I think all the posters above have fallen into the fallacy that Tim Cook and only Tim Cook can speak (or in this case: answer) for Apple. Apple has over 100,000 employees for Christ's sake.
In my opinion there is absolutely no reason Apple could have not sent representatives there ( and a group of attorneys). Keep in mind there would be no obligation to say anything.
The damage done by not attending sends a strong message "Apple only kept money in Ireland because it was a way to avoid paying taxes, Apple cares little, and has no respect for Ireland other than it was a tax shelter."
Apple is in a hard place. They have reported substantial bottom line profits by avoiding paying taxes by using various loop holes -- such as routing revenue through places like Ireland. Meanwhile the places where that revenue was actually earned are rightly saying that they want Apple to pay the taxes it owes to them...
So, what's an Apple to do?
Their allegiance is to their product, their customers and their stockholders (not necessarily in that order). Yet these pesky countries where they make their money want them to pay taxes so they can support the countries where that revenue was made... It's so confusing...
The Irish Government and Apple are totally of the same viewpoint as are virtually the entire nation - These comments are made by two left wing Politicians who are perpetually on the airways and love the sound of their voices -
This may be a failure by the Irish politicians to understand US law. If Cook et al. are discussing issues with the US authorities, they will not want to blow any privilege attaching to communications with their lawyers concerning those discussions. Talking openly, even in generalities, has been held to blow the privilege of all such communications. Much safer to say nothing than to inadvertently handicap yourself by giving away privileged information.
Help me to understand what on earth this has to do with US Law please.
As I understand it, the tax liability exists for earnings in the past and is based on and determined by EU regulations and Irish tax law for the relevant period in the past.
Apple is also in discussion with US authorities regarding its tax liabilities. It gets advice from its lawyers regarding those liabilities and the myriad of possible claims and counter-claims being made by the EU, many of its member countries including Ireland, and the US. Don't forget that a number of other EU countries have made claims against Apple regarding tax. The advice Apple gets from its lawyers is privileged - it can't be forced to disclose what it discusses with its lawyers. But if Apple voluntarily tells other people any of that information, the privilege is blown and the US authorities can force Apple to disclose the full amount of the advice it is getting from its lawyers. US law has held that even a tenuous connection between the information it discloses to information wanted by a US litigant (including the Fed) is enough to blow the privilege.
Meh. The bill to repatriate those overseas billions will pass quickly after Trump takes office and many companies will take advantage of the 10% tax. If Ireland continues to buckle under and do the EU's bidding, they deserve to lose every single company that unwisely decided to locate there.
They wanted 5% from Obama. What makes you think they'll take 10% from Trump?
I don't recall anyone in the Obama administration making any such offer. I do remember Rand Paul writing a proposal, which he then got Barbara Boxer to join in on and that rate was 6.5%. It didn't go anywhere under Obama.
Meh. The bill to repatriate those overseas billions will pass quickly after Trump takes office and many companies will take advantage of the 10% tax. If Ireland continues to buckle under and do the EU's bidding, they deserve to lose every single company that unwisely decided to locate there.
They wanted 5% from Obama. What makes you think they'll take 10% from Trump?
I don't recall anyone in the Obama administration making any such offer. I do remember Rand Paul writing a proposal, which he then got Barbara Boxer to join in on and that rate was 6.5%. It didn't go anywhere under Obama.
The current rate is 35%. Ten percent would be very attractive in light of the EU coming for this money with teeth bared.
I don't personally believe even at 10% that Apple would "bring it all home" anyway. At least until very recently Apple had made it clear via their financial statements that they had no intention of ever paying US taxes on most of their foreign-owned cash under any foreseeable circumstances.
This may be a failure by the Irish politicians to understand US law. If Cook et al. are discussing issues with the US authorities, they will not want to blow any privilege attaching to communications with their lawyers concerning those discussions. Talking openly, even in generalities, has been held to blow the privilege of all such communications. Much safer to say nothing than to inadvertently handicap yourself by giving away privileged information.
Help me to understand what on earth this has to do with US Law please.
As I understand it, the tax liability exists for earnings in the past and is based on and determined by EU regulations and Irish tax law for the relevant period in the past.
Apple is also in discussion with US authorities regarding its tax liabilities. It gets advice from its lawyers regarding those liabilities and the myriad of possible claims and counter-claims being made by the EU, many of its member countries including Ireland, and the US. Don't forget that a number of other EU countries have made claims against Apple regarding tax. The advice Apple gets from its lawyers is privileged - it can't be forced to disclose what it discusses with its lawyers. But if Apple voluntarily tells other people any of that information, the privilege is blown and the US authorities can force Apple to disclose the full amount of the advice it is getting from its lawyers. US law has held that even a tenuous connection between the information it discloses to information wanted by a US litigant (including the Fed) is enough to blow the privilege.
Thanks ! Now I can see the reasoning behind the position.
