EU rulings against Fiat & Starbucks tax breaks could foretell Apple paying back taxes

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    gwydion wrote: »
    This is not true, they didn't made up anything. And yes, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands and other "tax heavens" are out of control. It is good that they are being stopped

    Of course what I wrote is 100% true. The issue is with the structure of the EU not the companies. From the right to white wash history to these asinine tax rulings, the EU simply creates "law" out of thin air because they can't get member states on board.

    Because they have failed completely in Tech, the only way they see to extract money out of these companies to fund their nanny state is to make up laws retroactively.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 47
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post





    The companies there are following the letter of the law.

     

    Had Starbucks followed the letter of the law, they would not have to pay back taxes in the Netherlands.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 47
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post





    Of course what I wrote is 100% true. The issue is with the structure of the EU not the companies. From the right to white wash history to these asinine tax rulings, the EU simply creates "law" out of thin air because they can't get member states on board.



    Because they have failed completely in Tech, the only way they see to extract money out of these companies to fund their nanny state is to make up laws retroactively.

    Ah, you're just joking. Good to know, so we won't waste the time

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 47
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post





    Then extract the money from Ireland. The companies there are following the letter of the law.

    No, because there is a higher law.

     

    If in the USA you follow state law, but in the process break federal law, you don't get to plead that you were within the law because of the former.  It doesn't work that way.

     

    Arguably the companies in question may have a case for filing suit against the host countries for misleading them about legality, but that's pretty tenuous.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 47

    Big deal. Starbucks will have a tax bill of ~$1,200M this year. This extra EU tax bill is a  measly 2.8%.

     

    Or, put another way, like having a tax year of 375 days instead of 365.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 47
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     



    Interpretation certainly is. But I guess that's what the EU loves to do; punish US companies (Fiat's moving to the US)




    The evil EU punishing those saintly American companies - tsk, tsk.

     

    There is of course another interpretation, and it relates to how some US companies conduct their affairs in the EU.

     

    A list of the major companies exploiting the 'double Irish' tax minimisation scheme:

     


    1. Abbott Laboratories

    2. Adobe Systems

    3. Apple Inc.

    4. Eli Lilly and Company

    5. Facebook

    6. Forest Laboratories

    7. General Electric

    8. Google

    9. IBM

    10. Johnson & Johnson

    11. Microsoft

    12. Oracle Corp.

    13. Pfizer Inc.

    14. Starbucks.

    15. Yahoo!

     

    For ten points, spot the predominant common denominator.

     

    Starbucks are a laugh.  Last year in the UK they announced they had actually made a profit - their first for 17 years.

     

    Quote:


     Starbucks doubles bosses' pay despite reporting huge loss


    No, they doubled his pay because they reported a huge loss.  In 2012 it was reported that Starbucks had cumulative sales in the UK totaling £3 Billion while only paying £8.6 Million in tax.  Of course with a streak of 17 years of not making a profit, they announced a significant expansion plan for the UK market.  I would have thought a company that was consistently making a loss might contract, not expand.  I must be missing some small detail.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 47
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    crowley wrote: »
    No, because there is a higher law.

    If in the USA you follow state law, but in the process break federal law, you don't get to plead that you were within the law because of the former.  It doesn't work that way.

    Arguably the companies in question may have a case for filing suit against the host countries for misleading them about legality, but that's pretty tenuous.

    Nope. The EU does not have a unified monitory policy while US and the individual states do.

    Nice try but you are wrong. In other words, if Nevada does not charge me State Income tax as a resident, New York can't come in and claim I owe them taxes because their residents are paying more State income taxes.

    The EU makes this stuff up as they go. Try another example.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 47
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    gwydion wrote: »
    Ah, you're just joking. Good to know, so we won't waste the time

    Not joking. The sad thing is how few in the EU realize their tech sector is a decade behind the rest of the world.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 47
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post





    Not joking. The sad thing is how few in the EU realize their tech sector is a decade behind the rest of the world.

