Love how all the fanboys and multinational corporation supporters show up to defend tax cheating. Apple uses "the commons" to conduct their trade, and to draw billions in profits. They have the obligation to help fund the infrastructure and tax base that they use. If you still say no, then let's force Apple to build their own electrical grids, water supplies, shipping defense military, etc. Let Apple become their own legal world entity, a nation unto their own, and we'll see how successful they can be. Dimwits, freeloaders, tax cheats.
The problem is that it's not cheating. It's exactly the same thing that Apple does in the US. As Uncle Tim said in his testimony before Congress, Apple pays all of the taxes it's required to pay based on US tax laws. In the case of Ireland, the government set things up for just this reason: give people a place to set up their businesses with very low taxes and they'll move their operations here and hire locals, even if a lot of this is on paper only. If the eurocrats were doing what they should, they be after Ireland for having tax rates like this and not go after the companies that have followed the letter of the law and benefitted from it. The point isn't whether what Ireland and Apple do is right or wrong, it's whether it's legal. Is it legal for a country to set its corporate tax rate so low. Of course it is! Is it legal for a company to take advantage of this and save billions on taxes? Of course it is. It's like the US government going after the state of New Hampshire for not charging a sales tax or the state of Washington for not having a state income tax.
And all of this is absurd because the EU didn't lose one penny over this, Ireland did! Ireland pays its money into the EU kitty whether or not its tax rate is 2% or 15% or 30%. Just as the US government doesn't lose money because Oregon has no sales tax. Who knows how soon it'll be before there's an EU income tax and not just one for each country.
But you don't seem to realise, EU Law supersedes Irish Law. To a yank, it's like Federal Law > State Law. Ireland accepted EU regulations and laws when they joined the EU as did every other country in the EU. What may be legal in Irish/UK/German/etc. law is illegal under EU law, Apple's lawyers and finance people could and should have known this, and probably did but since it seems many other companies done it and are still doing it they assumed they'd be fine.
What a crock. Why do you think all those other tech companies are ALSO in Ireland? Because they like the weather? I guarantee you that Google and the rest have the exact same tax arrangement as Apple. The only reason the EU hasn't gone after them is because it's using Apple as its test case. If the EU wins on final appeal then you can bet they'll head down to Google (and everyone else's) office the next morning notifying them that they also owe taxes, and they should pay up because of the decision in the case against Apple.
If Apple wins (likely) then the EU won't pursue anything against other companies in Ireland.
Google et all are also under investigation, they're time will come...
Forget it's Apple for a second or even that it's retroactive. Do you agree in principle that corporations should pay fair tax on their profits?
No I do not agree. “Fair tax” or “fair share” has no legal meaning. It’s flowery socialist newspeak babble. What matters is the law and if Apple can legally avoid what some dimwit describes as “fair” then good for them. Altruistic humanism or fairness has nothing to do with it. I don’t pay one penny more in taxes than I am required to by law and will use any strategy my accountant says is legal to avoid paying taxes. The EC has decided that Ireland and Apple’s tax agreements violate EU laws. The EC is not the final judge of that no more than U.S. FTC is the final judge of anti-trust findings. Courts and judges will make the final determination.
Calling the move "unprecedented," Cook portrayed the Commission's decision as potentially dangerous, with "serious, wide-reaching implications."
EC previously ruled against Starbucks's tax deal in Holland and Fiat's tax deal in Luxembourg. Not unprecedented.
"In Apple's case, nearly all of our research and development takes place in California, so the vast majority of our profits are taxed in the United States," he wrote. "European companies doing business in the U.S. are taxed according to the same principle. But the Commission is now calling to retroactively change those rules."
There is no law that states you should only be taxed where your R&D offices are located. There ARE laws however that say you pay tax where you operate and sell products. On top of that, funnelling profits from those sales to other countries while not technically illegal, is morally questionable. Similar to those with offshore accounts (cayman islands, panama etc.) albeit nowhere near as shady.
$14.5 billion is unprecedented as well as is the recent attempts to gouge U.S. companies for extra. In the U.S. European companies do not face a corporation tax, but simple sales and VAT. Maybe we'll retroactively apply a new law and start vouching your companies. BMW... want to keep selling your cars here now you gotta pay an extra 12.5% on your profits here even though you're based in Europe. Too bad, so sad. Same tax deal since 1980. Apple never asked for anything different.
Forget it's Apple for a second or even that it's retroactive. Do you agree in principle that corporations should pay fair tax on their profits? Apple is using Ireland as a tax haven to avoid paying tax in Europe and the US. If these corporations would pay tax in the US then these tax haven shell companies wouldn't exist but they aren't. If BMW/VW wasn't paying tax in Europe, I don't think anyone would object to the US collecting it so your example doesn't work
What is "fair share"? Apple's effective tax rate in the US is 25%.
Doesn't that include deferred taxes, which in actuality may never be physically paid?
But you don't seem to realise, EU Law supersedes Irish Law. To a yank, it's like Federal Law > State Law. Ireland accepted EU regulations and laws when they joined the EU as did every other country in the EU. What may be legal in Irish/UK/German/etc. law is illegal under EU law, Apple's lawyers and finance people could and should have known this, and probably did but since it seems many other companies done it and are still doing it they assumed they'd be fine.
I didn't know that. So the question is, why is Apple being fined instead of Ireland since it was Ireland that created the situation? And how did the EU let this stay in place for so long. (Oh yea, I'm assuming that the eurocrats are actually doing something and should have seen this. My bad.) But the question remains.
Forget it's Apple for a second or even that it's retroactive. Do you agree in principle that corporations should pay fair tax on their profits?
The EC is not the final judge of that no more than U.S. FTC is the final judge of anti-trust findings. Courts and judges will make the final determination.
Calling the move "unprecedented," Cook portrayed the Commission's decision as potentially dangerous, with "serious, wide-reaching implications."
EC previously ruled against Starbucks's tax deal in Holland and Fiat's tax deal in Luxembourg. Not unprecedented.
"In Apple's case, nearly all of our research and development takes place in California, so the vast majority of our profits are taxed in the United States," he wrote. "European companies doing business in the U.S. are taxed according to the same principle. But the Commission is now calling to retroactively change those rules."
There is no law that states you should only be taxed where your R&D offices are located. There ARE laws however that say you pay tax where you operate and sell products. On top of that, funnelling profits from those sales to other countries while not technically illegal, is morally questionable. Similar to those with offshore accounts (cayman islands, panama etc.) albeit nowhere near as shady.
Are you joking? Starbucks/Fiat got slapped on the wrist. They were ordered to pay $20 million each. The $14 billion for Apple is the definition of unprecedented.
It does not matter if the law is morally questionable in your opinion. It was the Irish tax law at that time. Apple did nothing wrong. They followed Irish tax law, and any other company operating in Ireland could have done the same.
Again the dispute isn't if Apple broke Irish tax law. They have not. The dispute is if Apple was given a DIFFERENT tax law they anyone else in Ireland. And as far as I can tell they didn't. They were just better at tax planning than anyone else.
It's all relative. $20 million to Starbucks was for how many years retroactively? And in comparison to the sheer size of Apple compared to Starbucks obviously the fee will be much less.
Prove that Apple wasn't given a different tax law, because from what I can tell paying 0.005% tax is well below what anyone else pays.
The diagram shown in this tweet is pretty accurate at describing what happened:
Agree 100%. NYTimes has another good diagram illustrating what Apple is doing. It's clearly tax avoidance, the question will be was it illegal and (more importantly) will the EU accept a seriously smaller fine/payment during negotiations.
Calling the move "unprecedented," Cook portrayed the Commission's decision as potentially dangerous, with "serious, wide-reaching implications."
