State aid would be like a gift of some sort. A unilateral handout either in cash or perhaps as a discount in taxes owed - however the key word is unilateral. If the agreement - secret or not - contains obligations from Apple in order to qualify for the discount in taxes, it becomes a contract. So, in essence, Ireland has contracted with Apple to bring jobs and offices to the country...and Apple has done so. There were obligations and deliverables on both sides, so it's clearly not "state aid". It's a business agreement which Ireland decided to fund out of future tax revenue.
It doesn't matter if the value of Apples presence exactly equals the discount in tax that Apple received. Somebody in the Irish government clearly thought that it was a good agreement to enter into. There may be an EU law that makes it illegal for Ireland to provide state aid to companies - but I seriously doubt there is a law that prohibits them from entering into mutually beneficial contracts with companies. If it is determined that Apple received more benefit from the contract than Ireland did, that just means Ireland miscalculated. It may have been a bad contract to enter into - but the EU can't just take every contract that Ireland "lost" on and declare the loss as state aid and then go after the other party to the contract for reimbursement - but that is exactly what's happening! Hell - if that's the way things work - the Ireland government should just buy up all the shares in any stock IPO's - and if the stocks drop in value - declare the loss to be "state aid" and go after the company for reimbursement! That's a ridiculous example - but it's also ridiculous what the EU is doing here. They are the same as the patent trolls and class action lawyers. They see how much money Apple has in the bank and they'll try anything to get a piece of it.
So...like I said above. Ireland and Apple entered into a mutually beneficial contract. Ireland asked Apple to set up shop in Ireland and create x number of jobs, lease x thousand square feet of office/factory space, etc, etc. Apple - knowing that doing so has value, demanded compensation. Ireland decided the best way to fund it was out of future tax revenue. Maybe that's a legal funding move and maybe it's not - but it's clearly an issue between the EU and Ireland. The only thing Apple is guilty of is negotiating a good contract!
You clearly don't know about EU laws but you don't stop to post things like this that are totally wrong.
And no, a state aid is not only unilateral, and no, it is not a contract, and no EU is not taking anything were there is a loss.
State aid would be like a gift of some sort. A unilateral handout either in cash or perhaps as a discount in taxes owed - however the key word is unilateral. If the agreement - secret or not - contains obligations from Apple in order to qualify for the discount in taxes, it becomes a contract. So, in essence, Ireland has contracted with Apple to bring jobs and offices to the country...and Apple has done so. There were obligations and deliverables on both sides, so it's clearly not "state aid". It's a business agreement which Ireland decided to fund out of future tax revenue.
It doesn't matter if the value of Apples presence exactly equals the discount in tax that Apple received. Somebody in the Irish government clearly thought that it was a good agreement to enter into. There may be an EU law that makes it illegal for Ireland to provide state aid to companies - but I seriously doubt there is a law that prohibits them from entering into mutually beneficial contracts with companies. If it is determined that Apple received more benefit from the contract than Ireland did, that just means Ireland miscalculated. It may have been a bad contract to enter into - but the EU can't just take every contract that Ireland "lost" on and declare the loss as state aid and then go after the other party to the contract for reimbursement - but that is exactly what's happening! Hell - if that's the way things work - the Ireland government should just buy up all the shares in any stock IPO's - and if the stocks drop in value - declare the loss to be "state aid" and go after the company for reimbursement! That's a ridiculous example - but it's also ridiculous what the EU is doing here. They are the same as the patent trolls and class action lawyers. They see how much money Apple has in the bank and they'll try anything to get a piece of it.
So...like I said above. Ireland and Apple entered into a mutually beneficial contract. Ireland asked Apple to set up shop in Ireland and create x number of jobs, lease x thousand square feet of office/factory space, etc, etc. Apple - knowing that doing so has value, demanded compensation. Ireland decided the best way to fund it was out of future tax revenue. Maybe that's a legal funding move and maybe it's not - but it's clearly an issue between the EU and Ireland. The only thing Apple is guilty of is negotiating a good contract!
You clearly don't know about EU laws but you don't stop to post things like this that are totally wrong.
And no, a state aid is not only unilateral, and no, it is not a contract, and no EU is not taking anything were there is a loss.
How is it that you can declare that it is not a contract? Clearly Apple and Ireland don't believe that it was state aid. So of not state aid, it must be a contract/agreement. But you know better than that? How so?
