Apple could owe over $8 billion in European taxes, new estimate indicates

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 114
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,668member
    ilondoner said:
    I follow the arguments that Apple hasn't done anything illegal but Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg have been skimming off corporation tax revenues due to individual countries in the EU by allowing them to place their sales through a low tax country.  All the big US companies have been playing the game including Amazon, Facebook, Google, Starbucks, GE, Twitter, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Dell, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, the pharmaceuticals...

    Our local bookshop (with just three tiny outlets) paid more UK corporation tax than the whole of Amazon with its £7.6 billion ($10.8 billion) UK turnover.   

    I'm an Apple shareholder with one heck of a lot of my savings in Apple stock but I have to look at the bigger picture and what's fair and equitable, and the current situation with accounting games being played is JUST NOT ON.
    This is typically misunderstood nonsense.  Saying that Apple transfers its sales to Ireland from the UK is utter rubbish. The HQ is in Ireland. That's where wholesale sales are registered.  Whatever taxes Apple pays in the UK are from the Apple stores and their profits. 
  • Reply 82 of 114
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    ilondoner said:
    cnocbui said:
    Citizens in the EU have the right to go and live in any other EU country.  Guess what? the vast majority seem to like where they live and stay there.  
    Really?  So why is London the sixth largest French city in the world after Paris, Marseille, Lyon, Toulouse and Nice with between 300,000 and 400,000 French inhabitants?   (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930 )

    Currently there are just over 2 million EU-born citizens in legal employment in the UK and one heck of a pile more 'living under the radar'.
    Yes, really.  Ponder the meaning of 'vast majority' for a while.

    And while glowing with nationalistic pride, do consider that Eurostat figures for 2012 indicate that while there were 123,000 French citizens living in the UK, there were 150,000 UK citizens living in France. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jan/26/europe-population-who-lives-where#data

  • Reply 83 of 114
    Ireland are accused of offering a deal to Apple that is against EU law. 
    Ireland is not an "authorised representative" of the EU
    Thus any agreement IF found to be against EU laws will be null.
    IF found to be null Apple will be forced to pay back any tax that was unpaid.
    Currently the time period covered by the potential pay back period is the maximum period covered by EU law, there's no retroactive part. If there was then they could go back even further.
     


    The problem with your theory:  Ireland isn't on the hook for anything. THEY don't owe the EU billions in back taxes. Apple does! That's fraud on the part of Ireland committed against Apple and extortion of Apple by the EU! For their part, Apple legally took advantage of the tangle of Inconsustently applied, BUT STILL LEGAL, EU laws. Everyone knew about it.
    Ireland are potentially "on the hook" for not adhering to EU law. The oddity of them being found to be breaching EU law is that they will get billions from Apple. So you have the bizarre situation that  they will have got a double whammy in benefits. Having Apple and its jobs in Ireland and then getting a massive boost in its finances from the back taxes.

    The charges are that Ireland offered a rate of tax that breaches EU law on fair competition and amounts to illegal state aid. Thus IF this is proved then Apple have to pay back all that taxes that constituted that "state aid".

    Apple may have taken advantage of the deal but potentially if the ruling goes against them then the deal was never legal to start with.


    I don't think I've  mentioned anywhere Ireland having to pay anything to anyone.

    Also all those other multinationals that have there EU HQ's in Ireland will be very nervous because they will all have the same potentially "illegal" agreements.
    stevie
  • Reply 84 of 114
    ilondoner said:
    "Fair and equitable" are concepts that do not apply to taxation. Taxes are (and always have been) unequally applied and feed corruption in government or are "income redistribution", which is just plain theft.
    My 'fair and equitable' comment wasn't aimed at taxation but the relationship between countries which are supposed to be in an EU partnership.  It is not 'fair and equitable' for Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg to 'steal' the tax revenues of their EU partners by offering low rates in order to attract US companies to set up headquarters in their tax havens, nor is it 'fair and equitable' for US companies to effectively cheat their hosts out of taxes by creaming off their revenues in this way.   These companies have established multi-billion pound enterprises in the UK, Germany and France and their hosts are being rewarded with nothing.