EC previously ruled against Starbucks's tax deal in Holland and Fiat's tax deal in Luxembourg. Not unprecedented.
"In Apple's case, nearly all of our research and development takes place in California, so the vast majority of our profits are taxed in the United States," he wrote. "European companies doing business in the U.S. are taxed according to the same principle. But the Commission is now calling to retroactively change those rules."
There is no law that states you should only be taxed where your R&D offices are located. There ARE laws however that say you pay tax where you operate and sell products. On top of that, funnelling profits from those sales to other countries while not technically illegal, is morally questionable. Similar to those with offshore accounts (cayman islands, panama etc.) albeit nowhere near as shady.
It does not matter if the law is morally questionable in your opinion. It was the Irish tax law at that time. Apple did nothing wrong. They followed Irish tax law, and any other company operating in Ireland could have done the same.
You like to keep saying that but if ANY company could do the same why wouldn't they? There's smart accountants all over the world and what Apple was doing was probably known to many of them.
So no sir they could not. It requires a perfect storm of US corporate tax laws, a pre-existing special tax arrangement with the Irish and a creative use of corporate structure to pull it all off. Only the larger companies with US bases and worldwide operations could have taken advantage of this particular avoidance structure and even then only with special cooperation from friendly Irish tax folks. Your local Irish restaurant or retailer? Nope. The French bakery owner? Nope. The German car dealer (with three locations, whoo hoo). Sorry, no again. The computer retailer in Sweden? Sorry, no deal for you. Well then how about a big ol well-to-do grocery chain like Publix. Surely they can. They're kinda rich. Sorry. They all have to pay taxes if they have profits. No "stateless for tax purposes" is available to them, nor for any other regional company. Only the richest and biggest get this one.
hmm so you're saying that you, a random guy on a rumor site named "gatorguy", know for a fact that Ireland made a special deal with Apple, despite the fact that the CEO of Apple, a public guy named Tim Cook, who is barred from lying about his company's financials, says they did not?
just how is it you know what Cook denies? would you be willing to drop your handle and testify to this fact?
If Apple repatriated the profit held in Ireland and paid US taxes on it then maybe there'd be some sympathy. As it is, this reeks of hypocrisy and entitlement.
nonsense. they don't need to repatriate -- the money is profits made from goods produced overseas and sold overseas and taxed overseas. I have a friend who works in Europe and pays his taxes in Europe. why would he willingly ask to also be taxed in the US? he wouldn't. you wouldn't. Apple wouldn't.
Calling the move "unprecedented," Cook portrayed the Commission's decision as potentially dangerous, with "serious, wide-reaching implications."
EC previously ruled against Starbucks's tax deal in Holland and Fiat's tax deal in Luxembourg. Not unprecedented.
"In Apple's case, nearly all of our research and development takes place in California, so the vast majority of our profits are taxed in the United States," he wrote. "European companies doing business in the U.S. are taxed according to the same principle. But the Commission is now calling to retroactively change those rules."
There is no law that states you should only be taxed where your R&D offices are located. There ARE laws however that say you pay tax where you operate and sell products. On top of that, funnelling profits from those sales to other countries while not technically illegal, is morally questionable. Similar to those with offshore accounts (cayman islands, panama etc.) albeit nowhere near as shady.
It does not matter if the law is morally questionable in your opinion. It was the Irish tax law at that time. Apple did nothing wrong. They followed Irish tax law, and any other company operating in Ireland could have done the same.
You like to keep saying that but if ANY company could do the same why wouldn't they? There's smart accountants all over the world and what Apple was doing was probably known to many of them.
