Ireland gearing up escrow fund, government supervision for $15.2B tax payment from Apple

Posted:
in AAPL Investors edited July 2017
Nearly a year after the initial declaration, Ireland is making ready to receive a $15.2 billion tax payment from Apple, and hold it in secure escrow until appeals end.




According to a report from Bloomberg, Apple and the Irish government are establishing a fund, and will jointly appoint a custodian to supervise the money. An assortment of appeals are pending, and are expected to take years to resolve.

Apple was supposed to have paid the bill in January, but appeals and a lack of a suitable escrow account have held up the process. It is still not known when the payment will be made.

The investigation into Apple's tax affairs in Ireland ended in August 2016, with the Commission claiming tax rates on Apple's European profits were illegally low, down to 0.005 percent in 2014 and 1 percent in 2003. Ireland was accused of granting "illegal tax benefits" to Apple, and had been "reverse engineered" on the fly to guarantee a minimal tax bill as time progressed.

In December, Apple CEO Tim Cook and other high-level executives were invited to Ireland to discuss the ruling and future action. Cook declined to attend, with Apple citing the legal complexity of the case behind his refusal, a move that Irish politicians considered to be a snub to the citizenry of the country.

Apple, Ireland, and reportedly the U.S. Government are all contesting the ruling, with the Irish government "fundamentally disagreeing" with the findings and resisting the back tax repayments. Apple claims the European Union "took unilateral action and changed the rules, disregarding decades of Irish tax law, U.S. Tax law, as well as global consensus on tax policy."

"The European Commission's case against Ireland has never been about how much Apple pays in taxes, it's about which government gets the money," said Apple spokesman Josh Rosenstock. "The United States government, the Irish government and Apple all agree we've paid our taxes according the law. Since virtually all of our research and development takes place in the United States, according to the law, we pay the majority of our taxes in the U.S."

Apple CEO Tim Cook has also gone on record in opposition to the ruling, and has amplified the company's position on repatriation of the overseas cash at the same time.

"We've said at 40 percent, we're not going to bring it back until there's a fair rate. There's no debate about it. Is that legal to do or not legal to do? It is legal to do. It is the current tax law," said Tim Cook after Lew's filing with the EU. "It's important for everyone to understand that the allegation made in the E.U. is that Ireland gave us a special deal. Ireland denies that."
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37
    This seems extremely premature... Even if Ireland collects the money, any EU country that feels lost taxes to Ireland will be able to reclaim that money from Ireland and trust me, they will. As a result, even if Apple loses their appeal, which is not certain at this point given the verdict handled by French courts in favor of Google against the French government, that money is not staying in Ireland.
    bshank
  • Reply 2 of 37
    sirozhasirozha Posts: 332member
    This is an escrow account. The money will stay in that account until all the appeals are exhausted. No one can claim any money from the account until the matter is fully settled. 
    anton zuykov
  • Reply 3 of 37
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,333member
    There is a lot of damage control in the different comments from Apple representatives.

    I particularly take issue with the line that Apple paid all taxes legally due.

    I think few people doubt that, but one of the potentially most damaging claims from the investigation was that Apple supposedly decided how much was taxable in the first place and then duly paid all taxes on that amount in completely legal fashion.

    So  yes, what they are claiming is technically true, but behind that is the issue of companies deciding for themselves what to make available for taxation.

    One would expect this kind of behaviour (which isn't limited to Apple) will change in the future in the EU as all the investigations conclude and rulings are made which will serve as the basis for new practices. Whether Apple is found to have received what amounts to state aid or not will be decided down the line, but the fact the investigation was formerly concluded and the summary made public has helped to shed more light on the inner workings of multi national companies.

    Tim Cook attended different meetings in Ireland and Brussels with the EU team carrying out the investigation and knows first hand exactly what the case against Apple is based on. Some of those meetings were reportedly 'heated'.

    With a little luck these kinds of investigations will lead to a fairer system in the future.


    mdriftmeyergatorguy
  • Reply 4 of 37
    "According to a report from Bloomberg..."

    How about a link to the Bloomberg piece in the article?  AI is usually pretty good about including the link in the first paragraph, but I can't find it in this article.  I want to read about how a nation couldn't figure out how to set up an escrow account in less than 7 months.
  • Reply 5 of 37

    avon b7 said:
    There is a lot of damage control in the different comments from Apple representatives.

