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.
This was testimony given by Apple to the U.S. Congress stating their position regarding why they pay the taxes they pay, why they have billions overseas, and that a change in tax law is is needed for Apple to stay competitive in the global market.
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
That's what you keep saying, but you're only engaging in a meaningless parsing of words. Increased costs for businesses mean increased costs for everybody, including you.
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.
And a total of $190bn invested into the Irish economy by US companies in total out of the 700 doing business their. That is in addition to whatever taxes paid, employment, taxes collected from income from those employees. Oh, but let's just conveniently ignore what sort of investment into the local economy setting up business in a country requires I guess.
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.
This was testimony given by Apple to the U.S. Congress stating their position regarding why they pay the taxes they pay, why they have billions overseas, and that a change in tax law is is needed for Apple to stay competitive in the global market.
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.
Hopefully they can find some middle ground. A lot is at stake for all parties involved. That is why Tim Cook is there finally trying to do some long overdue lobbying. I hate Lobbyists, but that is the state of affairs, and I respect Apple for refraining from being active lobbying, but understand the necessity given the financial complexities as well as the good of the company and stock price for investors. I would think there is a way to settle this without anyone having to lose big, like the settlement Apple agreed to with Italy.
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.
And a total of $190bn invested into the Irish economy by US companies in total out of the 700 doing business their. That is in addition to whatever taxes paid, employment, taxes collected from income from those employees. Oh, but let's just conveniently ignore what sort of investment into the local economy setting up business in a country requires I guess.
So, because a company invest in a country that country has to lower the taxes for them?
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
That's what you keep saying, but you're only engaging in a meaningless parsing of words. Increased costs for businesses mean increased costs for everybody, including you.
The one here enaging in a meaningless parsing of word is you because you clearly don't want to understand what the case is about.
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.
This was testimony given by Apple to the U.S. Congress stating their position regarding why they pay the taxes they pay, why they have billions overseas, and that a change in tax law is is needed for Apple to stay competitive in the global market.
So you don't have anything to back your claim that Samsung pay less taxes than Apple in the EU. And not taking into account that what Cook talking about US taxes laws doesn't have to do anything with the EU case
In conclusion, you don't know what you talk about but you still post meaningless things here
And a total of $190bn invested into the Irish economy by US companies in total out of the 700 doing business their. That is in addition to whatever taxes paid, employment, taxes collected from income from those employees. Oh, but let's just conveniently ignore what sort of investment into the local economy setting up business in a country requires I guess.
So, because a company invest in a country that country has to lower the taxes for them?
The one here enaging in a meaningless parsing of word is you because you clearly don't want to understand what the case is about.
So you don't have anything to back your claim that Samsung pay less taxes than Apple in the EU. And not taking into account that what Cook talking about US taxes laws doesn't have to do anything with the EU case
In conclusion, you don't know what you talk about but you still post meaningless things here
In every reply you post, you write as if the matter has already been decided and you are dismissive to anyone that suggests otherwise. Why don't you post some insight into why Apple and Ireland entered into the agreement in the first place? As many have posted - they were both aware that it is illegal for the government of a country to provide "state aid" to companies - so clearly, they did not think the agreement they negotiated constituted "state aid". What else could it be? And if it is as clear cut as you seem to think it is - why is the issue still being investigated instead of simply moving on to calculating damages/reparations?
How could both Apple and the Irish government make such a big mistake when the law regarding state aid was so well known?
This is an investigation that is under way - and Apple and Ireland are both fighting it. But you post as if it was obviously a case of illegal state aid. What is Apple and Ireland's defence based on?
And a total of $190bn invested into the Irish economy by US companies in total out of the 700 doing business their. That is in addition to whatever taxes paid, employment, taxes collected from income from those employees. Oh, but let's just conveniently ignore what sort of investment into the local economy setting up business in a country requires I guess.
So, because a company invest in a country that country has to lower the taxes for them?
The one here enaging in a meaningless parsing of word is you because you clearly don't want to understand what the case is about.
So you don't have anything to back your claim that Samsung pay less taxes than Apple in the EU. And not taking into account that what Cook talking about US taxes laws doesn't have to do anything with the EU case
In conclusion, you don't know what you talk about but you still post meaningless things here
I understand very clearly what you believe this case is about. I read over and over again you writing "illegal state aids" "illegal state aids" as if it is some continuation of Bono's project RED. I also understand the EU believes that the case is about "state aid." The EU can reframe and call this whatever they want to call it, but that doesn't make it so. Nothing is decided.
