This. If they think the tax laws are at odds with EU laws, they should be investigating the tax commissions that created those laws rather than the companies that follow them.
That is assuming this isn't really just a money grab...
The EU is investigating the tax regulation of Ireland, Luxemburg and the Netherlands for giving Apple anticompetitive advantage via lower taxes. If the EU finds any wrong doing it will be that of the tax offices in those countries. But never the less Apple will have to pay higher taxes.
But for click bait it is better to write Apple is investigated when the tax offices and their tax agreements with Apple are at issue.
"In the current context of tight public budgets, it is particularly important that large multinationals pay their fair share of taxes," said Joaqu?n Almunia, commission vice president in charge of competition policy.
Clearly its better to go after successful people/companies than to actually fix the problem of ridiculously out of control gov spending. /s
regarding sales taxes, I am assuming Apple gives back the sales taxes it collects to the appropriate gov.
Regarding corporate income tax:
For hardware, the way I understand it Apple pays its income tax in every EU countries then send the money into Ireland. So its a cash placeholder and it affects US Tax not EU tax.
AFAIK you've misunderstood then. According to records Apple pays virtually no company taxes on the profits from hardware sales in France, Italy, Spain and other EU countries. Because Apple has assigned certain IP to it's Irish subsidiary it collects licensing/royalty fees on products sold in the EU using that intellectual property with that money flowing to Ireland where technically the corporate tax rate is 12.5% (not 2%). Worse at least two of the three Ireland-resident but Apple-controlled companies don't even pay taxes to Ireland as they say they have no tax residency there nor anyplace else in the world.
As far as a "fine" for any taxes that may be owed that's not going to happen. The EU isn't after Apple or Fiat or Starbucks. The investigation is over how those companies have been able to shift operational profits from the country of sale to another EU country where little to no tax has been paid on those company profits and that country's involvement in it. In other word's possible violation of EU regulations on state aid that made "transfer pricing" possible for some large corporations.
What the EU could do however is rule that Ireland and/or Luxembourg must recover the taxes that should have been paid to EU member states if they find there's been some shady or uncompetitive dealings. In essence Ireland would be forced to go after Apple and others like them to collect the taxes they should have from past. years and I assume passing them on to the countries where the actual sales occurred. So it's Ireland's enabling involvement that's being investigated and may be punished, not Apple specifically.
Just to be clear then: The EU is not going after Apple. The investigation actually involves how profits are being shifted out of countries where the sales occur and into Ireland/Luxembourg/Netherlands where the taxes that really were due to France, Belgium, Italy and others have somehow been avoided. The EU Commission would seem to believe they have enough initial evidence of improprieties to warrant an official investigation.
There are a lot of "loopholes" with internet sales of digital content. One example I can give is in the province of Quebec (Canada), it is illegal to sell a blueray or DvD with an english only soundtrack if the french track is available. Apple is not respecting that law with its itunes sales.
If the law specifically refers to Blu-ray and DVD media then Apple isn't breaking any laws. It would be the same for Blu-ray and DVDs if the law was written in the 80s to specifically refer to VHS and Betamax.
If the law specifically refers to Blu-ray and DVD media then Apple isn't breaking any laws. It would be the same for Blu-ray and DVDs if the law was written in the 80s to specifically refer to VHS and Betamax.
Maybe Apple is "technically" respecting the law, but its still a loophole. I dont know the way the law was writing so its still possible Apple is illegal, depending on the way the law was done. Either the law is to specific and mention medias or its clear and applies to movies and tv content in genenal but is not "enforce" in the digital world.
As far as I am concerned, movies and tv shows should be force to include spanish/portugese/french/english soundtracks on all movies sold in north and south america.
Maybe Apple is "technically" respecting the law, but its still a loophole. I dont know the way the law was writing so its still possible Apple is illegal, depending on the way the law was done. Either the law is to specific and mention medias or its clear and applies to movies and tv content in genenal but is not "enforce" in the digital world.
1) I wouldn't call a law that specifically refers to optical media as a loophole (which is how your previous comment reads) but even if has a larger scope and there is an actual loophole being exploited that's not the fault of the law, or rather the makers, for creating "an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules."
