header-logo header-logo

17 September 2024
Issue: 8086 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Tax , Technology , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Ireland’s Apple windfall

Apple must pay Ireland about €13bn plus interest after the European Court of Justice ruled a controversial tax arrangement favouring the tech giant between 2003 and 2014 breached EU state aid rules

The decision, in European Commission v Ireland and others (Case C‑465/20), might be ‘the high-water mark’ amid a number of ongoing state aid investigations, said Dr Totis Kotsonis, partner, Pinsent Masons.

‘The key legal principles have now been sufficiently clarified so that, ultimately, challenges will now turn on the question of particular facts and evidencing that the relevant legal tests have or have not been met.’

Issue: 8086 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Tax , Technology , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll