EU scum blackmailing companies for following the letter of the law.
It isn't even that Apple only followed the letter of, rather than the spirit of, the law. Apple did both. It wasn't some secret loophole in Irish law that Apple found and exploited. Ireland, for a long time, intentionally had tax laws which allowed Irish corporations to not pay Irish income taxes on profits attributable to foreign branches. That's how Ireland wanted it to work, not just for Apple but for other companies which might (in part thusly) be lured to set up operations in Ireland and in so doing help its economy and contribute something (more than they might have otherwise) to Irish tax revenues.
I don't think it was common for companies to tell the appropriate taxing office how much they would arbitrarily make available for taxation for domestic operations (IIRC $200M or thereabouts), nor do so in secret...
The "spirit of the law" is that every corporation should pay taxes based on their profits. Somewhere. Apple completely avoided taxation on a substantial portion of theirs. Revenues earned from Australian consumers were funneled to Singapore where the corporate taxes are not due, then sent on to Irish accounts that answer to no taxing authority in the world, Ireland included. Profits from the sale of Apple product in Italy were massaged thru various channels and fees then sent on to non-taxable Irish accounts. Italy themselves told Apple that was not in accordance with their laws. threatening jail-time for an Apple executive if they continued to ignore their tax laws. In Japan Apple transferred revenues from Japanese operations into non-taxable Singapore accounts. Japan themselves told Apple that was not in accordance with their laws, winning a tax evasion case against them.
While Apple may have followed the technical wording, found where they thought it might be lacking and took advantage of it, they were not following the "spirit of the law" IMHO. Sometimes they weren't even following the letter of the law. They aren't the only ones either. with companies like Amazon and Google also found operating outside the tax laws.
It's no badge of pride IMO and certainly no reason to defend it.
To clarify for people who are perhaps just arriving to this story, Apple is appealing this tax bill -- but is paying into the escrow account in the meantime. Should they win their appeal, they will get some or all of that money back (a full victory is extremely unlikely).
I'm not sure why Apple is the one having to pay, since it was the government of Ireland that offered the company the "illegal" tax discount. As far as i've been able to discover, there's no evidence Apple coerced a special tax deal out of the Irish government, so not sure why they're on the hook for the whole amount. That said, I'm in favour of multinationals paying their fair share of taxes generally, so I'm hoping that Amazon will be next in the cross-hairs ...
Making Apple pay the money is, in part, about harming Ireland when it comes to how attractive it is to businesses.
The European Commission doesn't like that Ireland had tax policies which gave it an advantage over other nations in the EU when it came to attracting businesses and economic activity. It doesn't think, it seems, other nations in the EU should have to compete with the likes of Ireland when it comes to tax policies which might be attractive to businesses, even though the EU's rules allow Ireland to have very attractive (to businesses) tax policies. The Commission would, it seems, rather all nations in the EU have to have less attractive (to businesses) tax policies. But it can't enforce that. It can't make Ireland have less attractive (to businesses) tax policies. Ireland has to (and has) decide(d) to do that itself.
That said, if the European Commission can compromise the ability of businesses to rely on Ireland's stated laws and policies, which said businesses might rely on in making decisions about where to establish or move economic activity, then the Commission can decrease the attractiveness (to businesses) of Ireland without making Ireland change its tax policies. Businesses generally want to know that the rules they'll be operating under can be relied upon, that they won't retroactively be changed. They want to know, e.g., that taxes will be what they are told (or are on notice) they will be. They want to know that the regulations which supposedly apply, which they can act in accordance with, won't be changed retroactively.
The message that is meant to be sent is this: It doesn't matter what the proper Irish authorities tell you about their own laws (when it comes to, e.g., taxes), you can't rely on the notion that they are right and that they get to decide such things. It might turn out that what you thought was the case - because the Irish government itself told you it was the case - wasn't. You might, e.g., have to pay more taxes than it would seem Irish tax laws and policies would require you to pay. So... maybe Ireland isn't going to be as attractive a place to do business and create economic activity as it seems.
In short, part of this is about damaging the notion of reliance interests when it comes to Ireland's business-attractive laws and policies.
To clarify for people who are perhaps just arriving to this story, Apple is appealing this tax bill -- but is paying into the escrow account in the meantime. Should they win their appeal, they will get some or all of that money back (a full victory is extremely unlikely).
I'm not sure why Apple is the one having to pay, since it was the government of Ireland that offered the company the "illegal" tax discount. As far as i've been able to discover, there's no evidence Apple coerced a special tax deal out of the Irish government, so not sure why they're on the hook for the whole amount. That said, I'm in favour of multinationals paying their fair share of taxes generally, so I'm hoping that Amazon will be next in the cross-hairs ...
There are a lot of companies in the cross hairs and, although you could be forgiven for thinking they are only US companies from reading some posts here, they aren't. Apple is the biggest in terms of the amounts.
Gatorguy has already pointed out why Apple has to put up the money.
IIRC the investigation that led to this situation was limited in scope insofar as it could not dig further back than 2010 or 11. Apple's dealings with the Irish government on a tax level go much further back. So far that many people now claim to not remember exactly how the deals came about.
This is an informative read but now isn't accessible without a subscription:
EU scum blackmailing companies for following the letter of the law.
It isn't even that Apple only followed the letter of, rather than the spirit of, the law. Apple did both. It wasn't some secret loophole in Irish law that Apple found and exploited. Ireland, for a long time, intentionally had tax laws which allowed Irish corporations to not pay Irish income taxes on profits attributable to foreign branches. That's how Ireland wanted it to work, not just for Apple but for other companies which might (in part thusly) be lured to set up operations in Ireland and in so doing help its economy and contribute something (more than they might have otherwise) to Irish tax revenues.
I don't think it was common for companies to tell the appropriate taxing office how much they would arbitrarily make available for taxation for domestic operations (IIRC $200M or thereabouts), nor do so in secret...
Again, what is it that Apple was allowed to do which was contrary to Irish tax law or policy?
And Apple didn't tell Ireland what it would make available for taxation. It asked Ireland if certain methods of determining profit allocation were allowed. How much profit was (income) taxable by Ireland was a function of those methods being used in determining profit allocation. Asking appropriate taxing authorities such things is a fairly common practice. That's due to the complexity (and ambiguity) in many jurisdictions' tax laws. Individuals and businesses need to be able sort out how taxing rules would (or could) apply in given situations. It isn't something that only Apple does, even when it comes to Irish tax authorities.
Is the claim this: That other, similarly-situated, companies weren't allowed to use the methods Apple was allowed to use in allocating profits between foreign and domestic branches of Irish corporations? For instance, was using a percentage-of-expenses method a violation of Irish tax law or policy?
To clarify for people who are perhaps just arriving to this story, Apple is appealing this tax bill -- but is paying into the escrow account in the meantime. Should they win their appeal, they will get some or all of that money back (a full victory is extremely unlikely).
I'm not sure why Apple is the one having to pay, since it was the government of Ireland that offered the company the "illegal" tax discount. As far as i've been able to discover, there's no evidence Apple coerced a special tax deal out of the Irish government, so not sure why they're on the hook for the whole amount. That said, I'm in favour of multinationals paying their fair share of taxes generally, so I'm hoping that Amazon will be next in the cross-hairs ...
Making Apple pay the money is, in part, about harming Ireland when it comes to how attractive it is to businesses.
