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

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 114
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,668member
    tenly said:
    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.
    Some of that argument was sane, the rest was rather insane. If Apple and Ireland colluded against the European law there was no conspiracy between Ireland and the EU. Obviously the reverse. And obviously both Ireland and Apple feel they haven't done anything illegal (both are contesting). However if it so happens that the EU rules that this is State aid then clearly the aid will be be repaid to Ireland since it was Ireland the tax is owed to. The EU doesn't gather corporation tax. 

    Apple isn't going to sacrifice 20-30% of future income by exiting Ireland or the EU. 
    gatorguycnocbuisingularitylkruppgwydion
  • Reply 102 of 114
    tenlytenly Posts: 709member
    asdasd said:
    tenly said:
    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.
    Some of that argument was sane, the rest was rather insane. If Apple and Ireland colluded against the European law there was no conspiracy between Ireland and the EU. Obviously the reverse. And obviously both Ireland and Apple feel they haven't done anything illegal (both are contesting). However if it so happens that the EU rules that this is State aid then clearly the aid will be be repaid to Ireland since it was Ireland the tax is owed to. The EU doesn't gather corporation tax. 

    Apple isn't going to sacrifice 20-30% of future income by exiting Ireland or the EU. 
    Ok.  You're the second to comment on my collusion comment.  I didn't mean to suggest there was some sort of conspiracy at play.  I don't think there actually was.  The comment was more out of exasperation and frustration - with the idiocy of the whole situation.

    However your second last paragraph is news to me. Does the EU really not get any portion of the money? I though they would be getting a percentage - not just from Ireland, but from all of the member countries.  No?  Well if that's the case, then the EU is acting more like an angry parent that finds out their child traded their bicycle to another kid for $10?  They storm in, declare the deal void and demand that the bicycle be returned.  Again - the difference being that if the deal is void, both parties should return any value they received from it - but from what I understand, that's not happening.  They're forcing the return of the bicycle - but allowing the kid that sold it to keep the $10 as well!

    And I think you misunderstood what I meant about exiting the EU.  I didn't mean cease to do any business there at all.  I meant move and and all offices, factories, etc out of the EU.  Of course they would continue to sell their products.

    The biggest point I've been trying to make is that Ireland wins no matter how this plays out whereas Apple could lose a very large amount.  It may be legal under EU law - but it's completely unfair that Ireland still profits.  If - as you informed me - the money that Apple might have to repay also goes to Ireland (and not the EU), then I don't see any reason why Ireland would not continue to offer companies sweetheart tax deals for them to move their offices and factories to Ireland.  If they know that 5-10 years later the EU will sweep in and cancel the deal, there is a huge tax windfall for Ireland AND they've also received the benefit of having those companies operate out of Ireland.  Ireland wins no matter what!

    i obviously don't know all the nuances of EU law, but I've understood enough to see clearly that Apple and the other corporations with similar deals - are the victims here.  My argumennt is with those that think Apple has done something wrong and should be punished for it.  All the evidence I've seen indicates that Apple has been playing by the rules.  Seeking out ways to minimize their tax burden - for Apple, or for any other corporation or person - is not unethical or immoral as others have suggested.  Perhaps the tax rules should be rewritten in a lot of places - and perhaps governments should be a lot more careful as to how they spend the revenue that they collect.

    What is the right answer?  How much tax should a company pay?  For a global company, which jurisdictions should receive the tax revenue?  Many people scream that corporations don't pay enough...but they don't say how much they *should* pay.  So....I ask...how much?  What is fair?

