I know this is silly, but I honestly wonder what would happen if Apple just ignored the ruling, or if it even publicly stated it wasnt paying. What are they going to do...go in with guns and raid the offices?
You realise that each and every product Apple manufactures in China and sells in the EU has to go through customs, yes?
The EU can *easily* halt all Apple sales within its borders within a relatively short time, costing Apple billions.
It won't come to that.
The US can respond equally to a trade war. China and Russia will profit. Amusingly if there
The EU has no right to Apple worldwide profits. The taxes are based on Apple sales outside the US, not Apple sales inside the EU. They can go pound sand.
I don't think the EU is trying to claim taxes on Apple's worldwide profits. But with that said the EU has asserted the right to base anti-competition penalties on a company's world-wide revenues in a few instances so far, and apparently legally upheld. Microsoft immediately comes to mind, and Google may be next. Does the EU have a right to world-wide profits as a basis? Maybe and so far they have in a couple of high profile cases. So much for pounding sand, tho this Apple tax case would not be applicable.
If Trump doesn't stand up to the EU over this the folks that voted for him will likely be unamused. The anti-competition penalties are an end run around taxation of US multinationals and theft against the US treasury. It would likely mean that President Trump would have to play nice with China in order to pound the EU INTO the sand but if necessary we should do it. There should be friendly rivalry between the US and EU but this is ruling is punitive and we don't have to nor should we play nice. That they have gone after Microsoft, Google and Apple is an indicator that US companies are targeted for enforcement and frankly protectionist. The US treasury under a democratic president has indicated that it believes the EU actions to be outside the bounds of normal civilized play. If they wish to play that way then there's all sorts of games we can play under a republican president friendly to Russia in the context of helping the UK and beating the absolute crap out of the EU. We can ship LNG exclusively to the UK and let the rest of Europe pay Gazprom prices. That should do wonders for their economies.
Or only ship LNG to NATO countries that actually puts 2% of GDP into their military. That would be Poland, UK, Greece and Estonia. That would likely fit President Trump's agenda quite nicely.
If Apple has to bring some jobs back to the US to appease President Trump it'll be worth the supply chain disruption to make this goes away as it should go away.
I didn't vote for The Donald but if the Europeans think that this is a good time hit US companies with big fines they are complete idiots.
Timely mention. I'd forgotten that the US too makes claims against foreign businesses. Perhaps our government speaks from both corners of the mouth, and which one depends on whether money is flowing in or money is flowing out.
I know this is silly, but I honestly wonder what would happen if Apple just ignored the ruling, or if it even publicly stated it wasnt paying. What are they going to do...go in with guns and raid the offices?
You realise that each and every product Apple manufactures in China and sells in the EU has to go through customs, yes?
The EU can *easily* halt all Apple sales within its borders within a relatively short time, costing Apple billions.
It won't come to that.
The US can respond equally to a trade war. China and Russia will profit. Amusingly if there
The EU has no right to Apple worldwide profits. The taxes are based on Apple sales outside the US, not Apple sales inside the EU. They can go pound sand.
I don't think the EU is trying to claim taxes on Apple's worldwide profits. But with that said the EU has asserted the right to base anti-competition penalties on a company's world-wide revenues in a few instances so far, and apparently legally upheld. Microsoft immediately comes to mind, and Google may be next. Does the EU have a right to world-wide profits as a basis? Maybe and so far they have in a couple of high profile cases. So much for pounding sand, tho this Apple tax case would not be applicable.
If Trump doesn't stand up to the EU over this the folks that voted for him will likely be unamused. The anti-competition penalties are an end run around taxation of US multinationals and theft against the US treasury. It would likely mean that President Trump would have to play nice with China in order to pound the EU INTO the sand but if necessary we should do it. There should be friendly rivalry between the US and EU but this is ruling is punitive and we don't have to nor should we play nice. That they have gone after Microsoft, Google and Apple is an indicator that US companies are targeted for enforcement and frankly protectionist. The US treasury under a democratic president has indicated that it believes the EU actions to be outside the bounds of normal civilized play. If they wish to play that way then there's all sorts of games we can play under a republican president friendly to Russia in the context of helping the UK and beating the absolute crap out of the EU. We can ship LNG exclusively to the UK and let the rest of Europe pay Gazprom prices. That should do wonders for their economies.
Or only ship LNG to NATO countries that actually puts 2% of GDP into their military. That would be Poland, UK, Greece and Estonia. That would likely fit President Trump's agenda quite nicely.
If Apple has to bring some jobs back to the US to appease President Trump it'll be worth the supply chain disruption to make this goes away as it should go away.
I didn't vote for The Donald but if the Europeans think that this is a good time hit US companies with big fines they are complete idiots.
You're very confused.
"Going after" Microsoft and Google had to do with the fact that these corporations were abusing monopoly status to push their own services and products. That is simply illegal, and they were punished for it. There is nothing "protectionist" about that, and European corporations are subject to exactly the same laws and face the same kinds of fines.
In this case, there is nothing punitive about it.
THIS IS NOT A RULING AGAINST APPLE; IT IS A RULING AGAINST IRELAND. Apple did nothing wrong; they complied with the law. The issue here is merely that the European Commission decided that the LAWS that Apple (and everybody else) followed were wrong and violated EU laws.
It's the same thing as when a state law (like gay discrimination laws) is found to be in violation of federal law, or unconstitutional.
The law is repealed, and the question becomes how far back in time to reinstate those who incurred losses, and rectify the wrong.
The issue is that the EU Commission as decided that everybody who benefited (not just Apple) must pay the back taxes (NOT FINES!) they would have had to pay, and that the corporations are contesting this, because it really isn't their fault, or their problem: they were doing exactly what they had to.
Note that there is considerable dispute WITHIN Europe over this, as well.
I suspect it will end in a split, with Apple and the other multinationals paying a token amount, and Ireland footing the rest of a reduced total amount.
I know this is silly, but I honestly wonder what would happen if Apple just ignored the ruling, or if it even publicly stated it wasnt paying. What are they going to do...go in with guns and raid the offices?
You realise that each and every product Apple manufactures in China and sells in the EU has to go through customs, yes?
The EU can *easily* halt all Apple sales within its borders within a relatively short time, costing Apple billions.
It won't come to that.
The US can respond equally to a trade war. China and Russia will profit. Amusingly if there
The EU has no right to Apple worldwide profits. The taxes are based on Apple sales outside the US, not Apple sales inside the EU. They can go pound sand.
I don't think the EU is trying to claim taxes on Apple's worldwide profits. But with that said the EU has asserted the right to base anti-competition penalties on a company's world-wide revenues in a few instances so far, and apparently legally upheld. Microsoft immediately comes to mind, and Google may be next. Does the EU have a right to world-wide profits as a basis? Maybe and so far they have in a couple of high profile cases. So much for pounding sand, tho this Apple tax case would not be applicable.
Although this isn't the case, fines for anti competitive behaviour can reach 10% of a company's annual earnings. The fines are calculated following different parameters and are designed to be a deterrent.
I know this is silly, but I honestly wonder what would happen if Apple just ignored the ruling, or if it even publicly stated it wasnt paying. What are they going to do...go in with guns and raid the offices?
You realise that each and every product Apple manufactures in China and sells in the EU has to go through customs, yes?
The EU can *easily* halt all Apple sales within its borders within a relatively short time, costing Apple billions.
It won't come to that.
The US can respond equally to a trade war. China and Russia will profit. Amusingly if there
The EU has no right to Apple worldwide profits. The taxes are based on Apple sales outside the US, not Apple sales inside the EU. They can go pound sand.
I don't think the EU is trying to claim taxes on Apple's worldwide profits. But with that said the EU has asserted the right to base anti-competition penalties on a company's world-wide revenues in a few instances so far, and apparently legally upheld. Microsoft immediately comes to mind, and Google may be next. Does the EU have a right to world-wide profits as a basis? Maybe and so far they have in a couple of high profile cases. So much for pounding sand, tho this Apple tax case would not be applicable.