The European Commission doesn't like that Ireland had tax policies which gave it an advantage over other nations in the EU when it came to attracting businesses and economic activity. It doesn't think, it seems, other nations in the EU should have to compete with the likes of Ireland when it comes to tax policies which might be attractive to businesses, even though the EU's rules allow Ireland to have very attractive (to businesses) tax policies. The Commission would, it seems, rather all nations in the EU have to have less attractive (to businesses) tax policies. But it can't enforce that. It can't make Ireland have less attractive (to businesses) tax policies. Ireland has to (and has) decide(d) to do that itself.
The EU has zero issue with Ireland's lower-than-the rest 12.5% corporate tax rate. That's far below the effective rates in Germany, France, Italy, and other EU economies. Seems more that you're raising a false flag, that the EU doesn't want member states to set their own tax rates, especially low ones. That's not the case at all. The issue was complete tax avoidance made possible only by carved out exception to that countries legal statutory rates in part, and to crafted exceptions that allow operations within the country to claim non-residency for tax purposes.
If the Irish want to apply lower tax rates to corporations they must do so openly and available to all. For example if they want a special economic zone where taxes are waived in part but any company can apply to set up operations, and that plan is vetted and approved by a majority of the Irish, the EU will not object. It's not low statutory tax-rates that's the issue, and I'm absolutely certain you know that.
EU scum blackmailing companies for following the letter of the law.
My thoughts exactly. Because I’m quite confused about all this. If the European Commission is sure Apple violated the tax law, then why do they feel the need change the tax law to say that taxes should be paid where the revenue is generated versus where a company is headquartered? Seems to me that Apple was following the law and the European Commission simply didn’t like the results. It’s OK to change the law. It’s not OK to retroactively punish companies for following an unpopular law.
APPLE didn’t violate tax laws.
IRELAND's tax regulations violated EU laws.
Apple did nothing wrong. They just got caught up in the other guys' fight. And whether they can be made to cover for Ireland's mistake is anything but clear at this point, which is why they aren’t paying back taxes — they’re depositing them in escrow until it’s been finally decided whether they have to be paid or not.
EU scum blackmailing companies for following the letter of the law.
It isn't even that Apple only followed the letter of, rather than the spirit of, the law. Apple did both. It wasn't some secret loophole in Irish law that Apple found and exploited. Ireland, for a long time, intentionally had tax laws which allowed Irish corporations to not pay Irish income taxes on profits attributable to foreign branches. That's how Ireland wanted it to work, not just for Apple but for other companies which might (in part thusly) be lured to set up operations in Ireland and in so doing help its economy and contribute something (more than they might have otherwise) to Irish tax revenues.
This piece claims that Apple deliberately didn't act in the spirit of the law and pulls no punches in calling its activity unethical:
EU scum blackmailing companies for following the letter of the law.
It isn't even that Apple only followed the letter of, rather than the spirit of, the law. Apple did both. It wasn't some secret loophole in Irish law that Apple found and exploited. Ireland, for a long time, intentionally had tax laws which allowed Irish corporations to not pay Irish income taxes on profits attributable to foreign branches. That's how Ireland wanted it to work, not just for Apple but for other companies which might (in part thusly) be lured to set up operations in Ireland and in so doing help its economy and contribute something (more than they might have otherwise) to Irish tax revenues.
I don't think it was common for companies to tell the appropriate taxing office how much they would arbitrarily make available for taxation for domestic operations (IIRC $200M or thereabouts), nor do so in secret...
Again, what is it that Apple was allowed to do which was contrary to Irish tax law or policy?
And Apple didn't tell Ireland what it would make available for taxation. It asked Ireland if certain methods of determining profit allocation were allowed. How much profit was (income) taxable by Ireland was a function of those methods being used in determining profit allocation. Asking appropriate taxing authorities such things is a fairly common practice. That's due to the complexity (and ambiguity) in many jurisdictions' tax laws. Individuals and businesses need to be able sort out how taxing rules would (or could) apply in given situations. It isn't something that only Apple does, even when it comes to Irish tax authorities.
Is the claim this: That other, similarly-situated, companies weren't allowed to use the methods Apple was allowed to use in allocating profits between foreign and domestic branches of Irish corporations? For instance, was using a percentage-of-expenses method a violation of Irish tax law or policy?
You would have to explain to me how an arbitrary number the way that Apple contrived should be a valid method of determining taxable revenues, and perhaps point me to where it's used for other companies. Then I can do a proper search for opinions and issues on the topic. Common? I don't think so, not even rising to the level of an open secret IMO. But I'll wait for your explanation as it's possible I'm incorrect and it's not as "secret" as I think it is.
I don't think overtly aggressive tax avoidance bordering on and sometimes intruding into tax evasion by wealthy multinational corporations deserves a champion of your caliber. It's not a tactic that should be encouraged IMHO, and Apple should consider more than the tangible dollar cost to their shareholders from doing so and factor in the loss of prestige and influence that might follow it couples with negative public perception potentially affecting revenues. Maintaining Apple's public stature and worldwide reputation is also their fiduciary duty. Negative tax policies that lead to public relations and governmental problems do not do that.
In the vein a question for you: How much is the public's perception of Apple as the friendly and dependable steward of the public's best interests as opposed to other evil greedy corporations worth? More than $15B?
To clarify for people who are perhaps just arriving to this story, Apple is appealing this tax bill -- but is paying into the escrow account in the meantime. Should they win their appeal, they will get some or all of that money back (a full victory is extremely unlikely).
I'm not sure why Apple is the one having to pay, since it was the government of Ireland that offered the company the "illegal" tax discount. As far as i've been able to discover, there's no evidence Apple coerced a special tax deal out of the Irish government, so not sure why they're on the hook for the whole amount. That said, I'm in favour of multinationals paying their fair share of taxes generally, so I'm hoping that Amazon will be next in the cross-hairs ...
Making Apple pay the money is, in part, about harming Ireland when it comes to how attractive it is to businesses.
The European Commission doesn't like that Ireland had tax policies which gave it an advantage over other nations in the EU when it came to attracting businesses and economic activity. It doesn't think, it seems, other nations in the EU should have to compete with the likes of Ireland when it comes to tax policies which might be attractive to businesses, even though the EU's rules allow Ireland to have very attractive (to businesses) tax policies. The Commission would, it seems, rather all nations in the EU have to have less attractive (to businesses) tax policies. But it can't enforce that. It can't make Ireland have less attractive (to businesses) tax policies. Ireland has to (and has) decide(d) to do that itself.
The EU has zero issue with Ireland's lower-than-the rest 12.5% corporate tax rate. That's far below the effective rates in Germany, France, Italy, and other EU economies. Seems more that you're raising a false flag, that the EU doesn't want member states to set their own tax rates, especially low ones. That's not the case at all. The issue was complete tax avoidance made possible only by carved out exception to that countries legal statutory rates in part, and to crafted exceptions that allow operations within the country to claim non-residency for tax purposes.
If the Irish want to apply lower tax rates to corporations they must do so openly and available to all. For example if they want a special economic zone where taxes are waived in part but any company can apply to set up operations, and that plan is vetted and approved by a majority of the Irish, the EU will not object. It's not low statutory tax-rates that's the issue, and I'm absolutely certain you know that.
I didn't suggest that the EU had an issue with Ireland's low corporate tax rate. That isn't its objection (or, at least, isn't its main objection) to Ireland's tax policies. The problem that the Commission had is with what resulted from the combination of other Irish tax policies. Those policies can be generally described thusly: First, it used to be the case that the income attributable to foreign branches of Irish corporations wasn't (income) taxable in Ireland. Second, Ireland didn't require corporations to allocate profits between foreign and domestic branches based on the kind of arm's-length principle that the Commission thought was appropriate. The combination of those two policies meant that a lot of income which the Commission thinks should have been taxable in Ireland actually wasn't taxable in Ireland. That is the problem that the Commission had with Irish tax policies. But regardless of what we or the Commission or some other parties think of those policies, Ireland has the right to have those policies.