    It may not be illegal but it IS immoral and is pretty indefensible.
    You cannot frame issues of taxation in a moral context, unless you believe that the people in government are perfect moral beings, incapable of making decisions out of self-interest or in error.
    singularitytallest skil
  • Reply 85 of 114
    ilondoner said:
    It may not be illegal but it IS immoral and is pretty indefensible.
    Taxes have absolutely nothing to do with morality, nor do tax collectors engage in moral action.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 86 of 114
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,165member
    Ireland are accused of offering a deal to Apple that is against EU law. 
    Ireland is not an "authorised representative" of the EU
    Thus any agreement IF found to be against EU laws will be null.
    IF found to be null Apple will be forced to pay back any tax that was unpaid.
    Currently the time period covered by the potential pay back period is the maximum period covered by EU law, there's no retroactive part. If there was then they could go back even further.
     


    The problem with your theory:  Ireland isn't on the hook for anything. THEY don't owe the EU billions in back taxes. Apple does! That's fraud on the part of Ireland committed against Apple and extortion of Apple by the EU! For their part, Apple legally took advantage of the tangle of Inconsustently applied, BUT STILL LEGAL, EU laws. Everyone knew about it.
    Ireland are potentially "on the hook" for not adhering to EU law. The oddity of them being found to be breaching EU law is that they will get billions from Apple. So you have the bizarre situation that  they will have got a double whammy in benefits. Having Apple and its jobs in Ireland and then getting a massive boost in its finances from the back taxes.

    The charges are that Ireland offered a rate of tax that breaches EU law on fair competition and amounts to illegal state aid. Thus IF this is proved then Apple have to pay back all that taxes that constituted that "state aid".

    Apple may have taken advantage of the deal but potentially if the ruling goes against them then the deal was never legal to start with.


    I don't think I've  mentioned anywhere Ireland having to pay anything to anyone.

    Also all those other multinationals that have there EU HQ's in Ireland will be very nervous because they will all have the same potentially "illegal" agreements.
    http://www.politico.eu/article/commission-rules-belgian-tax-rules-are-illegal-state-aid/

    "The European Commission will force Belgium to claw back about €700 million from at least 35 multinational companies, claiming the country’s tax rules amounted to illegal state aid and hurt smaller peers.

    The Commission did not name the companies but said more than half were European and their share was €500 million of the total unpaid taxes. The Belgian government has two months to submit a plan for how it will recoup the money.

    “It distorts competition on the merits by putting smaller competitors who are not multinational on an unequal footing,” said Margrethe Vestager, European commissioner for competition."

    singularitygwydion
  • Reply 87 of 114
    tenlytenly Posts: 709member
    It's obviously impossible to have an objective discussion on this taxation issue since so many people are letting their hate for the US, their hate for corporations or their hate for Apple cloud their judgements.

    As a publicly owned company, it is Apples responsibility to their shareholders to (legally) minimize expenses wherever possible.  This includes their tax burden.  If a legal tax strategy existed - and Apple chose not to employ that strategy because "corporations should pay more", shareholders would be screaming for Tim Cooks head on a platter.

    Ensuring that corporations pay their fair share is the responsibility of the governments who write the tax laws.  The discounts and deductions that people refer to as loopholes are there for a reason.  If they weren't, they would be closed as soon as soon as they were discovered.  The tax breaks that are given to corporations are carefully considered by the countries that offer them.  The value in having a corporation select your country can't always be measured in the number of dollars a corporation hands over as tax revenue.  Some countries recognize that having a corporation select them for their HQ or factory provides other benefits to that country - and these benefits are valuable enough that your elected officials have determined that it's worth giving that company a tax break to entice it to settle there instead of taking their operations to another country.

    Apple - and the other corporations that are being targeted for back taxes are the victims yet there are posters on this thread that act like they are the villains.  Ireland offered incentives to the corporations so that they would establish a presence in Ireland.  In good faith, the companies all agreed to the terms and honored their commitments.  If the deal was illegal, Ireland is at fault and should be responsible for the shortfall.  By entering into the agreement, Ireland should be responsible for making up the difference.

    Given the way this is playing out, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Ireland and the EU have actually colluded to extort these foreign companies.

    There so much more that I could say to convince a rational, objective person of the injustice that is being perpetrated here - but there don't seem to be many on this thread who are rational and objective however there is an abundance of hate and prejudice - and they have already convicted the corporations while giving the Irish a pass and sided with the EU whom are clearly persecuting these companies.  