Just like the BS spouted by US politicians, the European's want to talk about changing the rules of the game after the fact, because they would now like a piece of Apple's pie. If you set up the rules to provide tax benefits to entice businesses to your country, you have no right to come back after the fact with outstretched hand, looking for "your" money. Sure, you can talk about changing the rules going forward, but you can't go back in time.
The rules are not changed after the fact. On the contrary, EU has been late to enforce the existing rules. Corporations can choose to organize their European business from a single member state. As such every member state tries to attract large corporations by a number of means like favorable tax rules. However it is forbidden by European law to have tailor made tax rules, meaning that the rules must be same for all (small and large) corporations in that country. Tailor made tax rules are considered as illegal state funding. Looking at Ireland and Apple, it is not difficult to see that there is something fishy. The standard corporate tax rate in Ireland is 12.5% and Apple pays only 1.5%. When Apple decided to put its European HQ in Ireland, it made the 1.5% deal with the Irish tax administration and both parties were well aware that the deal could be seen as illegal state aid the European Commission, but they decided to take the risk and to go ahead anyway. The only thing one can reproach the EU is that it took so long to take action. If the European Commission decides that the 1.5% deal is indeed illegal state aid (and most probably it will, looking at what happens with other special tax rules), then the 1.5% deal will be legally void. Apple has in that case retroactively pay the 12.5% - 1.5% = 11% on all the profits its made in EU since the start of the 1.5% deal
State aid would be like a gift of some sort. A unilateral handout either in cash or perhaps as a discount in taxes owed - however the key word is unilateral. If the agreement - secret or not - contains obligations from Apple in order to qualify for the discount in taxes, it becomes a contract. So, in essence, Ireland has contracted with Apple to bring jobs and offices to the country...and Apple has done so. There were obligations and deliverables on both sides, so it's clearly not "state aid". It's a business agreement which Ireland decided to fund out of future tax revenue.
It doesn't matter if the value of Apples presence exactly equals the discount in tax that Apple received. Somebody in the Irish government clearly thought that it was a good agreement to enter into. There may be an EU law that makes it illegal for Ireland to provide state aid to companies - but I seriously doubt there is a law that prohibits them from entering into mutually beneficial contracts with companies. If it is determined that Apple received more benefit from the contract than Ireland did, that just means Ireland miscalculated. It may have been a bad contract to enter into - but the EU can't just take every contract that Ireland "lost" on and declare the loss as state aid and then go after the other party to the contract for reimbursement - but that is exactly what's happening! Hell - if that's the way things work - the Ireland government should just buy up all the shares in any stock IPO's - and if the stocks drop in value - declare the loss to be "state aid" and go after the company for reimbursement! That's a ridiculous example - but it's also ridiculous what the EU is doing here. They are the same as the patent trolls and class action lawyers. They see how much money Apple has in the bank and they'll try anything to get a piece of it.
So...like I said above. Ireland and Apple entered into a mutually beneficial contract. Ireland asked Apple to set up shop in Ireland and create x number of jobs, lease x thousand square feet of office/factory space, etc, etc. Apple - knowing that doing so has value, demanded compensation. Ireland decided the best way to fund it was out of future tax revenue. Maybe that's a legal funding move and maybe it's not - but it's clearly an issue between the EU and Ireland. The only thing Apple is guilty of is negotiating a good contract!
You clearly don't know about EU laws but you don't stop to post things like this that are totally wrong.
And no, a state aid is not only unilateral, and no, it is not a contract, and no EU is not taking anything were there is a loss.
How about Apple evacuates Ireland, taking all of their production and European sales operations to another continent. Let's see how flourishing the Irish economy will be then.
You clearly don't know about EU laws but you don't stop to post things like this that are totally wrong.
And no, a state aid is not only unilateral, and no, it is not a contract, and no EU is not taking anything were there is a loss.
How about Apple evacuates Ireland, taking all of their production and European sales operations to another continent. Let's see how flourishing the Irish economy will be then.
Apple pays a pittance in tax to the Irish government. They employ just over 4000 people. It's a valued and welcome employer but it's not propping up the economy of the country, just one city. Even had Apple been paying the full 12.5% corporate tax, they would still be way ahead financially compared with basing their operations almost anywhere else in the EU. If they moved to the UK the tax rate would be 20%, for example
You clearly don't know about EU laws but you don't stop to post things like this that are totally wrong.
And no, a state aid is not only unilateral, and no, it is not a contract, and no EU is not taking anything were there is a loss.