No country "has to" do anything. But this is how the real world works. Companies seek to reduce their expenses and talk to countries to decide on which is the place best suited to help them do that. There is nothing illegal or "state aids" about that.
I gave you a very clear and highly publicized event during which testimony under oath took place in front off the U.S. Congress. I had the impression you were at least reasonably intelligent enough to find a link or the extensive amounts of video that exists from this event on your own by searching the internet, but maybe I was wrong about you. Apparently you need someone to hold your hand through that process. In the first page of what is called a Google search with the search phrase "Tim Cook testifies that Samsung pays lower taxes" I found this link http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/623602.html. There are many other links to the testimony there as well.
So, because a company invest in a country that country has to lower the taxes for them?
The one here enaging in a meaningless parsing of word is you because you clearly don't want to understand what the case is about.
So you don't have anything to back your claim that Samsung pay less taxes than Apple in the EU. And not taking into account that what Cook talking about US taxes laws doesn't have to do anything with the EU case
In conclusion, you don't know what you talk about but you still post meaningless things here
I understand very clearly what you believe this case is about. I read over and over again you writing "illegal state aids" "illegal state aids" as if it is some continuation of Bono's project RED. I also understand the EU believes that the case is about "state aid." The EU can reframe and call this whatever they want to call it, but that doesn't make it so. Nothing is decided.
No country "has to" do anything. But this is how the real world works. Companies seek to reduce their expenses and talk to countries to decide on which is the place best suited to help them do that. There is nothing illegal or "state aids" about that.
I gave you a very clear and highly publicized event during which testimony under oath took place in front off the U.S. Congress. I had the impression you were at least reasonably intelligent enough to find a link or the extensive amounts of video that exists from this event on your own by searching the internet, but maybe I was wrong about you. Apparently you need someone to hold your hand through that process. In the first page of what is called a Google search with the search phrase "Tim Cook testifies that Samsung pays lower taxes" I found this link http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/623602.html. There are many other links to the testimony there as well.
The link you provided has nothing to do with the case between the EU and Ireland though. The effective tax rates between the US and Korea have no impact on the tax rate in the EU and specifically Ireland. The reason why I and I believe gwydion (though I'm sure he can qualify exactly what he means) keep on banging on about "illegal state aid" is because this is what the case is about.
The charge is that Apple and Ireland had a deal that contravened the TFEU provisions about what is state aid and how it can be given.
I understand very clearly what you believe this case is about. I read over and over again you writing "illegal state aids" "illegal state aids" as if it is some continuation of Bono's project RED. I also understand the EU believes that the case is about "state aid." The EU can reframe and call this whatever they want to call it, but that doesn't make it so. Nothing is decided.
No country "has to" do anything. But this is how the real world works. Companies seek to reduce their expenses and talk to countries to decide on which is the place best suited to help them do that. There is nothing illegal or "state aids" about that.
I gave you a very clear and highly publicized event during which testimony under oath took place in front off the U.S. Congress. I had the impression you were at least reasonably intelligent enough to find a link or the extensive amounts of video that exists from this event on your own by searching the internet, but maybe I was wrong about you. Apparently you need someone to hold your hand through that process. In the first page of what is called a Google search with the search phrase "Tim Cook testifies that Samsung pays lower taxes" I found this link http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/623602.html. There are many other links to the testimony there as well.
The link you provided has nothing to do with the case between the EU and Ireland though. The effective tax rates between the US and Korea have no impact on the tax rate in the EU and specifically Ireland. The reason why I and I believe gwydion (though I'm sure he can qualify exactly what he means) keep on banging on about "illegal state aid" is because this is what the case is about.
The charge is that Apple and Ireland had a deal that contravened the TFEU provisions about what is state aid and how it can be given.
