EU tax investigation concludes, Apple hammered with $14.5 billion bill

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 106
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    cnocbui said:
    Well I said it would be billions rather than SOG's ludicrous millions.

    I hope the final outcome is that Apple eventually have to cough up.  They have over $200 Billion in the bank because they are worlds biggest and most effective tax avoider.  I hope this is just the start of all the other multinational tax dodgers finally getting what's coming to them.

    Of course the situation Apple finds itself in is all the fault of the US government, not Ireland or the EU as it is US tax legislation that allows US companies to indefinitely defer tax repatriation while pretending to their host countries their tax is payable in the US.
    Same tax rate since 1980. No 'deal'. No intentional avoidance. Apple brokered nothing nor attempted to negotiate any tax deal. Red herring and hyperbole. Apple was once a very small company and grew because it made good financial decisions and innovated better than everybody. Your view is that they should be penalized for it. Out with the era of personal responsibility I guess. Let people who do well because they made good choices pick up the slack for the idiots that didn't...
    muppetrymike1hlee1169macseekerpscooter63urahara
  • Reply 22 of 106
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    sog35 said:
    The EU still refuses to state what law Apple broke.

    All they are saying is Apple paid a too low effective tax rate. That is totally ridiculous. Any other company could have used the same provisions Apple used to lower their effective tax rate. 

    This ruling is so ridiculous its obvious it will be thrown out. 

    Ireland has the right to charge what ever tax rate they wish. They also have the right to decide on the other finer points of tax law. This decision is saying Ireland does not have the right. This decision is saying the EU can swoop in 10 years after the fact and change Ireland's soverign tax laws if they feel it goes against their opinion of matters. In other words the opinion of a few beaucrates in the EU is worth more than the entire citizenship of Ireland. Crazy.
    Correct. They failed to prove this was a loophole that applied to Apple only. It's clearly a general loophole in Irish law, and therefore can't be challenged under EU law. 

    palominelatifbph2purahara
  • Reply 23 of 106
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,467member
    latifbp said:
    gatorguy said:
    latifbp said:
    Name one competitor who did not get the same tax 
    You're arguing with the wrong entity. Message your outrage over this to the EU Commission. 
    The allegation is that Apple was acting anti-competitively. There'd have to be competition that got stifled in order for that to be true. Not one person can identify any corporation that was stifled in their competition against Apple. We now know that Apple had this tax rate since 1980 and that there was no request by Apple and no 'deal' brokered.
    No sir, the current tax avoidance structure was put in place much more recently wasn't it? Apple has been able to pay relatively few taxes on their Irish manufacturing activities since early in the '80's, that is true. The two new Irish corporations (one of which exists in name and bank accounts only, no employees) used for mitigating taxes from other countries and regions began around the time of the iPhone release. They pay taxes to no one, claiming no country or region has the authority to tax them. The EU Commission has a difference of opinion with them. 
    ronnh2p
  • Reply 24 of 106
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    gatorguy said:
    latifbp said:
    gatorguy said:
    latifbp said:
    Name one competitor who did not get the same tax 
    You're arguing with the wrong entity. Message your outrage over this to the EU Commission. 
    The allegation is that Apple was acting anti-competitively. There'd have to be competition that got stifled in order for that to be true. Not one person can identify any corporation that was stifled in their competition against Apple. We now know that Apple had this tax rate since 1980 and that there was no request by Apple and no 'deal' brokered.
    No sir, the current tax avoidance structure was put in place much more recently wasn't it? Apple has been able to pay relatively few taxes on their Irish manufacturing activities since early in the '80's, that is true. The two new Irish corporations (one of which exists in name and bank accounts only, no employees) used for mitigating taxes from other countries and regions began around the time of the iPhone release. They pay taxes to no one, claiming no country or region has the authority to tax them. The EU Commission has a difference of opinion with them. 
    That's not a competancy of the EU. They are claiming state aid or preferential treatment. Where do they prove that? 
    palomine
  • Reply 24 of 106
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    adm1 said:
    "The European Commission has launched an effort to rewrite Apple's history in Europe, ignore Ireland's tax laws..."