Those policies aren't carved out exceptions to Irish tax policies. They are Irish tax policies. Ireland's ordinary corporate tax rate still applies. It's just that there have to be policies which dictate how the tax base, to which such a rate is applied, is determined.
Again, I didn't say that it was Ireland's low corporate tax rate which was the issue. I'm quite aware of what the Commission objected to, I've read its full decision.
Also, tax policies don't have to be such that they apply the same to everyone. They have to be such that they are applied the same to similarly-situated parties. By their nature, or as they exist in almost all jurisdictions, tax policies treat parties which aren't similarly situated differently. Your taxes might be different if you earn a different kind of income. Your taxes might be different if you have kids (as opposed to don't have kids). Your taxes might be different if you make more or less income. Your taxes might be different if you're a foreign company (as opposed to a domestic company). Ireland has the right to have policies which are different for different kinds of parties. The issue is, were other similarly-situated parties (e.g. Irish corporations which had foreign branches) not allowed to determine allocate profits using the methods that Apple was allowed to use? No one, that I am aware of, has been able to demonstrate that that was the case.
EU scum blackmailing companies for following the letter of the law.
It isn't even that Apple only followed the letter of, rather than the spirit of, the law. Apple did both. It wasn't some secret loophole in Irish law that Apple found and exploited. Ireland, for a long time, intentionally had tax laws which allowed Irish corporations to not pay Irish income taxes on profits attributable to foreign branches. That's how Ireland wanted it to work, not just for Apple but for other companies which might (in part thusly) be lured to set up operations in Ireland and in so doing help its economy and contribute something (more than they might have otherwise) to Irish tax revenues.
This piece claims that Apple deliberately didn't act in the spirit of the law and pulls no punches in calling its activity unethical:
The authors of that piece can have that opinion if they want. But Ireland's tax policies were set up to allow companies such as Apple to avoid paying taxes in Ireland on the profits generated by foreign branches of Irish corporations. That wasn't some hidden loophole that Apple, through great effort searching for it, was able to find. It was a choice made by Ireland in designing its tax policies.
I'd also note that the authors of that piece think that Apple shouldn't have to pay what the Commission wants Ireland to require it to pay. They think that the Commission has acted unethically in retroactively applying a new rule.
EU scum blackmailing companies for following the letter of the law.
It isn't even that Apple only followed the letter of, rather than the spirit of, the law. Apple did both. It wasn't some secret loophole in Irish law that Apple found and exploited. Ireland, for a long time, intentionally had tax laws which allowed Irish corporations to not pay Irish income taxes on profits attributable to foreign branches. That's how Ireland wanted it to work, not just for Apple but for other companies which might (in part thusly) be lured to set up operations in Ireland and in so doing help its economy and contribute something (more than they might have otherwise) to Irish tax revenues.
I don't think it was common for companies to tell the appropriate taxing office how much they would arbitrarily make available for taxation for domestic operations (IIRC $200M or thereabouts), nor do so in secret...
Again, what is it that Apple was allowed to do which was contrary to Irish tax law or policy?
And Apple didn't tell Ireland what it would make available for taxation. It asked Ireland if certain methods of determining profit allocation were allowed. How much profit was (income) taxable by Ireland was a function of those methods being used in determining profit allocation. Asking appropriate taxing authorities such things is a fairly common practice. That's due to the complexity (and ambiguity) in many jurisdictions' tax laws. Individuals and businesses need to be able sort out how taxing rules would (or could) apply in given situations. It isn't something that only Apple does, even when it comes to Irish tax authorities.
Is the claim this: That other, similarly-situated, companies weren't allowed to use the methods Apple was allowed to use in allocating profits between foreign and domestic branches of Irish corporations? For instance, was using a percentage-of-expenses method a violation of Irish tax law or policy?
You would have to explain to me how an arbitrary number the way that Apple contrived should be a valid method of determining taxable revenues, and perhaps point me to where it's used for other companies. Then I can do a proper search for opinions and issues on the topic. Common? I don't think so, not even rising to the level of an open secret IMO. But I'll wait for your explanation as it's possible I'm incorrect and it's not as "secret" as I think it is.
I don't think overtly aggressive tax avoidance bordering on and sometimes intruding into tax evasion by wealthy multinational corporations deserves a champion of your caliber. It's not a tactic that should be encouraged IMHO, and Apple should consider more than the tangible dollar cost to their shareholders from doing so and factor in the loss of prestige and influence that might follow it couples with negative public perception potentially affecting revenues. Maintaining Apple's public stature and worldwide reputation is also their fiduciary duty. Negative tax policies that lead to public relations and governmental problems do not do that.
In the vein a question for you: How much is the public's perception of Apple as the friendly and dependable steward of the public's best interests as opposed to other evil greedy corporations worth? More than $15B?
Is it your belief that Apple was just allowed to pick whatever number it wanted to be used as its taxable base in Ireland?
Apple was allowed to use profit allocation methods to determine how much profit was attributable to Irish branches of Irish corporations. Those methods resulted in fairly low taxable bases. But no one, as far as I'm aware, has been able to demonstrate that those methods were contrary to Irish tax law or policy. If you believe Apple was allowed to do something other similarly-situated companies weren't (or wouldn't have been) allowed to do, then I'd like to know what that something is. That's kind of important if the claim is that it was allowed to do such a thing. Once we identify the alleged thing which Apple was allowed to do, we might be able to consider whether it was consistent with Irish tax laws and polices. Without knowing what the supposed something is, we can't really assess it. (I am aware of some things which it might be, but those things don't seem to be contrary to Irish tax laws and policies. So I'm willing to consider other things which people might be able to come up with.)
If the Commission (or someone else) wants to assert that Apple got a special tax deal - that what it was allowed to do was contrary to Irish tax law - then it (or they) should be able to identify what that deal was. It (or they) should be able to identify what in particular Apple was allowed to do which was contrary to Irish tax law. That's a pretty reasonable ask, I think. Instead, what we have is the Commission making the case that the result of Irish tax policies, in Apple's case, is bad (or unreasonable, or undesirable, or whatever) and thus how those tax policies applied in Apple's case must not be how Irish tax policies were suppose to apply. We don't like the result, so we assume Ireland wouldn't have wanted that result, so what Ireland allowed Apple to do must not be consistent with its own tax policies. The problem is, Ireland says its tax policies are what its tax policies are - i.e., as they applied to Apple. And the Commission hasn't been able to demonstrate otherwise, e.g. it hasn't been able to say... these other companies weren't allowed to determine profit allocation in that way.
As for your question: Common? I was referring to parties asking tax authorities for rulings on how tax policies would apply in given circumstances. That is a fairly common thing. In Ireland the process results in what's called an advance opinion. In the U.S. it's called a private letter ruling. Parties need clarification on how something works when it comes to taxes. So they ask whether they can do something a certain way. Or they ask how they should do something. And the relevant taxing authority, hopefully, gives them an answer which they can then rely on in deciding what to do. I have a family member who needed to get a private letter ruling from the IRS some years ago. It isn't something that only Apple is allowed to get. Individuals or businesses are allowed to ask their government how tax policies would apply in specified circumstances.