The relevance of it is that Apple has testified that the reason they are not repatriating their money back to the U.S. is that the tax rate in doing so would be burdensome. They stated in that Congressional testimony the reason they established in Cork was that Apple was seeking to remain competitive in the global marketplace against companies like Samsung who pay half in taxes that Apple does. Gwydion tried to state that I had zero information to prove that Samsung pays less taxes than Apple. So I posted that link. It's further relevance is that this was the basis through which Apple sought to establish operations in Ireland. Tenly above also made a good point in asking why if it was common knowledge that both Ireland and Apple had about what state aid was why they would still such a deal. It would be a glaring oversight and not very characteristic of Apple to make such a misstep. If all theeconomies of the West fail and they all want to lean on companies like Apple then the stark reality is that these companies may very well seek hiatus in South Korea also the point of the article). How can companies in the West compete in the global marketplace an evolving concept of globalization if the major economic powers of the West all are trying to collect a bunch of "back" taxes and further increase the tax burden on companies doing business in their country. If South Korea doesn't consider the tax breaks they give to Samsung and other companies "state aid" why is the EU going to insist? It will lead to a difficulty competing against companies in the East and either force Apple to make increasingly more exorbitant profits to keep up (by either selling a lot more devices than it is or raise their prices significantly) or force Western companies East (which oddly enough people incessantly moan and groan about but refuse to address the reasons why that is happening. That is the relevance and the very reason why all of this is happening, including this very case with the EU and framing it as "state aid."
The link you provided has nothing to do with the case between the EU and Ireland though. The effective tax rates between the US and Korea have no impact on the tax rate in the EU and specifically Ireland. The reason why I and I believe gwydion (though I'm sure he can qualify exactly what he means) keep on banging on about "illegal state aid" is because this is what the case is about.
The charge is that Apple and Ireland had a deal that contravened the TFEU provisions about what is state aid and how it can be given.
The relevance of it is that Apple has testified that the reason they are not repatriating their money back to the U.S. is that the tax rate in doing so would be burdensome. They stated in that Congressional testimony the reason they established in Cork was that Apple was seeking to remain competitive in the global marketplace against companies like Samsung who pay half in taxes that Apple does. Gwydion tried to state that I had zero information to prove that Samsung pays less taxes than Apple. So I posted that link. It's further relevance is that this was the basis through which Apple sought to establish operations in Ireland. Tenly above also made a good point in asking why if it was common knowledge that both Ireland and Apple had about what state aid was why they would still such a deal. It would be a glaring oversight and not very characteristic of Apple to make such a misstep. If all theeconomies of the West fail and they all want to lean on companies like Apple then the stark reality is that these companies may very well seek hiatus in South Korea also the point of the article). How can companies in the West compete in the global marketplace an evolving concept of globalization if the major economic powers of the West all are trying to collect a bunch of "back" taxes and further increase the tax burden on companies doing business in their country. If South Korea doesn't consider the tax breaks they give to Samsung and other companies "state aid" why is the EU going to insist? It will lead to a difficulty competing against companies in the East and either force Apple to make increasingly more exorbitant profits to keep up (by either selling a lot more devices than it is or raise their prices significantly) or force Western companies East (which oddly enough people incessantly moan and groan about but refuse to address the reasons why that is happening. That is the relevance and the very reason why all of this is happening, including this very case with the EU and framing it as "state aid."
The rules on what is and isn't allowed state aid don't give a rats arse about the tax laws in Korea or the USA. They deal in the specifics of allowed aid to companies in the EU.
Korea or the USA can give all the aid they want to companies in their locale.
Profits generated in the EU are taxed according to the rules and regulations in the EU. Companies are allowed to minimise what they pay according to the rules but not against them.
If you do business in the EU you comply to their rules. Thus IF Apple has a deal with Ireland that is declared as illegal state aid then they have to comply.
It may have been common knowledge that Apple had a good deal but the details were secret for a long time and any tax investigation is going to be very complicated. If Apple are guilty they won't be the first company to overstep the mark when it comes to what's allowable and what is not. People and companies do make mistakes that cost them. Also you may be under the illusion that any EU beauracracy is fast. They most of the time are only marginally faster that plate tectonic speeds. Investigations can and sometimes do take decades to complete then you get into the whole shebang of appeals etc.
The relevance of it is that Apple has testified that the reason they are not repatriating their money back to the U.S. is that the tax rate in doing so would be burdensome. They stated in that Congressional testimony the reason they established in Cork was that Apple was seeking to remain competitive in the global marketplace against companies like Samsung who pay half in taxes that Apple does. Gwydion tried to state that I had zero information to prove that Samsung pays less taxes than Apple. So I posted that link. It's further relevance is that this was the basis through which Apple sought to establish operations in Ireland. Tenly above also made a good point in asking why if it was common knowledge that both Ireland and Apple had about what state aid was why they would still such a deal. It would be a glaring oversight and not very characteristic of Apple to make such a misstep. If all theeconomies of the West fail and they all want to lean on companies like Apple then the stark reality is that these companies may very well seek hiatus in South Korea also the point of the article). How can companies in the West compete in the global marketplace an evolving concept of globalization if the major economic powers of the West all are trying to collect a bunch of "back" taxes and further increase the tax burden on companies doing business in their country. If South Korea doesn't consider the tax breaks they give to Samsung and other companies "state aid" why is the EU going to insist? It will lead to a difficulty competing against companies in the East and either force Apple to make increasingly more exorbitant profits to keep up (by either selling a lot more devices than it is or raise their prices significantly) or force Western companies East (which oddly enough people incessantly moan and groan about but refuse to address the reasons why that is happening. That is the relevance and the very reason why all of this is happening, including this very case with the EU and framing it as "state aid."