If Trump doesn't stand up to the EU over this the folks that voted for him will likely be unamused. The anti-competition penalties are an end run around taxation of US multinationals and theft against the US treasury. It would likely mean that President Trump would have to play nice with China in order to pound the EU INTO the sand but if necessary we should do it. There should be friendly rivalry between the US and EU but this is ruling is punitive and we don't have to nor should we play nice. That they have gone after Microsoft, Google and Apple is an indicator that US companies are targeted for enforcement and frankly protectionist. The US treasury under a democratic president has indicated that it believes the EU actions to be outside the bounds of normal civilized play. If they wish to play that way then there's all sorts of games we can play under a republican president friendly to Russia in the context of helping the UK and beating the absolute crap out of the EU. We can ship LNG exclusively to the UK and let the rest of Europe pay Gazprom prices. That should do wonders for their economies.
Or only ship LNG to NATO countries that actually puts 2% of GDP into their military. That would be Poland, UK, Greece and Estonia. That would likely fit President Trump's agenda quite nicely.
If Apple has to bring some jobs back to the US to appease President Trump it'll be worth the supply chain disruption to make this goes away as it should go away.
I didn't vote for The Donald but if the Europeans think that this is a good time hit US companies with big fines they are complete idiots.
You're very confused.
"Going after" Microsoft and Google had to do with the fact that these corporations were abusing monopoly status to push their own services and products. That is simply illegal, and they were punished for it. There is nothing "protectionist" about that, and European corporations are subject to exactly the same laws and face the same kinds of fines.
In this case, there is nothing punitive about it.
THIS IS NOT A RULING AGAINST APPLE; IT IS A RULING AGAINST IRELAND. Apple did nothing wrong; they complied with the law. The issue here is merely that the European Commission decided that the LAWS that Apple (and everybody else) followed were wrong and violated EU laws.
It's the same thing as when a state law (like gay discrimination laws) is found to be in violation of federal law, or unconstitutional.
The law is repealed, and the question becomes how far back in time to reinstate those who incurred losses, and rectify the wrong.
The issue is that the EU Commission as decided that everybody who benefited (not just Apple) must pay the back taxes (NOT FINES!) they would have had to pay, and that the corporations are contesting this, because it really isn't their fault, or their problem: they were doing exactly what they had to.
Note that there is considerable dispute WITHIN Europe over this, as well.
I suspect it will end in a split, with Apple and the other multinationals paying a token amount, and Ireland footing the rest of a reduced total amount.
That is basically how I see it except for the outcome. I'm not sure how it will end.
I don't know how he came up with the idea that the EU was 'going after' Apple or American companies. I think the last time I read about this subject, there were over 300 companies being investigated. The Apple case is the big one but far from the only one.
Apple is doing a bit of chest beating to get some 'we are innocent' headlines into the press. It's a logical move from a PR perspective but you don't have to dig very far under the surface to see that things get murky quickly. This issue has its roots in the eighties and no one had bothered to really look at it until this three year investigation produced its summary. That alone has enough information to enable us to paint Apple's tax practices as very dubious but until all sides have presented their cases, the issue at hand could go in any direction. Whatever the outcome of the process (which not doubt will be lengthy), Apple is going to have to shake up how it manages it's international taxes from now on and I'm sure they will be paying a whole lot more pretty soon to avoid a re-run of this investigation.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said on Wednesday that the European Union (EU) is targeting U.S. companies after the European Commission ruled against Apple in a case over the tech giant’s tax dealings with Ireland.
"I have been concerned that it reflected an attempt to reach into the U.S. tax base to tax income that ought to be taxed in the United States," Lew said in response to the decision, Reuters is reporting.
---
Days after the European Union ruled that Apple owed Ireland billions of dollars in back taxes, a senior official at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce accused the group of going after American multinational companies.
"What the EU has done with respect to Apple is extraordinary," Chief Economist J.D. Foster said Thursday per a briefing from the Chamber. "They are clearly targeting U.S. companies, though they also target European companies."
--
The US treasury published a white paper(pdf) Aug. 24 that accuses the European Commission’s competition arm, which investigates tax and anti-trust issues, of acting as a “supra-national tax authority” that second guesses EU member states’ tax arrangements. The paper also said the commission doesn’t have grounds to demand back taxes from previous years and that its current approach undermines global norms on policing tax evasion.