How about Apple evacuates Ireland, taking all of their production and European sales operations to another continent. Let's see how flourishing the Irish economy will be then.
How can Apple take its European sales to another continent? Staff maybe? But would still be liable for taxes in each country which would increase their liability.
State aid would be like a gift of some sort. A unilateral handout either in cash or perhaps as a discount in taxes owed - however the key word is unilateral. If the agreement - secret or not - contains obligations from Apple in order to qualify for the discount in taxes, it becomes a contract. So, in essence, Ireland has contracted with Apple to bring jobs and offices to the country...and Apple has done so. There were obligations and deliverables on both sides, so it's clearly not "state aid". It's a business agreement which Ireland decided to fund out of future tax revenue.
It doesn't matter if the value of Apples presence exactly equals the discount in tax that Apple received. Somebody in the Irish government clearly thought that it was a good agreement to enter into. There may be an EU law that makes it illegal for Ireland to provide state aid to companies - but I seriously doubt there is a law that prohibits them from entering into mutually beneficial contracts with companies. If it is determined that Apple received more benefit from the contract than Ireland did, that just means Ireland miscalculated. It may have been a bad contract to enter into - but the EU can't just take every contract that Ireland "lost" on and declare the loss as state aid and then go after the other party to the contract for reimbursement - but that is exactly what's happening! Hell - if that's the way things work - the Ireland government should just buy up all the shares in any stock IPO's - and if the stocks drop in value - declare the loss to be "state aid" and go after the company for reimbursement! That's a ridiculous example - but it's also ridiculous what the EU is doing here. They are the same as the patent trolls and class action lawyers. They see how much money Apple has in the bank and they'll try anything to get a piece of it.
So...like I said above. Ireland and Apple entered into a mutually beneficial contract. Ireland asked Apple to set up shop in Ireland and create x number of jobs, lease x thousand square feet of office/factory space, etc, etc. Apple - knowing that doing so has value, demanded compensation. Ireland decided the best way to fund it was out of future tax revenue. Maybe that's a legal funding move and maybe it's not - but it's clearly an issue between the EU and Ireland. The only thing Apple is guilty of is negotiating a good contract!
If it's deemed as Illegal state aid the "contract" as you call it is void and the benefit of paying less tax is removed and the difference has to be paid.
How about Apple evacuates Ireland, taking all of their production and European sales operations to another continent. Let's see how flourishing the Irish economy will be then.
Apple pays a pittance in tax to the Irish government. They employ just over 4000 people. It's a valued and welcome employer but it's not propping up the economy of the country, just one city. Even had Apple been paying the full 12.5% corporate tax, they would still be way ahead financially compared with basing their operations almost anywhere else in the EU. If they moved to the UK the tax rate would be 20%, for example
Pittance, huh? What is 2% of billions of dollars? A pittance? If Ireland didn't find value in it why did they even make the deal? Hint: it was mutually beneficial. Unless somehow you're saying Apple forced the Irish government to do this against their will.
No, this is not about "changing the rules”. It is about applying the rules as they always have been. Ireland may have reached a deal with Apple that was in actual fact illegal, i.e. against the rules, as the rules always have been. No rules have changed. The EU is just trying to apply the existing rules.
Now, on a separate note - AI, will you please stop using “revenue” when you mean “profit”. These two things are not the same. Companies pay tax on profits, not revenue.
Also not generally known is that Ireland was already dinged for their uneven corporate tax practices several years ago, around the time of the first Irish/Apple special arrangement in the '80's. I doubt Apple entered into the agreements with blinders on, not knowing the past questionable history.
How about Apple evacuates Ireland, taking all of their production and European sales operations to another continent. Let's see how flourishing the Irish economy will be then.
How can Apple take its European sales to another continent? Staff maybe? But would still be liable for taxes in each country which would increase their liability.
I'm sure Apple's plants conduct business with other local companies and utilize resources from other local businesses. There is a ripple effect to such things. And how does Samsung ultimately pay lower taxes when they also sell products in the EU? They don't have plants and operations in the EU, so their tax liability isn't increased. But your argument makes sense from the very narrow, singular self-aggrandizing point of view you've demonstrated on this topic on every thread.
How about Apple evacuates Ireland, taking all of their production and European sales operations to another continent. Let's see how flourishing the Irish economy will be then.