The rules on what is and isn't allowed state aid don't give a rats arse about the tax laws in Korea or the USA. They deal in the specifics of allowed aid to companies in the EU.
Korea or the USA can give all the aid they want to companies in their locale.
Profits generated in the EU are taxed according to the rules and regulations in the EU. Companies are allowed to minimise what they pay according to the rules but not against them.
If you do business in the EU you comply to their rules. Thus IF Apple has a deal with Ireland that is declared as illegal state aid then they have to comply.
It may have been common knowledge that Apple had a good deal but the details were secret for a long time and any tax investigation is going to be very complicated. If Apple are guilty they won't be the first company to overstep the mark when it comes to what's allowable and what is not. People and companies do make mistakes that cost them. Also you may be under the illusion that any EU beauracracy is fast. They most of the time are only marginally faster that plate tectonic speeds. Investigations can and sometimes do take decades to complete then you get into the whole shebang of appeals etc.
As I've extensively stated there are many boons to the economy of a country outside of collecting taxes. In addition to providing employment opportunities those businesses invest into the local economy. $190bn in Ireland for example. So rules or not rules it's in the interest of a country to have businesses establish themselves in their country. If the EU wants to double down on "state aid" concept this will cost EU member countries and their local economies greatly. Seems pretty silly to me. But hey, you got some beautiful landmarks I guess. If the EU wants to make doing business in EU member countries cost prohibitive and drive out hundreds of billions of dollars of investment into their local economies that's their prerogative.
The rules on what is and isn't allowed state aid don't give a rats arse about the tax laws in Korea or the USA. They deal in the specifics of allowed aid to companies in the EU.
Korea or the USA can give all the aid they want to companies in their locale.
Profits generated in the EU are taxed according to the rules and regulations in the EU. Companies are allowed to minimise what they pay according to the rules but not against them.
If you do business in the EU you comply to their rules. Thus IF Apple has a deal with Ireland that is declared as illegal state aid then they have to comply.
It may have been common knowledge that Apple had a good deal but the details were secret for a long time and any tax investigation is going to be very complicated. If Apple are guilty they won't be the first company to overstep the mark when it comes to what's allowable and what is not. People and companies do make mistakes that cost them. Also you may be under the illusion that any EU beauracracy is fast. They most of the time are only marginally faster that plate tectonic speeds. Investigations can and sometimes do take decades to complete then you get into the whole shebang of appeals etc.
As I've extensively stated there are many boons to the economy of a country outside of collecting taxes. In addition to providing employment opportunities those businesses invest into the local economy. $190bn in Ireland for example. So rules or not rules it's in the interest of a country to have businesses establish themselves in their country. If the EU wants to double down on "state aid" concept this will cost EU member countries and their local economies greatly. Seems pretty silly to me. But hey, you got some beautiful landmarks I guess. If the EU wants to make doing business in EU member countries cost prohibitive and drive out hundreds of billions of dollars of investment into their local economies that's their prerogative.
This is the part that bothers me the most. Apple continues to act in good faith, keeping up with their side of the agreement - investing in Ireland and the Irish economy to the tune of billions of dollars. As you suggested, if the Ireland agreement did not exist (was invalid, illegal, or otherwise voided) Apple would probably not invest so much money in the country - on jobs, infrastructure, etc.
By dragging their feet and delaying their ruling, the EU virtually guarantees that Apple will continue to reside and spend money in Ireland. Illegal or not - Ireland has obviously benefitted from the agreement and they continue to benefit from the agreement until the ruling is finally made - which singularity suggests could take decades! It's hard for me to see that as anything other than a fraud being perpetrated on Apple.