    I do hope that all of the affected companies band together and exit Ireland and the EU en masse after this is all over.
    edited January 2016 stevieSpamSandwich
  • Reply 88 of 114

    As a publicly owned company, it is Apples responsibility to their shareholders to (legally) minimize expenses wherever possible.  This includes their tax burden.  If a legal tax strategy existed - and Apple chose not to employ that strategy because "corporations should pay more", shareholders would be screaming for Tim Cooks head on a platter.

    absolutely


    tenly said:
    Ensuring that corporations pay their fair share is the responsibility of the governments who write the tax laws.  The discounts and deductions that people refer to as loopholes are there for a reason.  If they weren't, they would be closed as soon as soon as they were discovered.  The tax breaks that are given to corporations are carefully considered by the countries that offer them.  The value in having a corporation select your country can't always be measured in the number of dollars a corporation hands over as tax revenue.  Some countries recognize that having a corporation select them for their HQ or factory provides other benefits to that country - and these benefits are valuable enough that your elected officials have determined that it's worth giving that company a tax break to entice it to settle there instead of taking their operations to another country.
    agreed but if there is a supranational law that governs the limit of that tax break then you cant offer beyond what is allowed.

    tenly said:
    Apple - and the other corporations that are being targeted for back taxes are the victims yet there are posters on this thread that act like they are the villains.  Ireland offered incentives to the corporations so that they would establish a presence in Ireland.  In good faith, the companies all agreed to the terms and honored their commitments.  If the deal was illegal, Ireland is at fault and should be responsible for the shortfall.  By entering into the agreement, Ireland should be responsible for making up the difference.q
    EU law in this respect doesn't work like that.
    You are just showing your ignorance of the EU law in this respect.
    It boils down to whether the deals they have are classed as "illegal state aid". IF and only IF  it is classed as that and the appeals do not go their way, Apple or any of the others that may be in the firing line as the beneficiary of that aid have to pay it back.

    tenly said:
    Given the way this is playing out, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Ireland and the EU have actually colluded to extort these foreign companies.
    Ireland are fighting this and keeps on stating they have done nothing wrong, to say they are in conclusion is getting into conspiracy theory territory that just isn't supported by what is going on.
     

    tenly said:
    There so much more that I could say to convince a rational, objective person of the injustice that is being perpetrated here - but there don't seem to be many on this thread who are rational and objective however there is an abundance of hate and prejudice - and they have always convicted the corporations while giving the Irish a pass and siding with the EU whom are clearly persecuting these companies.  
    I do hope that all of the affected companies band together and exit the Ireland and the EU en masse after this is all over.

    There are many on this thread that just don't understand the EU laws and believe that the deal must be ok because it would be ok in their country, therefore its wrong and thus this case must stop and the defendants must be exonerated.
    gwydionstevie
  • Reply 89 of 114
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    Ireland are accused of offering a deal to Apple that is against EU law. 
    Ireland is not an "authorised representative" of the EU
    Thus any agreement IF found to be against EU laws will be null.
    IF found to be null Apple will be forced to pay back any tax that was unpaid.
    Currently the time period covered by the potential pay back period is the maximum period covered by EU law, there's no retroactive part. If there was then they could go back even further.
     


    The problem with your theory:  Ireland isn't on the hook for anything. THEY don't owe the EU billions in back taxes. Apple does! That's fraud on the part of Ireland committed against Apple and extortion of Apple by the EU! For their part, Apple legally took advantage of the tangle of Inconsustently applied, BUT STILL LEGAL, EU laws. Everyone knew about it.
    No, the law is what allegedly is found ilegal. And this has happened more times in different countries and european regions. And there  is no fraud of the regions to the companies receiving the aids and there is no extortion from the EU to the companies.