    EU Law supercedes that of individual country member laws, Ireland signed up to this by joining the EU. To make it easier for US folks, think of the EU as the united states and Ireland as a state within the USA. Federal law > state law.

    "The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation"

    similar case here.
    The EU should understand that targeting US companies will result in doctrine of retaliation.  The easiest thing for us is to prioritize trade deals with the UK and kill TTIP which appears all but dead anyway.

    This benefits the US and UK and gives the middle finger to Brussels for being jerks even if France might be happy about a dead TTIP.  I don't think Germany would be as amused.  It also gives Obama cover for TTIP failure...he killed it to combat unfair taxation by the EU on US companies.
    edited August 2016 palomine
  • Reply 26 of 106
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    sog35 said:
    The EU still refuses to state what law Apple broke.

    All they are saying is Apple paid a too low effective tax rate. That is totally ridiculous. Any other company could have used the same provisions Apple used to lower their effective tax rate. 

    This ruling is so ridiculous its obvious it will be thrown out. 

    Ireland has the right to charge what ever tax rate they wish. They also have the right to decide on the other finer points of tax law. This decision is saying Ireland does not have the right. This decision is saying the EU can swoop in 10 years after the fact and change Ireland's soverign tax laws if they feel it goes against their opinion of matters. In other words the opinion of a few beaucrates in the EU is worth more than the entire citizenship of Ireland. Crazy.
    Shut up.  I know that I have personally explained this to you several times.  You are just ignoring reality as it would give you less to be indignant about and would deflate your hissy fits.  You want Apple to be the victim when they aren't.
    ronngwydioncrowley
  • Reply 27 of 106
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    cnocbui said:
    sog35 said:
    The EU still refuses to state what law Apple broke.

    All they are saying is Apple paid a too low effective tax rate. That is totally ridiculous. Any other company could have used the same provisions Apple used to lower their effective tax rate. 

    This ruling is so ridiculous its obvious it will be thrown out. 

    Ireland has the right to charge what ever tax rate they wish. They also have the right to decide on the other finer points of tax law. This decision is saying Ireland does not have the right. This decision is saying the EU can swoop in 10 years after the fact and change Ireland's soverign tax laws if they feel it goes against their opinion of matters. In other words the opinion of a few beaucrates in the EU is worth more than the entire citizenship of Ireland. Crazy.
    Shut up.  I know that I have personally explained this to you several times.  You are just ignoring reality as it would give you less to be indignant about and would deflate your hissy fits.  You want Apple to be the victim when they aren't.
    Where's the state aid? 
  • Reply 28 of 106
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    latifbp said:

    Name one competitor who did not get the same tax 
    Dell.
    ronngwydioncrowley
  • Reply 29 of 106
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Nobody understands corporate law on taxation. 
    let me explain. 

    Corporate tax is charged where the IP is added. Ip can be transferred. Traditionally where the IP is is where manufacturing happens but it doesn't have to be, and mostly isn't these days.  Manufacturing is a cost.

    corporate tax is not charged where the sales are. Consumer countries get sales or vat, often more than the corporate tax in fact unless there are very high margins. 
    hlee1169henrikvendelbo
  • Reply 30 of 106
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    redhanded said:
    gatorguy said:
    redhanded said:
    Being pedantic, 0.005 isn't an actual tax rate, the EU judgement says it was the effective tax rate.

    So it seems that Apple have a mind numbingly complex set of corporate entities and the Irish tax authorities made a ruling that Apple could allocate the vast majority of their profits to a corporate entity that didn't pay tax while a much smaller amount of profits were allocated to another entity that paid tax at the Irish corporate rate which is 12.5%.

    The EU are basically saying that everything should have been taxed at 12.5%.