    I particularly take issue with the line that Apple paid all taxes legally due.

    I think few people doubt that, but one of the potentially most damaging claims from the investigation was that Apple supposedly decided how much was taxable in the first place and then duly paid all taxes on that amount in completely legal fashion.

    So  yes, what they are claiming is technically true, but behind that is the issue of companies deciding for themselves what to make available for taxation.

    One would expect this kind of behaviour (which isn't limited to Apple) will change in the future in the EU as all the investigations conclude and rulings are made which will serve as the basis for new practices. Whether Apple is found to have received what amounts to state aid or not will be decided down the line, but the fact the investigation was formerly concluded and the summary made public has helped to shed more light on the inner workings of multi national companies.

    Tim Cook attended different meetings in Ireland and Brussels with the EU team carrying out the investigation and knows first hand exactly what the case against Apple is based on. Some of those meetings were reportedly 'heated'.

    With a little luck these kinds of investigations will lead to a fairer system in the future.
    Are their any corporate tax systems anywhere that aren't based on companies applying accounting rules to determine themselves how much taxes they pay?  Corporate finances are incredibly complex for multinational corporations.  Of course corporations do these calculations themselves, but to say that they "decide for themselves what to make available for taxation" is disingenuous.  When some tax authority decides that the company didn't calculate things corrected, they get called on it (as has happened here).  The odd part of the this case is that it's the EU who's complaining rather than the jurisdiction who is owned (or isn't owed) the money.
    bshank
  • Reply 6 of 37
    slprescottslprescott Posts: 737member
    What happens to the interest that accrues in the escrow account?  With $15B in principal, each 1% of interest = $150 million.  Alternatively -- if it does not accrue interest -- then that's a huge opportunity cost for other ways that Apple could have used the money.
    bshank
  • Reply 7 of 37
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,333member

    avon b7 said:
    There is a lot of damage control in the different comments from Apple representatives.

    I particularly take issue with the line that Apple paid all taxes legally due.

    I think few people doubt that, but one of the potentially most damaging claims from the investigation was that Apple supposedly decided how much was taxable in the first place and then duly paid all taxes on that amount in completely legal fashion.

    So  yes, what they are claiming is technically true, but behind that is the issue of companies deciding for themselves what to make available for taxation.

    One would expect this kind of behaviour (which isn't limited to Apple) will change in the future in the EU as all the investigations conclude and rulings are made which will serve as the basis for new practices. Whether Apple is found to have received what amounts to state aid or not will be decided down the line, but the fact the investigation was formerly concluded and the summary made public has helped to shed more light on the inner workings of multi national companies.

    Tim Cook attended different meetings in Ireland and Brussels with the EU team carrying out the investigation and knows first hand exactly what the case against Apple is based on. Some of those meetings were reportedly 'heated'.

    With a little luck these kinds of investigations will lead to a fairer system in the future.
    Are their any corporate tax systems anywhere that aren't based on companies applying accounting rules to determine themselves how much taxes they pay?  Corporate finances are incredibly complex for multinational corporations.  Of course corporations do these calculations themselves, but to say that they "decide for themselves what to make available for taxation" is disingenuous.  When some tax authority decides that the company didn't calculate things corrected, they get called on it (as has happened here).  The odd part of the this case is that it's the EU who's complaining rather than the jurisdiction who is owned (or isn't owed) the money.
    Complexity yes. Rules, definitely.

    It seems like ages ago that I read the summary of the investigation but if I recall correctly it was almost as if Apple was making its own rules.

    Although it's Bloomberg, this article is a nice read to get a feel of what has happened along the timeline.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-16/the-inside-story-of-apple-s-14-billion-tax-bill

    Also, huge companies have actively added to the complexity of some operations, no doubt with the idea of making things difficult to unravel.

    These kinds of long investigations play a positive role in reigning in part of these practices independently of the final rulings.

    Apple has already changed how it operates in Ireland although the reasons for change vart depending on who you listen to.
    edited July 2017
  • Reply 8 of 37
    avon b7 said:
    but if I recall correctly it was almost as if Apple was making its own rules.
    It appears you almost have said truth...
    But, what does it actually mean? You can't be "almost making rules". You either break the law, or you do not. You can't "almost" break it. It is a binary outcome, just like "being pregnant" is...
    randominternetpersonbshank
  • Reply 9 of 37
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,333member
    avon b7 said:
    but if I recall correctly it was almost as if Apple was making its own rules.
    It appears you almost have said truth...
    But, what does it actually mean? You can't be "almost making rules". You either break the law, or you do not. You can't "almost" break it. It is a binary outcome, just like "being pregnant" is...
    Not 'almost breaking rules' but 'almost as if...' . That's where the binary aspect gets lost.

