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.
It is not being taxed overseas. That's the entire point and why it's hypocritical. Apple are using a series of dodges to hoard profit in Ireland paying practically no tax on those profits. Their excuse, by way of his letter, is that the profits should be taxed in their home country; but they have set up a convoluted corporate network to avoid local taxes and refuse to repatriate those profits so that they can be taxed in their home country.
Rank hypocrisy and transparent double talk from Tim. Very disappointing.
incorrect. they're being taxed overseas according to law. operating a foreign subsidiary overseas on goods manufactured and sold overseas isn't illegal. they don't need to repatriate and my friend doesn't need to pay US income tax.
you cant even keep it straight in your own post, where you both say they're not being taxed and that they're only being taxed very little.
EU: changing the rules retroactively when we don't like the results.
False. The state aid articles have been EU legislation for decades.
The EU has not been an entity for 'decades'. They were barely starting to roll out the Euro in 1999
The EU did not start with the Euro. It was created in 1993, which is more than one decade ago. The articles in question predate the EU as part of the formative documents of the European Community.
Quit pretending like you know anything please.
and Apple set up in Ireland in 1980, over a decade before that.
The EU did not start with the Euro. It was created in 1993, which is more than one decade ago. The articles in question predate the EU as part of the formative documents of the European Community.
Quit pretending like you know anything please.
and Apple set up in Ireland in 1980, over a decade before that.
So? What has that got to do with the suggestion that the EU has retroactively changed the rules?
It is not being taxed overseas. That's the entire point and why it's hypocritical. Apple are using a series of dodges to hoard profit in Ireland paying practically no tax on those profits. Their excuse, by way of his letter, is that the profits should be taxed in their home country; but they have set up a convoluted corporate network to avoid local taxes and refuse to repatriate those profits so that they can be taxed in their home country.
Rank hypocrisy and transparent double talk from Tim. Very disappointing.
incorrect. they're being taxed overseas according to law. operating a foreign subsidiary overseas on goods manufactured and sold overseas isn't illegal. they don't need to repatriate and my friend doesn't need to pay US income tax.
you cant even keep it straight in your own post, where you both say they're not being taxed and that they're only being taxed very little.
Effectively they're not being taxed. Less than 1% tax rate can colloquially be described as no taxation, as it's trivial.
Regarding legality, clearly the EU thinks differently, hence this entire debate. Less than 1% effective corporation tax rate on EU profit is not considered by the majority of people or the EU Commission to be a proper tax arrangement, and the means by which they achieved that with the Republic of Ireland government is seen as illegal tax aid.
And again, to bring this back to the letter: "A company's profits should be taxed in the country where the value is created. Apple, Ireland and the United States all agree on this principle." So where does Apple agree that it should be taxed? The Republic of Ireland? Then pay 12.5% then!
No, Ireland granted Apple a special tax ruling (which other companies didn't get) that allowed them to pay far less than the regular 12,5% tax, down to 0,005%. Almost all international profits were transferred to a nominal and 'stateless' head office without any buildings, personnel, or activities. This amounts to Ireland unfairly favoring and subsidizing one particular company, disrupting fair competition.
EU: changing the rules retroactively when we don't like the results.
False. The state aid articles have been EU legislation for decades.
The EU has not been an entity for 'decades'. They were barely starting to roll out the Euro in 1999
The EU did not start with the Euro. It was created in 1993, which is more than one decade ago. The articles in question predate the EU as part of the formative documents of the European Community.
Quit pretending like you know anything please.
1993 is hardly decades. And I was in Europe as the Euro was rolling out and have family in Italy buddy.
You've outlined precisely why democracies are a terrible political system
Care to elaborate? How so?
Do yourself a favor and research why the people who created the Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't want the US to be a full-fledged democracy (and it isn't).
EU: changing the rules retroactively when we don't like the results.
False. The state aid articles have been EU legislation for decades.
The EU has not been an entity for 'decades'. They were barely starting to roll out the Euro in 1999
The EU did not start with the Euro. It was created in 1993, which is more than one decade ago. The articles in question predate the EU as part of the formative documents of the European Community.
Quit pretending like you know anything please.
1993 is hardly decades. And I was in Europe as the Euro was rolling out and have family in Italy buddy.
As I already said, 1993 is more than one decade ago, so "decades" is completely fine (2 of them, if you're struggling), especially considering that's only since the Maastricht treaty, and I believe the provisions against state aid are even older.
why do you think I care about whether you were in Italy when the Euro rolled out? How is that relevant to anything?
As I already said, 1993 is more than one decade ago, so "decades" is completely fine (2 of them, if you're struggling), especially considering that's only since the Maastricht treaty, and I believe the provisions against state aid are even older.
why do you think I care about whether you were in Italy when the Euro rolled out? How is that relevant to anything?
Wow! 23 years. Congratulations you fag.
I didn't sign the treaty, why are you congratulating me?
Apple and the greedy share holders SHOULD have to pay at least half of this fine due to what they did to all the older devices like Ipad 2s ,ipod touches and older iphones when they released IOS 9 and it bricking and basicly making them useless after the IOS 9 update...when Steve Jobs was CEO he just stopped putting updates out for older devices....as for Cook no...he pulls this shit!!!......pick on the little people Cook...good one...good one.....the EU got this one right....make them pay half EU....Cook needs to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
So, you are saying that the US should be able to charge US C-corp taxes on the profits that EU manufacturers make (for products made in the EU and sold in the US). You just sent a shiver down the spine of every CEO who's EU based company exports product to the US.
Comments
you cant even keep it straight in your own post, where you both say they're not being taxed and that they're only being taxed very little.
Regarding legality, clearly the EU thinks differently, hence this entire debate. Less than 1% effective corporation tax rate on EU profit is not considered by the majority of people or the EU Commission to be a proper tax arrangement, and the means by which they achieved that with the Republic of Ireland government is seen as illegal tax aid.
And again, to bring this back to the letter: "A company's profits should be taxed in the country where the value is created. Apple, Ireland and the United States all agree on this principle." So where does Apple agree that it should be taxed? The Republic of Ireland? Then pay 12.5% then!
why do you think I care about whether you were in Italy when the Euro rolled out? How is that relevant to anything?
You are the same as Trump. Give us a bunch of money or we impose penalties.