    Either way - I think I'm ready to give up on this topic.  We'll see how it all plays out.
  • Reply 103 of 114
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    tenly said:

    i obviously don't know all the nuances of EU law, but I've understood enough to see clearly that Apple and the other corporations with similar deals - are the victims here.  
    You still don't understand the case, the victims here were the companies in Ireland that didn't had those deals, because there were in disadvantage with the ones having the deal. 
    singularitygatorguycnocbui
  • Reply 104 of 114
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,668member
    tenly said:
    asdasd said:
    Some of that argument was sane, the rest was rather insane. If Apple and Ireland colluded against the European law there was no conspiracy between Ireland and the EU. Obviously the reverse. And obviously both Ireland and Apple feel they haven't done anything illegal (both are contesting). However if it so happens that the EU rules that this is State aid then clearly the aid will be be repaid to Ireland since it was Ireland the tax is owed to. The EU doesn't gather corporation tax. 

    Apple isn't going to sacrifice 20-30% of future income by exiting Ireland or the EU. 
    Ok.  You're the second to comment on my collusion comment.  I didn't mean to suggest there was some sort of conspiracy at play.  I don't think there actually was.  The comment was more out of exasperation and frustration - with the idiocy of the whole situation.

    However your second last paragraph is news to me. Does the EU really not get any portion of the money? I though they would be getting a percentage - not just from Ireland, but from all of the member countries.  No?  Well if that's the case, then the EU is acting more like an angry parent that finds out their child traded their bicycle to another kid for $10?  They storm in, declare the deal void and demand that the bicycle be returned.  Again - the difference being that if the deal is void, both parties should return any value they received from it - but from what I understand, that's not happening.  They're forcing the return of the bicycle - but allowing the kid that sold it to keep the $10 as well!

    And I think you misunderstood what I meant about exiting the EU.  I didn't mean cease to do any business there at all.  I meant move and and all offices, factories, etc out of the EU.  Of course they would continue to sell their products.

    The biggest point I've been trying to make is that Ireland wins no matter how this plays out whereas Apple could lose a very large amount.  It may be legal under EU law - but it's completely unfair that Ireland still profits.  If - as you informed me - the money that Apple might have to repay also goes to Ireland (and not the EU), then I don't see any reason why Ireland would not continue to offer companies sweetheart tax deals for them to move their offices and factories to Ireland.  If they know that 5-10 years later the EU will sweep in and cancel the deal, there is a huge tax windfall for Ireland AND they've also received the benefit of having those companies operate out of Ireland.  Ireland wins no matter what!

    i obviously don't know all the nuances of EU law, but I've understood enough to see clearly that Apple and the other corporations with similar deals - are the victims here.  My argumennt is with those that think Apple has done something wrong and should be punished for it.  All the evidence I've seen indicates that Apple has been playing by the rules.  Seeking out ways to minimize their tax burden - for Apple, or for any other corporation or person - is not unethical or immoral as others have suggested.  Perhaps the tax rules should be rewritten in a lot of places - and perhaps governments should be a lot more careful as to how they spend the revenue that they collect.

    What is the right answer?  How much tax should a company pay?  For a global company, which jurisdictions should receive the tax revenue?  Many people scream that corporations don't pay enough...but they don't say how much they *should* pay.  So....I ask...how much?  What is fair?

    Either way - I think I'm ready to give up on this topic.  We'll see how it all plays out.
    Ok, I can't multi quote very well in this new format.

    1) On no collusion, agreed.
    2) The EU may get a fine from Ireland, I am not sure. The accusation here is not that Ireland did something wrong by having lower taxes than the rest of Europe, but that it engaged in internal tax shenanigans contrary to the interests of some of its Irish based companies. By giving one or more locally based companies an effective lower rate than others also based in Ireland. That kind of State Aid is illegal in the EU ( although some kinds are acceptable, I mean banks have been bailed out).
    3) This is a relatively recent use of the illegal State Aid laws within the EU to penalise countries for lower taxes for preferred industries or companies. Initially this law was targeted as countries that actually handed over money to company A, rather than company B. 
    4) Because of this relatively new ruling it probably wasn't clear to either Apple or Ireland that there were engaging in anything that was then illegal. Apple are probably no more annoyed with Ireland than they are with their own accountants. They got it wrong
    5) However, if State aid is proven, then to equalise things the state aid has to be re-paid. Since the State Aid ( i.e. in this case forgone tax) was from Ireland it is repaid to Ireland. This might sound unfaiir but Ireland wold prefer not to get it, as it makes them look bad. 