2) If Apple is breaking the law then they aren't exploiting a loophole. They are mutually exclusive for a specifically point. Either they are breaking the law or they aren't. If they are breaking the law then why hasn't anything been done?
3) Every now and then the term "spirit of the law" crops up. This means nothing. You might as well say that actual spirits have whispered into the lawmakers' ear to tell them its meaning.
[QUOTE=herbapou]As far as I am concerned, movies and tv shows should be force to include spanish/portugese/french/english soundtracks on all movies sold in north and south america.[/QUOTE]
I have no specific problem with that but I do wonder about the cost compared to the number of native Portuguese and French speakers there in the Americas that would be buying these titles. It seems to be that in order of highest to lowest grossing it would be English, Spanish, Portuguese and French.
How many native French speakers are there in the Americas? How many of them of would prefer to have dubbed French over English, which the people I know from Quebec speak very well. Personally, I like tend to prefer movies in their native language with subtitles since a good part of acting is in the delivery.
If they choose Canadian French (not sure if this gets segmented further) then do they ignore other French speaking parts of the Americas or do they have to add dialect specific languages for them?
Totally unrealistic and counter to the principles of the free market. Capital flows along the path of least resistance.
How is unrealistic? Companies already report their figures to the countries that they operate in, so what is unrealistic about those figures being combined for all wholly-owned companies in a group? The numbers exist, adding them together is not only not unrealistic, it's not even particularly hard! Breaking it down country-by-country might be tricky if you wanted to take that approach for unitary taxation, but that's what auditors are for (I also favour much harsher rules for auditors to comply with).
A little bit of cooperation, a well policed companies-register and record of ownership, and some carrots and sticks applied in the form of law. There you have it, not a problem.
Don't see what "the principles of the free market" or the nature of capital have to do with anything. We're talking about taxation which is, by definition, a distortion of the free market. Capital also flows where the law says it has to flow, when the law does so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
If you want Apple to bring more money back into the U.S., you have to remove some of the obstacles.
That is an option, and is a race-to-the-bottom recipe for disaster.
Another option is to remove the alternatives and for state tax authorities to show some backbone. Demand country-by-country, or demand repatriation, either are good, but the middle ground we're currently in is most definitely bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Secondly, they get beneficial tax treatment because that's the law.
Is it the intention of the law? No, the intention is that they repatriate, the law just wasn't made robust enough to ensure that happens. So change the law so that it does or come up with an alternative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
The complexity of international tax law is way beyond what any of us laymen understand.
I'm not talking about international tax law, I'm talking about US tax law. And hopefully other countries as well, but since we're talking about Apple let's start with the US.
And it really isn't all that complicated. The money men would have you think that it is, to stop inconvenient questions, but it's not beyond the comprehension of average people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
You can't just wave a wand and say "you have to pay U.S. tax rates now!"
No, you wave a pen over a tax bill and get a presidential signature on a proper system that holds all kinds of companies to the same mark.
World hunger could be totally eradicated if the United States ALONE were to reduce it's yearly defence budget by 5%.
Not really. See, there are people already trying to feed hungry children in Africa, Asia, India, but the aid workers keep getting murdered, kidnapped, raped or arrested. The only solution to world hunger is education. And that includes realizing that you should not have children if you cannot support them.
Just to be clear then: The EU is not going after Apple. The investigation actually involves how profits are being shifted out of countries where the sales occur and into Ireland/Luxembourg/Netherlands where the taxes that really were due to France, Belgium, Italy and others have somehow been avoided. The EU Commission would seem to believe they have enough initial evidence of improprieties to warrant an official investigation.
Exactly. The EU is investigating how Ireland helped Apple (and other companies) to evade taxes on the profits made in other EU countries. If the EU finds that Ireland did not play by the rules, it will impose Ireland to change it tax laws and to collect the avoided taxes, on behalf of the other EU member states
This is just another example of a headline create to get attention.
This headline should read as follows
[B]EU investigates Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg breached EU rules on state aid.[/B]
This has nothing to do with Apple and if they did find wrong doing it would be on the parts of those counties since we have to assume companies are following the rules of the local government and Apple and the EU commission do not have any sort of business dealing or tax relationship. the EU member has the responsibility to enforce the rules that sign up to.