This situation may be another really good reason for Apple to hold off on repatriation its overseas cash. If they end up owing billions of dollars to Ireland in retroactive-taxes, that will reduce the amount "owing" to the US government (since taxes paid to a foreign government are deductible). But what would have happened if Apple had already paid the US taxes? When the EU intersedes and Apples tax bill for the past decade is rewritten... Will the US IRS understand and allow Apple to restate their affected financials for the same timeframe - and collect the refund they would have been entitled to had the EU not dragged this out? Or are there limitations in US law that will result in Apple getting screwed over yet again?
Tangentially related, Google today agreed to settle a tax case in the UK where like Apple they've been accused of a little too aggressively "avoiding" taxes. Like Apple, Google too has been shifting revenues earned in the UK to Ireland where they enjoyed a lower tax rate.
"Google has agreed to pay £130m in back taxes after an "open audit" of its accounts by the UK tax authorities. The company had been accused of "not paying its fair share" of tax, and criticised for complex tax structures.
Senior figures at the technology company have said that they want to draw a line under the issue."Today we announced that we are going to be paying more tax in the UK," Matt Brittin, the head of Google Europe, told the BBC."
"Google has now agreed to change its accounting system so that a higher proportion of sales activity is registered in Britain rather than Ireland. It has pledged to pay more tax on those sales in the future. It has also said that it will use a different structure to account for its profits in the UK from 2005 until 2015."
"Google, along with other American companies such as Facebook, Amazon and Starbucks, have faced heavy criticism for their tax affairs. Margaret Hodge MP, the former chairwoman of the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, describe its tax structures as "devious, calculated and, in my view, unethical".
"She said that Google was avoiding paying its "fair share" of tax. Global tax rules have been tightened over the last year, with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which produces guidance on world tax agreements, saying that multi-national companies should not deliberately move profits to different countries to avoid tax."
As I've extensively stated there are many boons to the economy of a country outside of collecting taxes. In addition to providing employment opportunities those businesses invest into the local economy. $190bn in Ireland for example. So rules or not rules it's in the interest of a country to have businesses establish themselves in their country. If the EU wants to double down on "state aid" concept this will cost EU member countries and their local economies greatly. Seems pretty silly to me. But hey, you got some beautiful landmarks I guess. If the EU wants to make doing business in EU member countries cost prohibitive and drive out hundreds of billions of dollars of investment into their local economies that's their prerogative.
This is the part that bothers me the most. Apple continues to act in good faith, keeping up with their side of the agreement - investing in Ireland and the Irish economy to the tune of billions of dollars. As you suggested, if the Ireland agreement did not exist (was invalid, illegal, or otherwise voided) Apple would probably not invest so much money in the country - on jobs, infrastructure, etc.
By dragging their feet and delaying their ruling, the EU virtually guarantees that Apple will continue to reside and spend money in Ireland. Illegal or not - Ireland has obviously benefitted from the agreement and they continue to benefit from the agreement until the ruling is finally made - which singularity suggests could take decades! It's hard for me to see that as anything other than a fraud being perpetrated on Apple.
This situation may be another really good reason for Apple to hold off on repatriation its overseas cash. If they end up owing billions of dollars to Ireland in retroactive-taxes, that will reduce the amount "owing" to the US government (since taxes paid to a foreign government are deductible). But what would have happened if Apple had already paid the US taxes? When the EU intersedes and Apples tax bill for the past decade is rewritten... Will the US IRS understand and allow Apple to restate their affected financials for the same timeframe - and collect the refund they would have been entitled to had the EU not dragged this out? Or are there limitations in US law that will result in Apple getting screwed over yet again?
latifbp said: As I've extensively stated there are many boons to the economy of a country outside of collecting taxes. In addition to providing employment opportunities those businesses invest into the local economy. $190bn in Ireland for example. So rules or not rules it's in the interest of a country to have businesses establish themselves in their country
How many of those companies have been able to access a tax rate that others haven't? If one company has a rate that gives them an "unfair" competitive rate to others than that can distort the market to drive others out of business.
latifbp said: If the EU wants to double down on "state aid" concept this will cost EU member countries and their local economies greatly. Seems pretty silly to me. But hey, you got some beautiful landmarks I guess.
It is not doubling down it is just applying the rules that all the member states have signed up to and major corporations should be fully aware of.
latifbp said: If the EU wants to make doing business in EU member countries cost prohibitive and drive out hundreds of billions of dollars of investment into their local economies that's their prerogative.
If a company finds a corporation tax rate of 12% prohibitive then they deserve to go out of business!
tenly said: This is the part that bothers me the most. Apple continues to act in good faith, keeping up with their side of the agreement - investing in Ireland and the Irish economy to the tune of billions of dollars. As you suggested, if the Ireland agreement did not exist (was invalid, illegal, or otherwise voided) Apple would probably not invest so much money in the country - on jobs, infrastructure, etc.
