Apple CFO says 'fair' outcome in Irish tax investigation would be no money owed

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 65
    Why hasn't Peter Oppenheimer weighed in on this?
  • Reply 42 of 65
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,841member
    Why hasn't Peter Oppenheimer weighed in on this?
    Because he retired in 2014?

    https://www.apple.com/uk/pr/library/2014/03/04Apples-Peter-Oppenheimer-to-Retire-at-the-End-of-September.html
    asdasd
  • Reply 43 of 65
    mr. h said:
    Why hasn't Peter Oppenheimer weighed in on this?
    Because he retired in 2014?

    https://www.apple.com/uk/pr/library/2014/03/04Apples-Peter-Oppenheimer-to-Retire-at-the-End-of-September.html
    I know he's retired. He should weigh in because he was the architect of this brilliant technique. And he should weigh in because it is his work that is under attack.
  • Reply 44 of 65
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,841member


    I know he's retired. He should weigh in because he was the architect of this brilliant technique. And he should weigh in because it is his work that is under attack.
    Brilliant. Morally reprehensible. To each his own.
    cnocbui
  • Reply 45 of 65
    hmm said:
    mr. h said:
    Hey AI, how many times do people have to tell you that companies pay corporation tax on profits not revenue, before you get it?
    I expected them to get that down by now. Suggesting it works that way would give a strange impression with any company that operates at lower margins.
    In most states, Best Buy would be required to collect if they have any presence in that state. Otherwise you would owe it directly. This falls under use tax laws in most states, so it is well defined that you are responsible for it. They aren't always strictly enforced, so many people don't report everything. Your notion that Best Buy was responsible is incorrect either way. Don't make assumptions about the way a law should work based on personal ideology.

    By the way, this is sufficiently accurate. It mentions the origin of this, which predate the use of the internet as a sales channel.
    Concurring with hmm.  Until recently I was required to collect and remit sales tax in Maryland.  What Best Buy should do in that hypothetical is discount the iPad to $711 and collect the sales tax.  However the key words are collect and remit.  The sales tax is not a tax on the reseller, it is a tax on the buyer that the reseller collects on behalf of the state.  In fact, Maryland even kicks a tiny bit ( about 1%) back to the reseller if they remit the tax by the deadlines.  If the reseller simply forgot to collect it, they could come back to you for it.  Hmm is also correct about use taxes, Maryland wants you to pay them sales tax for anything you bought that wasn't subject to sales tax, like those internet purchases. 

    Back to the matter at hand, if Apple was simply paying the wrong amount due to some misunderstanding or miscalculation, it would seem not unjust for them to pay the correct amount.  My understanding of the matter is that Ireland made some arrangement with Apple that the EU contends violates some EU rule. If that's the case, shouldn't Ireland be penalized by the EU?  If they're going to pursue retroactive taxes as if that deal never happened, they should subtract any costs Apple incurred to keep its end of the deal, as well as the opportunity costs incurred by Apple for investing in Ireland rather than some other place. I expect Apple would have pitched their tent somewhere else rather than pay $8b more in taxes.
    hmm
  • Reply 46 of 65
    zabazaba Posts: 226member
    I am retrospectively responsible for the previous 7 years of tax returns. If I have not paid enough tax in those 7 years I am required to pay that back. Why should this be any different for Apple. We pay premium for Apple products. They make huge profits and they should rightly make the correct contribution for the profit on sales made in the region. It's quite simple and I hope they see fit to pay even though everything they have done has likely been within the realms of the law at the time. 
    cnocbuimdriftmeyer
  • Reply 47 of 65
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    droo said:
    Ireland encouraged corporations to bring business to Ireland with favourable tax laws. Apple brought business to Ireland. If the EU determines that Ireland's laws are too favourable, and are unfair to other EU members, then EU can put pressure on Ireland and Ireland may be forced to change its future tax relationship with Apple and all the other businesses who did the same as Apple. If Ireland tries to penalise those companies for responding to the incentives Ireland provided, Ireland will undo all the work they've done bringing multinationals to Ireland.
    This isn't about Ireland's tax rules being too lenient it's about whether Ireland offered a tax deal to Apple that was available to others and being classed as state aid against EU law.
    Here is a quote from an Irish citizen on this: "Unfortunately this kind of political bullying in regard to our corporate tax is nothing new here in Ireland with regard to the EU. We have had a low corporate tax for decades due to having very little industry in a tiny (island) country with a population at it’s highest in centuries but still only around 5million people in the entire country. We needed to do SOMETHING to attract large corporations here when this country was on its arse and this was our opportunity. 

    I can tell you that anti-EU sentiment here is at an all time high and this is something which doesn’t help their cause. It just smacks of jealousy and bullying (if we can’t attract these companies here, we’ll make it unattractive for them to go to yours) from countries who have massive industrial capabilities but want everything for themselves, i.e., being world leaders in Auto supply is not enough. They have been trying for as long as I can remember to get us to give up this tax incentive but we have resisted (it’s the only good thing I think ANY government has ever done here). Personally I would like to tell them to shove their so called “Economic Union”. It’s a joke (and a bad one at that)."

  • Reply 48 of 65
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,424member
    Seeing Tim Cook pipe up about this again and again, I suspect that his argument was not for "the most lenient possible" ruling, but more pointedly that Apple not be singled out just because of their success. I am sure he'd be happy if the taxes were oriented in a smarter way.
    They're not singled out now. Google, Starbucks, Fiat and over 30 other companies, some based in Europe, have already been popped this year for their very creative tax avoidance strategies that often required a "special" tax rate not available to local companies and negotiated behind closed doors in countries like Belgium, Luxembourg and Ireland. Yeah, other companies gotta pay back taxes too. Why single out Apple as not having to?  

    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-42_en.htm
    edited January 2016 singularitycnocbui
  • Reply 49 of 65
    jdgazjdgaz Posts: 393member
    All corporate income taxes are evil. They simply end up being paid by the consumer in the cost of goods.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 50 of 65
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    jdgaz said:
    All corporate income taxes are evil. They simply end up being paid by the consumer in the cost of goods.
    Thats not true, if taxes were removed Apple would just get a bigger cash pile. 
    cnocbuigatorguy
  • Reply 51 of 65
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    asdasd said:
    Because of double taxation rules, they won't owe the money in Ireland were it paid in the US. 

    The reporting of the Google taxation issue in the UK is the most financially illiterate reporting evah. 
    Is that double taxation rules in the US or in Ireland? 
     As if in the hypothetical situation they lost the ruling but had moved the money to the US they would still be liable to pay back to Ireland regardless of anything they had paid to the US. Though they'd probably be due one hell of a rebate from the US government!
    I don't think they would. If tax in the US is higher than Ireland, ( or the same) then Apple would owe no tax in Ireland. 
  • Reply 52 of 65
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    jdgaz said:
    All corporate income taxes are evil. They simply end up being paid by the consumer in the cost of goods.
    No they do not, that is complete nonsense.  What is evil, is corporations dodging vast amounts of tax because according to an OECD analysis, governments compensate by increasing taxes and charges on individual taxpayers who end up shouldering the burden.
    edited January 2016 mdriftmeyer
  • Reply 53 of 65
    mr. h said:
    I know he's retired. He should weigh in because he was the architect of this brilliant technique. And he should weigh in because it is his work that is under attack.
    Brilliant. Morally reprehensible. To each his own.
    I suppose if one were a statist they might be opposed to innovation and creativity and in favor of blind compliance.
  • Reply 54 of 65
    asdasd said:
    Is that double taxation rules in the US or in Ireland? 
     As if in the hypothetical situation they lost the ruling but had moved the money to the US they would still be liable to pay back to Ireland regardless of anything they had paid to the US. Though they'd probably be due one hell of a rebate from the US government!
    I don't think they would. If tax in the US is higher than Ireland, ( or the same) then Apple would owe no tax in Ireland. 
    Nope. They would still have a big bill to pay. What tax Apple pays in the US is not applicable to what would be owed.
    cnocbui
  • Reply 55 of 65
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,841member
    jdgaz said:
    All corporate income taxes are evil. They simply end up being paid by the consumer in the cost of goods.
    Not necessarily. In the case of goods with high margins such as Apple, the price is set predominantly by supply and demand. Apple couldn’t raise their prices significantly without their sales crashing (we are starting to see that perhaps, their prices are already a little too high - see Apple’s guidance for next quarter). Apple can easily afford to pay their fair share (which in Ireland is 12.5%) without price increases.SpamSandwich said:
    mr. h said:
    Brilliant. Morally reprehensible. To each his own.
    I suppose if one were a statist they might be opposed to innovation and creativity and in favor of blind compliance.
    Yeah, or maybe the world isn’t black and white.
    cnocbui
  • Reply 56 of 65
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,363member
    latifbp said:
    cnocbui said:
    Technically.
    Where did they start? Where were they fought? What started them? Yup, that's what I thought. Thanks.
    The major World War 2 hostilities arguably kicked off when Japan invaded China, and large parts of the war were fought in the Pacific Theatre, and in the African campaigns.  And it finally ended with Japan's surrender.

    World War 1 was a little more straightforward in its geography focus on Europe.
  • Reply 57 of 65
    ceek74ceek74 Posts: 324member
    This thread...none of us is as dumb as all of us.
    diplication
  • Reply 58 of 65
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,424member
    latifbp said:
    droo said:
    Ireland encouraged corporations to bring business to Ireland with favourable tax laws. Apple brought business to Ireland. If the EU determines that Ireland's laws are too favourable, and are unfair to other EU members, then EU can put pressure on Ireland and Ireland may be forced to change its future tax relationship with Apple and all the other businesses who did the same as Apple. If Ireland tries to penalise those companies for responding to the incentives Ireland provided, Ireland will undo all the work they've done bringing multinationals to Ireland.
    This isn't about Ireland's tax rules being too lenient it's about whether Ireland offered a tax deal to Apple that was available to others and being classed as state aid against EU law.
    Here is a quote from an Irish citizen on this: "Unfortunately this kind of political bullying in regard to our corporate tax is nothing new here in Ireland with regard to the EU. We have had a low corporate tax for decades due to having very little industry in a tiny (island) country with a population at it’s highest in centuries but still only around 5million people in the entire country. We needed to do SOMETHING to attract large corporations here when this country was on its arse and this was our opportunity
    Isn't Ireland's standard 12.5% corporate tax rate already one of the lowest in the world? If so then that by itself should be enough to attract multinational corporations to claim a home there. A relatively secret sub-3% rate agreement with Apple and perhaps others too is plainly unfair to smaller companies trying to compete without the special tax arrangements. THAT'S what the EU commission is complaining about. There's absolutely no reason to make the rich richer by taking more from smaller companies and startups.

    That's where the unfair competition claim comes from. 
    edited January 2016 cnocbuisingularitymdriftmeyer
  • Reply 59 of 65
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    latifbp said:
    This isn't about Ireland's tax rules being too lenient it's about whether Ireland offered a tax deal to Apple that was available to others and being classed as state aid against EU law.
    Here is a quote from an Irish citizen on this: "Unfortunately this kind of political bullying in regard to our corporate tax is nothing new here in Ireland with regard to the EU. We have had a low corporate tax for decades due to having very little industry in a tiny (island) country with a population at it’s highest in centuries but still only around 5million people in the entire country. We needed to do SOMETHING to attract large corporations here when this country was on its arse and this was our opportunity. 

    I can tell you that anti-EU sentiment here is at an all time high and this is something which doesn’t help their cause. It just smacks of jealousy and bullying (if we can’t attract these companies here, we’ll make it unattractive for them to go to yours) from countries who have massive industrial capabilities but want everything for themselves, i.e., being world leaders in Auto supply is not enough. They have been trying for as long as I can remember to get us to give up this tax incentive but we have resisted (it’s the only good thing I think ANY government has ever done here). Personally I would like to tell them to shove their so called “Economic Union”. It’s a joke (and a bad one at that)."

    That's great, you only need another 4,999,999 opinions to get a consensus.  He needs to brush up on his history a bit as Ireland was more populous just prior to the famine than it is now.  Also, he appears to be talking about Ireland's 12.5% tax rate, not Apples own private 2% rate.
  • Reply 60 of 65
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    crowley said:
    latifbp said:
    Where did they start? Where were they fought? What started them? Yup, that's what I thought. Thanks.
    The major World War 2 hostilities arguably kicked off when Japan invaded China, and large parts of the war were fought in the Pacific Theatre, and in the African campaigns.  And it finally ended with Japan's surrender.

    World War 1 was a little more straightforward in its geography focus on Europe.
    I would agree but argue that disagreements about the consolidation of power has been a problem leading to many conflicts in Europe
Sign In or Register to comment.