Tráthnóna inniu, tá tuairim tugtha ag comhairleoir Chúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh gur cheart breithiúnas na Cúirte Ginearálta maidir le cinneadh chás cánach Apple a chur ar leataobh. Tá a fhios againn uilig go ndearna an cás seo agus an córas cánach a bhí sa tír seo tamall fada ó shin damáiste do chlú Stát na hÉireann.

The foreign direct investment, FDI, sector is a vitally important part of our economy and employs over 300,000 people. For many multinationals, Ireland is an attractive place to operate and grow thanks to our highly educated workforce. It is important for them and us that our tax regime is stable and respected. There have been elements of our tax code that have not lived up to those standards in the past, whether that was the double Irish or the facilitation of stateless companies. These arrangements inflicted considerable reputational damage on the State and were rightly, following pressure from Sinn Féin and others, closed down. It is not in the interests of the State or our economy to have an unwelcome spotlight shone on our tax system, especially when such attention provides motivation for some to encroach on what should never be at stake, namely, our tax sovereignty.

In 2016, the European Commission found that two tax rulings issued by Revenue to Apple in 1991 and 2007 had substantially and artificially lowered the tax paid by Apple since 1991. It declared that more than €14 billion in unpaid taxes and interest was owed by Apple to Ireland. The arrangement the Commission investigated was disclosed by Apple's head of tax operations, Phillip Bullock, in sworn testimony at the 2013 hearings of the US Senate subcommittee on investigations. He said the income earned by Apple subsidiaries in Ireland was subject to, in his own words, and "In accordance with an agreement that we have with Ireland". He confirmed that the agreement was that there was a maximum of 2% fixed on the tax.

This allowed a situation to develop whereby Apple's Irish subsidiary recorded European profits of €16 billion in 2021 with only €50 million of tax paid here. The Government decided, wrongly in our view, to join Apple in appealing the case to the General Court. That case was won. In July 2020, when the Government proclaimed victory, I said this was not a cause for victory but, rather, marked only half-time in the case. Today, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has given his opinion, namely, that the European Court of Justice should set aside the judgment of the General Court. He has proposed that the case instead be referred back to the General Court for a new decision to be made. It should be noted that his opinion is non-binding, with the European Court of Justice judgment due in the next several months. However, there is no doubt that today's opinion is a blow for Apple and the Government which took the case. Worse still, it is a further embarrassment for the State. It again shines a spotlight on our tax affairs and further strengthens the resolve of some within the Commission to encroach on something that was never at question in this case, that is, our tax sovereignty and the right to set our corporate tax rate fairly and consistently.

On the day after the finance committee unanimously voted to apply a minimum effective tax rate on large multinationals, an unwelcome spotlight has again been shone on Ireland's tax regime and past practices. Does the Minister agree that today's opinion inflicts further reputational damage on the State and past tax arrangements that were but are no longer in operation here? What is the response of the Government to today's opinion?

I thank Deputy Doherty. As he knows, a stable tax system has been absolutely essential to the growth of our economy and the progress of Ireland over the past number of decades. We have seen the benefits of that for our population and in the transformation of our economy. This is something the Government takes very seriously. We want to make sure that we maintain that.

The Deputy has raised a court judgment in regard to the Apple tax case. It is an opinion that was delivered this morning by the Advocate General. It is not the judgment of the court. We expect that in the near future, probably in a few months' time. As the matter is still the subject of legal proceedings, it is not appropriate to comment on any element of the case. As a finance spokesperson, I know the Deputy will fully understand that given that the case is currently subject to judicial proceedings.

Looking to the backdrop to this, in 2016 the European Commission issued a decision finding that Ireland provided state aid to Apple. Ireland challenged this finding to the General Court of the European Union at that point. In 2020, the General Court issued its judgment which annulled the Commission's state aid decision of 2016. The Commission appealed the judgment to the Court of Justice of the European Union. On 23 May 2023, the Court of Justice heard that appeal. The Commission, Ireland, Luxembourg, Apple and the European Free Trade Area Surveillance Authority, ESA, made interventions before that court. Following an oral hearing, the Advocate General's opinion was published today. That opinion analyses the legal aspects of the case in detail and, separately from the deliberations of the court, provides an opinion regarding the issue being heard. This opinion does not form part of the judgment of the European Court of Justice but it is considered by the court in arriving at its final judgment. Following the opinion of the Advocate General, the Court of Justice judgment will be pronounced in open court. The timing of the judgment is entirely at the discretion of the court. The contents of the opinion of the Advocate General are noted. However, as I have said, as the matter is subject to legal proceedings, it is not appropriate to comment any further.

To return to my initial point, a stable tax and business environment, one which is attractive to companies internationally, is reputable and in which countries and companies can have confidence, has been central to the progress and development of this country. That is the case in our own county and constituency of Donegal, where Letterkenny, with a population of 20,000 people, has 4,000 IDA Ireland-based jobs. That is very much key to the lifeblood of the country.

The Government takes very seriously the tax regime we have in place. We have engaged at an international level in terms of coming to international agreements on how corporation tax arrangements should be conducted internationally. We have been very much to the fore on that and that will continue. Regarding this case, because it is still the subject of ongoing judicial proceedings, the Deputy and the Government in particular have to be very cognisant of that in making particular comment on it.

I thank the Minister. At the heart of this case are old tax rulings, some going back over three decades. The arrangements in place at that time no longer exist. We have a stable tax environment. Indeed, it will become more fair as a result of the work we did in the finance committee by implementing pillar 2 of the OECD base erosion and profit shifting, of BEPS, process, which was agreed yesterday.

That will ensure large multinationals pay an appropriate and higher level of tax on their profits. That is welcome as part of a global agreement.

We also acknowledge that many of the tax arrangements that shone a negative spotlight on this State are no longer in existence. The double Irish, for example, has been closed down, but it took many years for the Government to move on that. The loopholes regarding stateless companies, which are at the core of this, again facilitated through our tax code and how it interacts with other jurisdictions, have been closed down. The fact that the tax arrangements in question were allowed to operate by successive governments for too long is an issue. Governments resisted closing them down for many years until succumbing to pressure from Sinn Féin and others. Regardless of what way the courts judge, the fact is that in 2011 an Irish subsidiary of Apple recorded €16 billion in profit and paid a 0.03% tax rate.

I thank the Deputy.

Does the Minister accept that today's opinion will shine an unwelcome spotlight on the former tax affairs of the State and inflict further reputational damage? What is the Government's strategy going forward as a result of this opinion?

The Deputy's time is up. He is way over time.

I will not get involved in a particular opinion. I know Deputy Doherty and his party opposed us in defending the case as a State. Going forward, in terms of maintaining a stable business and personal tax regime in this country, our objective is to continue to work with international partners and to have consistency across international borders in relation to how laws operate and to ensure that we are working with those. By doing so and by engaging in that way, we give continued confidence to businesses in many parts of the world to continue to invest and to stay here.

On corporation taxes in general, Deputy Doherty's party had differing views on the matter at different times in the past. In many pre-budget submissions in the past, Sinn Féin advocated for changes and increases in the overall corporation tax rate. If we had followed his party's policy on corporation tax over the years, we would not have the many companies or the very strong international-facing economy with the strong international investment that we have today. I know Deputy Doherty has very significantly moderated his own views and his party's policy in relation to that in the recent past, and that is welcome.

That is not true. Why does the Minister make these things up?

The Government will continue to engage appropriately in relation to this judgment, in particular to make sure we maintain confidence in terms of investment in Ireland and the tax situation.