So no sir they could not. It requires a perfect storm of US corporate tax laws, a pre-existing special tax arrangement with the Irish and a creative use of corporate structure to pull it all off. Only the larger companies with US bases and worldwide operations could have taken advantage of this particular avoidance structure and even then only with special cooperation from friendly Irish tax folks. Your local Irish restaurant or retailer? Nope. The French bakery owner? Nope. The German car dealer (with three locations, whoo hoo). Sorry, no again. The computer retailer in Sweden? Sorry, no deal for you. Well then how about a big ol well-to-do grocery chain like Publix. Surely they can. They're kinda rich. Sorry. They all have to pay taxes if they have profits. No "stateless for tax purposes" is available to them, nor for any other regional company. Only the richest and biggest get this one.
hmm so you're saying that you, a random guy on a rumor site named "gatorguy", know for a fact that Ireland made a special deal with Apple, despite the fact that the CEO of Apple, a public guy named Tim Cook, who is barred from lying about his company's financials, says they did not?
just how is it you know what Cook denies? would you be willing to drop your handle and testify to this fact?
You're sometimes very strange acting. Do some independent reading, it will do you good. The basics are available to you if you're willing to look for them. Remember to read between the lines too when you see public statements. What you think you read and what was actually said aren't always the same thing.
The problem is that it's not cheating. It's exactly the same thing that Apple does in the US. As Uncle Tim said in his testimony before Congress, Apple pays all of the taxes it's required to pay based on US tax laws. In the case of Ireland, the government set things up for just this reason: give people a place to set up their businesses with very low taxes and they'll move their operations here and hire locals, even if a lot of this is on paper only. If the eurocrats were doing what they should, they be after Ireland for having tax rates like this and not go after the companies that have followed the letter of the law and benefitted from it. The point isn't whether what Ireland and Apple do is right or wrong, it's whether it's legal. Is it legal for a country to set its corporate tax rate so low. Of course it is! Is it legal for a company to take advantage of this and save billions on taxes? Of course it is. It's like the US government going after the state of New Hampshire for not charging a sales tax or the state of Washington for not having a state income tax.
And all of this is absurd because the EU didn't lose one penny over this, Ireland did! Ireland pays its money into the EU kitty whether or not its tax rate is 2% or 15% or 30%. Just as the US government doesn't lose money because Oregon has no sales tax. Who knows how soon it'll be before there's an EU income tax and not just one for each country.
But you don't seem to realise, EU Law supersedes Irish Law. To a yank, it's like Federal Law > State Law. Ireland accepted EU regulations and laws when they joined the EU as did every other country in the EU. What may be legal in Irish/UK/German/etc. law is illegal under EU law, Apple's lawyers and finance people could and should have known this, and probably did but since it seems many other companies done it and are still doing it they assumed they'd be fine.
ericthehalfbee said:Google et all are also under investigation, they're time will come...
No it won't. EU is overextending their authority in this. There is no "EU Law" that supercedes Irish law, as you falsely claim. The EU is doing an end run by trying to claim unfair state aid as a reason to collect taxes. This isn't a tax issue, it's a trumped up competition issue.
Google and the rest will be very happy Apple was chosen as the EU's first target. Apple will fight this to the end, and Google and the rest will benefit from Apple winning this case.
Calling the move "unprecedented," Cook portrayed the Commission's decision as potentially dangerous, with "serious, wide-reaching implications."
EC previously ruled against Starbucks's tax deal in Holland and Fiat's tax deal in Luxembourg. Not unprecedented.
"In Apple's case, nearly all of our research and development takes place in California, so the vast majority of our profits are taxed in the United States," he wrote. "European companies doing business in the U.S. are taxed according to the same principle. But the Commission is now calling to retroactively change those rules."
There is no law that states you should only be taxed where your R&D offices are located. There ARE laws however that say you pay tax where you operate and sell products. On top of that, funnelling profits from those sales to other countries while not technically illegal, is morally questionable. Similar to those with offshore accounts (cayman islands, panama etc.) albeit nowhere near as shady.
There no "funnelling". corporations sell at a wholesale to retailers from their corporate base. That's where they get the revenue and where corporation tax is charged. This is both legal and moral.
The simplest response would be for the US to state that Brussels appears to prefer to engage in economic warfare rather than economic cooperation then pull our TTIP negotiators to work on a post-Brexit trade deal with the UK. Given that TTIP is likely dead anyway a unilateral withdrawal sends a significant message without any long term repercussions.
That would give the UK economy a big temporary boost and a richly deserved middle finger to Brussels for being total putzes. They would have benefitted under TTIP more than we would have.
Your only problem is that the US wants TTIP much more than Europe - it is already dead from our perspective - there is a huge popular push back against it.
Calling the move "unprecedented," Cook portrayed the Commission's decision as potentially dangerous, with "serious, wide-reaching implications."
EC previously ruled against Starbucks's tax deal in Holland and Fiat's tax deal in Luxembourg. Not unprecedented.
"In Apple's case, nearly all of our research and development takes place in California, so the vast majority of our profits are taxed in the United States," he wrote. "European companies doing business in the U.S. are taxed according to the same principle. But the Commission is now calling to retroactively change those rules."
There is no law that states you should only be taxed where your R&D offices are located. There ARE laws however that say you pay tax where you operate and sell products. On top of that, funnelling profits from those sales to other countries while not technically illegal, is morally questionable. Similar to those with offshore accounts (cayman islands, panama etc.) albeit nowhere near as shady.
It does not matter if the law is morally questionable in your opinion. It was the Irish tax law at that time. Apple did nothing wrong. They followed Irish tax law, and any other company operating in Ireland could have done the same.
You like to keep saying that but if ANY company could do the same why wouldn't they? There's smart accountants all over the world and what Apple was doing was probably known to many of them.
So no sir they could not. It requires a perfect storm of US corporate tax laws, a pre-existing special tax arrangement with the Irish and a creative use of corporate structure to pull it all off. Only the larger companies with US bases and worldwide operations could have taken advantage of this particular avoidance structure and even then only with special cooperation from friendly Irish tax folks. Your local Irish restaurant or retailer? Nope. The French bakery owner? Nope. The German car dealer (with three locations, whoo hoo). Sorry, no again. The computer retailer in Sweden? Sorry, no deal for you. Well then how about a big ol well-to-do grocery chain like Publix. Surely they can. They're kinda rich. Sorry. They all have to pay taxes if they have profits. No "stateless for tax purposes" is available to them, nor for any other regional company. Only the richest and biggest get this one.
hmm so you're saying that you, a random guy on a rumor site named "gatorguy", know for a fact that Ireland made a special deal with Apple, despite the fact that the CEO of Apple, a public guy named Tim Cook, who is barred from lying about his company's financials, says they did not?
just how is it you know what Cook denies? would you be willing to drop your handle and testify to this fact?
You're sometimes very strange acting. Do some independent reading, it will do you good. The basics are available to you if you're willing to look for them. Remember to read between the lines too when you see public statements. What you think you read and what was actually said aren't always the same thing.
strange acting? in your post which I quoted, you said Apple had a special deal with Ireland. Cook says they do not. so again I ask -- how is it that you, a random guy with a pseudonym on a rumors site, knows more and is to believed more than the public officer of the company involved who is barred from lying?
my point is plain -- you haven't the faintest idea. your stated facts are not, and you're no more credible than sog or my mom, all of which is less than Tim Cook. thus I'll take Cook's opinion as far more valuable than yours, no matter how many links you toss up. FUD is FUD.
Calling the move "unprecedented," Cook portrayed the Commission's decision as potentially dangerous, with "serious, wide-reaching implications."
EC previously ruled against Starbucks's tax deal in Holland and Fiat's tax deal in Luxembourg. Not unprecedented.
"In Apple's case, nearly all of our research and development takes place in California, so the vast majority of our profits are taxed in the United States," he wrote. "European companies doing business in the U.S. are taxed according to the same principle. But the Commission is now calling to retroactively change those rules."
