple said in an open letter from Apple CEO Tim Cook, published on August 30.

"The most profound and harmful effect of this ruling will be on investment and job creation in Europe," Cook said. "Using the Commission's theory, every company in Ireland and across Europe is suddenly at risk of being subjected to taxes under laws that never existed."

Cook said he is confident that the EC's "maddening" decision would be overturned on appeal.

The EC's decision and subsequent appeals are expected to ratchet up transatlantic tensions and further divide EU lawmakers and their US counterparts.

Before the Apple decision was announced, the US Treasury released a 30-page White Paper on August 24, saying the adverse decisions could cause a chill in the investment environment at a time when Europe can ill afford another financial setback.

The US complained that European authorities were overstepping their powers and becoming a "supranational tax authority".

In response, the European Commission denied any bias against American multinationals and said its role was to investigate tax avoidance.

Nevertheless, in a press briefing on August 30, Josh Earnest, the US press secretary for the White House, said the government is "concerned about a unilateral approach in state aid negotiations that threaten to undermine progress that we have made collaboratively with the Europeans to make the international taxation system fair."

"And if there are concerns that the Europeans have about some of these international mechanisms, then we should continue to make progress by working through those issues jointly as opposed to a more unilateral approach, like a state aid investigation," Earnest said.

Although Earnest could not discuss the EC's Apple decision in detail, he said the government would continue to monitor the case and others being looked at by the EU.

"It is our view that there's no reason that, as we monitor this case, that we shouldn't be able to continue to make progress on a shared goal, and that shared goal is to prevent the erosion of the tax base, to ensure that taxpayers in the United States and Europe are treated fairly, and to ensure that businesses are treated fairly," the press secretary added.

In a letter written by US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in February, he said the "Commission's novel approach to its investigations seeks to impose unfair retroactive penalties, is contrary to well established legal principles, calls into question the tax rules of individual countries, and threatens to undermine the overall business climate in Europe. Most important for US taxpayers, the European Commission's actions also threaten to erode America's corporate tax base. US companies could claim foreign tax credits against their US tax bill for any tax-related payments to European Union member states."

Regarding the Apple decision, Lew said it has "been broadly condemned by members of Congress, business leaders and tax professionals", in an article written in the Wall Street Journal. "It also has highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive business tax reform. To be clear, the US Treasury agrees with the Commission that there is a serious problem with tax avoidance around the world. American corporations alone are avoiding paying US taxes by holding more than $2 trillion in deferred overseas income."

To calm the US-EU relations, Vestager met with members of the Senate Finance Committee on September 20 to discuss the Apple decision during a three-day visit to the US. Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, who met with Vestager prior to the bipartisan committee meeting, criticised the EU's recent investigations after they met, but also said the US needs to look at its own tax system.

"Rather than working with countries to strengthen the international tax framework and improve the rule of law, the European Commission, in its recent state aid ruling, opted to run roughshod over an American firm by retroactively overriding a tax opinion between a sovereign country and a company," he said. "The Commissioner failed to build an effective case for this highly politicised ruling rooted in an erroneous interpretation of law, underscoring the need for additional action in international courts".

While Ireland, Apple and the US joined hands against the Apple decision, the European Parliament aired its voice on the issue during a September 14 debate. The majority of MEPs said they supported the European Commission's decision in the Apple case and claimed that it was a victory for Vestager and the EU.

"We're all intoxicated and love these gadgets", said French MEP Pervenche Beres, while waving an Apple iPhone. "Nevertheless, we are delighted that you have imposed such a tough penalty on this company, which is basically abusing us," she said to Vestager.

Benes said that the commissioner has "established some order" after Apple has attracted users and might "be drugging us with its gadgets", but then "fleecing us". However, she warned that "there's a long path ahead" as the issue heads to court.

Referring to the "next case" on Vestager's table, which targets illegal state aid allegedly obtained by McDonald's from Luxembourg, Beres said that this is the commissioner's opportunity to change the tax rules, but also be able to re-establish the basis to have social fairness and properly tackle "social dumping".