And just to be clear: I'm not, here, championing Apple's tax strategies. I'm addressing a particular issue that has nothing to do with whether I think Apple should do this or that. That issue is... Was Apple given a special deal by Irish taxing authorities? I haven't seen substantial evidence that it was. Ireland claims that it wasn't and I have been given no reason to believe that Ireland is wrong (or lying) about its own tax policies. In assessing that issue, I've asked others who have claimed that Apple was given a special deal to at least identify what that deal was. Even if they can't demonstrate it to be the case, I'd like to know what the supposed deal was: Apple was allowed to do X, which was otherwise not allowed by Irish tax law or policy.
As for your last question... I understand that Apple takes some public perception hit as a result of this situation. I don't know how it can avoid that (or that it should do what it might have to in order to). People are going to think what they're going to think, and often it's not based on really understanding the situation. Regardless, they're entitled to think what they want. But their thinking what they want doesn't mean that Apple got a special tax deal from Ireland.
EU scum blackmailing companies for following the letter of the law.
It isn't even that Apple only followed the letter of, rather than the spirit of, the law. Apple did both. It wasn't some secret loophole in Irish law that Apple found and exploited. Ireland, for a long time, intentionally had tax laws which allowed Irish corporations to not pay Irish income taxes on profits attributable to foreign branches. That's how Ireland wanted it to work, not just for Apple but for other companies which might (in part thusly) be lured to set up operations in Ireland and in so doing help its economy and contribute something (more than they might have otherwise) to Irish tax revenues.
I don't think it was common for companies to tell the appropriate taxing office how much they would arbitrarily make available for taxation for domestic operations (IIRC $200M or thereabouts), nor do so in secret...
Again, what is it that Apple was allowed to do which was contrary to Irish tax law or policy?
And Apple didn't tell Ireland what it would make available for taxation. It asked Ireland if certain methods of determining profit allocation were allowed. How much profit was (income) taxable by Ireland was a function of those methods being used in determining profit allocation. Asking appropriate taxing authorities such things is a fairly common practice. That's due to the complexity (and ambiguity) in many jurisdictions' tax laws. Individuals and businesses need to be able sort out how taxing rules would (or could) apply in given situations. It isn't something that only Apple does, even when it comes to Irish tax authorities.
Is the claim this: That other, similarly-situated, companies weren't allowed to use the methods Apple was allowed to use in allocating profits between foreign and domestic branches of Irish corporations? For instance, was using a percentage-of-expenses method a violation of Irish tax law or policy?
You would have to explain to me how an arbitrary number the way that Apple contrived should be a valid method of determining taxable revenues, and perhaps point me to where it's used for other companies. Then I can do a proper search for opinions and issues on the topic. Common? I don't think so, not even rising to the level of an open secret IMO. But I'll wait for your explanation as it's possible I'm incorrect and it's not as "secret" as I think it is.
I don't think overtly aggressive tax avoidance bordering on and sometimes intruding into tax evasion by wealthy multinational corporations deserves a champion of your caliber. It's not a tactic that should be encouraged IMHO, and Apple should consider more than the tangible dollar cost to their shareholders from doing so and factor in the loss of prestige and influence that might follow it couples with negative public perception potentially affecting revenues. Maintaining Apple's public stature and worldwide reputation is also their fiduciary duty. Negative tax policies that lead to public relations and governmental problems do not do that.
In the vein a question for you: How much is the public's perception of Apple as the friendly and dependable steward of the public's best interests as opposed to other evil greedy corporations worth? More than $15B?
Is it your belief that Apple was just allowed to pick whatever number it wanted to be used as its taxable base in Ireland?
Apple was allowed to use profit allocation methods to determine how much profit was attributable to Irish branches of Irish corporations. Those methods resulted in fairly low taxable bases. But no one, as far as I'm aware, has been able to demonstrate that those methods were contrary to Irish tax law or policy. If you believe Apple was allowed to do something other similarly-situated companies weren't (or wouldn't have been) allowed to do, then I'd like to know what that something is. That's kind of important if the claim is that it was allowed to do such a thing. Once we identify the alleged thing which Apple was allowed to do, we might be able to consider whether it was consistent with Irish tax laws and polices. Without knowing what the supposed something is, we can't really assess it. (I am aware of some things which it might be, but those things don't seem to be contrary to Irish tax laws and policies. So I'm willing to consider other things which people might be able to come up with.)
If the Commission (or someone else) wants to assert that Apple got a special tax deal - that what it was allowed to do was contrary to Irish tax law - then it (or they) should be able to identify what that deal was. It (or they) should be able to identify what in particular Apple was allowed to do which was contrary to Irish tax law. That's a pretty reasonable ask, I think. Instead, what we have is the Commission making the case that the result of Irish tax policies, in Apple's case, is bad (or unreasonable, or undesirable, or whatever) and thus how those tax policies applied in Apple's case must not be how Irish tax policies were suppose to apply. We don't like the result, so we assume Ireland wouldn't have wanted that result, so what Ireland allowed Apple to do must not be consistent with its own tax policies. The problem is, Ireland says its tax policies are what its tax policies are - i.e., as they applied to Apple. And the Commission hasn't been able to demonstrate otherwise, e.g. it hasn't been able to say... these other companies weren't allowed to determine profit allocation in that way.
As for your question: Common? I was referring to parties asking tax authorities for rulings on how tax policies would apply in given circumstances. That is a fairly common thing. In Ireland the process results in what's called an advance opinion. In the U.S. it's called a private letter ruling. Parties need clarification on how something works when it comes to taxes. So they ask whether they can do something a certain way. Or they ask how they should do something. And the relevant taxing authority, hopefully, gives them an answer which they can then rely on in deciding what to do. I have a family member who needed to get a private letter ruling from the IRS some years ago. It isn't something that only Apple is allowed to get. Individuals or businesses are allowed to ask their government how tax policies would apply in specified circumstances.
And just to be clear: I'm not, here, championing Apple's tax strategies. I'm addressing a particular issue that has nothing to do with whether I think Apple should do this or that. That issue is... Was Apple given a special deal by Irish taxing authorities? I haven't seen substantial evidence that it was. Ireland claims that it wasn't and I have been given no reason to believe that Ireland is wrong (or lying) about its own tax policies. In assessing that issue, I've asked others who have claimed that Apple was given a special deal to at least identify what that deal was. Even if they can't demonstrate it to be the case, I'd like to know what the supposed deal was: Apple was allowed to do X, which was otherwise not allowed by Irish tax law or policy.
As for your last question... I understand that Apple takes some public perception hit as a result of this situation. I don't know how it can avoid that (or that it should do what it might have to in order to). People are going to think what they're going to think, and often it's not based on really understanding the situation. Regardless, they're entitled to think what they want. But their thinking what they want doesn't mean that Apple got a special tax deal from Ireland.
I don't think there's any claim that Apple's special arrangement with Ireland was counter to Irish tax law and policies. Clearly it was not, so asking someone to show you where it was is not particularly insightful when it doesn't exist. No authority (in this case) is claiming Apple did anything illegal either, another fact I think you are completely aware of. You bring those issues up as tho you want readers to believe those are part of the EU claims. They are not.
The primary issue leading to the tax claims is whether the Irish tax office should have been able to carve out a special arrangement not generally available to domestic corporations, and in fact claimed as absolutely unique to Apple, and as a result of those decisions allowed Apple to completely avoid taxation of a substantial percentage of its profits, especially in those regions (Africa, Australia, Germany etc) where the retail sales were accomplished. At the end of the day that method of avoiding taxes crated an unfair competitive advantage for Apple made possible by special aid from the Irish, aka illegal state aid according to the EU Commission.