Apple probably would have invested the same as they had there HQ there anyway (36 years now?) and Ireland still had/has one of the lowest Corporation tax level in the EU. Also they received other grants (totally above board) because of investing in Ireland.
tenly said: By dragging their feet and delaying their ruling, the EU virtually guarantees that Apple will continue to reside and spend money in Ireland. Illegal or not - Ireland has obviously benefitted from the agreement and they continue to benefit from the agreement until the ruling is finally made - which singularity suggests could take decades! It's hard for me to see that as anything other than a fraud being perpetrated on Apple.
IMHO There is only one potential victim of fraud and that is the Irish people not Apple and not the Irish government. The decision was suppose to have been given in December but due to the Irish elections it seems they have delayed it to prevent it becoming a major factor in the Irish elections
There is a spectrum of results that could come from this investigation
1. No illegal state aid. Everything goes on as before
2. Illegal state aid. but appeal is successful Everything goes on as before
3. Illegal state aid. Apple has to pay back an "token" amount and the case is closed
4. Illegal state aid. Apple pays back up to $9 billion and the case is closed.
tenly said: This situation may be another really good reason for Apple to hold off on repatriation its overseas cash. If they end up owing billions of dollars to Ireland in retroactive-taxes, that will reduce the amount "owing" to the US government (since taxes paid to a foreign government are deductible). But what would have happened if Apple had already paid the US taxes? When the EU intersedes and Apples tax bill for the past decade is rewritten... Will the US IRS understand and allow Apple to restate their affected financials for the same timeframe - and collect the refund they would have been entitled to had the EU not dragged this out? Or are there limitations in US law that will result in Apple getting screwed over yet again?
I would say that as the money hasn't gone back to the US then any potential tax paid back would be deductible if it was repatriated. Though i'm sure there are others hear that are more clued up on the US tax system.
latifbp said: As I've extensively stated there are many boons to the economy of a country outside of collecting taxes. In addition to providing employment opportunities those businesses invest into the local economy. $190bn in Ireland for example. So rules or not rules it's in the interest of a country to have businesses establish themselves in their country
How many of those companies have been able to access a tax rate that others haven't? If one company has a rate that gives them an "unfair" competitive rate to others than that can distort the market to drive others out of business.
It is not doubling down it is just applying the rules that all the member states have signed up to and major corporations should be fully aware of.
If a company finds a corporation tax rate of 12% prohibitive then they deserve to go out of business!
Apple probably would have invested the same as they had there HQ there anyway (36 years now?) and Ireland still had/has one of the lowest Corporation tax level in the EU. Also they received other grants (totally above board) because of investing in Ireland.
IMHO There is only one potential victim of fraud and that is the Irish people not Apple and not the Irish government. The decision was suppose to have been given in December but due to the Irish elections it seems they have delayed it to prevent it becoming a major factor in the Irish elections
There is a spectrum of results that could come from this investigation
1. No illegal state aid. Everything goes on as before
2. Illegal state aid. but appeal is successful Everything goes on as before
3. Illegal state aid. Apple has to pay back an "token" amount and the case is closed
4. Illegal state aid. Apple pays back up to $9 billion and the case is closed.
I would say that as the money hasn't gone back to the US then any potential tax paid back would be deductible if it was repatriated. Though i'm sure there are others hear that are more clued up on the US tax system.
Doubling down is a figure of speech. Not doubling it, but being really serious about enforcing these laws before understanding the consequences on the local economies and losing investment in local communities and infrastructure.
12.5% is not the problem. As you should have seen from the article on taxes Apple's cumulative rate even with the 2% comes in at around 30% they pay in taxes
latifbp said: As I've extensively stated there are many boons to the economy of a country outside of collecting taxes. In addition to providing employment opportunities those businesses invest into the local economy. $190bn in Ireland for example. So rules or not rules it's in the interest of a country to have businesses establish themselves in their country
How many of those companies have been able to access a tax rate that others haven't? If one company has a rate that gives them an "unfair" competitive rate to others than that can distort the market to drive others out of business.
It is not doubling down it is just applying the rules that all the member states have signed up to and major corporations should be fully aware of.
If a company finds a corporation tax rate of 12% prohibitive then they deserve to go out of business!