    I can't see Apple leaving the EU, unless the TTIP reduces barriers so much that there are no costs to imports. They don't manufacture in Ireland ( much) anyway but Ireland is where the non-US manufacturing is based ( but in practice leased out to Chinese assembly plants).
    edited January 2016 singularitygwydion
  • Reply 105 of 114
    tenlytenly Posts: 709member
    asdasd said:
    tenly said:
    Ok.  You're the second to comment on my collusion comment.  I didn't mean to suggest there was some sort of conspiracy at play.  I don't think there actually was.  The comment was more out of exasperation and frustration - with the idiocy of the whole situation.

    However your second last paragraph is news to me. Does the EU really not get any portion of the money? I though they would be getting a percentage - not just from Ireland, but from all of the member countries.  No?  Well if that's the case, then the EU is acting more like an angry parent that finds out their child traded their bicycle to another kid for $10?  They storm in, declare the deal void and demand that the bicycle be returned.  Again - the difference being that if the deal is void, both parties should return any value they received from it - but from what I understand, that's not happening.  They're forcing the return of the bicycle - but allowing the kid that sold it to keep the $10 as well!

    And I think you misunderstood what I meant about exiting the EU.  I didn't mean cease to do any business there at all.  I meant move and and all offices, factories, etc out of the EU.  Of course they would continue to sell their products.

    The biggest point I've been trying to make is that Ireland wins no matter how this plays out whereas Apple could lose a very large amount.  It may be legal under EU law - but it's completely unfair that Ireland still profits.  If - as you informed me - the money that Apple might have to repay also goes to Ireland (and not the EU), then I don't see any reason why Ireland would not continue to offer companies sweetheart tax deals for them to move their offices and factories to Ireland.  If they know that 5-10 years later the EU will sweep in and cancel the deal, there is a huge tax windfall for Ireland AND they've also received the benefit of having those companies operate out of Ireland.  Ireland wins no matter what!

    i obviously don't know all the nuances of EU law, but I've understood enough to see clearly that Apple and the other corporations with similar deals - are the victims here.  My argumennt is with those that think Apple has done something wrong and should be punished for it.  All the evidence I've seen indicates that Apple has been playing by the rules.  Seeking out ways to minimize their tax burden - for Apple, or for any other corporation or person - is not unethical or immoral as others have suggested.  Perhaps the tax rules should be rewritten in a lot of places - and perhaps governments should be a lot more careful as to how they spend the revenue that they collect.

    What is the right answer?  How much tax should a company pay?  For a global company, which jurisdictions should receive the tax revenue?  Many people scream that corporations don't pay enough...but they don't say how much they *should* pay.  So....I ask...how much?  What is fair?

    Either way - I think I'm ready to give up on this topic.  We'll see how it all plays out.
    Ok, I can't multi quote very well in this new format.

    1) On no collusion, agreed.
    2) The EU may get a fine from Ireland, I am not sure. The accusation here is not that Ireland did something wrong by having lower taxes than the rest of Europe, but that it engaged in internal tax shenanigans contrary to the interests of some of its Irish based companies. By giving one or more locally based companies an effective lower rate than others also based in Ireland. That kind of State Aid is illegal in the EU ( although some kinds are acceptable, I mean banks have been bailed out).
    3) This is a relatively recent use of the illegal State Aid laws within the EU to penalise countries for lower taxes for preferred industries or companies. Initially this law was targeted as countries that actually handed over money to company A, rather than company B. 
    4) Because of this relatively new ruling it probably wasn't clear to either Apple or Ireland that there were engaging in anything that was then illegal. Apple are probably no more annoyed with Ireland than they are with their own accountants. They got it wrong
    5) However, if State aid is proven, then to equalise things the state aid has to be re-paid. Since the State Aid ( i.e. in this case forgone tax) was from Ireland it is repaid to Ireland. This might sound unfaiir but Ireland wold prefer not to get it, as it makes them look bad. 

