latifbp

Grimzahn said:

Violating the law and then moving would make me switch to Android.  Going to watch veryt closely Mr Cooks stance and actions.

cnocbui said:

kevin kee said:

So the three major banks would like to have Apple Pay for themselves while on the same time refusing Apple Pay to use their services. I understand that all business want profits, but if by "any methods necessary" means jeopardizing the consumer's security (and we're talking their money here) AND neglecting the consumer's choice to use ApplePay by forcing their own products (using Apple Chip while throwing out Apple Pay token tech), I think there is a big problem here - in which does not lie on Apple side.

The banks are not proposing to force their customers to do anything.  They want to be able to offer  Apple Pay alternatives.  How would the banks proposals jeopardize their customers security? They seem to manage to handle AU$2 Billion in contactless payments a week in Australia without the sky falling down: http://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/110bn-australias-contactless-boom-20160805-gqmg7j.html

cnocbui said:

Well I said it would be billions rather than SOG's ludicrous millions.

I hope the final outcome is that Apple eventually have to cough up.  They have over $200 Billion in the bank because they are worlds biggest and most effective tax avoider.  I hope this is just the start of all the other multinational tax dodgers finally getting what's coming to them.

Of course the situation Apple finds itself in is all the fault of the US government, not Ireland or the EU as it is US tax legislation that allows US companies to indefinitely defer tax repatriation while pretending to their host countries their tax is payable in the US.

adm1 said:

Calling the move "unprecedented," Cook portrayed the Commission's decision as potentially dangerous, with "serious, wide-reaching implications." 

EC previously ruled against Starbucks's tax deal in Holland and Fiat's tax deal in Luxembourg. Not unprecedented.

"In Apple's case, nearly all of our research and development takes place in California, so the vast majority of our profits are taxed in the United States," he wrote. "European companies doing business in the U.S. are taxed according to the same principle. But the Commission is now calling to retroactively change those rules."

There is no law that states you should only be taxed where your R&D offices are located. There ARE laws however that say you pay tax where you operate and sell products. On top of that, funnelling profits from those sales to other countries while not technically illegal, is morally questionable. Similar to those with offshore accounts (cayman islands, panama etc.) albeit nowhere near as shady.

gatorguy said:

sog35 said:

adm1 said:

Calling the move "unprecedented," Cook portrayed the Commission's decision as potentially dangerous, with "serious, wide-reaching implications." 

EC previously ruled against Starbucks's tax deal in Holland and Fiat's tax deal in Luxembourg. Not unprecedented.

"In Apple's case, nearly all of our research and development takes place in California, so the vast majority of our profits are taxed in the United States," he wrote. "European companies doing business in the U.S. are taxed according to the same principle. But the Commission is now calling to retroactively change those rules."

There is no law that states you should only be taxed where your R&D offices are located. There ARE laws however that say you pay tax where you operate and sell products. On top of that, funnelling profits from those sales to other countries while not technically illegal, is morally questionable. Similar to those with offshore accounts (cayman islands, panama etc.) albeit nowhere near as shady.

It does not matter if the law is morally questionable in your opinion. It was the Irish tax law at that time. Apple did nothing wrong. They followed Irish tax law, and any other company operating in Ireland could have done the same. 

You like to keep saying that but if ANY company could do the same why wouldn't they? There's smart accountants all over the world and what Apple was doing was probably known to many of them. 

So no sir they could not. It requires a perfect storm of US corporate tax laws, a pre-existing special tax arrangement with the Irish and a creative use of corporate structure to pull it all off. Only the larger companies with US bases and worldwide operations could have taken advantage of this particular avoidance structure and even then only with special cooperation from friendly Irish tax folks. Your local Irish restaurant or retailer? Nope. The French bakery owner? Nope. The German car dealer (with three locations, whoo hoo). Sorry, no again. The computer retailer in Sweden? Sorry, no deal for you. Well then how about a big ol well-to-do grocery chain like Publix. Surely they can. They're kinda rich. Sorry. They all have to pay taxes if they have profits. No "stateless for tax purposes" is available to them, nor for any other regional company. Only the richest and biggest get this one. 

Of course those little guys could always use secret Swiss bank accounts to evade taxes, right? Nope, not even that. 
http://www.dw.com/en/switzerland-eu-to-tackle-tax-evasion/a-18327857

Yeah but some of those guys could still stash in the Cayman's according to you. Well. . .
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2226.aspx

sog35 said:

cnocbui said:

Well I said it would be billions rather than SOG's ludicrous millions.

I hope the final outcome is that Apple eventually have to cough up.  They have over $200 Billion in the bank because they are worlds biggest and most effective tax avoider.  I hope this is just the start of all the other multinational tax dodgers finally getting what's coming to them.

Of course the situation Apple finds itself in is all the fault of the US government, not Ireland or the EU as it is US tax legislation that allows US companies to indefinitely defer tax repatriation while pretending to their host countries their tax is payable in the US.

Looks like you made a good estimation of how ridiculously stupid and incompetent the EU is.
Congrats you called it right.

But Apple won't pay even close to the $14 billion. 

And you are wrong about Apple being the worlds biggest and most effective tax avoider. Microsoft, Google, and a ton of other mega tech companies pay a lower effective tax rate than Apple. 

asdasd said:

ktappe said:

jannl said:

advantage

There. That's the key to all those who oppose being in the EU:  "advantage". The EU prevents one country from screwing over another one to gain an advantage. That's exactly what this case is about; Ireland trying to get more money at the cost of the other EU members. As for Greece, it's in the spot it's in because it mismanaged its human resources, allowing too many people to retire far too early and mooch off the few who continued to work. It dug a hole that the EU is helping it out of; it would be in full-blown depression without the EU.  So all of you decrying the EU and cheering for more Brexits, you don't realize the implications of what you're saying. The EU is a *smart* thing to exist and to be a member of. Breaking it up would be a pretty direct analogy to breaking up the U.S.A.; each state would have to fend for itself. All 50 would struggle while the ignorant masses would cheer that each was able to achieve its own "identity". How foolish.

Europe has no law on national corporation taxes. Maybe it should have. What it does have is laws opposing unfair competition within a jurisdiction, which it — to say the least — enforces sporadically, retrospectively and without much due process. It also forced Ireland (and Greece) to bail out banks, so the opposition to sovereign State aid depends on what benefits the big boys of the EU. 

The problem with this ruling is that it isn't just attacking a small country in the EU, we see the EU doing that numerous times over the past while, but it's changing the goal posts (again retrospectively) on how ( mostly) US companies are taxed at the cost — eventually — of the IRS which claims all worldwide income tax jurisdiction on US companies. When eventually repatriated. 

It's also advised, against all principles of corporate law that Ireland wouldn't get the 13.5Bn if the countries where Apple products were sold taxed Apple's profits in that country.

Any such attempt to tax Apples worldwide income at point of sale (beyond sales taxes and VAT) will clearly lead to a US-EU trade war. 

The EU may have bitten off more than it can handle. 

crowley said:

latifbp said:

We helped you did 

Is that more of your "casual Englush"?