  • Reply 90 of 114
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member

    or are "income redistribution", which is just plain theft.
    Ah, you're jokming
  • Reply 91 of 114
    gwydion said:
    Ah, you're joking
    About income redistribution being theft? It’s the definition of theft.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 92 of 114
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    gwydion said:
    Ah, you're joking
    About income redistribution being theft? It’s the definition of theft.
    We have another one joking
  • Reply 93 of 114
    gwydion said:
    We have another one joking
    Explain why.
  • Reply 94 of 114
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    tenly said:
    It's obviously impossible to have an objective discussion on this taxation issue since so many people are lettering their hate for the US, their hate for corporations or their hate for Apple cloud their judgements.
    It's obviously impossible to have an objective discussion on this taxation issue since so many people are lettering their lack of knowledge of EU laws
    singularity
  • Reply 95 of 114
    tenlytenly Posts: 709member

    As a publicly owned company, it is Apples responsibility to their shareholders to (legally) minimize expenses wherever possible.  This includes their tax burden.  If a legal tax strategy existed - and Apple chose not to employ that strategy because "corporations should pay more", shareholders would be screaming for Tim Cooks head on a platter.

    absolutely


    agreed but if there is a supranational law that governs the limit of that tax break then you cant offer beyond what is allowed.

    EU law in this respect doesn't work like that.
    You are just showing your ignorance of the EU law in this respect.
    It boils down to whether the deals they have are classed as "illegal state aid". IF and only IF  it is classed as that and the appeals do not go their way, Apple or any of the others that may be in the firing line as the beneficiary of that aid have to pay it back.

    Ireland are fighting this and keeps on stating they have done nothing wrong, to say they are in conclusion is getting into conspiracy theory territory that just isn't supported by what is going on.
     

    There are many on this thread that just don't understand the EU laws and believe that the deal must be ok because it would be ok in their country, therefore its wrong and thus this case must stop and the defendants must be exonerated.
    It's true.  I'm completely ignorant of EU law except for what has been explained in this thread.  I'm not arguing about what is and isn't law.  I'm arguing about what is and isn't right (meaning fair).  I understand (from comments in this thread) that as per EU law - the agreement can be found to be illegal and therefore retroactively cancelled and the taxes owing recalculated.  I haven't heard anyone say how far back they go, but I presume that it's similar to Canada and the US and is at least 7 years.

    It *should* be incumbent on the EU to review these agreements on a timely basis and rule on the legality of them shortly after they have been entered into.  If they had done so - Apple might only be on the hook for a single years worth of arrears because they would have restructured their operations to take advantage of the next-most favorable tax strategy.  By delaying their investigation/ruling, the EU has ensured that they, and Ireland have continued to enjoy the benefits of Apples presence.  This allows Ireland to profit from an illegal agreement it was responsible for creating in the first place.

    Assume for a second that Ireland never offered a discount or incentive to Apple.  Apple would have set up in another country instead.  By allegedly breaking the law and offering Apple a discount, Ireland has received at least the following economic benefits:
    - the (reduced) taxes that Apple paid
    - a lower unemployment rate
    - income tax collected off of every worker that Apple employed in the country
    - sales tax or vat off of every dollar that Apples employees spend
    - Apple spent money on leasing office space, paying for utilities such as phone, electricity, gas, etc
    - and much more 

    My point is that Apples presence in Ireland resulted in significant $ stimulus into the Irish economy.  If the agreement is declared illegal - why shouldn't Ireland be on the hook to return the $ that was obtained illegally?  Is it okay to profit from criminal activities in the EU?  If the deal had never been offered, and Apple had set up shoe elsewhere, Ireland would not have had ANY of those cash injections listed above.  So - a "fair" thing to do would be to calculate the $ value of all of that - and then deduct it from whatever the EU determines Apple owes!  Right?  

    Or can somebody explain why Ireland should be allowed to keep that illegally obtained money?

    edited January 2016 SpamSandwich
  • Reply 96 of 114



    tenly said:
    It's true.  I'm completely ignorant of EU law except for what has been explained in this thread.  I'm not arguing about what is and isn't law.  I'm arguing about what is and isn't right (meaning fair).  I understand (from comments in this thread) that as per EU law - the agreement can be found to be illegal and therefore retroactively cancelled and the taxes owing recalculated.  I haven't heard anyone say how far back they go, but I presume that it's similar to Canada and the US and is at least 7 years.
    10 years I believe, It's ok to be ignorant of laws that don't affect you (as in you don't live in that area). I'm ignorant of a lot of US and US state law for example and I learn a lot from the comment people make here and sometime I go WTF?  :D