    I can't see Apple leaving the EU, unless the TTIP reduces barriers so much that there are no costs to imports. They don't manufacture in Ireland ( much) anyway but Ireland is where the non-US manufacturing is based ( but in practice leased out to Chinese assembly plants).
    Thanks for the explanation.  I do see how the other companies may feel somewhat victimized...but the way I see it is that Ireland recognized that Apple's presence in Ireland brings more value to Ireland than just the amount of federal tax that is remitted - i.e. the number of jobs created and cash influx into the local economy.  I can't do that math - but I presume that the Ireland Revenue department can - and did - and they probably determined that Apples presence in Ireland *with* the deal was financially better for Ireland than without the deal.  I don't know the terms of the deal - but again I assume that Apple had some deliverables in terms of number of jobs to create or number of offices to maintain, etc in order to qualify for the incentive.

    With your explanation, I see the situation is not quite as black and white as I initially thought - however, it still seems negligent to me that the deal was allowed to exist for as long as it did before being questioned and examined for legality - and if it does turn out to be illegal - I don't think that Ireland should be allowed to profit from it.  If - as you claim, the companies that did not get the deal are the victims - then perhaps Ireland should make amends to them as well as or even instead of Apple...  But with things as they are, it doesn't seem like there was or is any dis-incentive for Ireland to make sure the deals they enter into are legal.  They win no matter what - and I don't think that's right.  I also think that the amount Apple owes should be adjusted (reduced) by the amount that Ireland received indirectly from Apple honoring their side of the agreement - one simple example: if Apple was required to employ 200 people in Ireland in order to qualify for the deal - all 200 of those people would have been paid a salary and they would have paid income tax to the Irish government.  That represents  revenue that Ireland would not have had if Appe had not received the deal.  So - if the deal is voided, I would think that it would be fair to take things like this into account when calculating how much Apple actually owes in arrears.  If not - it's a great example of how Ireland profits from illegal deals.
  • Reply 106 of 114
    tenly said:
    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
    Absolutely right. Any and all purchasers of Apple products in the past decade in the EU should get a huge bill, with interest. Apple cannot and should not absorb any penalties arising from the failures of the EU itself.
    tenly
  • Reply 107 of 114
    tenly said:
    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
    Absolutely right. Any and all purchasers of Apple products in the past decade in the EU should get a huge bill, with interest. Apple cannot and should not absorb any penalties arising from the failures of the EU itself.
    apart from this isn't about the failings of the EU but deciding whether Apple and Ireland broke EU law.
  • Reply 108 of 114
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,165member
    tenly said:
    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
    Absolutely right. Any and all purchasers of Apple products in the past decade in the EU should get a huge bill, with interest. Apple cannot and should not absorb any penalties arising from the failures of the EU itself.
    When someone is found to have broken financial/tax/securities laws here in the US at least they don't figure recompense from the time it was discovered but rather from the beginning (with perhaps some time limits) It would hardly be fair to base it off when it was caught. 

    Also based on what I've read the EU authorities were not aware of the special tax arrangement Apple had until just the past couple of years, since the US Senate looked into it and subpoenaed records.
  • Reply 109 of 114
    gatorguy said:
    Absolutely right. Any and all purchasers of Apple products in the past decade in the EU should get a huge bill, with interest. Apple cannot and should not absorb any penalties arising from the failures of the EU itself.
    When someone is found to have broken financial/tax/securities laws here in the US at least they don't figure recompense from the time it was discovered but rather from the beginning (with perhaps some time limits) It would hardly be fair to base it off when it was caught. 

    Also based on what I've read the EU authorities were not aware of the special tax arrangement Apple had until just the past couple of years, since the US Senate looked into it and subpoenaed records.
    It's been widely known for years that Apple has employed their particular method.