I don't personally believe even at 10% that Apple would "bring it all home" anyway. At least until very recently Apple had made it clear via their financial statements that they had no intention of ever paying US taxes on most of their foreign-owned cash under any foreseeable circumstances.
None of us can make a prediction on how much Apple will bring back, but Cook has said: (i) that he expects to bring back cash to the US in 2017; (ii) that a rate of around 25% (in the aggregate) is acceptable to Apple. So if it's a one-time "bring it back at 10% tax" (which, as you know, is on top of taxes already paid abroad), that would be well under that target 25%.
Problem is that Ireland was for many decades a poverty stricken backwater. It joined the EU and received billions of euros in aid from the likes of Germany and France then used that aid to set up artificially low tax rates and poach business from other countries, and as an incentive to operate there in the first place. The EU has every right to slap them down, along with the companies that took advantage of the two-faced Irish policies.
Problem is that Ireland was for many decades a poverty stricken backwater. It joined the EU and received billions of euros in aid from the likes of Germany and France then used that aid to set up artificially low tax rates and poach business from other countries, and as an incentive to operate there in the first place. The EU has every right to slap them down, along with the companies that took advantage of the two-faced Irish policies.
This is the crux of the issue. consequently, apple must pull back after explaining/pleading it's rationale to the powers that be. success for all depends on continuity on the playing field. Those who gained from the disparity realize balance needs to prevail and they quietly relent. And learn from the experience. all will gain from this realignment and 'good will' will eventually prevail.
I think people here are missing the main cause of this... Sinn Fein are, underneath their nationalist facade, a deeply Marxist political party. Along with the Irish Labour party, also left wing socialist, they are seeking to make political hay and Apple is simply a convenient political scapegoat. For them, anything that casts Apple in a bad light and gains the exchequer those €14bn is a good thing. As is normal with socialists and marxists, private enterprise is a 'bad thing', especially if it's successful. These people aren't the government of Ireland though, and the actual government is on Apple's side - recognising, as they do, that Apple is still a net benefit to Irish society, regardless of those supposed unpaid billions the EU Commission believes exist...
Additionally, that Tim Cook should be expected to represent Apple at Irish parliamentary hearings, when he's not necessarily an expert in Irish tax law or EU rulings and the jurisdictional competencies of the Irish government versus the European Commission is simply a non-starter.
As a Brit, all I can say to this is 'roll on Brexit'. I'm sure a newly independent Britain would be only too keen to entice Apple to hop over the Irish Sea if things don't go Apple (and the Irish government)'s way!
Edit:::
Oh, and Ireland is actually a net contributor to the EU overall budget. Their policies aren't 'two faced' and the EU is the one trying to cream off more.
The tax bill is from the EU not Ireland. The Irish government is trying to appeal it as well. Apparently, the Irish government gave Apple a tax break for many years. The EU has determined that's against their rules. It's a prickly mess because the UK is exiting the EU but Ireland has stated they wish to stay in the EU. The Sinn Fein political party has or had ties to the IRA who were considered terrorists by the British for blowing up buildings, shooting British soldiers and such. The IRA ran guns and led an armed resistance against the UK. They are likely the ones behind the goal of staying in the EU as a means of leverage against the UK. Sinn Fein has immense political power in Northern Ireland and they are well represented in parliament. Sinn Fein considers itself a workers party so that's where the comment about talking to your Ireland Apple employees plays into the scenario.
American's have little information on this whole mess and Apple Legal is correct in telling Jobs to not show up. Apple needs to keep its distance as it is extremely volatile.
The tax bill is from the EU not Ireland. The Irish government is trying to appeal it as well. Apparently, the Irish government gave Apple a tax break for many years. The EU has determined that's against their rules. It's a prickly mess because the UK is exiting the EU but Ireland has stated they wish to stay in the EU. The Sinn Fein political party has or had ties to the IRA who were considered terrorists by the British for blowing up buildings, shooting British soldiers and such. The IRA ran guns and led an armed resistance against the UK. They are likely the ones behind the goal of staying in the EU as a means of leverage against the UK. Sinn Fein has immense political power in Northern Ireland and they are well represented in parliament. Sinn Fein considers itself a workers party so that's where the comment about talking to your Ireland Apple employees plays into the scenario.
American's have little information on this whole mess and Apple Legal is correct in telling Jobs to not show up. Apple needs to keep its distance as it is extremely volatile.
Are you aware that Ireland is a distinct country than UK and it already pertains to the EU?
The tax bill is from the EU not Ireland. The Irish government is trying to appeal it as well. Apparently, the Irish government gave Apple a tax break for many years. The EU has determined that's against their rules. It's a prickly mess because the UK is exiting the EU but Ireland has stated they wish to stay in the EU. The Sinn Fein political party has or had ties to the IRA who were considered terrorists by the British for blowing up buildings, shooting British soldiers and such. The IRA ran guns and led an armed resistance against the UK. They are likely the ones behind the goal of staying in the EU as a means of leverage against the UK. Sinn Fein has immense political power in Northern Ireland and they are well represented in parliament. Sinn Fein considers itself a workers party so that's where the comment about talking to your Ireland Apple employees plays into the scenario.