"In Europe, consumers are protected against cartels and abuses by powerful companies. This goes for giants like Apple too," said EC President Jean-Claude Juncker. "In Europe we do not accept powerful companies getting illegal backroom deals on their taxes. The Commission watches over this fairness. This is the social side of competition law."

MEP Cora van Nieuwenhuizen also welcomed the EC decision, but warned that the court dispute over the decision "will take years" and therefore there will be a long wait to certainty on a number of issues.

While some MEPs criticised Apple and Ireland's plans to appeal against the decision, Vestager said that "Apple and Ireland have announced that they will 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".

Although the details of the investigation have not been published yet, Vestager told MEPs that it would be released once agreed by Ireland and hinted at the potential revenues available to a number of tax authorities.

"The published information may also be relevant to tax authorities in other jurisdictions," Vestager said, suggesting that the US tax authorities could also gain from the decision being published. "If the US tax authorities consider that Apple should have paid a higher contribution for research and development to its US parent, it could lead to a higher taxable amount in the US."

Vestager also took the opportunity to call for more transparency on the basic data of multinational enterprises, saying that such information should become public. She was referring to the Commission's recent proposal for public country-by-country reporting of a MNE's staff numbers, profits made and taxes paid.

While Apple and Ireland prepare to file an appeal, there are already several cases ahead of it – most significantly the Fiat and Starbucks cases.

The Netherlands filed its appeal on December 23 2015 (Case T-760/15), saying the Commission should annul its decision concerning the Starbucks tax rulings, while Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe filed its appeal on December 29 2015 (Case T-759/15) and Luxembourg a day later (Case T-755/15).

"Both Ireland and the Netherlands intend to resist these EC decisions against them to prevent an exit of these lucrative multinationals and it is clear that many years of litigation by the affected states and companies lie ahead," said Daniel Friel, tax partner at King & Spalding in London.

Meanwhile, the Belgian authorities, chemicals manufacturer BASF and at least four other multinationals have filed court appeals against another European Commission state aid decision. They argue that the Commission has acted beyond its powers in deciding that Belgium's excess profits tax rulings constituted illegal state aid. The companies face billions of dollars in back taxes if they lose.

These tax disputes will not be an easy win for any of the parties involved. The rulings and conclusive judgments are expected to take several years.

However, according to Milestone's Wesel: "It looks as though Ireland may have the last laugh" on the dispute over the Apple tax rulings.

That is because, while Ireland abolished the so-called 'Double Irish' used by many companies as a tax avoidance technique, it introduced a new tax break. The 'knowledge development box' will allow companies to pay a 6.5% corporate tax if they can demonstrate earnings are tied to copyrighted software and patents created by research and development carried out in Ireland. The measure applies for accounting periods commencing on or after January 1 2016 and before January 1 2021.

Ireland said the tax break, similar to patent and innovation boxes in other European countries, complies with EU state aid rules and the OECD BEPS nexus approach.

"Perhaps the Irish government will, therefore, end up with a one-off windfall of €13 billion and still get to keep its US multinationals," Wesel said.

Although the Commission's decision on Apple's tax rulings has been significant to the debate on whether the state aid decisions are ethical, it should not be forgotten that there is more to come.

Two in-depth investigations are still underway into Luxembourg's tax deals with Amazon and McDonald's that could result in billions going into the hands of European authorities instead of US tax collectors.

"Together, these rulings constitute a worrisome trend. Increasingly, multinational institutions, such as the European Commission, are acting as the final arbiters of the international tax system. As a result, US companies may face growing uncertainty in determining their foreign tax liability," said Scott Greenberg, analyst with the Center for Federal Tax Policy at the Tax Foundation. "The recent decisions by the European Commission threatens to undermine the relative predictability of the international tax system," he added.

