You really cherry picked your way around that response didn't you? How about the bit in the middle? That's the sham, the working around the spirit and intention of the deal. Whether Ireland was allowed to give the tax break (aka "state aid", as alleged) is a matter between Ireland and the EU, albeit with Apple as a potentially illegal beneficiary.
You really cherry picked your way around that response didn't you? How about the bit in the middle? That's the sham, the working around the spirit and intention of the deal. Whether Ireland was allowed to give the tax break (aka "state aid", as alleged) is a matter between Ireland and the EU, albeit with Apple as a potentially illegal beneficiary.
The part in the middle is unsupported opinion. Which you're totally entitled to: but the issue of the article was the EU v. Ireland on the Apple (and others) tax arrangements (remember? "Worst-case scenario from Irish tax changes could reduce Apple's annual earnings by 10%"), not some overly moralistic posturing wandering far afield from Ireland's EU issue.
Ok, but the EU law is pretty clear on this. The state cannot give preferential aid to companies. Offering Apple (a non-domiciled corporation) a non-residential status at near-zero tax for 20+ years (interesting that you see the length as acting in Apple's favour when many others see it as an enduring abuse), which opens an avenue for intellectual property profiteering, would seem to constitute a state aid, by most approximations.
The middle part is pretty relevant (and it isn't opinion, it's what Apple has operationally implemented) as it gives context to what the Irish agreement gave rise to.
The duration raises the issue of if this were so obvious and egregious how has it taken twenty years and more to actually be addressed?
Or, alternatively, it's not all that obvious and egregious and sorting out the complexity is reflected in the time it's been operating. Contrary to an oversimplified view that the EU is simply correct. Versus Ireland's position.
Who said it was obvious? Obviously a problem when it's laid out on the table perhaps, but had you even heard of Apple's tax residency situation in Ireland before this time last year? Who else had? How do you know that any regulatory agency in the EU had clocked it either?
Questionable tax practices trade in secrecy and obfuscation to get their return, it is the way of things. The duration doesn't mean anything.
Comments
You really cherry picked your way around that response didn't you? How about the bit in the middle? That's the sham, the working around the spirit and intention of the deal. Whether Ireland was allowed to give the tax break (aka "state aid", as alleged) is a matter between Ireland and the EU, albeit with Apple as a potentially illegal beneficiary.
You really cherry picked your way around that response didn't you? How about the bit in the middle? That's the sham, the working around the spirit and intention of the deal. Whether Ireland was allowed to give the tax break (aka "state aid", as alleged) is a matter between Ireland and the EU, albeit with Apple as a potentially illegal beneficiary.
The part in the middle is unsupported opinion. Which you're totally entitled to: but the issue of the article was the EU v. Ireland on the Apple (and others) tax arrangements (remember? "Worst-case scenario from Irish tax changes could reduce Apple's annual earnings by 10%"), not some overly moralistic posturing wandering far afield from Ireland's EU issue.
The middle part is pretty relevant (and it isn't opinion, it's what Apple has operationally implemented) as it gives context to what the Irish agreement gave rise to.
The duration raises the issue of if this were so obvious and egregious how has it taken twenty years and more to actually be addressed?
Or, alternatively, it's not all that obvious and egregious and sorting out the complexity is reflected in the time it's been operating. Contrary to an oversimplified view that the EU is simply correct. Versus Ireland's position.
^
Who said it was obvious? Obviously a problem when it's laid out on the table perhaps, but had you even heard of Apple's tax residency situation in Ireland before this time last year? Who else had? How do you know that any regulatory agency in the EU had clocked it either?
Questionable tax practices trade in secrecy and obfuscation to get their return, it is the way of things. The duration doesn't mean anything.