Apple probably would have invested the same as they had there HQ there anyway (36 years now?) and Ireland still had/has one of the lowest Corporation tax level in the EU. Also they received other grants (totally above board) because of investing in Ireland.
IMHO There is only one potential victim of fraud and that is the Irish people not Apple and not the Irish government. The decision was suppose to have been given in December but due to the Irish elections it seems they have delayed it to prevent it becoming a major factor in the Irish elections
There is a spectrum of results that could come from this investigation
1. No illegal state aid. Everything goes on as before
2. Illegal state aid. but appeal is successful Everything goes on as before
3. Illegal state aid. Apple has to pay back an "token" amount and the case is closed
4. Illegal state aid. Apple pays back up to $9 billion and the case is closed.
I would say that as the money hasn't gone back to the US then any potential tax paid back would be deductible if it was repatriated. Though i'm sure there are others hear that are more clued up on the US tax system.
Doubling down is a figure of speech. Not doubling it, but being really serious about enforcing these laws before understanding the consequences on the local economies and losing investment in local communities and infrastructure.
12.5% is not the problem. As you should have seen from the article on taxes Apple's cumulative rate even with the 2% comes in at around 30% they pay in taxes
You're confusing two things. No Apple does not pay an average of 30% taxes on all of their worldwide revenue. Perhaps there's an actual corporate accountant among us that could clearly explain why when Apple says the pay x-percent taxes it's the truth, but not all the truth. In a nutshell there's billions of dollars not being included in reported revenues and therefore not included as taxable income as I understand it.
Doubling down is a figure of speech. Not doubling it, but being really serious about enforcing these laws before understanding the consequences on the local economies and losing investment in local communities and infrastructure.
12.5% is not the problem. As you should have seen from the article on taxes Apple's cumulative rate even with the 2% comes in at around 30% they pay in taxes
You're confusing two things. No Apple does not pay an average of 30% taxes on all of their worldwide revenue. Perhaps there's an actual corporate accountant among us that could clearly explain why when Apple says the pay x-percent taxes it's the truth, but not all the truth. In a nutshell there's billions of dollars not being included in reported revenues and therefore not included as taxable income as I understand it.
You want them to count non-taxable income? That's not a fair measure. Every person and corporation is allowed to deduct and not count non-taxable income.
Doubling down is a figure of speech. Not doubling it, but being really serious about enforcing these laws before understanding the consequences on the local economies and losing investment in local communities and infrastructure.
12.5% is not the problem. As you should have seen from the article on taxes Apple's cumulative rate even with the 2% comes in at around 30% they pay in taxes
You're confusing two things. No Apple does not pay an average of 30% taxes on all of their worldwide revenue. Perhaps there's an actual corporate accountant among us that could clearly explain why when Apple says the pay x-percent taxes it's the truth, but not all the truth. In a nutshell there's billions of dollars not being included in reported revenues and therefore not included as taxable income as I understand it.
You want them to count non-taxable income? That's not a fair measure. Every person and corporation is allowed to deduct and not count non-taxable income.
Comments
That's what you keep saying, but you're only engaging in a meaningless parsing of words. Increased costs for businesses mean increased costs for everybody, including you.
And a total of $190bn invested into the Irish economy by US companies in total out of the 700 doing business their. That is in addition to whatever taxes paid, employment, taxes collected from income from those employees. Oh, but let's just conveniently ignore what sort of investment into the local economy setting up business in a country requires I guess.
Tim Cook provided that testimony under oath.
The one here enaging in a meaningless parsing of word is you because you clearly don't want to understand what the case is about.
So you don't have anything to back your claim that Samsung pay less taxes than Apple in the EU. And not taking into account that what Cook talking about US taxes laws doesn't have to do anything with the EU case
In conclusion, you don't know what you talk about but you still post meaningless things here
How could both Apple and the Irish government make such a big mistake when the law regarding state aid was so well known?
This is an investigation that is under way - and Apple and Ireland are both fighting it. But you post as if it was obviously a case of illegal state aid. What is Apple and Ireland's defence based on?
No country "has to" do anything. But this is how the real world works. Companies seek to reduce their expenses and talk to countries to decide on which is the place best suited to help them do that. There is nothing illegal or "state aids" about that.
I gave you a very clear and highly publicized event during which testimony under oath took place in front off the U.S. Congress. I had the impression you were at least reasonably intelligent enough to find a link or the extensive amounts of video that exists from this event on your own by searching the internet, but maybe I was wrong about you. Apparently you need someone to hold your hand through that process. In the first page of what is called a Google search with the search phrase "Tim Cook testifies that Samsung pays lower taxes" I found this link http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/623602.html. There are many other links to the testimony there as well.