Proving that no one else was also allowed to make the same arrangements would of course be near impossible so the logical procedure would be showing that anyone else, even one company, was allowed to pay corporate taxes under the same allocation method. If you have one that would be helpful and at least close that particular angle to further discussion.
If you want to claim that there was nothing special about Apple's arrangement then the onus would be on you (well actually Apple) to show the same tax avoidance method was granted by Irish tax agents to other companies.
EU scum blackmailing companies for following the letter of the law.
It isn't even that Apple only followed the letter of, rather than the spirit of, the law. Apple did both. It wasn't some secret loophole in Irish law that Apple found and exploited. Ireland, for a long time, intentionally had tax laws which allowed Irish corporations to not pay Irish income taxes on profits attributable to foreign branches. That's how Ireland wanted it to work, not just for Apple but for other companies which might (in part thusly) be lured to set up operations in Ireland and in so doing help its economy and contribute something (more than they might have otherwise) to Irish tax revenues.
I don't think it was common for companies to tell the appropriate taxing office how much they would arbitrarily make available for taxation for domestic operations (IIRC $200M or thereabouts), nor do so in secret...
Again, what is it that Apple was allowed to do which was contrary to Irish tax law or policy?
And Apple didn't tell Ireland what it would make available for taxation. It asked Ireland if certain methods of determining profit allocation were allowed. How much profit was (income) taxable by Ireland was a function of those methods being used in determining profit allocation. Asking appropriate taxing authorities such things is a fairly common practice. That's due to the complexity (and ambiguity) in many jurisdictions' tax laws. Individuals and businesses need to be able sort out how taxing rules would (or could) apply in given situations. It isn't something that only Apple does, even when it comes to Irish tax authorities.
Is the claim this: That other, similarly-situated, companies weren't allowed to use the methods Apple was allowed to use in allocating profits between foreign and domestic branches of Irish corporations? For instance, was using a percentage-of-expenses method a violation of Irish tax law or policy?
You would have to explain to me how an arbitrary number the way that Apple contrived should be a valid method of determining taxable revenues, and perhaps point me to where it's used for other companies. Then I can do a proper search for opinions and issues on the topic. Common? I don't think so, not even rising to the level of an open secret IMO. But I'll wait for your explanation as it's possible I'm incorrect and it's not as "secret" as I think it is.
I don't think overtly aggressive tax avoidance bordering on and sometimes intruding into tax evasion by wealthy multinational corporations deserves a champion of your caliber. It's not a tactic that should be encouraged IMHO, and Apple should consider more than the tangible dollar cost to their shareholders from doing so and factor in the loss of prestige and influence that might follow it couples with negative public perception potentially affecting revenues. Maintaining Apple's public stature and worldwide reputation is also their fiduciary duty. Negative tax policies that lead to public relations and governmental problems do not do that.
In the vein a question for you: How much is the public's perception of Apple as the friendly and dependable steward of the public's best interests as opposed to other evil greedy corporations worth? More than $15B?
Is it your belief that Apple was just allowed to pick whatever number it wanted to be used as its taxable base in Ireland?
Apple was allowed to use profit allocation methods to determine how much profit was attributable to Irish branches of Irish corporations. Those methods resulted in fairly low taxable bases. But no one, as far as I'm aware, has been able to demonstrate that those methods were contrary to Irish tax law or policy. If you believe Apple was allowed to do something other similarly-situated companies weren't (or wouldn't have been) allowed to do, then I'd like to know what that something is. That's kind of important if the claim is that it was allowed to do such a thing. Once we identify the alleged thing which Apple was allowed to do, we might be able to consider whether it was consistent with Irish tax laws and polices. Without knowing what the supposed something is, we can't really assess it. (I am aware of some things which it might be, but those things don't seem to be contrary to Irish tax laws and policies. So I'm willing to consider other things which people might be able to come up with.)
If the Commission (or someone else) wants to assert that Apple got a special tax deal - that what it was allowed to do was contrary to Irish tax law - then it (or they) should be able to identify what that deal was. It (or they) should be able to identify what in particular Apple was allowed to do which was contrary to Irish tax law. That's a pretty reasonable ask, I think. Instead, what we have is the Commission making the case that the result of Irish tax policies, in Apple's case, is bad (or unreasonable, or undesirable, or whatever) and thus how those tax policies applied in Apple's case must not be how Irish tax policies were suppose to apply. We don't like the result, so we assume Ireland wouldn't have wanted that result, so what Ireland allowed Apple to do must not be consistent with its own tax policies. The problem is, Ireland says its tax policies are what its tax policies are - i.e., as they applied to Apple. And the Commission hasn't been able to demonstrate otherwise, e.g. it hasn't been able to say... these other companies weren't allowed to determine profit allocation in that way.
As for your question: Common? I was referring to parties asking tax authorities for rulings on how tax policies would apply in given circumstances. That is a fairly common thing. In Ireland the process results in what's called an advance opinion. In the U.S. it's called a private letter ruling. Parties need clarification on how something works when it comes to taxes. So they ask whether they can do something a certain way. Or they ask how they should do something. And the relevant taxing authority, hopefully, gives them an answer which they can then rely on in deciding what to do. I have a family member who needed to get a private letter ruling from the IRS some years ago. It isn't something that only Apple is allowed to get. Individuals or businesses are allowed to ask their government how tax policies would apply in specified circumstances.
And just to be clear: I'm not, here, championing Apple's tax strategies. I'm addressing a particular issue that has nothing to do with whether I think Apple should do this or that. That issue is... Was Apple given a special deal by Irish taxing authorities? I haven't seen substantial evidence that it was. Ireland claims that it wasn't and I have been given no reason to believe that Ireland is wrong (or lying) about its own tax policies. In assessing that issue, I've asked others who have claimed that Apple was given a special deal to at least identify what that deal was. Even if they can't demonstrate it to be the case, I'd like to know what the supposed deal was: Apple was allowed to do X, which was otherwise not allowed by Irish tax law or policy.
As for your last question... I understand that Apple takes some public perception hit as a result of this situation. I don't know how it can avoid that (or that it should do what it might have to in order to). People are going to think what they're going to think, and often it's not based on really understanding the situation. Regardless, they're entitled to think what they want. But their thinking what they want doesn't mean that Apple got a special tax deal from Ireland.
I don't think there's any claim that Apple's special arrangement with Ireland was counter to Irish tax policies. Clearly it was not, so asking someone to show you where it was is not particularly insightful when it doesn't exist. No authority (in this case) is claiming Apple did anything illegal either, another fact I think you are completely aware of. You bring those issues up as tho you want readers to believe those are part of the EU claims. It is not. T
The primary issue is whether the Irish tax office should have been able to carve out a special arrangement not generally available to domestic corporations, and in fact claimed as absolutely unique to Apple, and as a result of those decisions allowed Apple to completely avoid taxation of a substantial percentage of its profits, especially in those regions (Africa, Australia, Germany etc) where the retail sales were accomplished. At the end of the day that method of avoiding taxes crated an unfair competitive advantage for Apple made possible by special aid from the Irish, aka illegal state aid according to the EU Commission.
Proving that no one else was also allowed to make the same arrangements would of course be near impossible so the logical procedure would be showing that anyone else, even one company, was allowed to pay corporate taxes under the same allocation method. If you have one that would be helpful and at least close that particular angle to further discussion.
If you want to claim that there was nothing special about Apple's arrangement then the onus would be on you (well actually Apple) to show the same tax avoidance method was granted by Irish tax agents to other companies.