Apple pays a pittance in tax to the Irish government. They employ just over 4000 people. It's a valued and welcome employer but it's not propping up the economy of the country, just one city. Even had Apple been paying the full 12.5% corporate tax, they would still be way ahead financially compared with basing their operations almost anywhere else in the EU. If they moved to the UK the tax rate would be 20%, for example
It goes far beyond Apple: "According to the American Chamber of Commerce, the body that represents US business interests in Ireland, more than 115,000 people are directly employed in over 700 US firms in the country, which collectively contribute some €3bn (£2.35bn) a year to the Irish exchequer and have invested a staggering $190bn (£118bn at current rates) in its economy."
How can Apple take its European sales to another continent? Staff maybe? But would still be liable for taxes in each country which would increase their liability.
I'm sure Apple's plants conduct business with other local companies and utilize resources from other local businesses. There is a ripple effect to such things. And how does Samsung ultimately pay lower taxes when they also sell products in the EU? They don't have plants and operations in the EU, so their tax liability isn't increased. But your argument makes sense from the very narrow, singular self-aggrandizing point of view you've demonstrated on this topic on every thread.
They can take production, they can take staff out of the EU but they would be insane to take sales egg not sell in the EU. As for self agrandizing point of view it's because it's a very simple concept that is at the centre of this and other threads.
IF Apple is found to have recieved illegal state aid they have to pay it back. End of. It is not allowed in the EU. It doesn't matter what can be done elsewhere. It is not allowed. Those are the facts.
I'm sure Apple's plants conduct business with other local companies and utilize resources from other local businesses. There is a ripple effect to such things. And how does Samsung ultimately pay lower taxes when they also sell products in the EU? They don't have plants and operations in the EU, so their tax liability isn't increased. But your argument makes sense from the very narrow, singular self-aggrandizing point of view you've demonstrated on this topic on every thread.
They can take production, they can take staff out of the EU but they would be insane to take sales egg not sell in the EU. As for self agrandizing point of view it's because it's a very simple concept that is at the centre of this and other threads.
IF Apple is found to have recieved illegal state aid they have to pay it back. End of. It is not allowed in the EU. It doesn't matter what can be done elsewhere. It is not allowed. Those are the facts.
I never said sales. But you never supported your argument that taking production and staff out of the EU would increase Apple's tax liability- despite what I stated about Samsung having sales there yet having lower tax liability. From what you're claiming it sounds like the EU is taking exactly the same position as Donald Trump, steep tariffs if production and headquarters are outside the EU. Brilliant!
They can take production, they can take staff out of the EU but they would be insane to take sales egg not sell in the EU. As for self agrandizing point of view it's because it's a very simple concept that is at the centre of this and other threads.
IF Apple is found to have recieved illegal state aid they have to pay it back. End of. It is not allowed in the EU. It doesn't matter what can be done elsewhere. It is not allowed. Those are the facts.
I never said sales. But you never supported your argument that taking production and staff out of the EU would increase Apple's tax liability- despite what I stated about Samsung having sales there yet having lower tax liability. From what you're claiming it sounds like the EU is taking exactly the same position as Donald Trump, steep tariffs if production and headquarters are outside the EU. Brilliant!
sorry for any misunderstanding, its trying to reply to multiple comments via mobile and it's very hard to link multiple comments. Previous commenter said about moving sales out of the EU. There is nothing wrong legally about minimising tax liability but it has to be within the rules. You can have production or headquarters where ever you like. But in an apocalyptic scenario, someone else mentioned Apple would be liable in each and every member state in the EU which would increase massively its liability because of the countries that almost certainly have the biggest sales. Apple chose Ireland because it has one of the lowest corporation taxes, other measures then reduced the tax burden even more. The one in question is the deal Apple had with Ireland which is questioned by the EU commission.
I am not going to comment on Samsung as at the moment this is about Apples POTENTIAL liability.
This is all about having a standard rule on what constitutes allowable state aid and what doesn't.
I never said sales. But you never supported your argument that taking production and staff out of the EU would increase Apple's tax liability- despite what I stated about Samsung having sales there yet having lower tax liability. From what you're claiming it sounds like the EU is taking exactly the same position as Donald Trump, steep tariffs if production and headquarters are outside the EU. Brilliant!
sorry for any misunderstanding, its trying to reply to multiple comments via mobile and it's very hard to link multiple comments. Previous commenter said about moving sales out of the EU. There is nothing wrong legally about minimising tax liability but it has to be within the rules. You can have production or headquarters where ever you like. But in an apocalyptic scenario, someone else mentioned Apple would be liable in each and every member state in the EU which would increase massively its liability because of the countries that almost certainly have the biggest sales. Apple chose Ireland because it has one of the lowest corporation taxes, other measures then reduced the tax burden even more. The one in question is the deal Apple had with Ireland which is questioned by the EU commission.
