Which a--holes over in the EU are even trying to compete with Apple at making premium computer products? Nobody, so it's a moot point in Apple's case.
You obviously do not understand the concept of illegal state aid and thus the reasoning behind the investigations. Also you seem to have forgotten about Nokia or Erivsson who were in the same arena as Apple in mobile phones who didn't have access to the (alledged) same sweetheart deal. So that's two companies as an example. Also it is irrelevant that Apple may or may not have direct competitors it is all about whether they had a tax deal unavailable to others and whether the deal goes against EU rules.
Do Nokia and Ericcson sell premium phones? No they do not. They sell low end phones in a race to the bottom because they sell phones in a totally different market than Apple. Obviously many companies had "access" to "sweetheart deals" as many US companies are being prosecuted by the EU. Maybe the other EU companies could have had "access" if they bothered to ask, but they weren't smart enough to consider pointing out the benefit of their business to the local economy and asking for a tax arrangement. Just because they were too dumb to ask doesn't mean everybody else should be penalized. I'm very well aware of the EU as I have family in Italy and Bulgaria. The level of corruption there is disturbing so sadly, like it is in the US, I place more trust in a private company like Apple than any of these governments. This EU person acting all like she's taking an ethical position is a ruse. Believe it if you want but that money is not going anywhere but in their pockets over there. Personally I'd rather see Apple keep the cash. At least in that case I choose where my money goes as compared to what you all have as "illegal personal aid to politicians."
One of the less specific laws is that companies and business operating in the country need to act in a way that, within reason, maximizes their profit.
Is that actually a law anywhere? I've never seen that as legislation.
I stated it very broadly, and it is often a set of laws that add up to this.
If my wife lends my business 1 million dollars, and I pay her 500,000 interest a year, that would not be considered a reasonable business expense. The tax department would determine what a reasonable expense for that loan was, and demand I pay tax on the rest, as well as give me a nice fine to boot. The arrangement was unreasonable and reduced the profit over which my business has to pay tax in an unreasonable way.
I have a limited liability company. It makes 10 million a year in profit, but before the tax year ends, I pay myself a director's fee of 10 million. I pay personal tax on that money and the company, not making a profit, does not pay tax. The tax department may look at my company and decide that my salary was unreasonable. I should have taken less salary, paid personal tax on that, and company tax on the rest. If I got more money it would be in dividends. That is a simple situation.
My company also builds all websites in house, organises its own advertising campaigns, and does its own SEO. If I were to set up three separate companies to do these tasks and these companies only worked for my large company, the Tax Office would look long and hard at them, and how much they each paid to me in director's salary. They may also look closely at these companies and the expenses, and determine that, although registered as for profit organisations, their sole purpose is to distribute the profits of my larger company in a deceitful way. They would then hit me with tax evasion.
I do not know about the US, but in many countries they talk about the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law with regards tax, and things become really mirky. (I know this is a common debate with regards the US constitution.) And things get more and more complex.
In my opinion letter of the law should apply, but who listens to me.
Not sure how any of that leads to a logical conclusion that companies are legally obligated to maximise profits. Report economic activity in a true and reflective sense, sure, but reporting is different from operations.
Plus, all charities are companies. They certainly aren't legally obligated to maximise profits, since they have no profits.
I think the so-called "fiduciary responsibilities" that are often brought up in these sort of threads are not a legal obligation of the company but an employment responsibility of the executives, as directed by the shareholders and/or directors. If the executives fail then they may get fired, but they haven't broken any law.
You obviously do not understand the concept of illegal state aid and thus the reasoning behind the investigations. Also you seem to have forgotten about Nokia or Erivsson who were in the same arena as Apple in mobile phones who didn't have access to the (alledged) same sweetheart deal. So that's two companies as an example. Also it is irrelevant that Apple may or may not have direct competitors it is all about whether they had a tax deal unavailable to others and whether the deal goes against EU rules.