    tenly said:
    It *should* be incumbent on the EU to review these agreements on a timely basis and rule on the legality of them shortly after they have been entered into.  If they had done so - Apple might only be on the hook for a single years worth of arrears because they would have restructured their operations to take advantage of the next-most favorable tax strategy.  By delaying their investigation/ruling, the EU has ensured that they, and Ireland have continued to enjoy the benefits of Apples presence.  This allows Ireland to profit from an illegal agreement it was responsible for creating in the first place.
    I also believe the big problem is that these sweetheart deals have been kept secret. So until they are brought to the correct authorities knowledge nothing can be done.
    If you are also asking for a bureaucracy to be also efficient and speedy then you will always be disappointed, (The company I work for is still waiting for a tax determination from the early 80's which if it goes our way could mean we get a rebate in range of 1-2 billion pounds!!) and if you are asking for an EU bureaucracy to be speedy then you sir are totally insane  :p

    tenly said:
    My point is that Apples presence in Ireland resulted in significant $ stimulus into the Irish economy.  If the agreement is declared illegal - why shouldn't Ireland be on the hook to return the $ that was obtained illegally?  Is it okay to profit from criminal activities in the EU?  If the deal had never been offered, and Apple had set up shoe elsewhere, Ireland would not have had ANY of those cash injections listed above.  So - a "fair" thing to do would be to calculate the $ value of all of that - and then deduct it from whatever the EU determines Apple owes!  Right?  

    The law has never about being fair, it just is. As the saying goes Justice is blind.

    IF and I keep on saying this IF Ireland's deal with Apple is found to be "illegal state aid" and any appeal doesn't succeed then that agreement is considered void. It is as if that deal never happened. 

    Ireland would be forced to collect all the unclaimed tax. 

    There wouldn't be a criminal act per se as long as the amount is paid. 

    If it isn't paid then potentially fines could be imposed by the EU commission on Apple as Ireland then wouldn't have any choice but to demand repayment. 

    Non payment of the back tax could then be up-to 10% of global revenue.. OUCH!!!!!

    steviecnocbui
  • Reply 97 of 114
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    TRUE

    If you take the child tax exemption, or the mortgage interest exemption on your annual taxes,
    you are NOT "dodging taxes".

    You are actually adhering to the current tax rules.

    If the author feels otherwise, then "Roger Fingas dodges taxes", every time he 
    uses the tax rules, to lower his tax liability.
    Bad analogy. Those taxes were paid, and a request is made for an adjustment resulting in a refund. It's more like me working in NY but saying I live in Delaware to avoid paying NYS tax. 
  • Reply 98 of 114
    tenlytenly Posts: 709member
    tenly said:
    It's true.  I'm completely ignorant of EU law except for what has been explained in this thread.  I'm not arguing about what is and isn't law.  I'm arguing about what is and isn't right (meaning fair).  I understand (from comments in this thread) that as per EU law - the agreement can be found to be illegal and therefore retroactively cancelled and the taxes owing recalculated.  I haven't heard anyone say how far back they go, but I presume that it's similar to Canada and the US and is at least 7 years.
    10 years I believe, It's ok to be ignorant of laws that don't affect you (as in you don't live in that area). I'm ignorant of a lot of US and US state law for example and I learn a lot from the comment people make here and sometime I go WTF?  D


    I also believe the big problem is that these sweetheart deals have been kept secret. So until they are brought to the correct authorities knowledge nothing can be done.
    If you are also asking for a bureaucracy to be also efficient and speedy then you will always be disappointed, (The company I work for is still waiting for a tax determination from the early 80's which if it goes our way could mean we get a rebate in range of 1-2 billion pounds!!) and if you are asking for an EU bureaucracy to be speedy then you sir are totally insane  p

    The law has never about being fair, it just is. As the saying goes Justice is blind.

    IF and I keep on saying this IF Ireland's deal with Apple is found to be "illegal state aid" and any appeal doesn't succeed then that agreement is considered void. It is as if that deal never happened. 

    Ireland would be forced to collect all the unclaimed tax. 

    There wouldn't be a criminal act per se as long as the amount is paid. 

    If it isn't paid then potentially fines could be imposed by the EU commission on Apple as Ireland then wouldn't have any choice but to demand repayment. 