There is no law that states you should only be taxed where your R&D offices are located. There ARE laws however that say you pay tax where you operate and sell products. On top of that, funnelling profits from those sales to other countries while not technically illegal, is morally questionable. Similar to those with offshore accounts (cayman islands, panama etc.) albeit nowhere near as shady.
$14.5 billion is unprecedented as well as is the recent attempts to gouge U.S. companies for extra. In the U.S. European companies do not face a corporation tax, but simple sales and VAT. Maybe we'll retroactively apply a new law and start vouching your companies. BMW... want to keep selling your cars here now you gotta pay an extra 12.5% on your profits here even though you're based in Europe. Too bad, so sad. Same tax deal since 1980. Apple never asked for anything different.
Yes. Charging corporation tax where sales occur is beyond absurd as a principle.
Yes it is. Like Cook said it finds its basis in Common Law that has served as precedent for all tax law.
Calling the move "unprecedented," Cook portrayed the Commission's decision as potentially dangerous, with "serious, wide-reaching implications."
EC previously ruled against Starbucks's tax deal in Holland and Fiat's tax deal in Luxembourg. Not unprecedented.
"In Apple's case, nearly all of our research and development takes place in California, so the vast majority of our profits are taxed in the United States," he wrote. "European companies doing business in the U.S. are taxed according to the same principle. But the Commission is now calling to retroactively change those rules."
There is no law that states you should only be taxed where your R&D offices are located. There ARE laws however that say you pay tax where you operate and sell products. On top of that, funnelling profits from those sales to other countries while not technically illegal, is morally questionable. Similar to those with offshore accounts (cayman islands, panama etc.) albeit nowhere near as shady.
It does not matter if the law is morally questionable in your opinion. It was the Irish tax law at that time. Apple did nothing wrong. They followed Irish tax law, and any other company operating in Ireland could have done the same.
You like to keep saying that but if ANY company could do the same why wouldn't they? There's smart accountants all over the world and what Apple was doing was probably known to many of them.
So no sir they could not. It requires a perfect storm of US corporate tax laws, a pre-existing special tax arrangement with the Irish and a creative use of corporate structure to pull it all off. Only the larger companies with US bases and worldwide operations could have taken advantage of this particular avoidance structure and even then only with special cooperation from friendly Irish tax folks. Your local Irish restaurant or retailer? Nope. The French bakery owner? Nope. The German car dealer (with three locations, whoo hoo). Sorry, no again. The computer retailer in Sweden? Sorry, no deal for you. Well then how about a big ol well-to-do grocery chain like Publix. Surely they can. They're kinda rich. Sorry. They all have to pay taxes if they have profits. No "stateless for tax purposes" is available to them, nor for any other regional company. Only the richest and biggest get this one.
hmm so you're saying that you, a random guy on a rumor site named "gatorguy", know for a fact that Ireland made a special deal with Apple, despite the fact that the CEO of Apple, a public guy named Tim Cook, who is barred from lying about his company's financials, says they did not?
just how is it you know what Cook denies? would you be willing to drop your handle and testify to this fact?
You're sometimes very strange acting. Do some independent reading, it will do you good. The basics are available to you if you're willing to look for them. Remember to read between the lines too when you see public statements. What you think you read and what was actually said aren't always the same thing.
Actually, he's spot on, on this issue. I recommend that you also try some independent reading. And independent thinking can a good thing too. And the advice that we should "Remember to read between the lines too when you see public statements. What you think you read and what was actually said aren't always the same thing" should apply to you too.
With exactly what in Tim Cook's statements do you disagree?
Forget it's Apple for a second or even that it's retroactive. Do you agree in principle that corporations should pay fair tax on their profits?