    Per Wikipedia (link:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement ):
    The double Irish arrangement is a tax avoidance strategy that some multinational corporations use to lower their corporate tax liability. The strategy uses payments between related entities in a corporate structure to shift income from a higher-tax country to a lower-tax country. It relies on the fact that Irish tax law does not include US transfer pricing rules.[1] Specifically, Ireland has territorial taxation, and hence does not levy taxes on income booked in subsidiaries of Irish companies that are outside the state.
    The double Irish tax structure was pioneered in the late 1980s by companies such as Apple Inc..[2] In 2010 a law intended to counter such arrangements was passed,[where?] though existing arrangements were exempt and lawyers have said that this change will cause no significant problems for multinational firms.[3]
    In 2013, the Irish government announced that companies which incorporate in Ireland must also be tax resident there. This counter-measure took effect in January 2015, for newly incorporated companies, and will take effect in 2020 for companies with existing operations in Ireland.[4] Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan, during the presentation of his 2015 budget, said that he believed this would align Ireland's corporate tax regime with international best practice.[5]


    See my bolded text, above. This started in the LATE 80's and it has been widely discussed globally since then. The EU was not ignorant of this arrangement. Not even close.


    Even the NY Times had an extensive coverage of this several years ago:  

    http://www.pulitzer.org/files/2013/explanatory-reporting/04ieconomy4-29.pdf

    edited January 2016 tenly
  • Reply 110 of 114
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,165member
    gatorguy said:
    Absolutely right. Any and all purchasers of Apple products in the past decade in the EU should get a huge bill, with interest. Apple cannot and should not absorb any penalties arising from the failures of the EU itself.
    When someone is found to have broken financial/tax/securities laws here in the US at least they don't figure recompense from the time it was discovered but rather from the beginning (with perhaps some time limits) It would hardly be fair to base it off when it was caught. 

    Also based on what I've read the EU authorities were not aware of the special tax arrangement Apple had until just the past couple of years, since the US Senate looked into it and subpoenaed records.
    It's been widely known for years that Apple has employed their particular method.

    Per Wikipedia (link:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement ):


    See my bolded text, above. This started in the LATE 80's and it has been widely discussed globally since then. The EU was not ignorant of this arrangement. Not even close.


    Even the NY Times had an extensive coverage of this several years ago:  

    http://www.pulitzer.org/files/2013/explanatory-reporting/04ieconomy4-29.pdf

    Note the dates on the source articles for your Wiki notes: 2012 and 2013, after the US Senate investigation had started and based on subpoenaed documents going back years that were discovered during it.  Yeah a lot's been reported in the past 4 years and your links may discuss details of what we know NOW about the arrangements, but those Ireland/Apple agreements and the consequences of them were not generally known until the past few years as far as I can find.

    Perhaps you have other links to articles detailing the Apple Ireland tax arrangements dated prior to 2011 or so? There's not even one link on your Wiki page older than 2012 that discusses any detail of Apple's tax arrangements. In fact the oldest mention of Apple at all is one lone sentence in passing from a 2010 article about Google's tax avoidance strategies. So your finds seems to support my belief that the special arrangements Apple took advantage of were NOT generally known prior to the Senate investigation. 
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 111 of 114
    gatorguy said:
    When someone is found to have broken financial/tax/securities laws here in the US at least they don't figure recompense from the time it was discovered but rather from the beginning (with perhaps some time limits) It would hardly be fair to base it off when it was caught. 

    Also based on what I've read the EU authorities were not aware of the special tax arrangement Apple had until just the past couple of years, since the US Senate looked into it and subpoenaed records.
    It's been widely known for years that Apple has employed their particular method.

    Per Wikipedia (link:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement ):


    See my bolded text, above. This started in the LATE 80's and it has been widely discussed globally since then. The EU was not ignorant of this arrangement. Not even close.


    Even the NY Times had an extensive coverage of this several years ago:  

    http://www.pulitzer.org/files/2013/explanatory-reporting/04ieconomy4-29.pdf

    Do you realize how much time the EU commission takes to do anything,? when it actually decides to do anything. Its time scale can be measured in the geological scale.
  • Reply 112 of 114
    gatorguy said:
    It's been widely known for years that Apple has employed their particular method.