    Expect this to go to appeal with an argument if the ruling about allocation of profits was correct or not. The Irish government will back their own tax department
    Do you think their citizen's will too?  There's certainly little to no benefit for them when a wealthy corporation is permitted to completely avoid taxation while they themselves are not. The Irish politicians that choose to get involved will be walking a fine line. 
    I am an Irish citizen... I'll take the jobs provided by foreign investment over a possible one-off windfall.  Even if Apple end up paying, it is hardly the case that the Irish government will get EUR 13 B.  All the other EU countries and the US government will be saying - feck off - we want our share.
    So am I; I'll take all companies in Ireland paying an appropriate and equal rate of tax so the government can lessen it's shafting of me on my tax.  Ireland will get all of what Apple pays up, there is no mechanism for them to claim a share.  That would be game-over for the EU.
    ronncrowley
  • Reply 31 of 106
    I am very happy for this news. As a European citizen is a Shame the Ireland behavior for getting companies HQ and money vs. the rest of EU countries.
    crowley
  • Reply 32 of 106
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    sog35 said:
    cnocbui said:
    sog35 said:
    The EU still refuses to state what law Apple broke.

    All they are saying is Apple paid a too low effective tax rate. That is totally ridiculous. Any other company could have used the same provisions Apple used to lower their effective tax rate. 

    This ruling is so ridiculous its obvious it will be thrown out. 

    Ireland has the right to charge what ever tax rate they wish. They also have the right to decide on the other finer points of tax law. This decision is saying Ireland does not have the right. This decision is saying the EU can swoop in 10 years after the fact and change Ireland's soverign tax laws if they feel it goes against their opinion of matters. In other words the opinion of a few beaucrates in the EU is worth more than the entire citizenship of Ireland. Crazy.
    Shut up.  I know that I have personally explained this to you several times.  You are just ignoring reality as it would give you less to be indignant about and would deflate your hissy fits.  You want Apple to be the victim when they aren't.
    State the law that Apple broke.
    You still have not.
    You are just saying general things like "oh they paid too little tax". 
    Paying too little tax is not a LAW.

    Show me the Irish law that Apple broke.

    You won't be able too. Because even the EU says nothing about what law Apple broke.
    tax rulings issued by Ireland endorsed an artificial allocation of Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe's sales profits to their "head offices", where they were not taxed. As a result, the tax rulings enabled Apple to pay substantially less tax than other companies, which is illegal under EU state aid rules.

    From the summary. which I linked earlier in the thread. It does contain difficult words but try to comprehend. The rule they have broken is under EU law and thus the agreements are invalid (pending any appeals).
    edited August 2016 ronncrowley
  • Reply 33 of 106
    croprcropr Posts: 1,080member
    mike1 said:
    So, what benefit does Ireland get from the EU that is worth giving up sovereignty? Perhaps they should follow Britain and give the EU a big middle finger. I laugh at the claim of state aid, while the French and German governments kept Airbus afloat so they could compete with Boeing.
      At least 50% of all foreign investments in Ireland are done because Ireland is part of the EU.  If Ireland left the EU, it would simply collapse
    alexmacronncnocbuihenrikvendelbo
  • Reply 34 of 106
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    cnocbui said:
    latifbp said:

    Name one competitor who did not get the same tax 
    Dell.
    Even if they didn't it's not because they couldn't have. The commissions report itself said nothing about the exclusivity of Apples use of an Irish loophole.  If you find the text where it's exclusive then print it. 
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 35 of 106
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    sog35 said:
    Ireland has the right to charge any tax rate it wishes. 
    Ireland has the right to make certain corporations exempt from taxes. (exa. hospitals, foreign corps and charity organizations)
    Ireland has the right to lower taxable profits for certain products or services. (exa. software products)

    These are the rights of a SOVEREIGN STATE.