No I do not agree. “Fair tax” or “fair share” has no legal meaning. It’s flowery socialist newspeak babble. What matters is the law and if Apple can legally avoid what some dimwit describes as “fair” then good for them. Altruistic humanism or fairness has nothing to do with it. I don’t pay one penny more in taxes than I am required to by law and will use any strategy my accountant says is legal to avoid paying taxes. The EC has decided that Ireland and Apple’s tax agreements violate EU laws. The EC is not the final judge of that no more than U.S. FTC is the final judge of anti-trust findings. Courts and judges will make the final determination.
Flowery socialist newspeak dimwit. Good one, great way to have a conversation. You're too blinded by your Apple love to even think critically about how countries and corporations operate
Calling the move "unprecedented," Cook portrayed the Commission's decision as potentially dangerous, with "serious, wide-reaching implications."
EC previously ruled against Starbucks's tax deal in Holland and Fiat's tax deal in Luxembourg. Not unprecedented.
"In Apple's case, nearly all of our research and development takes place in California, so the vast majority of our profits are taxed in the United States," he wrote. "European companies doing business in the U.S. are taxed according to the same principle. But the Commission is now calling to retroactively change those rules."
There is no law that states you should only be taxed where your R&D offices are located. There ARE laws however that say you pay tax where you operate and sell products. On top of that, funnelling profits from those sales to other countries while not technically illegal, is morally questionable. Similar to those with offshore accounts (cayman islands, panama etc.) albeit nowhere near as shady.
$14.5 billion is unprecedented as well as is the recent attempts to gouge U.S. companies for extra. In the U.S. European companies do not face a corporation tax, but simple sales and VAT. Maybe we'll retroactively apply a new law and start vouching your companies. BMW... want to keep selling your cars here now you gotta pay an extra 12.5% on your profits here even though you're based in Europe. Too bad, so sad. Same tax deal since 1980. Apple never asked for anything different.
Forget it's Apple for a second or even that it's retroactive. Do you agree in principle that corporations should pay fair tax on their profits? Apple is using Ireland as a tax haven to avoid paying tax in Europe and the US. If these corporations would pay tax in the US then these tax haven shell companies wouldn't exist but they aren't. If BMW/VW wasn't paying tax in Europe, I don't think anyone would object to the US collecting it so your example doesn't work
What is "fair share"? Apple's effective tax rate in the US is 25%.
Doesn't that include deferred taxes, which in actuality may never be physically paid?
Deferred taxes "may never be paid" only in a world with lots of permanent (and opposed to temporary) differences. They are rarely very large in a typical company. Most differences are 'temporary.'
Comments
You: No
Y: No
X:Yes,pay Y 14.5B
You:?
Y:?
ericthehalfbee said:Google et all are also under investigation, they're time will come...
Doesn't that include deferred taxes, which in actuality may never be physically paid?
Bottom line, just pay your freaking taxes like the rest of us.
Corporations buying gov't and then hoarding the cash overseas needs to end right now for everyone.
I love Apple but they have how much $180 BILLION stashed there? Come the )@(*# on when is enough enough?
You might want to brush up on some basic Econ.
just how is it you know what Cook denies? would you be willing to drop your handle and testify to this fact?
No it won't. EU is overextending their authority in this. There is no "EU Law" that supercedes Irish law, as you falsely claim. The EU is doing an end run by trying to claim unfair state aid as a reason to collect taxes. This isn't a tax issue, it's a trumped up competition issue.
Google and the rest will be very happy Apple was chosen as the EU's first target. Apple will fight this to the end, and Google and the rest will benefit from Apple winning this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
my point is plain -- you haven't the faintest idea. your stated facts are not, and you're no more credible than sog or my mom, all of which is less than Tim Cook. thus I'll take Cook's opinion as far more valuable than yours, no matter how many links you toss up. FUD is FUD.
With exactly what in Tim Cook's statements do you disagree?
Deferred taxes "may never be paid" only in a world with lots of permanent (and opposed to temporary) differences. They are rarely very large in a typical company. Most differences are 'temporary.'