A decision on the McDonald's case is expected before Amazon after MEP Pervenche Beres hinted that it was Vestager's "next case". However, the Commission has not been forthcoming about exactly when these cases will be concluded.

In the meantime, Vestager is turning her attention to tax rulings between EU multinationals and member states for her next project.

US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has alleged that the Commission is taking aim at US multinationals following the Apple decision. To divert away from US companies, and the accusations, Vestager is looking at multinationals domiciled in the EU. Although the commissioner hopes this will prove her US critics wrong, some still remain sceptical.

In Vestager's latest case, announced on September 19, French electric utility company GDF Suez group (now Engie) is under investigation for several tax rulings issued by Luxembourg that may have given the company an unfair advantage over other businesses, in breach of EU state aid rules.

The EC believes that Luxembourg provided the company with an "inconsistent tax treatment of the same transaction" and that this "appears to give rise to double non-taxation for both lenders and borrowers on profits arising in Luxembourg".

"Financial transactions can be taxed differently depending on the type of transaction, equity or debt – but a single company cannot have the best of two worlds for one and the same transaction," said Vestager. "Therefore, we will look carefully at tax rulings issued by Luxembourg to GDF Suez. They seem to contradict national taxation rules and allow GDF Suez to pay less tax than other companies."

While the Apple decision concerned profit allocation methods and the investigation into Amazon concerns transfer prices, the probe into GDF Suez will look at the inconsistent application of national law that gives rise to double non-taxation – similar to the investigation into tax rulings issued to McDonald's.

Swedish multinational IKEA is also on Vestager's radar. In an interview with Bloomberg TV, Vestager said that she has received a report published by the European Parliament Greens and European Free Alliance Group, alleging IKEA is using tax avoidance practices to minimise its tax payments. "We have received the documentation that the Greens have made and we are going through it but we have nothing to comment as the case stands right now," she said on September 14. "It is very, very early days."

According to a study commissioned by the Greens, "IKEA is paying royalties to itself presumably to reduce overall taxation (disguised by the supposed independence of two corporate groups)". The report, published in February 2016, said that from 1991 to 2014 the Inter IKEA Group appeared to have "used a Dutch conduit company to avoid paying tax on 84% of the €14.3 billion ($16 billion) in royalty income it received from IKEA stores around the world".

The report claimed that EU countries had lost an estimated €1 billion in missing tax revenues over a six-year period spanning from 2009 to 2014. "IKEA is doing tax migration," the report said, also alleging that IKEA was shifting profits and avoiding taxes using intra-company loans, relying on a Luxembourg tax ruling and the Belgian notional interest deduction scheme.

"Now the real question is will the Commission open a case against IKEA, which they have not done yet," said Sven Giegold, MEP and member of the Greens and European Free Alliance Group. "From our point of view, this looks as if the limits of state aid have been crossed and therefore we regard it as illegitimate, but of course to judge that you need to look at the rulings, which are not available for us. Therefore, only the Commission, in the end, can judge whether the limits were crossed in terms of state aid," he told International Tax Review.

Although a Commission spokesperson confirmed to International Tax Review that a formal state aid investigation has not yet been launched against IKEA, analysing the tax affairs of a another non-US company would serve as further evidence that the Commission is not specifically targeting US multinationals in state aid cases.

Despite Vestager's actions against tax minimising practices, Molly Scott Cato, MEP for the Greens and European Free Alliance Group and the UK Green Party, said more needs to be done.

The EC will present a new common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) proposal in the coming months, which will offer a single set of rules that cross-border companies could use to calculate their taxable profits in the EU, instead of having to deal with different national systems. However, the measure is unlikely to be introduced easily as not all member states are in agreement over its positive impacts.

However, according to Scott Cato: "We also need to concentrate on where the money recovered from sweetheart tax deals goes. Because this is not just about Ireland and Apple," she told International Tax Review. "When any country, be it Belgium, Luxembourg or the UK, or any company, be it Google or Ikea, arrange[s] sweetheart deals, we all lose out. I believe recovered money should be used to tackle poverty and improve the quality of life across the EU because multinationals make their profits across borders."