---
Apple, Amazon, Starbucks and McDonald’s are being unfairly targeted by the European Commission over tax avoidance, according to Robert Stack, the US Treasury official in charge of international tax policy.
After meeting with EU competition officials in Brussels on Friday, the Financial Times reportedthat Stack said: “We are concerned that the EU commission appears to be disproportionately targeting US companies.”
---
Yep, no idea where anyone would get the idea that the EU is unfairly targeting US companies. It's not like US treasury officials are credible sources of official US position on what constitutes fair treatment of US corporations.
Brits better beware. They may be next after Brexit:
A bit like the mother protecting her child. 'The US Treasury says ...'. You quote the same organisation three times saying the same thing.
It would have been nice if they actually did something to back it up with facts but they didn't put anything on the table to justify the claims. Maybe it's because they can't.
Do you think Volkswagen will get an easier ride because its European?
Then you present the Telegraph! They will always have something nice to say about the EU!
Beyond the claims themselves, can you actually demonstrate anything to back them up?
"Yep, no idea where anyone would get the idea that the EU is unfairly targeting US companies. It's not like US treasury officials are credible sources of official US position on what constitutes fair treatment of US corporations."
Yes! The US Treasury is a great credible source for the official US position of what constitutes fair treatment of US companies.
In exactly the same way that Tim Cook is a great credible source for the official Apple position on this tax issue.
The problem is that this has nothing at all to do with 'credible sources' or their 'claims' but if those claims are actually true.
Now, if they actually had something to back those claims up with, I am sure they would have been the first to wave them around.
Have you seen anything? I haven't.
The US Treasury is posturing. It is full of bias and acting politically in the interests of the US and its multinationals. I cannot criticise that (its part of what they have to do - there are political aspects in there, not only monetary) but you will hopefully understand that, in this particular aspect, what they are saying simply lackscredibility.
EDIT: 'extra información
"Earlier this year the Senate finance committee wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Lew to impose a double tax rate on European companies if the Commission ordered Apple to pay back-taxes in Ireland.
“We are writing to you to express our strong concerns regarding the State aid investigations currently being conducted by the European Commission ("EU Commission") of several of its member States regarding tax rulings and advanced pricing arrangements provided to multinational businesses, most of them U.S. firms … We urge Treasury to intensify its efforts to caution the EU Commission not to reach retroactive results that are inconsistent with internationally accepted standards and that the United States views such results as a direct threat to its interests. We also ask that you consider, pursuant to the President's powers under Internal Revenue Code section 891 (which would impose a double rate of tax on citizens and corporations of foreign countries engaging in discriminatory taxation), whether "corporations of the United States are being subjected to discriminatory or extraterritorial taxes."
The Senate Finance Committee stated 'most of them, US firms', not all of them'. Perhaps more telling is the line 'internationally accepted standards'. No mention of actual legislation.
"Yep, no idea where anyone would get the idea that the EU is unfairly targeting US companies. It's not like US treasury officials are credible sources of official US position on what constitutes fair treatment of US corporations."
Yes! The US Treasury is a great credible source for the official US position of what constitutes fair treatment of US companies.
In exactly the same way that Tim Cook is a great credible source for the official Apple position on this tax issue.
The problem is that this has nothing at all to do with 'credible sources' or their 'claims' but if those claims are actually true.
Now, if they actually had something to back those claims up with, I am sure they would have been the first to wave them around.
Have you seen anything? I haven't.
The US Treasury is posturing. It is full of bias and acting politically in the interests of the US and its multinationals. I cannot criticise that (its part of what they have to do - there are political aspects in there, not only monetary) but you will hopefully understand that, in this particular aspect, what they are saying simply lackscredibility.
EDIT: 'extra información
"Earlier this year the Senate finance committee wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Lew to impose a double tax rate on European companies if the Commission ordered Apple to pay back-taxes in Ireland.