    Due to the complexity of the underlying case and only having read a summary (lacking fine detail) there is a degree of interpretation involved.
    edited July 2017
  • Reply 10 of 37
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,113member
    avon b7 said:
    There is a lot of damage control in the different comments from Apple representatives.

    I particularly take issue with the line that Apple paid all taxes legally due.

    I think few people doubt that, but one of the potentially most damaging claims from the investigation was that Apple supposedly decided how much was taxable in the first place and then duly paid all taxes on that amount in completely legal fashion.

    So  yes, what they are claiming is technically true, but behind that is the issue of companies deciding for themselves what to make available for taxation.

    One would expect this kind of behaviour (which isn't limited to Apple) will change in the future in the EU as all the investigations conclude and rulings are made which will serve as the basis for new practices. Whether Apple is found to have received what amounts to state aid or not will be decided down the line, but the fact the investigation was formerly concluded and the summary made public has helped to shed more light on the inner workings of multi national companies.

    Tim Cook attended different meetings in Ireland and Brussels with the EU team carrying out the investigation and knows first hand exactly what the case against Apple is based on. Some of those meetings were reportedly 'heated'.

    With a little luck these kinds of investigations will lead to a fairer system in the future.


    Apple invented this scheme in the pre-Jobs 2.0 era and was acting on it ever since. It is one of the most repugnant stunts of tax evasion the world over. Many conglomerates leveraged that stunt with Ireland and they should all pay duly for it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement


  • Reply 11 of 37
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,333member
    sog35 said:
    avon b7 said:
    There is a lot of damage control in the different comments from Apple representatives.

    I particularly take issue with the line that Apple paid all taxes legally due.

    I think few people doubt that, but one of the potentially most damaging claims from the investigation was that Apple supposedly decided how much was taxable in the first place and then duly paid all taxes on that amount in completely legal fashion.

    So  yes, what they are claiming is technically true, but behind that is the issue of companies deciding for themselves what to make available for taxation.

    One would expect this kind of behaviour (which isn't limited to Apple) will change in the future in the EU as all the investigations conclude and rulings are made which will serve as the basis for new practices. Whether Apple is found to have received what amounts to state aid or not will be decided down the line, but the fact the investigation was formerly concluded and the summary made public has helped to shed more light on the inner workings of multi national companies.

    Tim Cook attended different meetings in Ireland and Brussels with the EU team carrying out the investigation and knows first hand exactly what the case against Apple is based on. Some of those meetings were reportedly 'heated'.

    With a little luck these kinds of investigations will lead to a fairer system in the future.


    Apple invented this scheme in the pre-Jobs 2.0 era and was acting on it ever since. It is one of the most repugnant stunts of tax evasion the world over. Many conglomerates leveraged that stunt with Ireland and they should all pay duly for it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement


    wrong.

    change the tax law.  Apple followed the law.
    The whole point is that the law must be interpreted when issues are so complex. If your tax affairs are relatively simple your tax return may be equally simple and legally clear cut.

    However, if you design systems to exploit loopholes, grey areas or in some cases just don't enter the spirit of the law, then you may end up on the receiving end of a court or revenue body ruling with fines etc. This can also happen when you screw something up in good faith.

    The question of the EU investigation will be resolved down the line but a message has been sent loud and clear and it will definitely have some impact. I am convinced of that.

    Remember, we are talking about hundreds of companies (not only Apple and not only US) who are being investigated. The repercussions will be notable.


  • Reply 12 of 37
    pbruttopbrutto Posts: 24member
    sog35 said:
    avon b7 said:
    There is a lot of damage control in the different comments from Apple representatives.

    I particularly take issue with the line that Apple paid all taxes legally due.

    I think few people doubt that, but one of the potentially most damaging claims from the investigation was that Apple supposedly decided how much was taxable in the first place and then duly paid all taxes on that amount in completely legal fashion.

    So  yes, what they are claiming is technically true, but behind that is the issue of companies deciding for themselves what to make available for taxation.

    One would expect this kind of behaviour (which isn't limited to Apple) will change in the future in the EU as all the investigations conclude and rulings are made which will serve as the basis for new practices. Whether Apple is found to have received what amounts to state aid or not will be decided down the line, but the fact the investigation was formerly concluded and the summary made public has helped to shed more light on the inner workings of multi national companies.

    Tim Cook attended different meetings in Ireland and Brussels with the EU team carrying out the investigation and knows first hand exactly what the case against Apple is based on. Some of those meetings were reportedly 'heated'.

    With a little luck these kinds of investigations will lead to a fairer system in the future.


    Apple invented this scheme in the pre-Jobs 2.0 era and was acting on it ever since. It is one of the most repugnant stunts of tax evasion the world over. Many conglomerates leveraged that stunt with Ireland and they should all pay duly for it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement


    wrong.

    change the tax law.  Apple followed the law.
    Gotta agree, if the law was suddenly a problem, and Apple appeared to be following it, then they owe nothing. That would be like my home state saying sales tax is up 1% now and we all owe back taxes for the 1%.
    bshank
  • Reply 13 of 37
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 2,887administrator
    "According to a report from Bloomberg..."

    How about a link to the Bloomberg piece in the article?  AI is usually pretty good about including the link in the first paragraph, but I can't find it in this article.  I want to read about how a nation couldn't figure out how to set up an escrow account in less than 7 months.
    Oops, sorry. Missed it. Included now in the piece, and...

    edited July 2017 randominternetpersonbshank
  • Reply 14 of 37
    avon b7 said:
    sog35 said:
    avon b7 said:
    There is a lot of damage control in the different comments from Apple representatives.

    I particularly take issue with the line that Apple paid all taxes legally due.

    I think few people doubt that, but one of the potentially most damaging claims from the investigation was that Apple supposedly decided how much was taxable in the first place and then duly paid all taxes on that amount in completely legal fashion.

    So  yes, what they are claiming is technically true, but behind that is the issue of companies deciding for themselves what to make available for taxation.

    One would expect this kind of behaviour (which isn't limited to Apple) will change in the future in the EU as all the investigations conclude and rulings are made which will serve as the basis for new practices. Whether Apple is found to have received what amounts to state aid or not will be decided down the line, but the fact the investigation was formerly concluded and the summary made public has helped to shed more light on the inner workings of multi national companies.

    Tim Cook attended different meetings in Ireland and Brussels with the EU team carrying out the investigation and knows first hand exactly what the case against Apple is based on. Some of those meetings were reportedly 'heated'.

    With a little luck these kinds of investigations will lead to a fairer system in the future.


    Apple invented this scheme in the pre-Jobs 2.0 era and was acting on it ever since. It is one of the most repugnant stunts of tax evasion the world over. Many conglomerates leveraged that stunt with Ireland and they should all pay duly for it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement


    wrong.

    change the tax law.  Apple followed the law.
    The whole point is that the law must be interpreted when issues are so complex. If your tax affairs are relatively simple your tax return may be equally simple and legally clear cut.

    However, if you design systems to exploit loopholes, grey areas or in some cases just don't enter the spirit of the law, then you may end up on the receiving end of a court or revenue body ruling with fines etc
    Sure. The spirit of the law says that a company needs to be taxed and pay taxes according to the rules. Apple did. Now, if the rules were written in a shitty way to allow loopholes, you wrote shitty rules. But that is not the problem of that company.
    BTW, you are "not allowed" to change those rules retroactively, affecting already taxed revenue. In principle, you can do that, but in practice - good luck with trying to keep business in your country, if you decide to go that route.
    edited July 2017 randominternetperson
  • Reply 15 of 37
    avon b7 said:
    sog35 said:
    avon b7 said:
    There is a lot of damage control in the different comments from Apple representatives.

    I particularly take issue with the line that Apple paid all taxes legally due.

    I think few people doubt that, but one of the potentially most damaging claims from the investigation was that Apple supposedly decided how much was taxable in the first place and then duly paid all taxes on that amount in completely legal fashion.

    So  yes, what they are claiming is technically true, but behind that is the issue of companies deciding for themselves what to make available for taxation.

    One would expect this kind of behaviour (which isn't limited to Apple) will change in the future in the EU as all the investigations conclude and rulings are made which will serve as the basis for new practices. Whether Apple is found to have received what amounts to state aid or not will be decided down the line, but the fact the investigation was formerly concluded and the summary made public has helped to shed more light on the inner workings of multi national companies.

    Tim Cook attended different meetings in Ireland and Brussels with the EU team carrying out the investigation and knows first hand exactly what the case against Apple is based on. Some of those meetings were reportedly 'heated'.

    With a little luck these kinds of investigations will lead to a fairer system in the future.


    Apple invented this scheme in the pre-Jobs 2.0 era and was acting on it ever since. It is one of the most repugnant stunts of tax evasion the world over. Many conglomerates leveraged that stunt with Ireland and they should all pay duly for it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement


    wrong.

    change the tax law.  Apple followed the law.
    The whole point is that the law must be interpreted when issues are so complex. If your tax affairs are relatively simple your tax return may be equally simple and legally clear cut.

    However, if you design systems to exploit loopholes, grey areas or in some cases just don't enter the spirit of the law, then you may end up on the receiving end of a court or revenue body ruling with fines etc
    Sure. The spirit of the law says that a company needs to be taxed and pay taxes according to the rules. Apple did. Now, if the rules were written in a shitty way to allow loopholes, you wrote shitty rules. But that is not the problem of that company.
    BTW, you are "not allowed" to change those rules retroactively, affecting already taxed revenue. In principle, you can do that, but in practice - good luck with trying to keep business in your country, if you decide to go that route.
    Such changes are called Ex Post Facto laws, and are illegal in most jurisdictions (including Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#Republic_of_Ireland Is that the right Ireland?).
    bshankanton zuykov
  • Reply 16 of 37
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,347member
    avon b7 said:
    sog35 said:
    avon b7 said:
    There is a lot of damage control in the different comments from Apple representatives.

    I particularly take issue with the line that Apple paid all taxes legally due.

    I think few people doubt that, but one of the potentially most damaging claims from the investigation was that Apple supposedly decided how much was taxable in the first place and then duly paid all taxes on that amount in completely legal fashion.

    So  yes, what they are claiming is technically true, but behind that is the issue of companies deciding for themselves what to make available for taxation.

    One would expect this kind of behaviour (which isn't limited to Apple) will change in the future in the EU as all the investigations conclude and rulings are made which will serve as the basis for new practices. Whether Apple is found to have received what amounts to state aid or not will be decided down the line, but the fact the investigation was formerly concluded and the summary made public has helped to shed more light on the inner workings of multi national companies.

    Tim Cook attended different meetings in Ireland and Brussels with the EU team carrying out the investigation and knows first hand exactly what the case against Apple is based on. Some of those meetings were reportedly 'heated'.

    With a little luck these kinds of investigations will lead to a fairer system in the future.


    Apple invented this scheme in the pre-Jobs 2.0 era and was acting on it ever since. It is one of the most repugnant stunts of tax evasion the world over. Many conglomerates leveraged that stunt with Ireland and they should all pay duly for it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement


    wrong.

    change the tax law.  Apple followed the law.
    The whole point is that the law must be interpreted when issues are so complex. If your tax affairs are relatively simple your tax return may be equally simple and legally clear cut.

    However, if you design systems to exploit loopholes, grey areas or in some cases just don't enter the spirit of the law, then you may end up on the receiving end of a court or revenue body ruling with fines etc
    Sure. The spirit of the law says that a company needs to be taxed and pay taxes according to the rules. Apple did. Now, if the rules were written in a shitty way to allow loopholes, you wrote shitty rules. But that is not the problem of that company.
    BTW, you are "not allowed" to change those rules retroactively, affecting already taxed revenue. In principle, you can do that, but in practice - good luck with trying to keep business in your country, if you decide to go that route.
    Such changes are called Ex Post Facto laws, and are illegal in most jurisdictions (including Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#Republic_of_Ireland Is that the right Ireland?).
    Does EU law supersede Ireland's laws?

    And I've just answered my own question... Yes, it does! In short, Apple is screwed.

    http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-legal-principles/eu-law-does-european-law-override-national-law.html
    edited July 2017
  • Reply 17 of 37
    isidoreisidore Posts: 45member
    Maybe but not over domestic policy and definitely not over taxation- the EU has absolutely no authority over national taxation- thus is essentially what this dispute is about, a land grab by the EU over national taxation policy. 
    bshankanton zuykov
  • Reply 18 of 37
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,333member
    avon b7 said:
    sog35 said:
    avon b7 said:
    There is a lot of damage control in the different comments from Apple representatives.

