Chelsea celebrated their fourth successive Women’s Super League title after beating Reading 3-0 at Select Car Leasing Stadium. Having seen off Manchester United in the FA Cup final earlier this month, Chelsea wrapped up the double in style as they breezed past relegated Reading courtesy of Guro Reiten and a Sam Kerr double. The Blues’ recent dominance shone through as their hosts failed to deal with the attacking talent of Emma Hayes’ side, who finished the 2022-23 season victorious and on a seven-game league winning run. Chelsea knocked on the door early and were unlucky to not take the lead through Kerr’s missed opportunity before a fantastic save by goalkeeper Grace Moloney, who tipped Erin Cuthbert’s effort onto the crossbar. But the breakthrough came in the 18th minute through Kerr, who did not have to be asked twice when she picked up a neat pocket of space inside the box before heading Reiten’s cross past Moloney to make it 1-0. Reiten turned scorer after 42 minutes when she pounced on a loose ball in the Reading backline to go one-on-one with Moloney before holding her nerve to produce a composed finish and put Chelsea 2-0 up. The shackles were off for Chelsea, who played the start of the second half with the comfort of a two-goal lead as they enjoyed long periods of possession which further piled the misery on Reading’s forgettable season. And the Champions began to ramp up the pressure through Kerr, Reiten and Lauren James, who drove at the Reading defence in a persistent hunt to grab another but were left disappointed through their opponent’s stubborn low block to keep the score at 2-0. But Kerr’s efforts paid off in the 88th minute. The Australia captain was slipped through on goal and her first effort came back off the post but she was first to react to claim a simple tap-in and round off a well-deserved Chelsea victory. Read More Charity boss speaks out over ‘traumatic’ encounter with royal aide Ukraine war’s heaviest fight rages in east - follow live

Pakistan spearhead Shaheen Shah Afridi has become cricket's top-ranked bowler but his prime concern is keeping his country in...

REDMOND, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sep 2, 2023--

The world's most successful K-Pop band has a new song coming.

Do you get separation anxiety when you see your dog run off? Or perhaps your

A legal expert at Europe’s top court has said a lower court committed “errors in law” when it threw out a decision by the European Commission which would force Apple to pay more than 13 billion euro in back taxes to Ireland. The non-binding opinion is seen as a significant setback to Ireland’s defence of its past tax treatment of the US technology giant. In 2016, following an EU investigation which launched in 2014, the commission concluded that Ireland gave undue tax benefits to Apple, which would be illegal under EU state aid rules. Ireland and Apple fought the commission on the matter and in July 2020, the General Court of the European Union annulled the decision. However, the European Commission subsequently appealed against the decision to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) saying the lower court’s ruling was legally incorrect. On Thursday, Giovanni Pitruzzella, an advocate general at the CJEU, agreed that the earlier ruling had contained “a series of errors in law”. He said the judgment should be set aside and referred the case back to the General Court for a new decision. While the opinion of the advocate general is non-binding, it is usually followed by the court and therefore could have significant implications for corporation tax bills. There was no sweetheart deal Finance Minister Michael McGrath The commission’s original position was that that tax rulings issued by Ireland to Apple in 1991 and 2007 substantially and artificially lowered the tax paid by the iPhone manufacturer in the country since the early 90s, in a way which did not correspond to economic reality. As a result, competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager said Ireland had granted illegal tax benefits which enabled it to pay substantially less tax than other business over many years. The investigation found that Apple had paid an effective corporate tax rate of 1% on its European profits in 2003, down to 0.005% in 2014, 50 euro for every one million euro of profit. The process involved recording almost all sales profits of two Irish incorporated companies, which the commission said only existed on paper. The companies, fully owned by Apple, held the rights to use the firm’s intellectual property to manufacture and sell its products outside North and South America. The commission said this situation allowed Apple to avoid taxation on almost all profits generated by sales of its products in the entire EU single market. It said this was due to Apple’s decision to record all sales in Ireland rather than in the countries where the products were sold. The findings were disputed by the Irish State, which said all tax owed had been collected, and Apple, which had come under scrutiny in the US for its tax practices years earlier. At the time, Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook, branded the EU findings as “political crap”, maddening and untrue. The Irish Government, which was also used to defending a comparatively low 12.5% corporation tax rate, said Europe had overstepped the mark in attempting to dictate tax laws and enforce retrospective taxes decades later. Ireland and Apple fought the commission on the matter and in July 2020, the General Court of the European Union annulled the decision. The General Court found that the commission had not shown that there was an advantage deriving from the adoption of the tax rulings. However, the commission subsequently appealed the decision to the European Court of Justice with Ms Vestager saying the lower court’s ruling contained errors of law. On Thursday, the advocate general agreed the General Court had erred when it ruled that the Commission had not shown to the requisite legal standard that the intellectual property licences held by the two incorporated companies and related profits, generated by the sales of Apple products outside the US, had to be attributed for tax purposes to the Irish branches. The advocate general was of the view that the General Court also failed to assess correctly the substance and consequences of certain methodological errors that, according to the Commission decision, “vitiated the tax rulings”. It is the non-binding opinion of Mr Pitruzzella that it is necessary for the General Court to carry out a new assessment. The decision of the CJEU on the matter is expected next year and will have significant implications for how member states grant tax breaks to major firms. Apple has argued it has been paying tax on the profits in question in the US, while Ireland has seen it necessary to defend its reputation on taxation issues to protect foreign direct investment. Last weekend, Finance Minister Michael McGrath had said the advocate general’s opinion would be “significant” but added it is not the final step in the process. Mr McGrath said: “We are confident in our position in respect of the Apple case. “We take encouragement from the findings they have made so far, but it is a significant day.” He added: “There was no sweetheart deal. “This was the application of Ireland’s statutory corporation tax code.” In the interim, the 13.1 billion euro has been held in an escrow fund pending the outcome of the case. The money, with interest, is due to be entered into the Irish exchequer if the commission wins the case. However, other member states may make claims that they are owed some of the money. If the commission loses the appeal, the large sum will be returned to Apple. Read More Smartphones ‘may be able to detect how drunk a person is with 98% accuracy’ Ireland and Apple await major development in long-running EU tax dispute Guidance urges parents not to buy smartphones for primary school children William ‘blown away’ by futuristic technology from Singapore start-ups Return of original Fortnite map causes record traffic on Virgin Media O2 network NatWest creates new AI-powered chatbot capable of ‘human-like’ conversations