    The EU has no right to decide what kind of tax policy Ireland uses. 
    The only enforcement power the EU has is if a specific company can break Irish tax laws while other companies can't. 
    Apple has not broken a SINGLE IRISH TAX LAW. That means any other company could have done the EXACT same things Apple had done and achieve the same lower tax rate.

    This decision by the EU is saying that Ireland no longer has the SOVEREIGN right to decide what taxes they can charge.  This is madness. The EU is and was never suppose to be the ULTIMATE TAXING AUTHORITY of Europe. Its absolutely ridiculous. 

    Stop showing your ignorance about EU law. Ireland can set any tax rate it likes but can't set a level by agreement with a single company that discriminates against other companies.
    alexmaccnocbuironncrowley
  • Reply 36 of 106
    sog35 said:
    Ireland has the right to charge any tax rate it wishes. 
    Ireland has the right to make certain corporations exempt from taxes. (exa. hospitals, foreign corps and charity organizations)
    Ireland has the right to lower taxable profits for certain products or services. (exa. software products)

    These are the rights of a SOVEREIGN STATE.

    The EU has no right to decide what kind of tax policy Ireland uses. 
    The only enforcement power the EU has is if a specific company can break Irish tax laws while other companies can't. 
    Apple has not broken a SINGLE IRISH TAX LAW. That means any other company could have done the EXACT same things Apple had done and achieve the same lower tax rate.

    This decision by the EU is saying that Ireland no longer has the SOVEREIGN right to decide what taxes they can charge.  This is madness. The EU is and was never suppose to be the ULTIMATE TAXING AUTHORITY of Europe. Its absolutely ridiculous. 

    A big BS!  As a member of EU HAS TO FOLLOW THE EUROPEAN RULES!  If you don't like it LEAVE EUROPE!  

    I am european when it is good for me but for the rest I do what I want. Simple. BREXIT!
    ronngwydioncrowleyh2p
  • Reply 37 of 106
    croprcropr Posts: 1,080member
    latifbp said:
    gatorguy said:
    latifbp said:

    The original case http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253200/253200_1582634_87_2.pdf