Either what Apple was allowed to do was consistent with existing Irish tax policies or it wasn't. If it was, then it wasn't a special deal that Apple got. It was just Apple complying with existing tax policies, perhaps as clarified by Irish tax authorities. If it is clear, as you suggest, that what Apple was allowed to do was consistent with existing Irish tax policies (i.e. not counter to them), then the Commission has no case. Then the idea that Apple got a special deal is wrong. Ireland is allowed to have tax policies which allow X, Y or Z. And it is allowed to advise interested parties that those policies would allow X, Y, and Z. In order for the Commission to have a case, Ireland has to have let Apple do something that isn't otherwise allowed by Irish tax policies. I thought that was what you were claiming previously - that Apple was given some kind of special deal, meaning it was allowed to do something it otherwise wouldn't have been allowed to do and that others, acting in accordance with existing Irish tax policies, wouldn't have been allowed to do.
That said, demonstrating that no one else was allowed to do what Apple was allowed to do wouldn't necessarily be that difficult for the Commission. It had access (or could have gotten access) to other advance opinions. It only needed to find instances where other companies weren't allowed to, e.g., allocate profits between foreign and domestic branches using the methods Apple was allowed to. If other companies were't allowed to allocate profits in much the same ways, they could have come forward and indicated as much or the Commission could have otherwise found them. At any rate, whether the evidence was easy to find or not, the burden was on the Commission to find it or otherwise demonstrate what it claimed. Ireland claims that its tax policies allow certain things. It gets to decide what those tax policies are. It is on others, who claim Ireland's tax policies are actually something different than what it claims (and thus different than they were as applied to Apple), to demonstrate as much.
As for the onus being on me or Apple to show that others were (or would have been) allowed to allocate profits using the same methods Apple was, I'd say... huh? Why would that be the case. Ireland gets to say what its tax policies are. It says they are X, Y and Z. Others - most notably, the European Commission - claim that is incorrect. The Commission claims that Ireland's generally-applicable tax policies aren't what Ireland claims they are. Well, okay. But the burden is then on the Commission (or others making similar claims) to demonstrate that. If Ireland says its tax policies are X, Y, and Z, then (when it comes to this kind of action being taken against Ireland) it is on others to demonstrate that it is wrong or being dishonest.
But I haven't even been asking people to demonstrate that Ireland's generally-applicable tax policies are other than what it claims. I haven't been asking people to demonstrate that other similarly-situated entities weren't (or wouldn't have been) allowed to do what Apple was allowed to do. I've just been asking what it is that people claim Apple was allowed to do which other similarly-situated entities weren't (or wouldn't have been) allowed to do. That's a pretty straight forward query. If people believe that Apple got a special deal - i.e., was allowed to do something others wouldn't have been allowed to - then they should be able to identify what that deal was. What was it that Apple was allowed to do, that others couldn't have, which resulted in it having a lower tax base in Ireland? For instance, what profit allocation method was it allowed to use that others couldn't have?
I'd also like to be clear about a side issue that some seem to be confused about (I'm not sure whether you are, but the way you stated something makes me think you might be - I'm not sure). How Ireland allowed companies to allocate profits between foreign and domestic branches has nothing to do with whether income taxes would be paid in other jurisdictions, i.e. where retail sales were made. This issue has nothing to do with that. Under the laws applicable in those jurisdictions, Apple wasn't supposed to pay income taxes in many other jurisdictions anyway - whether it paid more or less income taxes in Ireland. In accordance with the income tax policies of many jurisdictions, income tax is due where income it generated not where sales are made. That has to do with value creation, not where sales occur. And it has to do with whether there is a permanent establishment somewhere or not, and then with what profits are properly attributable to that permanent establishment.
Taxes levied as a consequence of where sales are made are sales taxes or VAT taxes (or perhaps called other things), they aren't income taxes. Jurisdictions generally don't intend to collect income taxes based on sales being made in their jurisdiction. They have good reasons not to levy income taxes based on that. That's part of why they use sales (and the like) taxes to capture revenue from sales transactions. Apple isn't doing something other than what is intended when it doesn't, e.g., pay income taxes in Germany for all the sales of Apple devices that are made in Germany. The only income taxes it should be paying in Germany are those on income made by permanent establishments it has in Germany. For instance, if it has retail stores there it would need to pay income taxes based on the profits made by those stores. But those profits might not be all that large because the retail margins on Apple products aren't necessarily that large. The real money isn't made at the retail level.
EDIT: I'm short on time, heading out the door. Please forgive any spelling or grammar errors.
They are richer than any company in the history of civilization.
Well, all current (and historic) Rothschild-owned banks, Standard Oil, Saudi Aramco, Carnegie Steel… I’d like to see them adjusted for inflation and compared to Apple.
I'm asking sincerely. What is it that you believe Apple was allowed to do, in determining how much income was taxable in Ireland, which conflicted with Irish tax law or policy?
The problem, apparently, is that Ireland isn’t allowed to have its own tax law anymore, and that Ireland violated some “supranational” EU bullshit they’d agreed to earlier.
EU scum blackmailing companies for following the letter of the law.
My thoughts exactly. Because I’m quite confused about all this. If the European Commission is sure Apple violated the tax law, then why do they feel the need change the tax law to say that taxes should be paid where the revenue is generated versus where a company is headquartered? Seems to me that Apple was following the law and the European Commission simply didn’t like the results. It’s OK to change the law. It’s not OK to retroactively punish companies for following an unpopular law.
Two completely different, unrelated things. Of course if you read up on them instead of relying on clickbait headlines you'd know that.
Apple's tax arrangement with Ireland was illegal under EU law. If Ireland wasn't in the EU there would have been no problem. However the draw of being based IN Ireland was the fact it is IN Europe which allows free movement of people, goods and services between member nations. Ireland was more at fault than Apple as it proposed and reverse-engineered the low tax to entice Apple's business to Eire, but Apple's money-men should and would have known about the overriding EU laws.
The proposed taxation changes going forward cover not only the growing problem of shifting profits to minimise taxation but also to cover "online based" companies that have no physical presence, yet make money from citizens worldwide selling a "digital" product. It's a common sense approach that basically says if you do business in country A, B and C, you pay the taxes relevant to your earnings in each of those countries, to those countries directly, rather than hide behind a foreign entity or shell company pleading poverty. There are other aims including tackling international money laundering etc.
or not. Apple and Ireland both claim that this was not a special deal just for Apple. it's not their fault if no other company fulfilled the rules for the tax credit, which may have been around for years or no other company wanted to use it. And it's not their fault of the EU is pulling a move like our own US Congress and saying that Apple should not use available credits and pay more taxes simply because they can afford it. and all of that is why both Apple and Ireland are appealing the ruling. But in the meantime Apple will put the money into an escrow account so the EU knows that there's no way they can't pay if it comes down to everyone siding against them.
Comments
The "spirit of the law" is that every corporation should pay taxes based on their profits. Somewhere. Apple completely avoided taxation on a substantial portion of theirs. Revenues earned from Australian consumers were funneled to Singapore where the corporate taxes are not due, then sent on to Irish accounts that answer to no taxing authority in the world, Ireland included. Profits from the sale of Apple product in Italy were massaged thru various channels and fees then sent on to non-taxable Irish accounts. Italy themselves told Apple that was not in accordance with their laws. threatening jail-time for an Apple executive if they continued to ignore their tax laws. In Japan Apple transferred revenues from Japanese operations into non-taxable Singapore accounts. Japan themselves told Apple that was not in accordance with their laws, winning a tax evasion case against them.