"Right now I see two Europes: one working for the corporations and the other serving its citizens," Cato said. "I believe the reason that so many people turn away from Europe, is that often the institutions make legislation in favour of the former. So now more than ever we need a people's Europe; one which funds public services rather than boosting the profits of the multinationals. Tax justice can help bring this about and it is fantastic that the EU Commission are reviving the idea of a common consolidated corporate tax base. This will make it harder for companies to shift profits, and will mean that taxation occurs where the economic activity takes place. This is a crucial step towards tax justice."

To re-establish tax justice in the EU, the EU authorities have proposed (and in some cases adopted) measures that will re-write the tax system in favour of fairer taxation.

Most notably, the European Council adopted proposals in July to crack down on aggressive tax planning by multinationals, including Starbucks, Amazon, Apple, and Google, with the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive that builds on initiatives proposed by the OECD in its BEPS Project. EU member states have until December 31 2018 to transpose the Directive into national law for it to become effective on January 1 2019.

Last year, the European Commission unveiled its Action Plan on Corporate Taxation for "fair and efficient corporate taxation in the EU". The plan included five key areas for action:

1. Relaunching the CCCTB;

2. Ensuring fair taxation where profits are generated;

3. Creating a better business environment;

4. Increasing transparency; and

5. Improving EU coordination.

The upcoming court cases over the state aid decisions and the EC's plans to reform the EU's corporate tax landscape could change the way companies do business in the region forever. For now, businesses should stay vigilant of the developments and make sure their tax affairs meet EU rules to avoid an unwanted state aid investigation.

  European Commission

  European Parliament TAXE commitees

  FIAT

  Starbucks

  McDonald's

  Amazon

  Apple

EC decisions on Amazon and McDonald's tax rulings with Luxembourg.

EC decides that Ireland granted Apple a "sweetheart" tax deal.

The mandate of the Special Committee on Tax Rulings (TAXE 2) ends.

European Parliament approves recommendations made in the TAXE 2 committee's final report, calling for fairer corporate taxation measures.

Luxembourg files an appeal to the European Court of Justice against the EC's decision on Fiat Finance and Trade (Case T-755/15).

Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe files its appeal against the EC's decision (Case T-759/15).

Netherlands files an appeal to the European Court of Justice against the EC's decision on Starbucks (Case T-760/15).

TAXE 2 committee grills 11 multinationals on their corporate tax practices.

The Commission opens a formal investigation into Luxembourg's tax ruling with McDonald's.

A new mandate is adopted for the TAXE 2 committee to continue its work.

The mandate of Special Committee on Tax Rulings (TAXE 1) ends.

TAXE 1 committee publishes report on tax rulings and other measures that is adopted in the European Parliament's resolution of November 25.

EC decides that Luxembourg gave Fiat Finance and Trade an unfair tax advantage.

EC decides that the Netherlands gave Starbucks an unfair tax advantage.

EC adopts an Action Plan for fair and efficient corporate taxation in the EU, which includes a series of initiatives to tackle tax avoidance, secure sustainable tax revenue and strengthen the single market for businesses.

A meeting takes place between the EC and Starbucks to clarify questions put to the company as part of the investigation.

A meeting takes place between Fiat, Luxembourg and the EC.

Luxembourg authorities reply to the EC's request for information on March 23.

Luxembourg authorities supply additional information on 1,900 rulings requested by the EC while investigating Fiat.

EC requests Luxembourg to comment on information received from a coalition of trade unions concerning state aid allegedly received by McDonald's from Luxembourg.

EC requests Luxembourg to provide additional information on tax rulings listed between 2010 and 2012. The request was in response to the list of tax rulings provided by the Luxembourg authorities on December 22 2014.

EC contacts Starbucks and requests information on their legal structure and business model.

The Dutch authorities provide the EC with permission to contact Starbucks directly.