    the ruling http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm

    Summary from the ruling
    Tax rulings as such are perfectly legal. They are comfort letters issued by tax authorities to give a company clarity on how its corporate tax will be calculated or on the use of special tax provisions.
    The role of EU state aid control is to ensure Member States do not give selected companies a better tax treatment than others, via tax rulings or otherwise. More specifically, profits must be allocated between companies in a corporate group, and between different parts of the same company, in a way that reflects economic reality. This means that the allocation should be in line with arrangements that take place under commercial conditions between independent businesses (so-called "arm's length principle").
    In particular, the Commission's state aid investigation concerned two consecutive tax rulings issued by Ireland, which endorsed a method to internally allocate profits within Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe,two Irish incorporated companies. It assessed whether this endorsed method to calculate the taxable profits of each company in Ireland gave Apple an undue advantage that is illegal under EU state aid rules.
    The Commission's investigation has shown that the tax rulings issued by Ireland endorsed an artificial internal allocation of profits within Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe,which has no factual or economic justification. As a result of the tax rulings, most sales profits of Apple Sales International were allocated to its "head office" when this "head office" had no operating capacity to handle and manage the distribution business, or any other substantive business for that matter. Only the Irish branch of Apple Sales International had the capacity to generate any income from trading, i.e. from the distribution of Apple products. Therefore, the sales profits of Apple Sales International should have been recorded with the Irish branch and taxed there.
    The "head office" did not have any employees or own premises. The only activities that can be associated with the "head offices" are limited decisions taken by its directors (many of which were at the same time working full-time as executives for Apple Inc.) on the distribution of dividends, administrative arrangements and cash management. These activities generated profits in terms of interest that, based on the Commission's assessment, are the only profits which can be attributed to the "head offices".
    Similarly, only the Irish branch of Apple Operations Europe had the capacity to generate any income from trading, i.e. from the production of certain lines of computers for the Apple group. Therefore, sales profits of Apple Operation Europe should have been recorded with the Irish branch and taxed there.
    On this basis, the Commission concluded that the tax rulings issued by Ireland endorsed an artificial allocation of Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe's sales profits to their "head offices", where they were not taxed. As a result, the tax rulings enabled Apple to pay substantially less tax than other companies, which is illegal under EU state aid rules.
    This decision does not call into question Ireland's general tax system or its corporate tax rate.Furthermore, Apple's tax structure in Europe as such, and whether profits could have been recorded in the countries where the sales effectively took place, are not issues covered by EU state aid rules.
    Name one competitor who did not get the same tax 
    You're arguing with the wrong entity. Message your outrage over this to the EU Commission. 
    The allegation is that Apple was acting anti-competitively. There'd have to be competition that got stifled in order for that to be true. Not one person can identify any corporation that was stifled in their competition against Apple. We now know that Apple had this tax rate since 1980 and that there was no request by Apple and no 'deal' brokered.
    It is Ireland and not Apple that is anti-competitive (according to the EC).  By giving illegal state aid, it could seduce Apple to have its European HQ in Ireland
    ronnh2p
  • Reply 38 of 106
    johnbearjohnbear Posts: 160member
    Glad EU finally cracking down on those unscrupulous corporations. Not enough for now but a good start! gotta spend a bit of that 300 billion cash 
    crowleyreroll
  • Reply 39 of 106
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,467member
    asdasd said:
    gatorguy said:
    latifbp said:
    gatorguy said:
    latifbp said:
    Name one competitor who did not get the same tax 
    You're arguing with the wrong entity. Message your outrage over this to the EU Commission. 
    The allegation is that Apple was acting anti-competitively. There'd have to be competition that got stifled in order for that to be true. Not one person can identify any corporation that was stifled in their competition against Apple. We now know that Apple had this tax rate since 1980 and that there was no request by Apple and no 'deal' brokered.
    No sir, the current tax avoidance structure was put in place much more recently wasn't it? Apple has been able to pay relatively few taxes on their Irish manufacturing activities since early in the '80's, that is true. The two new Irish corporations (one of which exists in name and bank accounts only, no employees) used for mitigating taxes from other countries and regions began around the time of the iPhone release. They pay taxes to no one, claiming no country or region has the authority to tax them. The EU Commission has a difference of opinion with them. 
    That's not a competancy of the EU. They are claiming state aid or preferential treatment. Where do they prove that? 
    In court when it's appealed. 
    ronngwydioncrowley
  • Reply 40 of 106
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    sog35 said:
    cnocbui said:
    sog35 said:
    The EU still refuses to state what law Apple broke.

    All they are saying is Apple paid a too low effective tax rate. That is totally ridiculous. Any other company could have used the same provisions Apple used to lower their effective tax rate. 

    This ruling is so ridiculous its obvious it will be thrown out. 

    Ireland has the right to charge what ever tax rate they wish. They also have the right to decide on the other finer points of tax law. This decision is saying Ireland does not have the right. This decision is saying the EU can swoop in 10 years after the fact and change Ireland's soverign tax laws if they feel it goes against their opinion of matters. In other words the opinion of a few beaucrates in the EU is worth more than the entire citizenship of Ireland. Crazy.
    Shut up.  I know that I have personally explained this to you several times.  You are just ignoring reality as it would give you less to be indignant about and would deflate your hissy fits.  You want Apple to be the victim when they aren't.
    State the law that Apple broke.
    You still have not.
    You are just saying general things like "oh they paid too little tax". 
    Paying too little tax is not a LAW.

    Show me the Irish law that Apple broke.

    You won't be able too. Because even the EU says nothing about what law Apple broke.
    No, I gave you the answer to this within the last 24hrs, you choose to ignore it and have done so ever single time I point it out to you when this topic crops up.
    ronngwydionsingularity
Sign In or Register to comment.