Keep in mind that Apple and Ireland deals goes back into the 1980's which pre-dates the EU so Apple and Ireland may have a unique deal which the EU may have not authority over and may have been grandfather in.
Now if the headline was about the EU do any you care about this. They stuck in big names to get attention.
It is 100% legally right and not at all morally wrong or ambiguous. If the EU does not like the laws THEY have created, they need to grow a pair and fix them.
That is what i said.
Apple is being used for political gain, Brussels is not interested in fixing the holes.
Comments
This. If they think the tax laws are at odds with EU laws, they should be investigating the tax commissions that created those laws rather than the companies that follow them.
That is assuming this isn't really just a money grab...
The EU is investigating the tax regulation of Ireland, Luxemburg and the Netherlands for giving Apple anticompetitive advantage via lower taxes. If the EU finds any wrong doing it will be that of the tax offices in those countries. But never the less Apple will have to pay higher taxes.
But for click bait it is better to write Apple is investigated when the tax offices and their tax agreements with Apple are at issue.
World hunger could be totally eradicated if the United States ALONE were to reduce it's yearly defence budget by 5%.
Clearly its better to go after successful people/companies than to actually fix the problem of ridiculously out of control gov spending. /s
AFAIK you've misunderstood then. According to records Apple pays virtually no company taxes on the profits from hardware sales in France, Italy, Spain and other EU countries. Because Apple has assigned certain IP to it's Irish subsidiary it collects licensing/royalty fees on products sold in the EU using that intellectual property with that money flowing to Ireland where technically the corporate tax rate is 12.5% (not 2%). Worse at least two of the three Ireland-resident but Apple-controlled companies don't even pay taxes to Ireland as they say they have no tax residency there nor anyplace else in the world.
As far as a "fine" for any taxes that may be owed that's not going to happen. The EU isn't after Apple or Fiat or Starbucks. The investigation is over how those companies have been able to shift operational profits from the country of sale to another EU country where little to no tax has been paid on those company profits and that country's involvement in it. In other word's possible violation of EU regulations on state aid that made "transfer pricing" possible for some large corporations.
What the EU could do however is rule that Ireland and/or Luxembourg must recover the taxes that should have been paid to EU member states if they find there's been some shady or uncompetitive dealings. In essence Ireland would be forced to go after Apple and others like them to collect the taxes they should have from past. years and I assume passing them on to the countries where the actual sales occurred. So it's Ireland's enabling involvement that's being investigated and may be punished, not Apple specifically.
Just to be clear then: The EU is not going after Apple. The investigation actually involves how profits are being shifted out of countries where the sales occur and into Ireland/Luxembourg/Netherlands where the taxes that really were due to France, Belgium, Italy and others have somehow been avoided. The EU Commission would seem to believe they have enough initial evidence of improprieties to warrant an official investigation.
If the law specifically refers to Blu-ray and DVD media then Apple isn't breaking any laws. It would be the same for Blu-ray and DVDs if the law was written in the 80s to specifically refer to VHS and Betamax.
But the news tells me we need a larger defense budget because they are out to get me¡
Don't be silly!
As if they're going to leave me alone to go and hassle you!
If the law specifically refers to Blu-ray and DVD media then Apple isn't breaking any laws. It would be the same for Blu-ray and DVDs if the law was written in the 80s to specifically refer to VHS and Betamax.
Maybe Apple is "technically" respecting the law, but its still a loophole. I dont know the way the law was writing so its still possible Apple is illegal, depending on the way the law was done. Either the law is to specific and mention medias or its clear and applies to movies and tv content in genenal but is not "enforce" in the digital world.As far as I am concerned, movies and tv shows should be force to include spanish/portugese/french/english soundtracks on all movies sold in north and south america.
1) I wouldn't call a law that specifically refers to optical media as a loophole (which is how your previous comment reads) but even if has a larger scope and there is an actual loophole being exploited that's not the fault of the law, or rather the makers, for creating "an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules."
2) If Apple is breaking the law then they aren't exploiting a loophole. They are mutually exclusive for a specifically point. Either they are breaking the law or they aren't. If they are breaking the law then why hasn't anything been done?
3) Every now and then the term "spirit of the law" crops up. This means nothing. You might as well say that actual spirits have whispered into the lawmakers' ear to tell them its meaning.