While Apple may have followed the technical wording, found where they thought it might be lacking and took advantage of it, they were not following the "spirit of the law" IMHO. Sometimes they weren't even following the letter of the law. They aren't the only ones either. with companies like Amazon and Google also found operating outside the tax laws.
It's no badge of pride IMO and certainly no reason to defend it.
The European Commission doesn't like that Ireland had tax policies which gave it an advantage over other nations in the EU when it came to attracting businesses and economic activity. It doesn't think, it seems, other nations in the EU should have to compete with the likes of Ireland when it comes to tax policies which might be attractive to businesses, even though the EU's rules allow Ireland to have very attractive (to businesses) tax policies. The Commission would, it seems, rather all nations in the EU have to have less attractive (to businesses) tax policies. But it can't enforce that. It can't make Ireland have less attractive (to businesses) tax policies. Ireland has to (and has) decide(d) to do that itself.
That said, if the European Commission can compromise the ability of businesses to rely on Ireland's stated laws and policies, which said businesses might rely on in making decisions about where to establish or move economic activity, then the Commission can decrease the attractiveness (to businesses) of Ireland without making Ireland change its tax policies. Businesses generally want to know that the rules they'll be operating under can be relied upon, that they won't retroactively be changed. They want to know, e.g., that taxes will be what they are told (or are on notice) they will be. They want to know that the regulations which supposedly apply, which they can act in accordance with, won't be changed retroactively.
The message that is meant to be sent is this: It doesn't matter what the proper Irish authorities tell you about their own laws (when it comes to, e.g., taxes), you can't rely on the notion that they are right and that they get to decide such things. It might turn out that what you thought was the case - because the Irish government itself told you it was the case - wasn't. You might, e.g., have to pay more taxes than it would seem Irish tax laws and policies would require you to pay. So... maybe Ireland isn't going to be as attractive a place to do business and create economic activity as it seems.
In short, part of this is about damaging the notion of reliance interests when it comes to Ireland's business-attractive laws and policies.
Gatorguy has already pointed out why Apple has to put up the money.
IIRC the investigation that led to this situation was limited in scope insofar as it could not dig further back than 2010 or 11. Apple's dealings with the Irish government on a tax level go much further back. So far that many people now claim to not remember exactly how the deals came about.
This is an informative read but now isn't accessible without a subscription:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-16/the-inside-story-of-apple-s-14-billion-tax-bill
It gives a bit of background information on Tim Cook's movements in Ireland and his meetings with the parties involved in this case.
I found a full copy in the internet archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170205122146/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-16/the-inside-story-of-apple-s-14-billion-tax-bill
And Apple didn't tell Ireland what it would make available for taxation. It asked Ireland if certain methods of determining profit allocation were allowed. How much profit was (income) taxable by Ireland was a function of those methods being used in determining profit allocation. Asking appropriate taxing authorities such things is a fairly common practice. That's due to the complexity (and ambiguity) in many jurisdictions' tax laws. Individuals and businesses need to be able sort out how taxing rules would (or could) apply in given situations. It isn't something that only Apple does, even when it comes to Irish tax authorities.
Is the claim this: That other, similarly-situated, companies weren't allowed to use the methods Apple was allowed to use in allocating profits between foreign and domestic branches of Irish corporations? For instance, was using a percentage-of-expenses method a violation of Irish tax law or policy?
If the Irish want to apply lower tax rates to corporations they must do so openly and available to all. For example if they want a special economic zone where taxes are waived in part but any company can apply to set up operations, and that plan is vetted and approved by a majority of the Irish, the EU will not object. It's not low statutory tax-rates that's the issue, and I'm absolutely certain you know that.
IRELAND's tax regulations violated EU laws.
Apple did nothing wrong. They just got caught up in the other guys' fight.
And whether they can be made to cover for Ireland's mistake is anything but clear at this point, which is why they aren’t paying back taxes — they’re depositing them in escrow until it’s been finally decided whether they have to be paid or not.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08853908.2017.1356250
I don't think overtly aggressive tax avoidance bordering on and sometimes intruding into tax evasion by wealthy multinational corporations deserves a champion of your caliber. It's not a tactic that should be encouraged IMHO, and Apple should consider more than the tangible dollar cost to their shareholders from doing so and factor in the loss of prestige and influence that might follow it couples with negative public perception potentially affecting revenues. Maintaining Apple's public stature and worldwide reputation is also their fiduciary duty. Negative tax policies that lead to public relations and governmental problems do not do that.
In the vein a question for you:
How much is the public's perception of Apple as the friendly and dependable steward of the public's best interests as opposed to other evil greedy corporations worth? More than $15B?
Those policies aren't carved out exceptions to Irish tax policies. They are Irish tax policies. Ireland's ordinary corporate tax rate still applies. It's just that there have to be policies which dictate how the tax base, to which such a rate is applied, is determined.
Again, I didn't say that it was Ireland's low corporate tax rate which was the issue. I'm quite aware of what the Commission objected to, I've read its full decision.
Also, tax policies don't have to be such that they apply the same to everyone. They have to be such that they are applied the same to similarly-situated parties. By their nature, or as they exist in almost all jurisdictions, tax policies treat parties which aren't similarly situated differently. Your taxes might be different if you earn a different kind of income. Your taxes might be different if you have kids (as opposed to don't have kids). Your taxes might be different if you make more or less income. Your taxes might be different if you're a foreign company (as opposed to a domestic company). Ireland has the right to have policies which are different for different kinds of parties. The issue is, were other similarly-situated parties (e.g. Irish corporations which had foreign branches) not allowed to determine allocate profits using the methods that Apple was allowed to use? No one, that I am aware of, has been able to demonstrate that that was the case.
I'd also note that the authors of that piece think that Apple shouldn't have to pay what the Commission wants Ireland to require it to pay. They think that the Commission has acted unethically in retroactively applying a new rule.
Apple was allowed to use profit allocation methods to determine how much profit was attributable to Irish branches of Irish corporations. Those methods resulted in fairly low taxable bases. But no one, as far as I'm aware, has been able to demonstrate that those methods were contrary to Irish tax law or policy. If you believe Apple was allowed to do something other similarly-situated companies weren't (or wouldn't have been) allowed to do, then I'd like to know what that something is. That's kind of important if the claim is that it was allowed to do such a thing. Once we identify the alleged thing which Apple was allowed to do, we might be able to consider whether it was consistent with Irish tax laws and polices. Without knowing what the supposed something is, we can't really assess it. (I am aware of some things which it might be, but those things don't seem to be contrary to Irish tax laws and policies. So I'm willing to consider other things which people might be able to come up with.)
If the Commission (or someone else) wants to assert that Apple got a special tax deal - that what it was allowed to do was contrary to Irish tax law - then it (or they) should be able to identify what that deal was. It (or they) should be able to identify what in particular Apple was allowed to do which was contrary to Irish tax law. That's a pretty reasonable ask, I think. Instead, what we have is the Commission making the case that the result of Irish tax policies, in Apple's case, is bad (or unreasonable, or undesirable, or whatever) and thus how those tax policies applied in Apple's case must not be how Irish tax policies were suppose to apply. We don't like the result, so we assume Ireland wouldn't have wanted that result, so what Ireland allowed Apple to do must not be consistent with its own tax policies. The problem is, Ireland says its tax policies are what its tax policies are - i.e., as they applied to Apple. And the Commission hasn't been able to demonstrate otherwise, e.g. it hasn't been able to say... these other companies weren't allowed to determine profit allocation in that way.