“We are writing to you to express our strong concerns regarding the State aid investigations currently being conducted by the European Commission ("EU Commission") of several of its member States regarding tax rulings and advanced pricing arrangements provided to multinational businesses, most of them U.S. firms … We urge Treasury to intensify its efforts to caution the EU Commission not to reach retroactive results that are inconsistent with internationally accepted standards and that the United States views such results as a direct threat to its interests. We also ask that you consider, pursuant to the President's powers under Internal Revenue Code section 891 (which would impose a double rate of tax on citizens and corporations of foreign countries engaging in discriminatory taxation), whether "corporations of the United States are being subjected to discriminatory or extraterritorial taxes."
The Senate Finance Committee stated 'most of them, US firms', not all of them'. Perhaps more telling is the line 'internationally accepted standards'. No mention of actual legislation.
You can't read can you? That's the only conclusion I can come to when you post this.
First, the Senate Finance Commitee is an additional branch of the government that is concerned with unequal EU treatment of US companies which negates your own assertion that it's only the treasury "posturing". Never mind the absurd assertion that the us treasury "lacks credibility" (which planet are you on?) or didn't back up their claims after writing a white paper that does exactly that as noted in the quote...which you obviously didn't read.
Second, in that text they (the Senate finance committee) are signaling that they support the use of the nuclear option of imposing double taxes on EU corporations which is an existing authorized Presidential power. No new legislation is required for the US to retaliate. Now President Obama likely never would have invoked IRC section 891 because he is reserved* and his position had always been that the US is the biggest kid on the block and can ignore certain stupidities and provocations that others cannot because everyone knows that, if desired, the biggest kid on the block can pummel your ass if he really gets annoyed with you. Trump is just not that sort of fellow (reserved) and likely not that sort of President (restrained in the use of American might).
So let's just ignore that the Senate Finance Commitee indicated that they consider this EU action against Apple as sufficient casus belli for a tax war against the EU and the use of the nuclear option by POTUS.
Finally, the statement that they believe that the EU is exceeding internationally accepted standards supports my viewpoint not yours.
How you can post that and believe that nobody has any reason whatsoever to believe that the EU is behaving unfairly is beyond me. That the EU ignored these serious warning shots in August and proceeded anyway is simply intransigence on the part of representatives of small countries writing cheques that France and Germany can't cash especially in the light of Brexit and a US President that is friendly toward Putin and hostile toward NATO obligations.
EU apologists should remember that U.K., France and Germany maintain their own G20 (and G8) memberships separate from the EU. If push comes to shove the US can pummel or exempt France and Germany individually and they know it.
--
* Obama was also unlikely to invoke it because of treaty requirements. Trump is nothing if not a wildcard and would likely love the splash it would make.
"Yep, no idea where anyone would get the idea that the EU is unfairly targeting US companies. It's not like US treasury officials are credible sources of official US position on what constitutes fair treatment of US corporations."
Yes! The US Treasury is a great credible source for the official US position of what constitutes fair treatment of US companies.
In exactly the same way that Tim Cook is a great credible source for the official Apple position on this tax issue.
The problem is that this has nothing at all to do with 'credible sources' or their 'claims' but if those claims are actually true.
Now, if they actually had something to back those claims up with, I am sure they would have been the first to wave them around.
Have you seen anything? I haven't.
The US Treasury is posturing. It is full of bias and acting politically in the interests of the US and its multinationals. I cannot criticise that (its part of what they have to do - there are political aspects in there, not only monetary) but you will hopefully understand that, in this particular aspect, what they are saying simply lackscredibility.
EDIT: 'extra información
"Earlier this year the Senate finance committee wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Lew to impose a double tax rate on European companies if the Commission ordered Apple to pay back-taxes in Ireland.
“We are writing to you to express our strong concerns regarding the State aid investigations currently being conducted by the European Commission ("EU Commission") of several of its member States regarding tax rulings and advanced pricing arrangements provided to multinational businesses, most of them U.S. firms … We urge Treasury to intensify its efforts to caution the EU Commission not to reach retroactive results that are inconsistent with internationally accepted standards and that the United States views such results as a direct threat to its interests. We also ask that you consider, pursuant to the President's powers under Internal Revenue Code section 891 (which would impose a double rate of tax on citizens and corporations of foreign countries engaging in discriminatory taxation), whether "corporations of the United States are being subjected to discriminatory or extraterritorial taxes."