     

    Shall we list all of the components in an iPhone that rely on the EU tech sector? ;) 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 47
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RichL View Post

     

     

    Shall we list all of the components in an iPhone that rely on the EU tech sector? ;) 




    The EU sucks. They may have some components, but their standalone products are dwindling, at least on a global basis. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 47
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    steven n. wrote: »
    Nope. The EU does not have a unified monitory policy while US and the individual states do.

    Nice try but you are wrong. In other words, if Nevada does not charge me State Income tax as a resident, New York can't come in and claim I owe them taxes because their residents are paying more State income taxes.

    The EU makes this stuff up as they go. Try another example.
    How is New York an analogue to the EU in your example? Nevada is not a member of New York. The Federal Government is the comparison point with the EU. If Nevada erroneously told companies or people that they didn't have to pay a Federal tax then your government would have some stern words to say to Nevada, and any companies that took advantage of the lie.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 47
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by latifbp View Post

     



    The EU sucks. They may have some components, but their standalone products are dwindling, at least on a global basis. 




    It's a good thing no one who comments in this forum drives a European made car like a BMW, Porsche, etc - or flies in an Airbus for that matter.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 47
    cnocbui wrote: »

    It's a good thing no one who comments in this forum drives a European made car like a BMW, Porsche, etc - or flies in an Airbus for that matter.
    You forgot VW... Or is there a particular reason you selectively did not include them and their "clean diesel"?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 47
    I'm not sure I get how this can be retrospective, but at the same time, there are very real problems with corporate tax laws, that allow companies that do a significant amount of business internationally, to work their tax affairs in a way that seems unfair.

    I think there will come a time when corporate tax will have to move towards zero as a result of this being almost impossible to resolve, and the majority of taxation will need to come from consumption tax (i.e. Value Added Tax).

    Or people could grow a pair and demand their governments be significantly reduced in size. Taxes are not a law of nature, like gravity.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 35 of 47
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Or people could grow a pair and demand their governments be significantly reduced in size. Taxes are not a law of nature, like gravity.
    Or people could grow a pair (of ovaries, balls being such fragile things) and do the exact opposite, realizing that the individual interest of law taxes pales in comparison to the societal benefits of good administration and regulation. Demand better government, not smaller government.

    Gravity can't be governed. People can.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 36 of 47
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Or people could grow a pair and demand their governments be significantly reduced in size. Taxes are not a law of nature, like gravity.



    Well that's really a different discussion.  Unless you're advocating for zero government (and I concede that some people do), however much government you have has to be paid for somehow, and the way it is paid for needs to be fair and balanced.



    Right at the moment, I'm not convinced the way government is paid for is fair.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 37 of 47
    crowley wrote: »
    Or people could grow a pair (of ovaries, balls being such fragile things) and do the exact opposite, realizing that the individual interest of law taxes pales in comparison to the societal benefits of good administration and regulation. Demand better government, not smaller government.

    Gravity can't be governed. People can.

    Gravity is incapable of self-interest. People will always act in their own interest first.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 38 of 47
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Gravity is incapable of self-interest. People will always act in their own interest first.
    An excellent argument for social regulation!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 39 of 47

    Well that's really a different discussion.  Unless you're advocating for zero government (and I concede that some people do), however much government you have has to be paid for somehow, and the way it is paid for needs to be fair and balanced.


    Right at the moment, I'm not convinced the way government is paid for is fair.

    I'm not an anarchist. I find anarchy unworkable, just as I find totalitarianism unworkable. Limited, constitutional government is the ideal and that's why there will always be a struggle between individuals and their elected (and non-elected) leaders and laws which are continually being created.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 40 of 47
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,680member
    Gravity is incapable of self-interest. People will always act in their own interest first.

    ...unless a big stick gives them pause. That's the purpose government is supposed to serve isn't it, protect the many from the few? Surely you wouldn't propose old world fiefdoms as something better.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.