    Non payment of the back tax could then be up-to 10% of global revenue.. OUCH!!!!!

    You said that if they declare the arrangement to be void, "it's as if the deal never happened".

    But that's not true!  If the deal had never happened - then Apple would have set up operations in another country - where incentives were perhaps not quite as good as the Irish deal - but definitely better than staying in Ireland without any kind of deal.  So - if the deal becomes void - Ireland has benefitted from Apple keeping its half of the deal - all
    of those things I summarized in my previous message - and they have done nothing at all to earn them.  So they were essentially obtained illegally.

    What the EU is doing may be protected by law - but it's a sleazy law which ends up rewarding the villain and punishing the victims.

    One of the things which makes it so wrong is the retroactivity of it.  These companies think that they have negotiated a fair deal and they abide with the terms of the deal for a decade and then out of the blue - they are told that the half of the deal benefitting the corporation is being canceled - oh, and by the way - you owe us 8 billion dollars!  

    It's extortion.  It's a sleazy, opportunistic tax grab - and it's wrong. 

    Ha ha...if I were Apple I'd start sending out updated invoices to all government agencies throughout the entire EU - for any Apple product purchased over the past 10 years - with an explanation that Apples EU pricing was based on the tax deal that was in place with Ireland - but since it turns out the tax deal is void (never happened) - please find enclosed, updates invoices showing the corrected pricing. I think a 50% retroactive markup should be a good start!  /s
    edited January 2016 SpamSandwich
  • Reply 99 of 114
    croprcropr Posts: 1,050member

    One of the things which makes it so wrong is the retroactivity of it.  These companies think that they have negotiated a fair deal and they abide with the terms of the deal for a decade and then out of the blue - they are told that the half of the deal benefitting the corporation is being canceled - oh, and by the way - you owe us 8 billion dollars!  

    It's extortion.  It's a sleazy, opportunistic tax grab - and it's wrong. 

    Ha ha...if I were Apple I'd start sending out updated invoices to all government agencies throughout the entire EU - for any Apple product purchased over the past 10 years - with an explanation that Apples EU pricing was based on the tax deal that was in place with Ireland - but since it turns out the tax deal is void (never happened) - please find enclosed, updates invoices showing the corrected pricing. I think a 50% retroactive markup should be a good start!  /s
    I don't understand that anyone can think that the claim from the EU came out of the blue.  It is totally insane to think that Apple has the most clever engineers of the world but at the same time very stupid financial experts, who did not brief top management about the involved risks when closing the deal with the Irish tax administration
    singularitycnocbuiasdasd
  • Reply 100 of 114
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member

    DanW13 said:
    US Tax Laws allow foreign Companies who earn monies outside the US and being those earnings into US to not pay any taxes on said earnings, hence the reason Pfizer bought Allergen PLC (Domiciled in Ireland) where Allergen can bring all earned income they make in Ireland and elsewhere into US and out spend companies like Pfizer on R&D, where Pfizer who currently is Domiciled in US and if a Global Company (Ireland) pays Taxes in Ireland and also is forced to pay earned income taxes on same money here in US allowing Companies like Allergen to have nearly a 20% earnings Tax advantage over all US Domiciled Companies hence reason Pfizer is buying Allergen to move their Domicile to Ireland. Perhaps Apple should follow suit if our Dearly elected decides to not restructure our Tax laws in line with Countries like say Ireland for instance... Secondly that's the reason companies like Apple who are Cash Rich will not bring their earned income back to US where they'd have to pay upwards of 40% more in Taxes on same earned income they've already been Taxed, as Tim Cook noted during his interview on 60 Minutes "That would be crazy for us to pay 40% taxes for Share holds..." (Disclaimer I own Apple) and Tim Cook is right. The better idea right now is to simply borrow against all that Cash Apple has overseas to use back home in States when interest rates are so cheap (0%) for all intense and purposes why the hell wouldn't Apple/Others borrow against they're oversea's Cash piles ??? Makes sense to me, and makes sense to move your Domicile overseas via M&A Buying up some some small Companies Address in countries like Ireland, Brilliant !!!!

    I'm still trying to grasp what the heck has to do you post with the article.
Sign In or Register to comment.