I say make Apple Pay. They want heavy government spending, they should pay for it; their effective tax rate is too low for the biggest public company in the world.
It was Ireland who broke the law, not Apple. Apple reaped the benefits of the scheme (as did Ireland). But it was Ireland who committed the crime -- Apple basically simply received the stolen goods.
There is absolutely no inherent right for anyone to forcibly grab other people's money. The EU's internecine failures are not Apple's problem.
Guess what, sometimes, courts agree.
There is absolutely a right for governments and supra-governments to seize assets from corporations for unpaid tax liabilities if that's what the law says. Not sure what "inherent" has to do with anything; there is no "natural" company law.
I say make Apple Pay. They want heavy government spending, they should pay for it; their effective tax rate is too low for the biggest public company in the world.
It was Ireland who broke the law, not Apple. Apple reaped the benefits of the scheme (as did Ireland). But it was Ireland who committed the crime -- Apple basically simply received the stolen goods.
Funny how the article is about a court deciding that no crime was committed. Perhaps you didn't read it.
I think this was a no-brainer, Apple and Ireland should have won this appeal. The European Commission's decision never demonstrated what it claimed it did and what it needed to in order to justify the action it took.
That said, I'm quite surprised that Ireland and Apple did win.
Let’s wait to see if the EC goes to the Court of Justice for a final verdict.
I suspect the EU will ultimately win. I'm surprised Apple and Ireland even won at this stage though.
The EU's case presentation was apparently less than stellar, losing on the preparation but not yet on the facts. I tend to agree with you that in the end Ireland (and by extension Apple) won't win this one.
It was more than 'preparation.' The court ruled that Vesthager's claim that Apple had been given special treatment by Ireland -- treatment that was unavailable to other companies -- was not valid.
In other words, The court said that there was no case here, to begin with. End of story.
I say make Apple Pay. They want heavy government spending, they should pay for it; their effective tax rate is too low for the biggest public company in the world.
It was Ireland who broke the law, not Apple. Apple reaped the benefits of the scheme (as did Ireland). But it was Ireland who committed the crime -- Apple basically simply received the stolen goods.
Funny how the article is about a court deciding that no crime was committed. Perhaps you didn't read it.
That decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence that rules were broken. And that decision is appealable, where more evidence can be provided. Not quite the same.
It is all so stupid. Corporations do not pay taxes- they pass them on to the customers.
Sure, that's largely true, but if some corporations are allowed to evade or avoid paying some or all tax then they have an unfair competitive advantage over those that cannot. The whole point of this is the claim that Apple was afforded special treatment that wasn't available to their competitors.
I say make Apple Pay. They want heavy government spending, they should pay for it; their effective tax rate is too low for the biggest public company in the world.
It was Ireland who broke the law, not Apple. Apple reaped the benefits of the scheme (as did Ireland). But it was Ireland who committed the crime -- Apple basically simply received the stolen goods.
Funny how the article is about a court deciding that no crime was committed. Perhaps you didn't read it.
That decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence that rules were broken. And that decision is appealable, where more evidence can be provided. Not quite the same.
I'm pretty sure that when a court says something like "According to the General Court, the Commission was wrong to declare that ASI and AOE had been granted a selective economic advantage and, by extension, State aid." they are saying "no crime was committed."
I think this was a no-brainer, Apple and Ireland should have won this appeal. The European Commission's decision never demonstrated what it claimed it did and what it needed to in order to justify the action it took.
That said, I'm quite surprised that Ireland and Apple did win.
Let’s wait to see if the EC goes to the Court of Justice for a final verdict.
I suspect the EU will ultimately win. I'm surprised Apple and Ireland even won at this stage though.
The EU's case presentation was apparently less than stellar, losing on the preparation but not yet on the facts. I tend to agree with you that in the end Ireland (and by extension Apple) won't win this one.
It was more than 'preparation.' The court ruled that Vesthager's claim that Apple had been given special treatment by Ireland -- treatment that was unavailable to other companies -- was not valid.
In other words, The court said that there was no case here, to begin with. End of story.
That's not at all what was said Anant.
From another article: "The court ruled not that the EU was wrong, but rather that it hadn’t proven its case ‘to the requisite legal standard.’ That’s a polite way for a judge to tell the losing side that they failed to properly prepare their case, and to imply that the outcome would have been different if they’d done their homework …"
I say make Apple Pay. They want heavy government spending, they should pay for it; their effective tax rate is too low for the biggest public company in the world.
It was Ireland who broke the law, not Apple. Apple reaped the benefits of the scheme (as did Ireland). But it was Ireland who committed the crime -- Apple basically simply received the stolen goods.
Funny how the article is about a court deciding that no crime was committed. Perhaps you didn't read it.
That decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence that rules were broken. And that decision is appealable, where more evidence can be provided. Not quite the same.
I'm pretty sure that when a court says something like "According to the General Court, the Commission was wrong to declare that ASI and AOE had been granted a selective economic advantage and, by extension, State aid." they are saying "no crime was committed."
No. Previous posts stands. No further evidence required. You're wrong.
Good news, it was obvious that the EU were on a money grab and trying to retroactively change the law to do so imho. I’m not saying Apple and Ireland will ultimately win even though I do not believe for a minute Apple broke the law. I do believe the EU will more than ever given recent economic events do anything they can get to as much as they can from anywhere they can.
This has been gone over many times, there is no retroactive changing of the law, the law came into force in 1992 (I believe it was Maastricht) and Ireland should have adjusted its tax relationship with Apple at the time. Just because it has taken a number of years for the case to be brought doesn't mean the law has been changed in any way. It is Ireland that is accused of breaking EU law, not Apple; Apple was merely the beneficiary. Also, the EU will not "get" anything much from this - if Apple and Ireland loses the case then the money held in escrow is payable to the tax authorities in Ireland, not the EU.
Again, this has been covered many times. Please stop spreading misinformation.
You're the one spreading misinformation, I am afraid. If the money gets credited to Ireland, that is money in the bank for the EU since they will have to send a smaller annual check to the country (Ireland is a net recipient of EU largesse).
Moreover, if Apple had lost, the long run consequences for Ireland, by making is less competitive as a destination for US tech investment, might have been for more onerous. You're ignoring some basic facts here.
Ireland is a net contributor to the EU, and has been for a while.
As for the comment you were replying to, the law used against Ireland was state aid, not that they had too low a taxation level. Which isn't something that is a competency of the EU.
I think this was a no-brainer, Apple and Ireland should have won this appeal. The European Commission's decision never demonstrated what it claimed it did and what it needed to in order to justify the action it took.
That said, I'm quite surprised that Ireland and Apple did win.
Let’s wait to see if the EC goes to the Court of Justice for a final verdict.
I suspect the EU will ultimately win. I'm surprised Apple and Ireland even won at this stage though.
The EU's case presentation was apparently less than stellar, losing on the preparation but not yet on the facts. I tend to agree with you that in the end Ireland (and by extension Apple) won't win this one.
On what basis except perhaps this is what you have always believed.
Good news, it was obvious that the EU were on a money grab and trying to retroactively change the law to do so imho. I’m not saying Apple and Ireland will ultimately win even though I do not believe for a minute Apple broke the law. I do believe the EU will more than ever given recent economic events do anything they can get to as much as they can from anywhere they can.
This has been gone over many times, there is no retroactive changing of the law, the law came into force in 1992 (I believe it was Maastricht) and Ireland should have adjusted its tax relationship with Apple at the time. Just because it has taken a number of years for the case to be brought doesn't mean the law has been changed in any way. It is Ireland that is accused of breaking EU law, not Apple; Apple was merely the beneficiary. Also, the EU will not "get" anything much from this - if Apple and Ireland loses the case then the money held in escrow is payable to the tax authorities in Ireland, not the EU.
Again, this has been covered many times. Please stop spreading misinformation.
You're the one spreading misinformation, I am afraid. If the money gets credited to Ireland, that is money in the bank for the EU since they will have to send a smaller annual check to the country (Ireland is a net recipient of EU largesse).
Moreover, if Apple had lost, the long run consequences for Ireland, by making is less competitive as a destination for US tech investment, might have been for more onerous. You're ignoring some basic facts here.
Ireland is a net contributor to the EU, and has been for a while.
As for the comment you were replying to, the law used against Ireland was state aid, not that they had too low a taxation level. Which isn't something that is a competency of the EU.
Sure. I didn't mean to imply otherwise, sorry if I did.
I think this was a no-brainer, Apple and Ireland should have won this appeal. The European Commission's decision never demonstrated what it claimed it did and what it needed to in order to justify the action it took.
That said, I'm quite surprised that Ireland and Apple did win.
Well, we'll see what the EU does next.
They failed to prove that Ireland was giving Apple preferential tax treatment. Not sure how the paperwork is going to change for an appeal. My guess is that they'll try to come up with a different accusation altogether; not sure this one has legs.
I think this was a no-brainer, Apple and Ireland should have won this appeal. The European Commission's decision never demonstrated what it claimed it did and what it needed to in order to justify the action it took.
That said, I'm quite surprised that Ireland and Apple did win.
Let’s wait to see if the EC goes to the Court of Justice for a final verdict.
I suspect the EU will ultimately win. I'm surprised Apple and Ireland even won at this stage though.
The EU's case presentation was apparently less than stellar, losing on the preparation but not yet on the facts. I tend to agree with you that in the end Ireland (and by extension Apple) won't win this one.
On what basis except perhaps this is what you have always believed.
I say make Apple Pay. They want heavy government spending, they should pay for it; their effective tax rate is too low for the biggest public company in the world.
FWIW, they’re the biggest taxpayer in the US. Their global effective tax rate varies over the years, sometimes as high as 25%, sometimes 15%. But certainly more that the big US brands who famously pay 0% — GE, Amazon, Netflix, FedEx, etc etc...
I say make Apple Pay. They want heavy government spending, they should pay for it; their effective tax rate is too low for the biggest public company in the world.
It was Ireland who broke the law, not Apple. Apple reaped the benefits of the scheme (as did Ireland). But it was Ireland who committed the crime -- Apple basically simply received the stolen goods.
Good news, it was obvious that the EU were on a money grab and trying to retroactively change the law to do so imho. I’m not saying Apple and Ireland will ultimately win even though I do not believe for a minute Apple broke the law. I do believe the EU will more than ever given recent economic events do anything they can get to as much as they can from anywhere they can.
This has been gone over many times, there is no retroactive changing of the law, the law came into force in 1992 (I believe it was Maastricht) and Ireland should have adjusted its tax relationship with Apple at the time. Just because it has taken a number of years for the case to be brought doesn't mean the law has been changed in any way. It is Ireland that is accused of breaking EU law, not Apple; Apple was merely the beneficiary. Also, the EU will not "get" anything much from this - if Apple and Ireland loses the case then the money held in escrow is payable to the tax authorities in Ireland, not the EU.
Again, this has been covered many times. Please stop spreading misinformation.
You're the one spreading misinformation, I am afraid. If the money gets credited to Ireland, that is money in the bank for the EU since they will have to send a smaller annual check to the country (Ireland is a net recipient of EU largesse).
Moreover, if Apple had lost, the long run consequences for Ireland, by making is less competitive as a destination for US tech investment, might have been for more onerous. You're ignoring some basic facts here.
Good news, it was obvious that the EU were on a money grab and trying to retroactively change the law to do so imho. I’m not saying Apple and Ireland will ultimately win even though I do not believe for a minute Apple broke the law. I do believe the EU will more than ever given recent economic events do anything they can get to as much as they can from anywhere they can.
This has been gone over many times, there is no retroactive changing of the law, the law came into force in 1992 (I believe it was Maastricht) and Ireland should have adjusted its tax relationship with Apple at the time. Just because it has taken a number of years for the case to be brought doesn't mean the law has been changed in any way. It is Ireland that is accused of breaking EU law, not Apple; Apple was merely the beneficiary. Also, the EU will not "get" anything much from this - if Apple and Ireland loses the case then the money held in escrow is payable to the tax authorities in Ireland, not the EU.
Again, this has been covered many times. Please stop spreading misinformation.
You're the one spreading misinformation, I am afraid. If the money gets credited to Ireland, that is money in the bank for the EU since they will have to send a smaller annual check to the country (Ireland is a net recipient of EU largesse).
Moreover, if Apple had lost, the long run consequences for Ireland, by making is less competitive as a destination for US tech investment, might have been for more onerous. You're ignoring some basic facts here.
I think this was a no-brainer, Apple and Ireland should have won this appeal. The European Commission's decision never demonstrated what it claimed it did and what it needed to in order to justify the action it took.
That said, I'm quite surprised that Ireland and Apple did win.
Let’s wait to see if the EC goes to the Court of Justice for a final verdict.
I suspect the EU will ultimately win. I'm surprised Apple and Ireland even won at this stage though.
The probability of the EU "ultimately" winning just went down dramatically, sorry. You can't put lipstick on this pig.
The probability went down, sure. As for putting lipstick on a pig... if you're referring to the European Commission's weak case, then... weak legal arguments - ones that don't make much sense at all - sometimes win in court. Apple and Ireland should ultimately win, but that doesn't mean they will.
I say make Apple Pay. They want heavy government spending, they should pay for it; their effective tax rate is too low for the biggest public company in the world.
FWIW, they’re the biggest taxpayer in the US. Their global effective tax rate varies over the years, sometimes as high as 25%, sometimes 15%. But certainly more that the big US brands who famously pay 0% — GE, Amazon, Netflix, FedEx, etc etc...
Justifying Apple’s effective tax rate with other taxes rates is not a valid approach. Those should be handled separately.
But if Apple wants heavy government spending and very progressive tax brackets for the 1% (which I am far from being in that group), I say ream Apple for 50-75% or whatever the ridiculous number politicians are throwing around is, even though I own Apple stock. Put your money where you mouth is, then we can talk.
Of course taxing companies for 0% is equally ridiculous as taxing them for 75%. Personally, I think 25% is fair.
I think this was a no-brainer, Apple and Ireland should have won this appeal. The European Commission's decision never demonstrated what it claimed it did and what it needed to in order to justify the action it took.
That said, I'm quite surprised that Ireland and Apple did win.
Let’s wait to see if the EC goes to the Court of Justice for a final verdict.
I suspect the EU will ultimately win. I'm surprised Apple and Ireland even won at this stage though.
The EU's case presentation was apparently less than stellar, losing on the preparation but not yet on the facts. I tend to agree with you that in the end Ireland (and by extension Apple) won't win this one.
It was more than 'preparation.' The court ruled that Vesthager's claim that Apple had been given special treatment by Ireland -- treatment that was unavailable to other companies -- was not valid.
In other words, The court said that there was no case here, to begin with. End of story.
That's not at all what was said Anant.
From another article: "The court ruled not that the EU was wrong, but rather that it hadn’t proven its case ‘to the requisite legal standard.’ That’s a polite way for a judge to tell the losing side that they failed to properly prepare their case, and to imply that the outcome would have been different if they’d done their homework …"
From the WSJ today: "In a stinging rebuke to the commission, the General Court said it annulled the decision because the commission had failed to meet the legal standards in showing that Apple was illegally given special treatment..... Apple and Ireland on Wednesday applauded the annulment of the tax case. Ireland reiterated that it gave no special treatment to Apple, and said that the company had paid taxes according to “normal Irish taxation rules.”
It goes on to say: "The overturning of the Apple decision, while a loss for the commission, gives ammunition to tech-industry critics—including Ms. Vestager—who say current tax and competition laws must be updated to curb alleged abuses by large tech companies. European countries and the U.S. are currently at an impasse in international talks over how and whether to update the global tax system to make tech companies pay more levies where their customers are based."
The latter is the real issue that needs to be fixed. In other words, fussing around with only-vaguely-related contortions like "state aid" likely won't cut it.
I think this was a no-brainer, Apple and Ireland should have won this appeal. The European Commission's decision never demonstrated what it claimed it did and what it needed to in order to justify the action it took.
That said, I'm quite surprised that Ireland and Apple did win.
Let’s wait to see if the EC goes to the Court of Justice for a final verdict.
I suspect the EU will ultimately win. I'm surprised Apple and Ireland even won at this stage though.
The EU's case presentation was apparently less than stellar, losing on the preparation but not yet on the facts. I tend to agree with you that in the end Ireland (and by extension Apple) won't win this one.
The Commission's case wasn't good because its arguments were wrong. It couldn't demonstrate what it asserted because what it asserted was wrong. This wasn't about not preparing well for the legal arguments. This was about not having the legal goods, so to speak.
The Commission was wrong and it couldn't prove its case, and the General Court said as much.
Comments
In other words, The court said that there was no case here, to begin with. End of story.
From another article: "The court ruled not that the EU was wrong, but rather that it hadn’t proven its case ‘to the requisite legal standard.’ That’s a polite way for a judge to tell the losing side that they failed to properly prepare their case, and to imply that the outcome would have been different if they’d done their homework …"
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/taoiseach-predicts-steep-rise-in-ireland-s-contribution-to-the-eu-budget-1.4084499
As for the comment you were replying to, the law used against Ireland was state aid, not that they had too low a taxation level. Which isn't something that is a competency of the EU.
On what basis except perhaps this is what you have always believed.
Well, we'll see what the EU does next.
They failed to prove that Ireland was giving Apple preferential tax treatment. Not sure how the paperwork is going to change for an appeal. My guess is that they'll try to come up with a different accusation altogether; not sure this one has legs.
https://9to5mac.com/2020/07/15/irish-tax-case/
It goes on to say: "The overturning of the Apple decision, while a loss for the commission, gives ammunition to tech-industry critics—including Ms. Vestager—who say current tax and competition laws must be updated to curb alleged abuses by large tech companies. European countries and the U.S. are currently at an impasse in international talks over how and whether to update the global tax system to make tech companies pay more levies where their customers are based."
The latter is the real issue that needs to be fixed. In other words, fussing around with only-vaguely-related contortions like "state aid" likely won't cut it.
The Commission was wrong and it couldn't prove its case, and the General Court said as much.