The Senate Finance Committee stated 'most of them, US firms', not all of them'. Perhaps more telling is the line 'internationally accepted standards'. No mention of actual legislation.
You can't read can you? That's the only conclusion I can come to when you post this.
First, the Senate Finance Commitee is an additional branch of the government that is concerned with unequal EU treatment of US companies which negates your own assertion that it's only the treasury "posturing". Never mind the absurd assertion that the us treasury "lacks credibility" (which planet are you on?) or didn't back up their claims after writing a white paper that does exactly that as noted in the quote...which you obviously didn't read.
Second, in that text they (the Senate finance committee) are signaling that they support the use of the nuclear option of imposing double taxes on EU corporations which is an existing authorized Presidential power. No new legislation is required for the US to retaliate. Now President Obama likely never would have invoked IRC section 891 because he is reserved* and his position had always been that the US is the biggest kid on the block and can ignore certain stupidities and provocations that others cannot because everyone knows that, if desired, the biggest kid on the block can pummel your ass if he really gets annoyed with you. Trump is just not that sort of fellow (reserved) and likely not that sort of President (restrained in the use of American might).
So let's just ignore that the Senate Finance Commitee indicated that they consider this EU action against Apple as sufficient casus belli for a tax war against the EU and the use of the nuclear option by POTUS.
Finally, the statement that they believe that the EU is exceeding internationally accepted standards supports my viewpoint not yours.
How you can post that and believe that nobody has any reason whatsoever to believe that the EU is behaving unfairly is beyond me. That the EU ignored these serious warning shots in August and proceeded anyway is simply intransigence on the part of representatives of small countries writing cheques that France and Germany can't cash especially in the light of Brexit and a US President that is friendly toward Putin and hostile toward NATO obligations.
EU apologists should remember that U.K., France and Germany maintain their own G20 (and G8) memberships separate from the EU. If push comes to shove the US can pummel or exempt France and Germany individually and they know it.
--
* Obama was also unlikely to invoke it because of treaty requirements. Trump is nothing if not a wildcard and would likely love the splash it would make.
We actually have a law that allows the US to double-tax foreign companies, but not US companies??? What the heck....
Then what gives the US Senate the right to complain about some other country/region taxing a US company particularly since they would NOT be double-taxed anyway. We credit our US companies for corporate taxes paid outside of the US, but you are saying we're allowed to double-tax foreign-owned companies. If true we're hardly a beacon of light.
We actually have a law that allows the US to double-tax foreign companies, but not US companies??? What the heck....
Then what gives the US Senate the right to complain about some other country/region taxing a US company particularly since they would NOT be double-taxed anyway. We credit our US companies for corporate taxes paid outside of the US, but you are saying we're allowed to double-tax foreign-owned companies. If true we're hardly a beacon of light.
It's 82 years old, it's never been used and it's meant to be a retaliatory weapon against "discriminatory or extraterritorial taxes" against US citizens and corporations.
How is this confusing? That the treasury dusted this thing off earlier this year under the Obama administration is an indication that the US is taking the EU action very seriously. Folks call it the nuclear option for a reason.
Then Treasury issued a white paper that described what the EU was doing wrong and if they don't stop the US will respond. The EU didn't stop.
Presumably Obama will do nothing in the last few days and it will be up to Trump to respond. The guy who is a master at tax law and hasn't paid taxes in forever.
Comments
"Going after" Microsoft and Google had to do with the fact that these corporations were abusing monopoly status to push their own services and products. That is simply illegal, and they were punished for it. There is nothing "protectionist" about that, and European corporations are subject to exactly the same laws and face the same kinds of fines.
In this case, there is nothing punitive about it.
THIS IS NOT A RULING AGAINST APPLE; IT IS A RULING AGAINST IRELAND.
Apple did nothing wrong; they complied with the law. The issue here is merely that the European Commission decided that the LAWS that Apple (and everybody else) followed were wrong and violated EU laws.