The effective tax rates between the US and Korea have no impact on the tax rate in the EU and specifically Ireland.
The reason why I and I believe gwydion (though I'm sure he can qualify exactly what he means) keep on banging on about "illegal state aid" is because this is what the case is about.
The charge is that Apple and Ireland had a deal that contravened the TFEU provisions about what is state aid and how it can be given.
Korea or the USA can give all the aid they want to companies in their locale.
Profits generated in the EU are taxed according to the rules and regulations in the EU. Companies are allowed to minimise what they pay according to the rules but not against them.
If you do business in the EU you comply to their rules. Thus IF Apple has a deal with Ireland that is declared as illegal state aid then they have to comply.
It may have been common knowledge that Apple had a good deal but the details were secret for a long time and any tax investigation is going to be very complicated.
If Apple are guilty they won't be the first company to overstep the mark when it comes to what's allowable and what is not. People and companies do make mistakes that cost them.
Also you may be under the illusion that any EU beauracracy is fast. They most of the time are only marginally faster that plate tectonic speeds. Investigations can and sometimes do take decades to complete then you get into the whole shebang of appeals etc.
By dragging their feet and delaying their ruling, the EU virtually guarantees that Apple will continue to reside and spend money in Ireland. Illegal or not - Ireland has obviously benefitted from the agreement and they continue to benefit from the agreement until the ruling is finally made - which singularity suggests could take decades! It's hard for me to see that as anything other than a fraud being perpetrated on Apple.
This situation may be another really good reason for Apple to hold off on repatriation its overseas cash. If they end up owing billions of dollars to Ireland in retroactive-taxes, that will reduce the amount "owing" to the US government (since taxes paid to a foreign government are deductible). But what would have happened if Apple had already paid the US taxes? When the EU intersedes and Apples tax bill for the past decade is rewritten... Will the US IRS understand and allow Apple to restate their affected financials for the same timeframe - and collect the refund they would have been entitled to had the EU not dragged this out? Or are there limitations in US law that will result in Apple getting screwed over yet again?
"Google has agreed to pay £130m in back taxes after an "open audit" of its accounts by the UK tax authorities. The company had been accused of "not paying its fair share" of tax, and criticised for complex tax structures.
Senior figures at the technology company have said that they want to draw a line under the issue."Today we announced that we are going to be paying more tax in the UK," Matt Brittin, the head of Google Europe, told the BBC."
"Google has now agreed to change its accounting system so that a higher proportion of sales activity is registered in Britain rather than Ireland. It has pledged to pay more tax on those sales in the future. It has also said that it will use a different structure to account for its profits in the UK from 2005 until 2015."
"Google, along with other American companies such as Facebook, Amazon and Starbucks, have faced heavy criticism for their tax affairs. Margaret Hodge MP, the former chairwoman of the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, describe its tax structures as "devious, calculated and, in my view, unethical".
"She said that Google was avoiding paying its "fair share" of tax. Global tax rules have been tightened over the last year, with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which produces guidance on world tax agreements, saying that multi-national companies should not deliberately move profits to different countries to avoid tax."
So it's not just Apple.
It is not doubling down it is just applying the rules that all the member states have signed up to and major corporations should be fully aware of.
If a company finds a corporation tax rate of 12% prohibitive then they deserve to go out of business!
Apple probably would have invested the same as they had there HQ there anyway (36 years now?) and Ireland still had/has one of the lowest Corporation tax level in the EU. Also they received other grants (totally above board) because of investing in Ireland.
IMHO There is only one potential victim of fraud and that is the Irish people not Apple and not the Irish government.
The decision was suppose to have been given in December but due to the Irish elections it seems they have delayed it to prevent it becoming a major factor in the Irish elections
There is a spectrum of results that could come from this investigation
1. No illegal state aid. Everything goes on as before
2. Illegal state aid. but appeal is successful Everything goes on as before
3. Illegal state aid. Apple has to pay back an "token" amount and the case is closed
4. Illegal state aid. Apple pays back up to $9 billion and the case is closed.
I would say that as the money hasn't gone back to the US then any potential tax paid back would be deductible if it was repatriated. Though i'm sure there are others hear that are more clued up on the US tax system.
12.5% is not the problem. As you should have seen from the article on taxes Apple's cumulative rate even with the 2% comes in at around 30% they pay in taxes