EU tax investigation concludes, Apple hammered with $14.5 billion bill

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 106
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    sog35 said:
    sog35 said:
    FACT:  Any other company headquartered in Ireland could have used the same tax strategy as Apple.

    If someone can dispute this then the EU has a case and Apple should pay the $14 billion.

    But Tim Cook was 100% clear that Apple was not given a special deal:  "The opinion issued on August 30th alleges that Ireland gave Apple a special deal on our taxes. This claim has no basis in fact or in law. We never asked for, nor did we receive, any special deals." Tim Cook


    Yup any company headquartered in Ireland could have got the same deal if they had the same agreement with the Irish tax authority. Which were secret and other companies were not privy to.

    You are wrong. There was no secret deal with Apple. Tim Cook said it himself.

    "The opinion issued on August 30th alleges that Ireland gave Apple a special deal on our taxes. This claim has no basis in fact or in law. We never asked for, nor did we receive, any special deals." Tim Cook

    Apple was following WELL ESTABLISH IRISH TAX RULES that does not levy taxes on income booked in subsidiaries of Irish companies that are outside the state. Those are LAWS that are clear and were available to any corp.
    As it stands pending all the appeals those tax rules aren't allowed. The agreements were invalid and are null and void. Thus the ruling.
    Tim Cook called it. Companies will be reluctant to establish in Europe. Investment there will be stifled. Apple will still sell there but Euro citizens will lose out in the end. Good job you fools
  • Reply 62 of 106
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    FACT:  Any other company headquartered in Ireland could have used the same tax strategy as Apple.

    If someone can dispute this then the EU has a case and Apple should pay the $14 billion.

    FACT: They could not. Being "stateless for tax purposes" also required a foreign corporate structure, in this case Apple executives here in the US, as "managers" among a few other things. Being "any company headquartered in Ireland" only entitles you to a 12.5% corporate tax rate on your Irish profits. Zero requires just a tad more than that. 
    So you agree any foreign corporation doing business in Ireland could take advantage of the same low tax rate as Apple?


    Reading for understanding is not one of your strengths apparently? Putting goalposts on wheels seems more to your liking tho. 
    You don't really answer questions asked of you. Sog35 has read the ruling. It proves nothing about a deal, or an exclusive deal. It shows Apple took advantage of a loophole, which wasn't exclusive. 
    edited August 2016 latifbphlee1169
  • Reply 63 of 106
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    sog35 said:
    cnocbui said:
    So am I; I'll take all companies in Ireland paying an appropriate and equal rate of tax so the government can lessen it's shafting of me on my tax.  Ireland will get all of what Apple pays up, there is no mechanism for them to claim a share.  That would be game-over for the EU.
    what effective tax rate do you pay?
    2,226% more than Apple does.
    h2p
  • Reply 64 of 106
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    redhanded said:
    sog35 said:
    sog35 said:
    FACT:  Any other company headquartered in Ireland could have used the same tax strategy as Apple.

    If someone can dispute this then the EU has a case and Apple should pay the $14 billion.

    But Tim Cook was 100% clear that Apple was not given a special deal:  "The opinion issued on August 30th alleges that Ireland gave Apple a special deal on our taxes. This claim has no basis in fact or in law. We never asked for, nor did we receive, any special deals." Tim Cook


    Yup any company headquartered in Ireland could have got the same deal if they had the same agreement with the Irish tax authority. Which were secret and other companies were not privy to.

    You are wrong. There was no secret deal with Apple. Tim Cook said it himself.

    "The opinion issued on August 30th alleges that Ireland gave Apple a special deal on our taxes. This claim has no basis in fact or in law. We never asked for, nor did we receive, any special deals." Tim Cook

    Apple was following WELL ESTABLISH IRISH TAX RULES that does not levy taxes on income booked in subsidiaries of Irish companies that are outside the state. Those are LAWS that are clear and were available to any corp.
    As it stands pending all the appeals those tax rules aren't allowed. The agreements were invalid and are null and void. Thus the ruling.
    No, the Irish ruling still stands unless the appeal is rejected.  It is business as usual for Apple and they have already announced that they aren't changing tax information in their corporate guidance and it will be several years before they expect the issue to be resolved.
    They are setting aside the amount in an escrow account and will have to ensure going forward they have two sets of figures to ensure that if the appeals fail they can pay all the amount that is eventually set from the past and upto the final ruling.
  • Reply 65 of 106
    croprcropr Posts: 1,078member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    FACT:  Any other company headquartered in Ireland could have used the same tax strategy as Apple.