    Per Wikipedia (link:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement ):


    See my bolded text, above. This started in the LATE 80's and it has been widely discussed globally since then. The EU was not ignorant of this arrangement. Not even close.


    Even the NY Times had an extensive coverage of this several years ago:  

    http://www.pulitzer.org/files/2013/explanatory-reporting/04ieconomy4-29.pdf

    Note the dates on the source articles for your Wiki notes: 2012 and 2013, after the US Senate investigation had started and based on subpoenaed documents going back years that were discovered during it.  Yeah a lot's been reported in the past 4 years and your links may discuss details of what we know NOW about the arrangements, but those Ireland/Apple agreements and the consequences of them were not generally known until the past few years as far as I can find.

    Perhaps you have other links to articles detailing the Apple Ireland tax arrangements dated prior to 2011 or so? There's not even one link on your Wiki page older than 2012 that discusses any detail of Apple's tax arrangements. In fact the oldest mention of Apple at all is one lone sentence in passing from a 2010 article about Google's tax avoidance strategies. So your finds seems to support my belief that the special arrangements Apple took advantage of were NOT generally known prior to the Senate investigation. 
    Actually, you raise a point, perhaps unintentionally. Apple had been using their method since the mid-80's (or thereabouts), but the EU had not been established until November 1, 1993...long after Apple was around.
  • Reply 113 of 114
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,717member
    gatorguy said:
    When someone is found to have broken financial/tax/securities laws here in the US at least they don't figure recompense from the time it was discovered but rather from the beginning (with perhaps some time limits) It would hardly be fair to base it off when it was caught. 

    Also based on what I've read the EU authorities were not aware of the special tax arrangement Apple had until just the past couple of years, since the US Senate looked into it and subpoenaed records.
    It's been widely known for years that Apple has employed their particular method.

    Per Wikipedia (link:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement ):


    See my bolded text, above. This started in the LATE 80's and it has been widely discussed globally since then. The EU was not ignorant of this arrangement. Not even close.


    Even the NY Times had an extensive coverage of this several years ago:  

    http://www.pulitzer.org/files/2013/explanatory-reporting/04ieconomy4-29.pdf

    The double Irish arrangement, though a tax issue that Apple have exploited, is not the issue that this topic relates to. This thread is about the EU investigation into a sweetheart deal between Ireland and Apple that gave them extra tax incentives beyond the standard to have an operation in Ireland, thereby constituting state aid.  The double-Irish arrangement uses standard Irish tax law, there is no special arrangement needed.
    singularitygatorguy
  • Reply 114 of 114
    gatorguy said:
    Note the dates on the source articles for your Wiki notes: 2012 and 2013, after the US Senate investigation had started and based on subpoenaed documents going back years that were discovered during it.  Yeah a lot's been reported in the past 4 years and your links may discuss details of what we know NOW about the arrangements, but those Ireland/Apple agreements and the consequences of them were not generally known until the past few years as far as I can find.

    Perhaps you have other links to articles detailing the Apple Ireland tax arrangements dated prior to 2011 or so? There's not even one link on your Wiki page older than 2012 that discusses any detail of Apple's tax arrangements. In fact the oldest mention of Apple at all is one lone sentence in passing from a 2010 article about Google's tax avoidance strategies. So your finds seems to support my belief that the special arrangements Apple took advantage of were NOT generally known prior to the Senate investigation. 
    Actually, you raise a point, perhaps unintentionally. Apple had been using their method since the mid-80's (or thereabouts), but the EU had not been established until November 1, 1993...long after Apple was around.
    The treaty of Rome established the EEC in 1958 which also has provisions about state aid in it. But as the period being looked at is post 2004 any agreement that is found to be against the treaty of Mastricht would be nullified and as the agreement that might be against EU law is the "secret sweeheart" deal not the standard tax practices when the EU came into existence isn't relevant.
Sign In or Register to comment.