I am not going to comment on Samsung as at the moment this is about Apples POTENTIAL liability.
This is all about having a standard rule on what constitutes allowable state aid and what doesn't.
That sounds more reasonable. I'm sure that a lot of clowns are positing apocalyptic scenarios like no longer selling in the EU. That would be ridiculous. But where I disagree with the EU is that these US companies have invested billions of dollars in the Irish economy to set up operations and production and other aspects of their businesses there- Chamber of Commerce estimates $190bn. To now drive up taxes risking other Irish locals losing out on income and investments they've come to depend on, as these companies along with Apple could easily move operations elsewhere. $190bn is a large sum of money. If the EU really would impose tariffs of these companies move out of the EU it sounds Donald Trumpish. In a global economy corporations need to be nimble and ready to move whether it's securing sales or reducing tax liability. For the EU not to recognize this reality seems short-sighted at best, and worse potentially risks other local businesses working with Apple, supplying Apple with goods and resources... Apple and the other 700 US corporations in Ireland alone.
sorry for any misunderstanding, its trying to reply to multiple comments via mobile and it's very hard to link multiple comments. Previous commenter said about moving sales out of the EU. There is nothing wrong legally about minimising tax liability but it has to be within the rules. You can have production or headquarters where ever you like. But in an apocalyptic scenario, someone else mentioned Apple would be liable in each and every member state in the EU which would increase massively its liability because of the countries that almost certainly have the biggest sales. Apple chose Ireland because it has one of the lowest corporation taxes, other measures then reduced the tax burden even more. The one in question is the deal Apple had with Ireland which is questioned by the EU commission.
I am not going to comment on Samsung as at the moment this is about Apples POTENTIAL liability.
This is all about having a standard rule on what constitutes allowable state aid and what doesn't.
That sounds more reasonable. I'm sure that a lot of clowns are positing apocalyptic scenarios like no longer selling in the EU. That would be ridiculous. But where I disagree with the EU is that these US companies have invested billions of dollars in the Irish economy to set up operations and production and other aspects of their businesses there- Chamber of Commerce estimates $190bn. To now drive up taxes risking other Irish locals losing out on income and investments they've come to depend on, as these companies along with Apple could easily move operations elsewhere. $190bn is a large sum of money. If the EU really would impose tariffs of these companies move out of the EU it sounds Donald Trumpish. In a global economy corporations need to be nimble and ready to move whether it's securing sales or reducing tax liability. For the EU not to recognize this reality seems short-sighted at best, and worse potentially risks other local businesses working with Apple, supplying Apple with goods and resources... Apple and the other 700 US corporations in Ireland alone.
True and the EU does recognised this. Each country is allowed to set its own corporation rate and is the reason why Ireland has one of the lowest rates, to attract inward investment. Apple and other companies have taken avatars of this and this.
Apple pays a pittance in tax to the Irish government. They employ just over 4000 people. It's a valued and welcome employer but it's not propping up the economy of the country, just one city. Even had Apple been paying the full 12.5% corporate tax, they would still be way ahead financially compared with basing their operations almost anywhere else in the EU. If they moved to the UK the tax rate would be 20%, for example
Pittance, huh? What is 2% of billions of dollars? A pittance? If Ireland didn't find value in it why did they even make the deal? Hint: it was mutually beneficial. Unless somehow you're saying Apple forced the Irish government to do this against their will.
Between 2004 and 2008, Apple paid only $36 M in tax to the Irish government. That is only $9 M a year. That is a pittance. The real benefit to the economy and government is through employment and the income tax paid by those employed individuals, which is probably why the government entered into the arrangement. I don't see why you think I was alleging Apple forced anything on the Irish Government, as I don't think they did.
How can Apple take its European sales to another continent? Staff maybe? But would still be liable for taxes in each country which would increase their liability.
I'm sure Apple's plants conduct business with other local companies and utilize resources from other local businesses. There is a ripple effect to such things. And how does Samsung ultimately pay lower taxes when they also sell products in the EU? They don't have plants and operations in the EU, so their tax liability isn't increased. But your argument makes sense from the very narrow, singular self-aggrandizing point of view you've demonstrated on this topic on every thread.
Do you have any source to your claim of Samsung paying lower taxes than Apple?