Do Nokia and Ericcson sell premium phones? No they do not. They sell low end phones in a race to the bottom because they sell phones in a totally different market than Apple. Obviously many companies had "access" to "sweetheart deals" as many US companies are being prosecuted by the EU. Maybe the other EU companies could have had "access" if they bothered to ask, but they weren't smart enough to consider pointing out the benefit of their business to the local economy and asking for a tax arrangement. Just because they were too dumb to ask doesn't mean everybody else should be penalized. I'm very well aware of the EU as I have family in Italy and Bulgaria. The level of corruption there is disturbing so sadly, like it is in the US, I place more trust in a private company like Apple than any of these governments. This EU person acting all like she's taking an ethical position is a ruse. Believe it if you want but that money is not going anywhere but in their pockets over there. Personally I'd rather see Apple keep the cash. At least in that case I choose where my money goes as compared to what you all have as "illegal personal aid to politicians."
They did make premium phones but screwed up for many reasons. Though your assertion that this s an EU money grab is false. If any company is found guilty of receiving illegal tate aid they have to pay that "aid" back to the country they recieved it from. In the case of Apple that would be Ireland. Ranked 2 below the US in the transparency list of least corrupt countries (USA 16 and Ireland 18).
What would you expect them to say? But of course we do it, so what? They can talk about all these other company's, but they pay out is a tiny fraction of what a single U.S. Company is made to fork out. 765 million, but from 35 different company's. I see a story from March 6 2013, The European Union fined Microsoft $732 million. We have Apple with a 8 billion Tax bill to look forward to. For what? Following THEIR Tax laws!!! Just because they don't like it, they're the ones that created this mess.
The fact of the matter is, HUGE fines for American company's, and laughable fines for their own!!!
Fining European businesses is big business for the US:
BP $4.5 Bn
BNP Paribas: $9 Bn
UBS $203 M, $883 M, $545 M
Barclays $2.4 Bn + $453 M + $3.75M
Credit Suisse $2.6 Bn
Deutsche Bank $2.5 Bn
Commerzbank $1 Bn
I hope that the EU officials will get their fingers out and catch up with the fine example set by the US, they are currently many billions behind in evening up the score.
Can we at least wait for the vote to happen before blaming the result on aliens?
Thanks for confirming that you’re allowing your own vote, which only affects your citizens, to be stolen by non-citizens.
And you wonder why I rag you for supporting this system. Honest to fuck, you wonder this.
And no, I don’t give a shit how it affects the rest of the EU, nor how it will affect the millions who will be expelled from the UK after the exit. They literally don’t matter at all. Not to the UK, not in the context of the vote, and not if they want to keep existing.
Can we at least wait for the vote to happen before blaming the result on aliens?
Thanks for confirming that you’re allowing your own vote, which only affects your citizens, to be stolen by non-citizens.
And you wonder why I rag you for supporting this system. Honest to fuck, you wonder this.
And no, I don’t give a shit how it affects the rest of the EU, nor how it will affect the millions who will be expelled from the UK after the exit. They literally don’t matter at all. Not to the UK, not in the context of the vote, and not if they want to keep existing.
Who are you quoting in the second bit, or is that you again?
Im not confirming anything of the sort since nothing has been stolen. Giving things freely is not the same as having them stolen, so your rhetoric is superfluous.
Yes the rest of the EU does matter somewhat, since the whole point of the modern EU is to create a greater community and prevent the kind of tribalism that led to two horrible conflicts. Your invective is exactly the kind of insipid nationalistic crap that causes hateful division and inflames issues. Please stop. You may not agree with the way we do things here but you know who matters far, far less than the rest of the EU? You. No matter how much you rant and whine and splutter that other people and countries shouldn't exist, you have no power, importance or vote in these decisions. Soz.
If the non-UK citizens will have the opportunity to stay in the UK in the event of Brexit, which is the current position of the Leave campaign then I'd say it's a valid argument that they have a right to vote. I'm equally supportive of the voting rights of ex pats who don't live in the UK any more but are citizens, whichever way they vote. More votes are better, these are big issues that require a big collective voice.
One of the less specific laws is that companies and business operating in the country need to act in a way that, within reason, maximizes their profit.
Is that actually a law anywhere? I've never seen that as legislation.
I stated it very broadly, and it is often a set of laws that add up to this.
If my wife lends my business 1 million dollars, and I pay her 500,000 interest a year, that would not be considered a reasonable business expense. The tax department would determine what a reasonable expense for that loan was, and demand I pay tax on the rest, as well as give me a nice fine to boot. The arrangement was unreasonable and reduced the profit over which my business has to pay tax in an unreasonable way.