It's the same thing as when a state law (like gay discrimination laws) is found to be in violation of federal law, or unconstitutional.
The law is repealed, and the question becomes how far back in time to reinstate those who incurred losses, and rectify the wrong.
The issue is that the EU Commission as decided that everybody who benefited (not just Apple) must pay the back taxes (NOT FINES!) they would have had to pay, and that the corporations are contesting this, because it really isn't their fault, or their problem: they were doing exactly what they had to.
Note that there is considerable dispute WITHIN Europe over this, as well.
I suspect it will end in a split, with Apple and the other multinationals paying a token amount, and Ireland footing the rest of a reduced total amount.
ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/procedures_101_en.html
It's worth noting that if you have behaved in an anticompetitive manner but decide to report the others involved, you may get away without a fine.
I don't know how he came up with the idea that the EU was 'going after' Apple or American companies. I think the last time I read about this subject, there were over 300 companies being investigated. The Apple case is the big one but far from the only one.
Apple is doing a bit of chest beating to get some 'we are innocent' headlines into the press. It's a logical move from a PR perspective but you don't have to dig very far under the surface to see that things get murky quickly. This issue has its roots in the eighties and no one had bothered to really look at it until this three year investigation produced its summary. That alone has enough information to enable us to paint Apple's tax practices as very dubious but until all sides have presented their cases, the issue at hand could go in any direction. Whatever the outcome of the process (which not doubt will be lengthy), Apple is going to have to shake up how it manages it's international taxes from now on and I'm sure they will be paying a whole lot more pretty soon to avoid a re-run of this investigation.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said on Wednesday that the European Union (EU) is targeting U.S. companies after the European Commission ruled against Apple in a case over the tech giant’s tax dealings with Ireland.
"I have been concerned that it reflected an attempt to reach into the U.S. tax base to tax income that ought to be taxed in the United States," Lew said in response to the decision, Reuters is reporting.
---
Days after the European Union ruled that Apple owed Ireland billions of dollars in back taxes, a senior official at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce accused the group of going after American multinational companies.
"What the EU has done with respect to Apple is extraordinary," Chief Economist J.D. Foster said Thursday per a briefing from the Chamber. "They are clearly targeting U.S. companies, though they also target European companies."
--
The US treasury published a white paper(pdf) Aug. 24 that accuses the European Commission’s competition arm, which investigates tax and anti-trust issues, of acting as a “supra-national tax authority” that second guesses EU member states’ tax arrangements. The paper also said the commission doesn’t have grounds to demand back taxes from previous years and that its current approach undermines global norms on policing tax evasion.
---
Apple, Amazon, Starbucks and McDonald’s are being unfairly targeted by the European Commission over tax avoidance, according to Robert Stack, the US Treasury official in charge of international tax policy.
After meeting with EU competition officials in Brussels on Friday, the Financial Times reportedthat Stack said: “We are concerned that the EU commission appears to be disproportionately targeting US companies.”
---
Yep, no idea where anyone would get the idea that the EU is unfairly targeting US companies. It's not like US treasury officials are credible sources of official US position on what constitutes fair treatment of US corporations.
Brits better beware. They may be next after Brexit:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/29/britain-could-be-next-target-in-the-eus-corporate-tax-fight/
EU officials never seem to run out of sticks with which to beat American multinationals – and they are getting increasingly aggressive in using them.
So systematic has the harassment become that the US is now fighting back, accusing the Europeans or unfairly targeting its corporate giants.
That is wrong in itself – but it also has worrying implications for British businesses. Put simply, we’re next.
It would have been nice if they actually did something to back it up with facts but they didn't put anything on the table to justify the claims. Maybe it's because they can't.
Do you think Volkswagen will get an easier ride because its European?
Then you present the Telegraph! They will always have something nice to say about the EU!
Beyond the claims themselves, can you actually demonstrate anything to back them up?
Yes! The US Treasury is a great credible source for the official US position of what constitutes fair treatment of US companies.
In exactly the same way that Tim Cook is a great credible source for the official Apple position on this tax issue.