While the injury Joe Burrow suffered during training camp had Bengals fans worried, Ja'Marr Chase let everyone know there's no need to panic.Whenever a player gets carted off the practice field, there has to be major concern. Especially when that player is the star quarterback.Joe ...

By Jamie McGeever A look at the day ahead in Asian markets from Jamie McGeever, financial markets columnist.

NFL Rumors: Ravens, J.K. Dobbins working on an extension?Baltimore Ravens running back J.K. Dobbins is currently on the PUP list as he recovers from a knee injury, but could a contract extension be in order for the 24-year-old?It's a well-known fact that the running back market is ice col...

By Brendan O'Brien CHICAGO (Reuters) -Hazy, smoke-filled skies from raging Canadian wildfires hovered Wednesday over the U.S. Midwest and East,

HONG KONG China's internet giant Tencent Holdings said that it will unveil an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot on

Robots could soon take over doctors’ jobs, according to experts. A recent study found that AI technology was able to accurately diagnose patients in a healthcare setting. Investigators found the controversial model ChatGPT to be nearly 72 per cent accurate in making clinical decisions. It was also 77 per cent accurate in making final diagnoses. It was able to come up with possible diagnoses, final diagnoses and care management decisions. The artificial intelligence chatbot was found to perform equally well in both primary care and emergency settings. Researchers at Mass General Brigham in Boston, Massachusetts conducted the study. They tested how ChatGPT would be able to work through an entire clinical encounter with a patient. This included recommending a diagnostic workup, deciding the clinical management course, and ultimately making the final diagnosis. It was tested by putting 36 published clinical descriptions into ChatGPT. Patient gender, age and symptoms were put into the language model. ChatGPT was then given further information and asked to make management decisions and a final diagnosis. This simulates the process of seeing a real patient. However, scientists also found it was less accurate - 60 per cent - at making several possible diagnoses. Co-author Marc Succi said: “Our paper comprehensively assesses decision support via ChatGPT from the very beginning of working with a patient through the entire care scenario, from differential diagnosis all the way through testing, diagnosis, and management. ”No real benchmarks exist, but we estimate this performance to be at the level of someone who has just graduated from medical school, such as an intern or resident. ”This tells us that LLMs in general have the potential to be an augmenting tool for the practice of medicine and support clinical decision making with impressive accuracy.” The research team say they will soon be looking at whether AI tools can improve patient care and outcomes in resource-constrained areas of hospitals. Sign up for our free Indy100 weekly newsletter Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.