Don't know. But it might be same reason some people post here in every thread saying the Beats headphones suck, over and over again.
I have no specific problem with that but I do wonder about the cost compared to the number of native Portuguese and French speakers there in the Americas that would be buying these titles. It seems to be that in order of highest to lowest grossing it would be English, Spanish, Portuguese and French.
How many native French speakers are there in the Americas? How many of them of would prefer to have dubbed French over English, which the people I know from Quebec speak very well. Personally, I like tend to prefer movies in their native language with subtitles since a good part of acting is in the delivery.
If they choose Canadian French (not sure if this gets segmented further) then do they ignore other French speaking parts of the Americas or do they have to add dialect specific languages for them?
World hunger could be totally eradicated if everyone but the United States were to reduce its yearly defence budget by 100%.
Interesting fact:
World hunger could be totally eradicated if the United States reduced everyone to 0%.
Totally unrealistic and counter to the principles of the free market. Capital flows along the path of least resistance.
How is unrealistic? Companies already report their figures to the countries that they operate in, so what is unrealistic about those figures being combined for all wholly-owned companies in a group? The numbers exist, adding them together is not only not unrealistic, it's not even particularly hard! Breaking it down country-by-country might be tricky if you wanted to take that approach for unitary taxation, but that's what auditors are for (I also favour much harsher rules for auditors to comply with).
A little bit of cooperation, a well policed companies-register and record of ownership, and some carrots and sticks applied in the form of law. There you have it, not a problem.
Don't see what "the principles of the free market" or the nature of capital have to do with anything. We're talking about taxation which is, by definition, a distortion of the free market. Capital also flows where the law says it has to flow, when the law does so.
If you want Apple to bring more money back into the U.S., you have to remove some of the obstacles.
That is an option, and is a race-to-the-bottom recipe for disaster.
Another option is to remove the alternatives and for state tax authorities to show some backbone. Demand country-by-country, or demand repatriation, either are good, but the middle ground we're currently in is most definitely bad.
Secondly, they get beneficial tax treatment because that's the law.
Is it the intention of the law? No, the intention is that they repatriate, the law just wasn't made robust enough to ensure that happens. So change the law so that it does or come up with an alternative.
The complexity of international tax law is way beyond what any of us laymen understand.
I'm not talking about international tax law, I'm talking about US tax law. And hopefully other countries as well, but since we're talking about Apple let's start with the US.
And it really isn't all that complicated. The money men would have you think that it is, to stop inconvenient questions, but it's not beyond the comprehension of average people.
You can't just wave a wand and say "you have to pay U.S. tax rates now!"
No, you wave a pen over a tax bill and get a presidential signature on a proper system that holds all kinds of companies to the same mark.
Interesting fact:
World hunger could be totally eradicated if the United States ALONE were to reduce it's yearly defence budget by 5%.
Not really. See, there are people already trying to feed hungry children in Africa, Asia, India, but the aid workers keep getting murdered, kidnapped, raped or arrested. The only solution to world hunger is education. And that includes realizing that you should not have children if you cannot support them.
I agree with mstone, we should euthanize all the uneducated people and their children.
Exactly. The EU is investigating how Ireland helped Apple (and other companies) to evade taxes on the profits made in other EU countries. If the EU finds that Ireland did not play by the rules, it will impose Ireland to change it tax laws and to collect the avoided taxes, on behalf of the other EU member states
This headline should read as follows
[B]EU investigates Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg breached EU rules on state aid.[/B]
This has nothing to do with Apple and if they did find wrong doing it would be on the parts of those counties since we have to assume companies are following the rules of the local government and Apple and the EU commission do not have any sort of business dealing or tax relationship. the EU member has the responsibility to enforce the rules that sign up to.
Keep in mind that Apple and Ireland deals goes back into the 1980's which pre-dates the EU so Apple and Ireland may have a unique deal which the EU may have not authority over and may have been grandfather in.
Now if the headline was about the EU do any you care about this. They stuck in big names to get attention.
It is 100% legally right and not at all morally wrong or ambiguous. If the EU does not like the laws THEY have created, they need to grow a pair and fix them.
That is what i said.
Apple is being used for political gain, Brussels is not interested in fixing the holes.
Who finance their parties?