I have a limited liability company. It makes 10 million a year in profit, but before the tax year ends, I pay myself a director's fee of 10 million. I pay personal tax on that money and the company, not making a profit, does not pay tax. The tax department may look at my company and decide that my salary was unreasonable. I should have taken less salary, paid personal tax on that, and company tax on the rest. If I got more money it would be in dividends. That is a simple situation.
My company also builds all websites in house, organises its own advertising campaigns, and does its own SEO. If I were to set up three separate companies to do these tasks and these companies only worked for my large company, the Tax Office would look long and hard at them, and how much they each paid to me in director's salary. They may also look closely at these companies and the expenses, and determine that, although registered as for profit organisations, their sole purpose is to distribute the profits of my larger company in a deceitful way. They would then hit me with tax evasion.
I do not know about the US, but in many countries they talk about the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law with regards tax, and things become really mirky. (I know this is a common debate with regards the US constitution.) And things get more and more complex.
In my opinion letter of the law should apply, but who listens to me.
You've made excellent points that would apply to probably most businesses. In the case of Apple specifically, which is who you are discussing, it does not for one very big reason: Apple has creatively arranged their business structure so that for billions in profit they are tax resident in no country on the planet. Whatever taxes that might be expected to owe are owed to no one. That a separate issue that doesn't include the billions in profit that Apple made special tax arrangements with Ireland for and that's being discussed in this AI article. So while under normal circumstances most of what you wrote would hold true, it does cover all the tax avoidance structure used by Apple. Probably not Google nor Amazon nor many others either. Note that Google too has a target on their back both for the favorable settlement they made with GB and now the investigation by the French into how they avoided tax there. When all is said and done Google will owe a few billion too IMHO.
Can we at least wait for the vote to happen before blaming the result on aliens?
Thanks for confirming that you’re allowing your own vote, which only affects your citizens, to be stolen by non-citizens.
And you wonder why I rag you for supporting this system. Honest to fuck, you wonder this.
And no, I don’t give a shit how it affects the rest of the EU, nor how it will affect the millions who will be expelled from the UK after the exit. They literally don’t matter at all. Not to the UK, not in the context of the vote, and not if they want to keep existing.
Did I imply otherwise? I didn't mean to. Don't mistake my opinion for the way things are actually unraveling, they differ significantly.
Commonwealth citizens are allowed to vote if I understand correctly, which is a large non-UK citizen contingent, and there is some ongoing debate about allowing some EU migrants who have been in the UK for a certain time to vote (they can vote in parliamentary elections, why not Brexit, the argument goes). Not sure why the BBC doesn't cover that, but maybe they know something I don't.
Sorry, Commonwealth citizens who are resident in the UK. Would be a bit bonkers if all of NZ, Canada and Aus could vote. Not that there isn't an angle there, since arguably the Commonwealth has suffered most from the UKs membership in the EU.
Do Nokia and Ericcson sell premium phones? No they do not. They sell low end phones in a race to the bottom because they sell phones in a totally different market than Apple. Obviously many companies had "access" to "sweetheart deals" as many US companies are being prosecuted by the EU. Maybe the other EU companies could have had "access" if they bothered to ask, but they weren't smart enough to consider pointing out the benefit of their business to the local economy and asking for a tax arrangement. Just because they were too dumb to ask doesn't mean everybody else should be penalized. I'm very well aware of the EU as I have family in Italy and Bulgaria. The level of corruption there is disturbing so sadly, like it is in the US, I place more trust in a private company like Apple than any of these governments. This EU person acting all like she's taking an ethical position is a ruse. Believe it if you want but that money is not going anywhere but in their pockets over there. Personally I'd rather see Apple keep the cash. At least in that case I choose where my money goes as compared to what you all have as "illegal personal aid to politicians."
They did make premium phones but screwed up for many reasons. Though your assertion that this s an EU money grab is false. If any company is found guilty of receiving illegal tate aid they have to pay that "aid" back to the country they recieved it from. In the case of Apple that would be Ireland. Ranked 2 below the US in the transparency list of least corrupt countries (USA 16 and Ireland 18).
They did make premium phones but screwed up for many reasons. Though your assertion that this s an EU money grab is false. If any company is found guilty of receiving illegal tate aid they have to pay that "aid" back to the country they recieved it from. In the case of Apple that would be Ireland. Ranked 2 below the US in the transparency list of least corrupt countries (USA 16 and Ireland 18).