American's have little information on this whole mess and Apple Legal is correct in telling Jobs to not show up. Apple needs to keep its distance as it is extremely volatile.
I know it was an innocent mental slip, but if Jobs showed up, that would surely put the cat amongst the pigeons.
TC is probably right to turn the invitation down and not send representation.
Although his initial response to the Commission's claims was a PR manoeuvre ('we did nothing wrong', 'everything is legal', 'political crap' etc), there was another side that wasn't so clear and he was perfectly aware of it.
The investigation lasted three years. Tim Cook has had more than one face to face meeting in Ireland with the people leading the investigation. It seems some of the encounters were tense. The EU has uncovered tax practices that do not leave Apple in good light. This wouldn't be so much of an issue if TC had not gone on record as defending the 'values' Apple upholds. This is one good reason he was probably right to turn the invitation down. Any phrase, as innocent as it might seem, could swing around and hit you hard when least you expect it.
In the public eye, what is probably worse than Apple paying very low taxes, is the fact that Apple's accounting practices were seemingly designed to allow them to decide how much to make available for taxation. That will be very hard to defend if proved true. Yes, it's PR but PR is very important to Apple.
Another problem will be getting to the bottom of how any deals with Ireland were reached in the first place. They pre date TC by many years. Perhaps Fred Anderson could shed some light on that. I have a feeling that any formal agreements that may exist probably won't show Apple in good light either although when they were taken, the world and Apple were very different to how they are now. We might be able to understand how any deals came to be but probably wouldn't understand how they were not revised over the years.
Comments
In my opinion there is absolutely no reason Apple could have not sent representatives there ( and a group of attorneys). Keep in mind there would be no obligation to say anything.
The damage done by not attending sends a strong message "Apple only kept money in Ireland because it was a way to avoid paying taxes, Apple cares little, and has no respect for Ireland other than it was a tax shelter."
Declining is absolutely the right move.
So, what's an Apple to do?
Their allegiance is to their product, their customers and their stockholders (not necessarily in that order). Yet these pesky countries where they make their money want them to pay taxes so they can support the countries where that revenue was made... It's so confusing...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-29/corporate-tax-holiday-to-fund-highways-gets-boost-in-u-s-senate
The current rate is 35%. Ten percent would be very attractive in light of the EU coming for this money with teeth bared.
consequently, apple must pull back after explaining/pleading it's rationale to the powers that be.
success for all depends on continuity on the playing field.
Those who gained from the disparity realize balance needs to prevail and they quietly relent. And learn from the experience.
all will gain from this realignment and 'good will' will eventually prevail.
Additionally, that Tim Cook should be expected to represent Apple at Irish parliamentary hearings, when he's not necessarily an expert in Irish tax law or EU rulings and the jurisdictional competencies of the Irish government versus the European Commission is simply a non-starter.
As a Brit, all I can say to this is 'roll on Brexit'. I'm sure a newly independent Britain would be only too keen to entice Apple to hop over the Irish Sea if things don't go Apple (and the Irish government)'s way!
Edit:::
Oh, and Ireland is actually a net contributor to the EU overall budget. Their policies aren't 'two faced' and the EU is the one trying to cream off more.
American's have little information on this whole mess and Apple Legal is correct in telling Jobs to not show up. Apple needs to keep its distance as it is extremely volatile.
Although his initial response to the Commission's claims was a PR manoeuvre ('we did nothing wrong', 'everything is legal', 'political crap' etc), there was another side that wasn't so clear and he was perfectly aware of it.
The investigation lasted three years. Tim Cook has had more than one face to face meeting in Ireland with the people leading the investigation. It seems some of the encounters were tense. The EU has uncovered tax practices that do not leave Apple in good light. This wouldn't be so much of an issue if TC had not gone on record as defending the 'values' Apple upholds. This is one good reason he was probably right to turn the invitation down. Any phrase, as innocent as it might seem, could swing around and hit you hard when least you expect it.
In the public eye, what is probably worse than Apple paying very low taxes, is the fact that Apple's accounting practices were seemingly designed to allow them to decide how much to make available for taxation. That will be very hard to defend if proved true. Yes, it's PR but PR is very important to Apple.
Another problem will be getting to the bottom of how any deals with Ireland were reached in the first place. They pre date TC by many years. Perhaps Fred Anderson could shed some light on that. I have a feeling that any formal agreements that may exist probably won't show Apple in good light either although when they were taken, the world and Apple were very different to how they are now. We might be able to understand how any deals came to be but probably wouldn't understand how they were not revised over the years.