    If someone can dispute this then the EU has a case and Apple should pay the $14 billion.

    FACT: They could not. Being "stateless for tax purposes" also required a foreign corporate structure, in this case Apple executives here in the US, as "managers" among a few other things. Being "any company headquartered in Ireland" only entitles you to a 12.5% corporate tax rate on your Irish profits. Zero requires just a tad more than that. 
    So you agree any foreign corporation doing business in Ireland could take advantage of the same low tax rate as Apple?


    Reading for understanding is not one of your strengths apparently? Putting goalposts on wheels seems more to your liking tho. 
    Answer the question.

    Could any other foreign corporation in Ireland take advantage of the same low tax rate as Apple?
    Wrong question.  The word foreign is too much.  Without "foreign" the answer is no, so it is illegal state aid
  • Reply 66 of 106
    croprcropr Posts: 1,078member
    sog35 said:
    cropr said:
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    FACT:  Any other company headquartered in Ireland could have used the same tax strategy as Apple.

    If someone can dispute this then the EU has a case and Apple should pay the $14 billion.

    FACT: They could not. Being "stateless for tax purposes" also required a foreign corporate structure, in this case Apple executives here in the US, as "managers" among a few other things. Being "any company headquartered in Ireland" only entitles you to a 12.5% corporate tax rate on your Irish profits. Zero requires just a tad more than that. 
    So you agree any foreign corporation doing business in Ireland could take advantage of the same low tax rate as Apple?


    Reading for understanding is not one of your strengths apparently? Putting goalposts on wheels seems more to your liking tho. 
    Answer the question.

    Could any other foreign corporation in Ireland take advantage of the same low tax rate as Apple?
    Wrong question.  The word foreign is too much.  Without "foreign" the answer is no, so it is illegal state aid
    So you are saying any method beyond a flat 12.5% Irish tax across the board is state aid?

    LOL. You have no understanding of tax law. wow.

    Specific tax laws for foreign corporations is common in every single country in the civilized world.
    LOL Not having any clue about European law, you are pretty arrogant about it. 
    One of the fundamental rules about anti competitive law making in the EU, is there must not be any discrimination between local and foreign companies.  All must be treated equal by all member states.   For the sake of clarity, in Ireland French companies are as foreign as US companies.
    cnocbui
  • Reply 67 of 106
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    sog35 said:
    cnocbui said:
    sog35 said:
    cnocbui said:
    So am I; I'll take all companies in Ireland paying an appropriate and equal rate of tax so the government can lessen it's shafting of me on my tax.  Ireland will get all of what Apple pays up, there is no mechanism for them to claim a share.  That would be game-over for the EU.
    what effective tax rate do you pay?
    2,226% more than Apple does.
    Then you need to get a new tax planner and accountant
    No, that is what you get when a company you are comparing against is only paying 2 % or less.
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 68 of 106
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    FACT:  Any other company headquartered in Ireland could have used the same tax strategy as Apple.

    If someone can dispute this then the EU has a case and Apple should pay the $14 billion.

    FACT: They could not. Being "stateless for tax purposes" also required a foreign corporate structure, in this case Apple executives here in the US, as "managers" among a few other things. Being "any company headquartered in Ireland" only entitles you to a 12.5% corporate tax rate on your Irish profits. Zero requires just a tad more than that. 
    The implication is that other European companies would be at a disadvantage competitively against Apple. Yet nobody can identify any companies that suffered and Apple makes a clear case that instead they've helped other companies develop and grow. You might say Nokia, but they were bought by Microsoft who actually did broker a tax deal and Apple still kicked their ass and out innovated them plain and simple.
  • Reply 69 of 106
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,422member
    asdasd said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    FACT:  Any other company headquartered in Ireland could have used the same tax strategy as Apple.

    If someone can dispute this then the EU has a case and Apple should pay the $14 billion.

    FACT: They could not. Being "stateless for tax purposes" also required a foreign corporate structure, in this case Apple executives here in the US, as "managers" among a few other things. Being "any company headquartered in Ireland" only entitles you to a 12.5% corporate tax rate on your Irish profits. Zero requires just a tad more than that. 
    So you agree any foreign corporation doing business in Ireland could take advantage of the same low tax rate as Apple?


    Reading for understanding is not one of your strengths apparently? Putting goalposts on wheels seems more to your liking tho. 
    You don't really answer questions asked of you. Sog35 has read the ruling. It proves nothing about a deal, or an exclusive deal. It shows Apple took advantage of a loophole, which wasn't exclusive. 
    ?
    I think I've answered in extensive detail as a matter of fact. If the report that you presume Sog read (which I see no evidence of him doing based on comments but whatever) is accurate then yes Apple received tax advantages that were not available to all other companies, which is the crux of the ruling.  I'm pretty sure I've patiently made the points, including pertinent details, several times so far.  I can't make people read tho.  
    edited August 2016 cnocbui
  • Reply 70 of 106
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    cropr said:
    sog35 said:
    cropr said:
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    FACT:  Any other company headquartered in Ireland could have used the same tax strategy as Apple.

    If someone can dispute this then the EU has a case and Apple should pay the $14 billion.

    FACT: They could not. Being "stateless for tax purposes" also required a foreign corporate structure, in this case Apple executives here in the US, as "managers" among a few other things. Being "any company headquartered in Ireland" only entitles you to a 12.5% corporate tax rate on your Irish profits. Zero requires just a tad more than that. 
    So you agree any foreign corporation doing business in Ireland could take advantage of the same low tax rate as Apple?


    Reading for understanding is not one of your strengths apparently? Putting goalposts on wheels seems more to your liking tho. 
    Answer the question.

    Could any other foreign corporation in Ireland take advantage of the same low tax rate as Apple?
    Wrong question.  The word foreign is too much.  Without "foreign" the answer is no, so it is illegal state aid
    So you are saying any method beyond a flat 12.5% Irish tax across the board is state aid?

    LOL. You have no understanding of tax law. wow.

    Specific tax laws for foreign corporations is common in every single country in the civilized world.
    LOL Not having any clue about European law, you are pretty arrogant about it. 
    One of the fundamental rules about anti competitive law making in the EU, is there must not be any discrimination between local and foreign companies.  All must be treated equal by all member states.   For the sake of clarity, in Ireland French companies are as foreign as US companies.
    Europe's new Fascism. It's in style over there again I guess. We had to help you get rid of it before, so yes we do not understand Fascism. We thought you didn't either and didn't want it. Deal with it yourself this time. You're on your own.
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 71 of 106
    gatorguy said:
    asdasd said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    FACT:  Any other company headquartered in Ireland could have used the same tax strategy as Apple.

    If someone can dispute this then the EU has a case and Apple should pay the $14 billion.

    FACT: They could not. Being "stateless for tax purposes" also required a foreign corporate structure, in this case Apple executives here in the US, as "managers" among a few other things. Being "any company headquartered in Ireland" only entitles you to a 12.5% corporate tax rate on your Irish profits. Zero requires just a tad more than that. 
    So you agree any foreign corporation doing business in Ireland could take advantage of the same low tax rate as Apple?


    Reading for understanding is not one of your strengths apparently? Putting goalposts on wheels seems more to your liking tho. 
    You don't really answer questions asked of you. Sog35 has read the ruling. It proves nothing about a deal, or an exclusive deal. It shows Apple took advantage of a loophole, which wasn't exclusive. 
    ?
    I think I've answered in extensive detail as a matter of fact. If the report that you presume Sog read (which I see no evidence of him doing based on comments but whatever) is accurate then yes Apple received tax advantages that were not available to all other companies, which is the crux of the ruling.  I'm pretty sure I've patiently made the points, including pertinent details, several times so far.  I can't make people read tho.  
    Clearly the benefits aren't available to *all* other companies as all companies don't structure themselves in the same way. The Irish government just needs to show that there were other companies that also took advantage of the tax arrangement and it wasn't exclusive to Apple.  

    The EU may then say, well we don't agree with this arrangement for *any* company and the Irish government can then say, feck off, it is none of your business.
  • Reply 72 of 106
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    redhanded said:
    gatorguy said:
    asdasd said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    FACT:  Any other company headquartered in Ireland could have used the same tax strategy as Apple.