By the way, Samsung have plants and operations in the EU.
sorry for any misunderstanding, its trying to reply to multiple comments via mobile and it's very hard to link multiple comments. Previous commenter said about moving sales out of the EU. There is nothing wrong legally about minimising tax liability but it has to be within the rules. You can have production or headquarters where ever you like. But in an apocalyptic scenario, someone else mentioned Apple would be liable in each and every member state in the EU which would increase massively its liability because of the countries that almost certainly have the biggest sales. Apple chose Ireland because it has one of the lowest corporation taxes, other measures then reduced the tax burden even more. The one in question is the deal Apple had with Ireland which is questioned by the EU commission.
I am not going to comment on Samsung as at the moment this is about Apples POTENTIAL liability.
This is all about having a standard rule on what constitutes allowable state aid and what doesn't.
To now drive up taxes risking other Irish locals losing out on income and investments they've come to depend on
They are not driving taxes up. They are investigatin ilegal state aids.
And do not make this thing and USA companies against the EU because the majority of aids have gone to European companies
A Senate finance committee are so collectively stupid they think this issue warrants a trade war.
In recent days, the Senate finance committee has
urged Mr Lew to warn Brussels that Washington views the prospect of
retroactive tax claims from the companies concerned as a “direct threat”
to US interests.
The committee also asked Mr Lew to consider using a
provision allowing a “double rate of tax” to be imposed on any country
engaging in discriminatory taxation.
Comments
You clearly don't know about EU laws but you don't stop to post things like this that are totally wrong.
And no, a state aid is not only unilateral, and no, it is not a contract, and no EU is not taking anything were there is a loss.
Corporations can choose to organize their European business from a single member state. As such every member state tries to attract large corporations by a number of means like favorable tax rules. However it is forbidden by European law to have tailor made tax rules, meaning that the rules must be same for all (small and large) corporations in that country. Tailor made tax rules are considered as illegal state funding.
Looking at Ireland and Apple, it is not difficult to see that there is something fishy. The standard corporate tax rate in Ireland is 12.5% and Apple pays only 1.5%. When Apple decided to put its European HQ in Ireland, it made the 1.5% deal with the Irish tax administration and both parties were well aware that the deal could be seen as illegal state aid the European Commission, but they decided to take the risk and to go ahead anyway.
The only thing one can reproach the EU is that it took so long to take action.
If the European Commission decides that the 1.5% deal is indeed illegal state aid (and most probably it will, looking at what happens with other special tax rules), then the 1.5% deal will be legally void. Apple has in that case retroactively pay the 12.5% - 1.5% = 11% on all the profits its made in EU since the start of the 1.5% deal
I'm sure Apple's plants conduct business with other local companies and utilize resources from other local businesses. There is a ripple effect to such things. And how does Samsung ultimately pay lower taxes when they also sell products in the EU? They don't have plants and operations in the EU, so their tax liability isn't increased. But your argument makes sense from the very narrow, singular self-aggrandizing point of view you've demonstrated on this topic on every thread.
As for self agrandizing point of view it's because it's a very simple concept that is at the centre of this and other threads.
IF Apple is found to have recieved illegal state aid they have to pay it back. End of. It is not allowed in the EU.
It doesn't matter what can be done elsewhere. It is not allowed.
Those are the facts.
There is nothing wrong legally about minimising tax liability but it has to be within the rules. You can have production or headquarters where ever you like. But in an apocalyptic scenario, someone else mentioned Apple would be liable in each and every member state in the EU which would increase massively its liability because of the countries that almost certainly have the biggest sales. Apple chose Ireland because it has one of the lowest corporation taxes, other measures then reduced the tax burden even more. The one in question is the deal Apple had with Ireland which is questioned by the EU commission.
I am not going to comment on Samsung as at the moment this is about Apples POTENTIAL liability.
This is all about having a standard rule on what constitutes allowable state aid and what doesn't.
Each country is allowed to set its own corporation rate and is the reason why Ireland has one of the lowest rates, to attract inward investment.
Apple and other companies have taken avatars of this and this.
Do you have any source to your claim of Samsung paying lower taxes than Apple?
By the way, Samsung have plants and operations in the EU.
They are not driving taxes up. They are investigatin ilegal state aids.
And do not make this thing and USA companies against the EU because the majority of aids have gone to European companies
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/apple-tax-decision-could-lead-to-penalties-for-eu-firms-in-us-1.2506147
Bring it on I say. Watch the stock market crash of 2008 look like an entrée.