Sheer amount of data involved delaying EU ruling on Apple's Irish tax deals, Commissioner says

Posted:
in General Discussion edited April 2016
There's no way of telling when the European Commission will conclude its investigation into Apple's Irish tax deals, simply because the huge amount of data involved, the Commission's competition head said on Monday.




"The first priority is the quality of the case work... And therefore it is very difficult to make predictions as to when the case will be ready for a decision," Margrethe Vestager told a European Parliament hearing, according to Reuters.

The investigation has already been in progress for two years. Vestager noted that having recently asked the Irish government for more information, new questions were raised that demanded answers from both Ireland and Apple.

Apple is accused of exploiting Irish loopholes to avoid paying normal taxes on international revenue, in exchange for keeping jobs in the country. In addition to funneling money through Ireland, Apple's European operations are based there, along with its only self-owned factory. A datacenter is planned, but awaiting approval.

Under European Union regulations, such tax arrangements could constitute illegal state aid if they're not extended to every business. The EU has been cracking down on other governments and multinational corporations for this reason, and could potentially ask Ireland to collect billions in back taxes from Apple.

The latter insists that it has "paid every cent of tax" it owes, but has also promised that it is "committed to Ireland" regardless of how the Commission rules.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,572member
    When Government or it's whatever agency says, because of so and so tax loopholes, this happened. Well, if you don't have loophole in tax than companies will operate somewhere else and your people won't get job and extra revenue. So EU, either fix your tax loopholes or leave Apple and similar companies alone. And USA has similar problem where some companies merge with others and have their headquarter/operation in some countries where they pay less tax/benefits Nothing new.
    edited April 2016 latifbp
  • Reply 2 of 22
    ceek74ceek74 Posts: 324member
    I hope it's not 2.6TB of data.
  • Reply 3 of 22
    buzdotsbuzdots Posts: 451member
    wood1208 said:
    When Government or it's whatever agency says, because of so and so tax loopholes, this happened. Well, if you don't have loophole in tax than companies will operate somewhere else and your people won't get job and extra revenue. So EU, either fix your tax loopholes or leave Apple and similar companies alone. And USA has similar problem where some companies merge with others and have their headquarter/operation in some countries where they pay less tax/benefits Nothing new.
    Yep, if U.S. didn't has such sh*tass tax laws, above referenced companies would be operating from home turf and keeping money in the US economy.

    Flat Tax, Fair Tax, uncomplicated tax - something has to be done and quick
    latifbp
  • Reply 4 of 22
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,019member

    Of course Apple got a tax break and also agree to keep jobs in Ireland, it is called a win/win. The EU is unhappy they did not get their cut. The EU has to be careful since the UK is talking about pulling out of the EU do to all the open boards issue with the crazies living in most of the EU. If the UK leaves Ireland will not be far behind.

    The thing is most people have no idea that Apple/Ireland deal dates back to the late 80's and predates the EU authority in the mater. The reason they trying to go through all data is they trying to find if their were new deals with after the EU came into existence.

    Google, Amazon and Facebook do not predate the EU so they going to pay. Apple is going to be a more complicated issue for the EU to deal with.

    latifbp
  • Reply 5 of 22
    I remember reading the delay with making a decision was due to the EU wanting to wait until elections were over.

    Since that decision cannot stay at the top of the news, overwhelming amounts of data is being pushed to the top of the news.

    I just want the EU to be transparent about it came to whatever decision is eventually made. 
  • Reply 6 of 22
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    wood1208 said:
    When Government or it's whatever agency says, because of so and so tax loopholes, this happened. Well, if you don't have loophole in tax than companies will operate somewhere else and your people won't get job and extra revenue. So EU, either fix your tax loopholes or leave Apple and similar companies alone. And USA has similar problem where some companies merge with others and have their headquarter/operation in some countries where they pay less tax/benefits Nothing new.
    This case is not about tax loopholes, this case is about illegal state aids
    singularity
  • Reply 7 of 22
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    maestro64 said:

    The thing is most people have no idea that Apple/Ireland deal dates back to the late 80's and predates the EU authority in the mater. 


    What? How can late 80's predates EU authority in the matter?
  • Reply 8 of 22
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    gwydion said:
    maestro64 said:

    The thing is most people have no idea that Apple/Ireland deal dates back to the late 80's and predates the EU authority in the mater. 


    What? How can late 80's predates EU authority in the matter?
    Because there may be a grandfather clause for deals that predate your echolalia 'illegal state aid... Illegal state aid...' Otherwise it would not take these fools 2 years to investigate... Unless their incompetence is scripted by EU employment laws that only allow people to work from 9-12, take a mandatory 3 hour break, and then can only work from 3-5pm otherwise they will be convicted of 'illegal state overwork... illegal state overwork...'
  • Reply 9 of 22
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    latifbp said:
    gwydion said:

    What? How can late 80's predates EU authority in the matter?
    Because there may be a grandfather clause for deals that predate your echolalia 'illegal state aid... Illegal state aid...' Otherwise it would not take these fools 2 years to investigate... Unless their incompetence is scripted by EU employment laws that only allow people to work from 9-12, take a mandatory 3 hour break, and then can only work from 3-5pm otherwise they will be convicted of 'illegal state overwork... illegal state overwork...'
    No grandfathering allowed also Ireland entered the eec in 1973. Though iirc they can only demand the correct tax rate be paid backdating 10 years.
    Also your comment about employment law must be sarcastic as it is totally incorrect.
    gwydion
  • Reply 10 of 22

    Also your comment about employment law must be sarcastic as it is totally incorrect.
    In France you can only work 35 hours per week. It is VERY hard to get an exception.
    Unless you are management, in which case you can work as much as you want, but still get paid only 35 hours.
    If you wanted to get two jobs to make more money, you can't. Simple as that.
    And that's why a third of the economy is under-the-table- well, that, and taxes.

    edited April 2016 latifbp
  • Reply 11 of 22
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member

    Also your comment about employment law must be sarcastic as it is totally incorrect.
    In France you can only work 35 hours per week. It is VERY hard to get an exception.
    Unless you are management, in which case you can work as much as you want, but still get paid only 35 hours.
    If you wanted to get two jobs to make more money, you can't. Simple as that.
    And that's why a third of the economy is under-the-table- well, that, and taxes.

    You can work for more than 35 hours. It's just that overtime rates and rest days come into force. That's why the French unions are vehemently against any change. They see it as a way of getting more work done on the cheap.
    That's not to say for some jobs the 35 hour limit is strictly enforced. If you have a good thing as an employee why would you want to give it up. This does mean that the employment rate is higher as the cost of employing people is greater.
    gwydion
  • Reply 12 of 22
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,035member
    gwydion said:
    wood1208 said:
    When Government or it's whatever agency says, because of so and so tax loopholes, this happened. Well, if you don't have loophole in tax than companies will operate somewhere else and your people won't get job and extra revenue. So EU, either fix your tax loopholes or leave Apple and similar companies alone. And USA has similar problem where some companies merge with others and have their headquarter/operation in some countries where they pay less tax/benefits Nothing new.
    This case is not about tax loopholes, this case is about illegal state aids
    Exactly. Why would Apple have to pay backtax while there's none? Ireland gov need to pay if they violate EU tax laws, not Apple really...
  • Reply 13 of 22
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    latifbp said:
    gwydion said:

    What? How can late 80's predates EU authority in the matter?
    Because there may be a grandfather clause for deals that predate your echolalia 'illegal state aid... Illegal state aid...' Otherwise it would not take these fools 2 years to investigate... Unless their incompetence is scripted by EU employment laws that only allow people to work from 9-12, take a mandatory 3 hour break, and then can only work from 3-5pm otherwise they will be convicted of 'illegal state overwork... illegal state overwork...'
    Ah, you're just talking nonsense, thanks for making it clear to not waste our time
    singularity
  • Reply 14 of 22
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    fallenjt said:
    gwydion said:
    This case is not about tax loopholes, this case is about illegal state aids
    Exactly. Why would Apple have to pay backtax while there's none? Ireland gov need to pay if they violate EU tax laws, not Apple really...

    Oh, yes, there are, the taxes not paid because the illegal aid to the companies
    singularity
  • Reply 15 of 22
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    In France you can only work 35 hours per week. It is VERY hard to get an exception.
    Unless you are management, in which case you can work as much as you want, but still get paid only 35 hours.
    If you wanted to get two jobs to make more money, you can't. Simple as that.
    And that's why a third of the economy is under-the-table- well, that, and taxes.

    You can work for more than 35 hours. It's just that overtime rates and rest days come into force. That's why the French unions are vehemently against any change. They see it as a way of getting more work done on the cheap.
    That's not to say for some jobs the 35 hour limit is strictly enforced. If you have a good thing as an employee why would you want to give it up. This does mean that the employment rate is higher as the cost of employing people is greater.

    And not taking into account that French work laws have nothing to do with EU employment laws
    singularity
  • Reply 16 of 22
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    gwydion said:
    latifbp said:
    Because there may be a grandfather clause for deals that predate your echolalia 'illegal state aid... Illegal state aid...' Otherwise it would not take these fools 2 years to investigate... Unless their incompetence is scripted by EU employment laws that only allow people to work from 9-12, take a mandatory 3 hour break, and then can only work from 3-5pm otherwise they will be convicted of 'illegal state overwork... illegal state overwork...'
    Ah, you're just talking nonsense, thanks for making it clear to not waste our time
    It's called sarcasm. It's a way of making fun of somebody's stupid, repetitive, unchanging perspective.
  • Reply 17 of 22
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    I think it says something that there are always only 2 people on here who do the 'illegal state aid' echolalic song and dance. The same 2 people every time... Even contradicting what other people from the EU say about this case. WTF?! There's no smoking gun, no ruling, contradictory opinions about the EU's stupid, overbearing over-regulatory over-burdensome laws... Why don't you guys come back after there is an actual ruling. You can gloat then if you are correct. But your incompetent politicians can't even sift through the data, still, after two years. If these people can get their crap together someday, IF, come back then. As for now you have nothing, your politicians aren't able to do their job, and I hope your burdensome regulation drives jobs from international companies far out of Europe.
    edited April 2016
  • Reply 18 of 22
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    latifbp said:
    I think it says something that there are always only 2 people on here who do the 'illegal state aid' echolalic song and dance. The same 2 people every time... Even contradicting what other people from the EU say about this case. WTF?! There's no smoking gun, no ruling, contradictory opinions about the EU's stupid, overbearing over-regulatory over-burdensome laws... Why don't you guys come back after there is an actual ruling. You can gloat then if you are correct. But your incompetent politicians can't even sift through the data, still, after two years. If these people can get their crap together someday, IF, come back then. As for now you have nothing, your politicians aren't able to do their job, and I hope your burdensome regulation drives jobs from international companies far out of Europe.