The European Parliament establishes the TAXE 1 special committee to investigate corporate tax rulings between member states and multinationals. The 45 members look into the compatibility of the tax rulings with EU state aid rules and tax law.

Starbucks submits its observations to the EC on the opening decision of the state aid investigation.

Ireland's tax deal with Apple is terminated when Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe change their structures.

Luxembourg authorities submit a list of beneficiaries of tax rulings to comply with the request for information by the EC.

EC extends its investigation into the tax ruling practices of all member states under EU state aid rules. Member states are told to provide a list of all companies that received a tax ruling between 2010 and 2013.

EC opens a formal investigation into Luxembourg's tax treatment of Amazon.

Luxembourg authorities provide two tax rulings addressed to McD Europe Franchising, Sàrl, dated March 30 2009 and September 17 2009, in response to the EC's request for information. Luxembourg also explains why the rulings do not grant state aid.

The Luxembourg authorities provide a tax ruling addressed to Amazon, dated November 6 2013, in response to the EC's request for information on June 24 2014. Luxembourg also explains why the ruling does not grant state aid to Amazon.

EC requests more information from Luxembourg on the McDonald's group.

EC requests Luxembourg to provide information in its tax ruling practice in relation to the Amazon group.

EC opens a formal investigation into the Netherlands' tax ruling with Starbucks.

EC opens a formal investigation into Luxembourg's tax ruling with Fiat Finance and Trade.

EC opens a formal investigation into Ireland's tax rulings with Apple.

The Irish authorities state that the figures supplied on March 5 2014 regarding Apple's turnover figures are wrong and send the corrected figures.

The Irish authorities supply the EC with all of Apple's tax returns since 2004.

EC orders Luxembourg to provide information on tax ruling practices that were granted from 2010 to 2012, as well as data on the 100 largest companies falling under the IP tax regime, to assess their compliance with EU state aid rules.

The Dutch authorities provides the EC with Starbuck's tax returns.

EC informs Irish authorities that it is investigating its tax rulings granted to Apple.

EC informs the Dutch authorities that it is considering whether the advance pricing agreement in favour of Starbucks could constitute new state aid.

The Irish authorities explain Apple's turnover figures to the EC, as requested in a January 24 2014 letter.

A meeting takes place between the Commission and the Dutch authorities to determine transfer pricing costs.

Luxembourg authorities submit 22 rulings from the period 2010-2013, including the advance pricing agreement to the company referred to as "FFT APA" (assumed to be Fiat), to the Commission.

EC requests additional information from Ireland on all companies related to Apple, which are resident in Ireland, and all documents related to tax rulings.

The Dutch authorities submit the requested information on Starbucks to the Commission.

EC requests information on the tax rulings practice in the Netherlands, as well as all rulings related to Starbucks Coffee EMEA BV and Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA BV, both companies indirectly controlled by Starbucks Corporation.

Luxembourg authorities answer the EC's request for information about the country's tax rulings regime.

Ireland replies to the EC's request for information about its tax rulings to Apple.

The Commission sends a letter to the Luxembourg authorities, requesting information on the country's tax ruling practices, in relation to both the Fiat and Amazon investigations.

The Commission requests Ireland to provide information on its tax rulings issued to Apple.

Luxembourg's tax authority issues a tax ruling to Fiat Finance and Trade.

Luxembourg's tax authority revises the McDonald's tax ruling.

McDonald's requests a revised tax ruling from the Luxembourg tax authority in line with the company's interpretation of the Luxembourg-US double tax treaty.

Luxembourg's tax authority issues two tax rulings to McDonald's.

McDonald's requests a tax ruling from Luxembourg.

The Netherlands issues a tax ruling to Starbucks.

Ireland's 1991 tax deal for Apple is replaced by a second tax ruling that is similar.

Luxembourg's tax authority concludes a tax ruling with Amazon.

Ireland issues a tax ruling with Apple's Irish operations, specifically Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe.