Apple seems to be making the same mistake it made with the Irish - EU problem.
Stating the amount of money it has paid out (either through taxes or to developers) is irrelevant to the issues that are being posed.
BS, it is COMPLETELY relevant as it illustrates just how much they are paying out to devs there!
And Apple didn't make ANY mistake with the Ireland / EU situation (not problem), as they followed the rules as provided by Ireland, like anyone would if such rules were deemed applicable and legal.
The fact the EU suddenly changed their mind because they weren't getting a big enough share of the pie is just the EU being a bunch of putzes.
And this whole business with the French taking Apple and Google to task for this nonsense is just the French being more obtuse than normal.
You need to re-read both cases.
In the Irish case the investigators found that it was effectively Apple itself that decided how much to make available for taxation. For one particular year it is claimed that Apple paid an effective tax rate of 0.005%. Countering that we 'but we pay more taxes than anyone else' is utterly irrelevant.
In this French case I don't think the final amounts actually paid to developers was even mentioned. The issue is 'abusive business practices'.
If you say the sky is purple enough times some people might actually start to believe you. Between Trump and this new EU approach I guess we’re in the new age of unsophisticated propaganda
I haven't jumped to any conclusions on this case or the EU and taxes, so no one needs to believe me. In fact, I've made it clear that first the case has to be heard and Apple has to put forward it's defence.
What I have made clear is that if you really find it necessary to defend yourself in the realm of public opinion, if someone claims you decided for yourself how much to make available for taxation and the claimed percentage paid in an example was as low as 0.005%, then you take that bull by the horns and set the record straight in a clear and concise way.
What you don't do is play the 'values' card ('Apple believes in...' and follow it up with the 'victim' card ('we pay more taxes than anyone else') because the simple fact that you didn't counter the claims head on with anything bulletproof gets people's noses up and what they smell isn't usually roses and you have that hanging over your head in the public domain until the case is resolved.
You also leave yourself open to further damage if anything else floats to the surface (just as it did with the Panama Papers) and find people wanting you to give answers on that too.
It is far better to ride the storm and see how things play out. That way at least, things don't get worse from a PR perspective.
If Apple is going to have to go to court they are not going to put all of that info in the public domain. No person or company in their right mind would. The broader public would also be bored to tears by the details and that would likely not create the dramatic impact you’re implying it would anyway because of this.
It was two simple points (Apple reportedly paid an effective rate of 0.005% and the amount the company made available for taxation was decided by the company itself).
Nothing complex or even boring. Those are details that provoke curiosity among the general public. Two simple 'nos' would suffice.
If the claims are in fact true but lacking context a simple 'no comment' by legal representation would suffice on the grounds that the case is complex.
That's a bad situation to be in because many of the general public would see a 'no comment' as an admission of guilt but attempting to defend yourself publicly the way Apple did can open a can of worms.
Apple released the numbers which are already public information which demonstrates they paid the required 12%. Some people simply do not want to believe that, do not understand taxes, or both.
Apple seems to be making the same mistake it made with the Irish - EU problem.
Stating the amount of money it has paid out (either through taxes or to developers) is irrelevant to the issues that are being posed.
BS, it is COMPLETELY relevant as it illustrates just how much they are paying out to devs there!
And Apple didn't make ANY mistake with the Ireland / EU situation (not problem), as they followed the rules as provided by Ireland, like anyone would if such rules were deemed applicable and legal.
The fact the EU suddenly changed their mind because they weren't getting a big enough share of the pie is just the EU being a bunch of putzes.
And this whole business with the French taking Apple and Google to task for this nonsense is just the French being more obtuse than normal.
You need to re-read both cases.
In the Irish case the investigators found that it was effectively Apple itself that decided how much to make available for taxation. For one particular year it is claimed that Apple paid an effective tax rate of 0.005%. Countering that we 'but we pay more taxes than anyone else' is utterly irrelevant.
In this French case I don't think the final amounts actually paid to developers was even mentioned. The issue is 'abusive business practices'.
If you say the sky is purple enough times some people might actually start to believe you. Between Trump and this new EU approach I guess we’re in the new age of unsophisticated propaganda
I haven't jumped to any conclusions on this case or the EU and taxes, so no one needs to believe me. In fact, I've made it clear that first the case has to be heard and Apple has to put forward it's defence.
What I have made clear is that if you really find it necessary to defend yourself in the realm of public opinion, if someone claims you decided for yourself how much to make available for taxation and the claimed percentage paid in an example was as low as 0.005%, then you take that bull by the horns and set the record straight in a clear and concise way.
What you don't do is play the 'values' card ('Apple believes in...' and follow it up with the 'victim' card ('we pay more taxes than anyone else') because the simple fact that you didn't counter the claims head on with anything bulletproof gets people's noses up and what they smell isn't usually roses and you have that hanging over your head in the public domain until the case is resolved.
You also leave yourself open to further damage if anything else floats to the surface (just as it did with the Panama Papers) and find people wanting you to give answers on that too.
It is far better to ride the storm and see how things play out. That way at least, things don't get worse from a PR perspective.
If Apple is going to have to go to court they are not going to put all of that info in the public domain. No person or company in their right mind would. The broader public would also be bored to tears by the details and that would likely not create the dramatic impact you’re implying it would anyway because of this.
It was two simple points (Apple reportedly paid an effective rate of 0.005% and the amount the company made available for taxation was decided by the company itself).
Nothing complex or even boring. Those are details that provoke curiosity among the general public. Two simple 'nos' would suffice.
If the claims are in fact true but lacking context a simple 'no comment' by legal representation would suffice on the grounds that the case is complex.
That's a bad situation to be in because many of the general public would see a 'no comment' as an admission of guilt but attempting to defend yourself publicly the way Apple did can open a can of worms.
Apple released the numbers which are already public information which demonstrates they paid the required 12%. Some people simply do not want to believe that, do not understand taxes, or both.
Then why was the 0.005% claim put into the official summary of a three year investigation by the EU?
Don't you think something is amiss with what you are stating?
I will add some more background in case you are unaware of events.
Tim Cook made a few trips to the EU and had meetings with the people leading the investigation. It is claimed he was made fully aware of the reasons for the investigation and questioned on numerous points. There was a point where answers weren't forthcoming or weren't clear enough and the matter took on a more formally legal stance, culminating with tense exchanges.
That doesn't seem to fit in very well with what you are saying.
Comments
Don't you think something is amiss with what you are stating?
I will add some more background in case you are unaware of events.
Tim Cook made a few trips to the EU and had meetings with the people leading the investigation. It is claimed he was made fully aware of the reasons for the investigation and questioned on numerous points. There was a point where answers weren't forthcoming or weren't clear enough and the matter took on a more formally legal stance, culminating with tense exchanges.
That doesn't seem to fit in very well with what you are saying.