    I particularly take issue with the line that Apple paid all taxes legally due.

    I think few people doubt that, but one of the potentially most damaging claims from the investigation was that Apple supposedly decided how much was taxable in the first place and then duly paid all taxes on that amount in completely legal fashion.

    So  yes, what they are claiming is technically true, but behind that is the issue of companies deciding for themselves what to make available for taxation.

    One would expect this kind of behaviour (which isn't limited to Apple) will change in the future in the EU as all the investigations conclude and rulings are made which will serve as the basis for new practices. Whether Apple is found to have received what amounts to state aid or not will be decided down the line, but the fact the investigation was formerly concluded and the summary made public has helped to shed more light on the inner workings of multi national companies.

    Tim Cook attended different meetings in Ireland and Brussels with the EU team carrying out the investigation and knows first hand exactly what the case against Apple is based on. Some of those meetings were reportedly 'heated'.

    With a little luck these kinds of investigations will lead to a fairer system in the future.


    Apple invented this scheme in the pre-Jobs 2.0 era and was acting on it ever since. It is one of the most repugnant stunts of tax evasion the world over. Many conglomerates leveraged that stunt with Ireland and they should all pay duly for it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement


    wrong.

    change the tax law.  Apple followed the law.
    The whole point is that the law must be interpreted when issues are so complex. If your tax affairs are relatively simple your tax return may be equally simple and legally clear cut.

    However, if you design systems to exploit loopholes, grey areas or in some cases just don't enter the spirit of the law, then you may end up on the receiving end of a court or revenue body ruling with fines etc
    Sure. The spirit of the law says that a company needs to be taxed and pay taxes according to the rules. Apple did. Now, if the rules were written in a shitty way to allow loopholes, you wrote shitty rules. But that is not the problem of that company.
    BTW, you are "not allowed" to change those rules retroactively, affecting already taxed revenue. In principle, you can do that, but in practice - good luck with trying to keep business in your country, if you decide to go that route.
    Shitty laws exist but the whole process is designed to provide for refinement when something isn't as solid as it should be out of the gate. Add on that the interpretation required when many complex cases eventually get to court/review and you realise that a judge, civil servant or tribunal may disagree with what you had considered valid.

    It seems that in the case of Apple, agreements were made that, today, few people remember very well and those agreements went largely unchanged for years. As Apple grew, those agreements probably should have been re-evaluated to tune them with the times. Slowly, a dot appeared on the radar and someone got around to looking at it. Perhaps, if Apple hadn't​ become what it is today, it would have found itself far down the list of candidates for investigation.

    It will be easy to track Apple's​ accounting response to this question. They have paid so little in terms of taxes that any marked increase in future returns will get a lot of attention.
  • Reply 19 of 37
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,347member
    isidore said:
    Maybe but not over domestic policy and definitely not over taxation- the EU has absolutely no authority over national taxation- thus is essentially what this dispute is about, a land grab by the EU over national taxation policy. 
    If I were the Irish people, I'd want out of the EU. They'll remain a very attractive place for businesses to invest and locate if they maintain a very low rate of taxation. If they lose that advantage, the country is just going to be another whipping boy for the EU.
    bshank
  • Reply 20 of 37
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,575member
    isidore said:
    Maybe but not over domestic policy and definitely not over taxation- the EU has absolutely no authority over national taxation- thus is essentially what this dispute is about, a land grab by the EU over national taxation policy. 
    If I were the Irish people, I'd want out of the EU. They'll remain a very attractive place for businesses to invest and locate if they maintain a very low rate of taxation. If they lose that advantage, the country is just going to be another whipping boy for the EU.
    Which demonstrates your supreme ignorance on the matter.  Ireland is attractive for foreign businesses only because they are a member of the EU. Setting up business in Ireland gives you immediate and open access to all the EU countries.  No customs duties, no laborious border checks, no nothing.  If Ireland leaves the EU, nobody, NOBODY, from outside Ireland will set up their European base of operations there.  Even if Ireland pays them.

    You ask any Irish person, none of them will want to leave the EU.  They all know that EU membership has benefited them immensely.  Not only economically but also in maintaining peace for their brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland.

    And on top of all that, Ireland is a net recipient of EU funds.  They get more than they pay into the EU.
    edited July 2017 spheric
Sign In or Register to comment.