    If someone can dispute this then the EU has a case and Apple should pay the $14 billion.

    FACT: They could not. Being "stateless for tax purposes" also required a foreign corporate structure, in this case Apple executives here in the US, as "managers" among a few other things. Being "any company headquartered in Ireland" only entitles you to a 12.5% corporate tax rate on your Irish profits. Zero requires just a tad more than that. 
    So you agree any foreign corporation doing business in Ireland could take advantage of the same low tax rate as Apple?


    Reading for understanding is not one of your strengths apparently? Putting goalposts on wheels seems more to your liking tho. 
    You don't really answer questions asked of you. Sog35 has read the ruling. It proves nothing about a deal, or an exclusive deal. It shows Apple took advantage of a loophole, which wasn't exclusive. 
    ?
    I think I've answered in extensive detail as a matter of fact. If the report that you presume Sog read (which I see no evidence of him doing based on comments but whatever) is accurate then yes Apple received tax advantages that were not available to all other companies, which is the crux of the ruling.  I'm pretty sure I've patiently made the points, including pertinent details, several times so far.  I can't make people read tho.  
    Clearly the benefits aren't available to *all* other companies as all companies don't structure themselves in the same way. The Irish government just needs to show that there were other companies that also took advantage of the tax arrangement and it wasn't exclusive to Apple.  

    The EU may then say, well we don't agree with this arrangement for *any* company and the Irish government can then say, feck off, it is none of your business.
    It's not Apple's or Ireland's fault if companies did not incorporate in a certain way. That is a choice a company makes. Ireland and Apple aren't responsible to put out a memo to all other companies saying "Hey, incorporate this way and you can save some money!" I do hope that Ireland tells them to feck off like you said!
  • Reply 73 of 106
    sog35 said:
    Ireland has the right to charge any tax rate it wishes. 
    Ireland has the right to make certain corporations exempt from taxes. (exa. hospitals, foreign corps and charity organizations)
    Ireland has the right to lower taxable profits for certain products or services. (exa. software products)

    These are the rights of a SOVEREIGN STATE.

    The EU has no right to decide what kind of tax policy Ireland uses. 
    The only enforcement power the EU has is if a specific company can break Irish tax laws while other companies can't. 
    Apple has not broken a SINGLE IRISH TAX LAW. That means any other company could have done the EXACT same things Apple had done and achieve the same lower tax rate.

    This decision by the EU is saying that Ireland no longer has the SOVEREIGN right to decide what taxes they can charge.  This is madness. The EU is and was never suppose to be the ULTIMATE TAXING AUTHORITY of Europe. Its absolutely ridiculous. 

    Well, If Ireland were not in the EU, Apple would not have their headquarter there. 
    Ireland is attractive BECAUSE it is a member of the EU and you have a free access to the whole European market from there.
    A consequence is that the country must respect common rules, which necessarily, but willingly, limits sovereignty.
    A tax of 12,5% on profit is already a kind of fiscal dumping. A tax of 0% is a loophole. 
    Apple is a great company but companies should pay taxes on their profit. The typical Apple answer is that they respect the law. They made a deal with the Irish government, but unfortunately for them, this a ménage à trois: as all the profit from Europe goes to Ireland, the European Commission can inquire to make sure that it does not create unfair competition. Paying no tax at all on huge profits does.
    Beyond Apple, European startups suffer from the competition of extra-european companies, such as Amazon, because they pay high taxes in their home countries, while these companies stroke a deal with a government (Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands...) to avoid taxation. Amazon is a tough competitor but when it does not pay taxes and you pay them, competition becomes unfair.
    Competition is good when the same rules apply to all: this is a basic principle of economic liberalism (i.e., free market). This decision will not hurt investment in Europe, as Tim Cook says, it will push companies to be more responsible. 
    cnocbui
  • Reply 74 of 106
    I live in Limerick Ireland and I hate that Apple Don't pay any tax here they won't even give us an Apple Store all we have is knock off stores called Compub there total crap.  
    cnocbui
  • Reply 75 of 106
    h2ph2p Posts: 316member
    cnocbui said:
    So am I; I'll take all companies in Ireland paying an appropriate and equal rate of tax so the government can lessen it's shafting of me on my tax.  Ireland will get all of what Apple pays up, there is no mechanism for them to claim a share.  That would be game-over for the EU.
    I would appreciate your help, as an Irish Citizen, cnocbui.