Illegal Tax Payer Aid to Politicians
Apart from this case which is about illegal state aid to Apple
Apart from this case which is about illegal state aid to Apple
I can continue to make equally dense arguments as this state aid contrivance. Illegal Taxpayer Aid to EU Politicians
Let's try a less dense argument then. Apple has been accused of getting preferential tax rate from Ireland. This maybe against EU rules. If this is found to be true the money owed (the amount they are all edge to have not paid) gets paid to Ireland and has no connection to the EU per se. The EU commission is ensuring all the countries in the EU comply to the rules. Therefore nothing to do with tax aid to politicians. As you are argueing (to me)that the EU shouldn't investigate an allegation that may amount to billions of Euros because some politicians maybe corrupt?
I can continue to make equally dense arguments as this state aid contrivance. Illegal Taxpayer Aid to EU Politicians
Let's try a less dense argument then. Apple has been accused of getting preferential tax rate from Ireland. This maybe against EU rules. If this is found to be true the money owed (the amount they are all edge to have not paid) gets paid to Ireland and has no connection to the EU per se. The EU commission is ensuring all the countries in the EU comply to the rules. Therefore nothing to do with tax aid to politicians. As you are argueing (to me)that the EU shouldn't investigate an allegation that may amount to billions of Euros because some politicians maybe corrupt?
I understand your argument of what illegal state aid is very well. You make this same argument over and over again like a broken record. The problem is that it is a brand new creation, a spin or reframe of a specific tax practice that has been common practice throughout history. Now, after a decade of doing nothing yet fully knowing it was happening, the EU all of a sudden creates a brand new label "illegal state aid." Have you ever heard the saying "pulled the rug out from under them? Well that's exactly what this is. It's nothing but political spin. The EU has plenty of financial problems they got themselves into. And there is a lot more than a corrupt politician here and there. It's just way too convenient to create this new concept, "illegal state aid," and all of a sudden force corporations to pay the EU governments billions of dollars. It's a bunch of horse crap.
latifbp said: Now, after a decade of doing nothing yet fully knowing it was happening, the EU all of a sudden creates a brand new label "illegal state aid." Have you ever heard the saying "pulled the rug out from under them? Well that's exactly what this is. It's nothing but political spin.
So you have a source saying they knew about the allegations that is a viable allegation? What is alledged, if proved is and has always been illegal state aid under EU rules. It is not a new label it has always been thus.
latifbp said: It's just way too convenient to create this new concept, "illegal state aid," and all of a sudden force corporations to pay the EU governments billions of dollars.
It's not a new concept. It has been part of the EU since the treaty of Rome and the treaty of Masstricht.
You do know Ireland is also fighting this allegation and they are the only one that would gain? No other government would gain or the EU itself.
Let's try a less dense argument then. Apple has been accused of getting preferential tax rate from Ireland. This maybe against EU rules. If this is found to be true the money owed (the amount they are all edge to have not paid) gets paid to Ireland and has no connection to the EU per se. The EU commission is ensuring all the countries in the EU comply to the rules. Therefore nothing to do with tax aid to politicians. As you are argueing (to me)that the EU shouldn't investigate an allegation that may amount to billions of Euros because some politicians maybe corrupt?
I understand your argument of what illegal state aid is very well. You make this same argument over and over again like a broken record. The problem is that it is a brand new creation, a spin or reframe of a specific tax practice that has been common practice throughout history. Now, after a decade of doing nothing yet fully knowing it was happening, the EU all of a sudden creates a brand new label "illegal state aid." Have you ever heard the saying "pulled the rug out from under them? Well that's exactly what this is. It's nothing but political spin. The EU has plenty of financial problems they got themselves into. And there is a lot more than a corrupt politician here and there. It's just way too convenient to create this new concept, "illegal state aid," and all of a sudden force corporations to pay the EU governments billions of dollars. It's a bunch of horse crap.
Your last sentence succinctly sums up your post and your understanding of the EU.
Comments
If my wife lends my business 1 million dollars, and I pay her 500,000 interest a year, that would not be considered a reasonable business expense. The tax department would determine what a reasonable expense for that loan was, and demand I pay tax on the rest, as well as give me a nice fine to boot. The arrangement was unreasonable and reduced the profit over which my business has to pay tax in an unreasonable way.