The problem is that this has nothing at all to do with 'credible sources' or their 'claims' but if those claims are actually true.
Now, if they actually had something to back those claims up with, I am sure they would have been the first to wave them around.
Have you seen anything? I haven't.
The US Treasury is posturing. It is full of bias and acting politically in the interests of the US and its multinationals. I cannot criticise that (its part of what they have to do - there are political aspects in there, not only monetary) but you will hopefully understand that, in this particular aspect, what they are saying simply lacks credibility.
EDIT: 'extra información
"Earlier this year the Senate finance committee wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Lew to impose a double tax rate on European companies if the Commission ordered Apple to pay back-taxes in Ireland.
“We are writing to you to express our strong concerns regarding the State aid investigations currently being conducted by the European Commission ("EU Commission") of several of its member States regarding tax rulings and advanced pricing arrangements provided to multinational businesses, most of them U.S. firms … We urge Treasury to intensify its efforts to caution the EU Commission not to reach retroactive results that are inconsistent with internationally accepted standards and that the United States views such results as a direct threat to its interests. We also ask that you consider, pursuant to the President's powers under Internal Revenue Code section 891 (which would impose a double rate of tax on citizens and corporations of foreign countries engaging in discriminatory taxation), whether "corporations of the United States are being subjected to discriminatory or extraterritorial taxes."
Source: www.eurofinance.com/news/2016/10/03/eu-tax-bomb-ignited-apple-ruling-what-treasury-needs-know
The Senate Finance Committee stated 'most of them, US firms', not all of them'. Perhaps more telling is the line 'internationally accepted standards'. No mention of actual legislation.
First, the Senate Finance Commitee is an additional branch of the government that is concerned with unequal EU treatment of US companies which negates your own assertion that it's only the treasury "posturing". Never mind the absurd assertion that the us treasury "lacks credibility" (which planet are you on?) or didn't back up their claims after writing a white paper that does exactly that as noted in the quote...which you obviously didn't read.
Second, in that text they (the Senate finance committee) are signaling that they support the use of the nuclear option of imposing double taxes on EU corporations which is an existing authorized Presidential power. No new legislation is required for the US to retaliate. Now President Obama likely never would have invoked IRC section 891 because he is reserved* and his position had always been that the US is the biggest kid on the block and can ignore certain stupidities and provocations that others cannot because everyone knows that, if desired, the biggest kid on the block can pummel your ass if he really gets annoyed with you. Trump is just not that sort of fellow (reserved) and likely not that sort of President (restrained in the use of American might).
So let's just ignore that the Senate Finance Commitee indicated that they consider this EU action against Apple as sufficient casus belli for a tax war against the EU and the use of the nuclear option by POTUS.
Finally, the statement that they believe that the EU is exceeding internationally accepted standards supports my viewpoint not yours.
How you can post that and believe that nobody has any reason whatsoever to believe that the EU is behaving unfairly is beyond me. That the EU ignored these serious warning shots in August and proceeded anyway is simply intransigence on the part of representatives of small countries writing cheques that France and Germany can't cash especially in the light of Brexit and a US President that is friendly toward Putin and hostile toward NATO obligations.
EU apologists should remember that U.K., France and Germany maintain their own G20 (and G8) memberships separate from the EU. If push comes to shove the US can pummel or exempt France and Germany individually and they know it.
--
* Obama was also unlikely to invoke it because of treaty requirements. Trump is nothing if not a wildcard and would likely love the splash it would make.
Then what gives the US Senate the right to complain about some other country/region taxing a US company particularly since they would NOT be double-taxed anyway. We credit our US companies for corporate taxes paid outside of the US, but you are saying we're allowed to double-tax foreign-owned companies. If true we're hardly a beacon of light.
How is this confusing? That the treasury dusted this thing off earlier this year under the Obama administration is an indication that the US is taking the EU action very seriously. Folks call it the nuclear option for a reason.
Then Treasury issued a white paper that described what the EU was doing wrong and if they don't stop the US will respond. The EU didn't stop.
Presumably Obama will do nothing in the last few days and it will be up to Trump to respond. The guy who is a master at tax law and hasn't paid taxes in forever.