    If the EU is analogous to the Fed's in the US with the Supremecy Clause in force. Then the EU is ordering the back taxes owed (at least partially) to them (EU). Otherwise, Ireland is arguing against itself regarding the back taxes. If so, I'd suggest the Irish Tax Authority, say "We are forced to collect these back taxes (celebrate very, very quietly) and Apple, while appreciate your investment in Ireland -- please stay; please expand, etc. -- you've got to pay up."

    Isn't there some mechanism for the EU to get a piece of this judgement? They are doing the ordering? Perhaps there are penalties due to the EU Commission?
  • Reply 76 of 106
    rerollreroll Posts: 60member
    Clex said:
    Not likely. EU people are happy about that. And waiting for more to come. And by the way, I do not the the inhabitants of the Republic of Ireland following the UK's lead.
  • Reply 77 of 106
    rerollreroll Posts: 60member
    mike1 said:
    So, what benefit does Ireland get from the EU that is worth giving up sovereignty? Perhaps they should follow Britain and give the EU a big middle finger. I laugh at the claim of state aid, while the French and German governments kept Airbus afloat so they could compete with Boeing.
    Airbus is on a par with Boeing. There are cases of state aid with Boeing too. Maybe the US should give a big middle finger to themselves. On second thought you're the one who should do it :)
  • Reply 78 of 106
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,422member
    h2p said:
    cnocbui said:
    So am I; I'll take all companies in Ireland paying an appropriate and equal rate of tax so the government can lessen it's shafting of me on my tax.  Ireland will get all of what Apple pays up, there is no mechanism for them to claim a share.  That would be game-over for the EU.
    I would appreciate your help, as an Irish Citizen, cnocbui.

    If the EU is analogous to the Fed's in the US with the Supremecy Clause in force. Then the EU is ordering the back taxes owed (at least partially) to them (EU). Otherwise, Ireland is arguing against itself regarding the back taxes. If so, I'd suggest the Irish Tax Authority, say "We are forced to collect these back taxes (celebrate very, very quietly) and Apple, while appreciate your investment in Ireland -- please stay; please expand, etc. -- you've got to pay up."

    Isn't there some mechanism for the EU to get a piece of this judgement? They are doing the ordering? Perhaps there are penalties due to the EU Commission?
    No there are no penalties. No the EU Commission does not receive any of the recovered taxes. There is no direct financial benefit to the Commission from the ruling.
    h2psingularitycnocbui
  • Reply 79 of 106
    rerollreroll Posts: 60member
    lkrupp said:
    adm1 said:
    "The European Commission has launched an effort to rewrite Apple's history in Europe, ignore Ireland's tax laws..."

    EU Law supercedes that of individual country member laws, Ireland signed up to this by joining the EU. To make it easier for US folks, think of the EU as the united states and Ireland as a state within the USA. Federal law > state law.

    "The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation"

    similar case here.
    Big difference between the EU and the U.S. EU countries can vote to exit the EU as the U.K. just did. This kind of nonsense will be more incentive for other countries to exit the EU as well. The EU is an experiment that has failed miserably. It was supposed to be an effort to normalize financial issues between european nations. It has turned into a grab for total power much like the Federal Government of the United States. The “United” States and the European “Union” are no such thing. It is globalism/federalism at its worst, a concentration of power and dominion over all.
    Just like the UK that just left... but does not seem so eager to do it now. Anyway, Europe was not built to normalize financial issues, but economic. And lots of current issues come from there. Mainly the goal was to prevent the endless wars and in this respect is very successful, but you fail miserably to see that. That being said I don't totally disagree with your power grab point.
  • Reply 80 of 106
    h2ph2p Posts: 316member
    gatorguy said:
    Isn't there some mechanism for the EU to get a piece of this judgement? They are doing the ordering? Perhaps there are penalties due to the EU Commission?
    No there are no penalties. No the EU Commission does not receive any of the recovered taxes. There is no direct financial benefit to the Commission from the ruling.
    Thank you. So Ireland is "fighting" with itself. I'd say that ultimately, Ireland will (slowly) pay itself back taxes with Apple's (slow) help.
    latifbp
Sign In or Register to comment.