I have a limited liability company. It makes 10 million a year in profit, but before the tax year ends, I pay myself a director's fee of 10 million. I pay personal tax on that money and the company, not making a profit, does not pay tax. The tax department may look at my company and decide that my salary was unreasonable. I should have taken less salary, paid personal tax on that, and company tax on the rest. If I got more money it would be in dividends. That is a simple situation.
My company also builds all websites in house, organises its own advertising campaigns, and does its own SEO. If I were to set up three separate companies to do these tasks and these companies only worked for my large company, the Tax Office would look long and hard at them, and how much they each paid to me in director's salary. They may also look closely at these companies and the expenses, and determine that, although registered as for profit organisations, their sole purpose is to distribute the profits of my larger company in a deceitful way. They would then hit me with tax evasion.
I do not know about the US, but in many countries they talk about the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law with regards tax, and things become really mirky. (I know this is a common debate with regards the US constitution.) And things get more and more complex.
In my opinion letter of the law should apply, but who listens to me.
Plus, all charities are companies. They certainly aren't legally obligated to maximise profits, since they have no profits.
I think the so-called "fiduciary responsibilities" that are often brought up in these sort of threads are not a legal obligation of the company but an employment responsibility of the executives, as directed by the shareholders and/or directors. If the executives fail then they may get fired, but they haven't broken any law.
Though your assertion that this s an EU money grab is false. If any company is found guilty of receiving illegal tate aid they have to pay that "aid" back to the country they recieved it from. In the case of Apple that would be Ireland. Ranked 2 below the US in the transparency list of least corrupt countries (USA 16 and Ireland 18).
BP $4.5 Bn
BNP Paribas: $9 Bn
UBS $203 M, $883 M, $545 M
Barclays $2.4 Bn + $453 M + $3.75M
Credit Suisse $2.6 Bn
Deutsche Bank $2.5 Bn
Commerzbank $1 Bn
I hope that the EU officials will get their fingers out and catch up with the fine example set by the US, they are currently many billions behind in evening up the score.
And you wonder why I rag you for supporting this system. Honest to fuck, you wonder this.
Im not confirming anything of the sort since nothing has been stolen. Giving things freely is not the same as having them stolen, so your rhetoric is superfluous.
Yes the rest of the EU does matter somewhat, since the whole point of the modern EU is to create a greater community and prevent the kind of tribalism that led to two horrible conflicts. Your invective is exactly the kind of insipid nationalistic crap that causes hateful division and inflames issues. Please stop. You may not agree with the way we do things here but you know who matters far, far less than the rest of the EU? You. No matter how much you rant and whine and splutter that other people and countries shouldn't exist, you have no power, importance or vote in these decisions. Soz.
If the non-UK citizens will have the opportunity to stay in the UK in the event of Brexit, which is the current position of the Leave campaign then I'd say it's a valid argument that they have a right to vote. I'm equally supportive of the voting rights of ex pats who don't live in the UK any more but are citizens, whichever way they vote. More votes are better, these are big issues that require a big collective voice.
Only uk citizens with a few exceptions (Ireland, malta and cyprus) are eligible to vote.
We’ll have to see how well those polls are protected, though.
Commonwealth citizens are allowed to vote if I understand correctly, which is a large non-UK citizen contingent, and there is some ongoing debate about allowing some EU migrants who have been in the UK for a certain time to vote (they can vote in parliamentary elections, why not Brexit, the argument goes). Not sure why the BBC doesn't cover that, but maybe they know something I don't.
The entire Commonwealth? Well, I guess they’d at least be closer to Britain’s interests than the continent’s.
Apple has been accused of getting preferential tax rate from Ireland. This maybe against EU rules. If this is found to be true the money owed (the amount they are all edge to have not paid) gets paid to Ireland and has no connection to the EU per se. The EU commission is ensuring all the countries in the EU comply to the rules.
Therefore nothing to do with tax aid to politicians.
As you are argueing (to me)that the EU shouldn't investigate an allegation that may amount to billions of Euros because some politicians maybe corrupt?
What is alledged, if proved is and has always been illegal state aid under EU rules. It is not a new label it has always been thus.
It's not a new concept. It has been part of the EU since the treaty of Rome and the treaty of Masstricht.
You do know Ireland is also fighting this allegation and they are the only one that would gain?
No other government would gain or the EU itself.