    Yes, it says that some people actually read what the commission documents say, from the 2014 document linked here http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253200/253200_1582634_87_2.pdf

    In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission’s preliminary view is that the tax ruling of 1990 (effectively agreed in 1991) and of 2007 in favour of the Apple group constitute State aid according to Article 107(1) TFEU. The Commission has doubts about the compatibility of such State aid with the internal market. The Commission has therefore decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU with respect to the measures in question

    And what the article 108.2 says?

    2. If, after giving notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments, the Commission finds that aid granted by a State or through State resources is not compatible with the internal market having regard to Article 107, or that such aid is being misused, it shall decide that the State concerned shall abolish or alter such aid within a period of time to be determined by the Commission.

    But perhaps you know more about what the case is that the EU themselves, and perhaps when they say that the case is about alleged illegal aids from a member state to a company they are not actually talking about alleged ilegal aids. Perhaps they have to ask you.

    When you can put a source saying that it is not alleged illegal aid then you can talk about sarcasm or other things. But as it is clear that you're just talking nonsense you won't give us anything rational apart of your ignorant, fanatic and hatred stupidities.

    And yes, it says something, it says that you're just wasting out time with your nonsense.

    latifbp said:
    gwydion said:
    Ah, you're just talking nonsense, thanks for making it clear to not waste our time
    It's called sarcasm. It's a way of making fun of somebody's stupid, repetitive, unchanging perspective.
    The only stupid, repetitive and unchanging perspective is what you write.
    edited April 2016 singularity
  • Reply 19 of 22
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    latifbp said:
    I think it says something that there are always only 2 people on here who do the 'illegal state aid' echolalic song and dance. The same 2 people every time... Even contradicting what other people from the EU say about this case. WTF?! There's no smoking gun, no ruling, contradictory opinions about the EU's stupid, overbearing over-regulatory over-burdensome laws... Why don't you guys come back after there is an actual ruling. You can gloat then if you are correct. But your incompetent politicians can't even sift through the data, still, after two years. If these people can get their crap together someday, IF, come back then. As for now you have nothing, your politicians aren't able to do their job, and I hope your burdensome regulation drives jobs from international companies far out of Europe.
    Imy assuming one of those two is me. As all I have been doing is stating what the allegation is about and what the consequences of the claim being proved (or not) there will be no need to gloat. 
    People should acruelly look at what this case is about and what laws may have been broken.

    As any potential liability from Apple ranges from 100 million euros to 9 billion you might expect there to be a long time for any investigation as I'm sure Apples tax deals are not one pagers and also how taxable amounts are determined will be a mission in itself. Assuming Apple are found to have received illegal state aid of course.
    gwydion
  • Reply 20 of 22
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    gwydion said:
    latifbp said:
    I think it says something that there are always only 2 people on here who do the 'illegal state aid' echolalic song and dance. The same 2 people every time... Even contradicting what other people from the EU say about this case. WTF?! There's no smoking gun, no ruling, contradictory opinions about the EU's stupid, overbearing over-regulatory over-burdensome laws... Why don't you guys come back after there is an actual ruling. You can gloat then if you are correct. But your incompetent politicians can't even sift through the data, still, after two years. If these people can get their crap together someday, IF, come back then. As for now you have nothing, your politicians aren't able to do their job, and I hope your burdensome regulation drives jobs from international companies far out of Europe.

    Yes, it says that some people actually read what the commission documents say, from the 2014 document linked here http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253200/253200_1582634_87_2.pdf


    And what the article 108.2 says?


    But perhaps you know more about what the case is that the EU themselves, and perhaps when they say that the case is about alleged illegal aids from a member state to a company they are not actually talking about alleged ilegal aids. Perhaps they have to ask you.

    When you can put a source saying that it is not alleged illegal aid then you can talk about sarcasm or other things. But as it is clear that you're just talking nonsense you won't give us anything rational apart of your ignorant, fanatic and hatred stupidities.

    And yes, it says something, it says that you're just wasting out time with your nonsense.

    The only stupid, repetitive and unchanging perspective is what you write.
    Oh look, he finally said more than 'illegal state aid... illegal state aid'... This from the guy who couldn't even do a simple Google search to discover well documented information about international taxation during another post. You can create or cite whatever laws you'd like, but how will this decision (if it ever happens) benefit you? Likely it won't, it's just Euro-trash regardless of whatever straw man you're claiming to fight against.
    edited April 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.