As for your question: Common? I was referring to parties asking tax authorities for rulings on how tax policies would apply in given circumstances. That is a fairly common thing. In Ireland the process results in what's called an advance opinion. In the U.S. it's called a private letter ruling. Parties need clarification on how something works when it comes to taxes. So they ask whether they can do something a certain way. Or they ask how they should do something. And the relevant taxing authority, hopefully, gives them an answer which they can then rely on in deciding what to do. I have a family member who needed to get a private letter ruling from the IRS some years ago. It isn't something that only Apple is allowed to get. Individuals or businesses are allowed to ask their government how tax policies would apply in specified circumstances.
And just to be clear: I'm not, here, championing Apple's tax strategies. I'm addressing a particular issue that has nothing to do with whether I think Apple should do this or that. That issue is... Was Apple given a special deal by Irish taxing authorities? I haven't seen substantial evidence that it was. Ireland claims that it wasn't and I have been given no reason to believe that Ireland is wrong (or lying) about its own tax policies. In assessing that issue, I've asked others who have claimed that Apple was given a special deal to at least identify what that deal was. Even if they can't demonstrate it to be the case, I'd like to know what the supposed deal was: Apple was allowed to do X, which was otherwise not allowed by Irish tax law or policy.
As for your last question... I understand that Apple takes some public perception hit as a result of this situation. I don't know how it can avoid that (or that it should do what it might have to in order to). People are going to think what they're going to think, and often it's not based on really understanding the situation. Regardless, they're entitled to think what they want. But their thinking what they want doesn't mean that Apple got a special tax deal from Ireland.
The primary issue leading to the tax claims is whether the Irish tax office should have been able to carve out a special arrangement not generally available to domestic corporations, and in fact claimed as absolutely unique to Apple, and as a result of those decisions allowed Apple to completely avoid taxation of a substantial percentage of its profits, especially in those regions (Africa, Australia, Germany etc) where the retail sales were accomplished. At the end of the day that method of avoiding taxes crated an unfair competitive advantage for Apple made possible by special aid from the Irish, aka illegal state aid according to the EU Commission.
Proving that no one else was also allowed to make the same arrangements would of course be near impossible so the logical procedure would be showing that anyone else, even one company, was allowed to pay corporate taxes under the same allocation method. If you have one that would be helpful and at least close that particular angle to further discussion.
If you want to claim that there was nothing special about Apple's arrangement then the onus would be on you (well actually Apple) to show the same tax avoidance method was granted by Irish tax agents to other companies.
That said, demonstrating that no one else was allowed to do what Apple was allowed to do wouldn't necessarily be that difficult for the Commission. It had access (or could have gotten access) to other advance opinions. It only needed to find instances where other companies weren't allowed to, e.g., allocate profits between foreign and domestic branches using the methods Apple was allowed to. If other companies were't allowed to allocate profits in much the same ways, they could have come forward and indicated as much or the Commission could have otherwise found them. At any rate, whether the evidence was easy to find or not, the burden was on the Commission to find it or otherwise demonstrate what it claimed. Ireland claims that its tax policies allow certain things. It gets to decide what those tax policies are. It is on others, who claim Ireland's tax policies are actually something different than what it claims (and thus different than they were as applied to Apple), to demonstrate as much.
As for the onus being on me or Apple to show that others were (or would have been) allowed to allocate profits using the same methods Apple was, I'd say... huh? Why would that be the case. Ireland gets to say what its tax policies are. It says they are X, Y and Z. Others - most notably, the European Commission - claim that is incorrect. The Commission claims that Ireland's generally-applicable tax policies aren't what Ireland claims they are. Well, okay. But the burden is then on the Commission (or others making similar claims) to demonstrate that. If Ireland says its tax policies are X, Y, and Z, then (when it comes to this kind of action being taken against Ireland) it is on others to demonstrate that it is wrong or being dishonest.
But I haven't even been asking people to demonstrate that Ireland's generally-applicable tax policies are other than what it claims. I haven't been asking people to demonstrate that other similarly-situated entities weren't (or wouldn't have been) allowed to do what Apple was allowed to do. I've just been asking what it is that people claim Apple was allowed to do which other similarly-situated entities weren't (or wouldn't have been) allowed to do. That's a pretty straight forward query. If people believe that Apple got a special deal - i.e., was allowed to do something others wouldn't have been allowed to - then they should be able to identify what that deal was. What was it that Apple was allowed to do, that others couldn't have, which resulted in it having a lower tax base in Ireland? For instance, what profit allocation method was it allowed to use that others couldn't have?
I'd also like to be clear about a side issue that some seem to be confused about (I'm not sure whether you are, but the way you stated something makes me think you might be - I'm not sure). How Ireland allowed companies to allocate profits between foreign and domestic branches has nothing to do with whether income taxes would be paid in other jurisdictions, i.e. where retail sales were made. This issue has nothing to do with that. Under the laws applicable in those jurisdictions, Apple wasn't supposed to pay income taxes in many other jurisdictions anyway - whether it paid more or less income taxes in Ireland. In accordance with the income tax policies of many jurisdictions, income tax is due where income it generated not where sales are made. That has to do with value creation, not where sales occur. And it has to do with whether there is a permanent establishment somewhere or not, and then with what profits are properly attributable to that permanent establishment.
Taxes levied as a consequence of where sales are made are sales taxes or VAT taxes (or perhaps called other things), they aren't income taxes. Jurisdictions generally don't intend to collect income taxes based on sales being made in their jurisdiction. They have good reasons not to levy income taxes based on that. That's part of why they use sales (and the like) taxes to capture revenue from sales transactions. Apple isn't doing something other than what is intended when it doesn't, e.g., pay income taxes in Germany for all the sales of Apple devices that are made in Germany. The only income taxes it should be paying in Germany are those on income made by permanent establishments it has in Germany. For instance, if it has retail stores there it would need to pay income taxes based on the profits made by those stores. But those profits might not be all that large because the retail margins on Apple products aren't necessarily that large. The real money isn't made at the retail level.
EDIT: I'm short on time, heading out the door. Please forgive any spelling or grammar errors.
Well, all current (and historic) Rothschild-owned banks, Standard Oil, Saudi Aramco, Carnegie Steel… I’d like to see them adjusted for inflation and compared to Apple. The problem, apparently, is that Ireland isn’t allowed to have its own tax law anymore, and that Ireland violated some “supranational” EU bullshit they’d agreed to earlier.
Apple's tax arrangement with Ireland was illegal under EU law. If Ireland wasn't in the EU there would have been no problem. However the draw of being based IN Ireland was the fact it is IN Europe which allows free movement of people, goods and services between member nations. Ireland was more at fault than Apple as it proposed and reverse-engineered the low tax to entice Apple's business to Eire, but Apple's money-men should and would have known about the overriding EU laws.
The proposed taxation changes going forward cover not only the growing problem of shifting profits to minimise taxation but also to cover "online based" companies that have no physical presence, yet make money from citizens worldwide selling a "digital" product. It's a common sense approach that basically says if you do business in country A, B and C, you pay the taxes relevant to your earnings in each of those countries, to those countries directly, rather than hide behind a foreign entity or shell company pleading poverty. There are other aims including tackling international money laundering etc.
or not. Apple and Ireland both claim that this was not a special deal just for Apple. it's not their fault if no other company fulfilled the rules for the tax credit, which may have been around for years or no other company wanted to use it. And it's not their fault of the EU is pulling a move like our own US Congress and saying that Apple should not use available credits and pay more taxes simply because they can afford it. and all of that is why both Apple and Ireland are appealing the ruling. But in the meantime Apple will put the money into an escrow account so the EU knows that there's no way they can't pay if it comes down to everyone siding against them.