tenly

robin huber said:

stargazerct said:

Gee, little Mikey Campbell once again throwing only Apple under the bus with his defamatory headline. Are you desperate for a some clicks Mikey? Numbers down this month? Cheap, biased, and just wreaking of an obvious agenda.

Did you read the entire article, or just the headline? The last part of the article, after simply describing the issue, was very positive towards Apple. 

To to others who wrote comments about picking on Apple, read the entire thing. I, for one, want to know what's going on with all things Apple. Thanks, Mikey, for keeping me informed. 

The article itself is fine and I agree it's newsworthy - not that I think Apple should be in any way responsible for policing its suppliers...

It's the headline which is a cheap attempt to grab intersect and clicks by singling out Apple.  Sure - the article clarifies that it's not just Apple - but the headline is misleading and it gives a negative impression to those that just scan the headlines and don't read the full article.

I've had countless break room conversations over the years that are started by various co-workers that have just scanned the headlines.  They'll announce loudly, to anyone that'll listen "So...I hear Apple is hiring 7-year olds to make their phones!" - and of course no one wants to listen to the full explanation.

The headline is a cheap attempt to grab clicks.

This article should absolutely not have the word Apple in the headline.  It should be replaced with "Many Tech and Automotive Companies"

tralalalalalala said:

Awesome. This will let you backup your entire iPhone in 1 second by just holding it up to the next generation iMacs.

Not unless they figure out a way to pull the data out of the iPhones memory a lot faster!  With USB 3 and lightning it should only take a few seconds to backup/restore all the data to/from an iPhone if the data transfer itself were the problem.  I'm pretty sure that the bottleneck is the read/write to flash.

singularity said:

tenly said:
It's true.  I'm completely ignorant of EU law except for what has been explained in this thread.  I'm not arguing about what is and isn't law.  I'm arguing about what is and isn't right (meaning fair).  I understand (from comments in this thread) that as per EU law - the agreement can be found to be illegal and therefore retroactively cancelled and the taxes owing recalculated.  I haven't heard anyone say how far back they go, but I presume that it's similar to Canada and the US and is at least 7 years.

10 years I believe, It's ok to be ignorant of laws that don't affect you (as in you don't live in that area). I'm ignorant of a lot of US and US state law for example and I learn a lot from the comment people make here and sometime I go WTF? 


I also believe the big problem is that these sweetheart deals have been kept secret. So until they are brought to the correct authorities knowledge nothing can be done.
If you are also asking for a bureaucracy to be also efficient and speedy then you will always be disappointed, (The company I work for is still waiting for a tax determination from the early 80's which if it goes our way could mean we get a rebate in range of 1-2 billion pounds!!) and if you are asking for an EU bureaucracy to be speedy then you sir are totally insane 

The law has never about being fair, it just is. As the saying goes Justice is blind.

IF and I keep on saying this IF Ireland's deal with Apple is found to be "illegal state aid" and any appeal doesn't succeed then that agreement is considered void. It is as if that deal never happened. 

Ireland would be forced to collect all the unclaimed tax. 

There wouldn't be a criminal act per se as long as the amount is paid. 

If it isn't paid then potentially fines could be imposed by the EU commission on Apple as Ireland then wouldn't have any choice but to demand repayment. 

Non payment of the back tax could then be up-to 10% of global revenue.. OUCH!!!!!

You said that if they declare the arrangement to be void, "it's as if the deal never happened".

But that's not true!  If the deal had never happened - then Apple would have set up operations in another country - where incentives were perhaps not quite as good as the Irish deal - but definitely better than staying in Ireland without any kind of deal.  So - if the deal becomes void - Ireland has benefitted from Apple keeping its half of the deal - all
of those things I summarized in my previous message - and they have done nothing at all to earn them.  So they were essentially obtained illegally.

What the EU is doing may be protected by law - but it's a sleazy law which ends up rewarding the villain and punishing the victims.

One of the things which makes it so wrong is the retroactivity of it.  These companies think that they have negotiated a fair deal and they abide with the terms of the deal for a decade and then out of the blue - they are told that the half of the deal benefitting the corporation is being canceled - oh, and by the way - you owe us 8 billion dollars!  

It's extortion.  It's a sleazy, opportunistic tax grab - and it's wrong. 

Ha ha...if I were Apple I'd start sending out updated invoices to all government agencies throughout the entire EU - for any Apple product purchased over the past 10 years - with an explanation that Apples EU pricing was based on the tax deal that was in place with Ireland - but since it turns out the tax deal is void (never happened) - please find enclosed, updates invoices showing the corrected pricing. I think a 50% retroactive markup should be a good start!  /s

singularity said:

As a publicly owned company, it is Apples responsibility to their shareholders to (legally) minimize expenses wherever possible.  This includes their tax burden.  If a legal tax strategy existed - and Apple chose not to employ that strategy because "corporations should pay more", shareholders would be screaming for Tim Cooks head on a platter.

absolutely


agreed but if there is a supranational law that governs the limit of that tax break then you cant offer beyond what is allowed.

EU law in this respect doesn't work like that.
You are just showing your ignorance of the EU law in this respect.
It boils down to whether the deals they have are classed as "illegal state aid". IF and only IF  it is classed as that and the appeals do not go their way, Apple or any of the others that may be in the firing line as the beneficiary of that aid have to pay it back.

Ireland are fighting this and keeps on stating they have done nothing wrong, to say they are in conclusion is getting into conspiracy theory territory that just isn't supported by what is going on.
 

There are many on this thread that just don't understand the EU laws and believe that the deal must be ok because it would be ok in their country, therefore its wrong and thus this case must stop and the defendants must be exonerated.

It's true.  I'm completely ignorant of EU law except for what has been explained in this thread.  I'm not arguing about what is and isn't law.  I'm arguing about what is and isn't right (meaning fair).  I understand (from comments in this thread) that as per EU law - the agreement can be found to be illegal and therefore retroactively cancelled and the taxes owing recalculated.  I haven't heard anyone say how far back they go, but I presume that it's similar to Canada and the US and is at least 7 years.

It *should* be incumbent on the EU to review these agreements on a timely basis and rule on the legality of them shortly after they have been entered into.  If they had done so - Apple might only be on the hook for a single years worth of arrears because they would have restructured their operations to take advantage of the next-most favorable tax strategy.  By delaying their investigation/ruling, the EU has ensured that they, and Ireland have continued to enjoy the benefits of Apples presence.  This allows Ireland to profit from an illegal agreement it was responsible for creating in the first place.

Assume for a second that Ireland never offered a discount or incentive to Apple.  Apple would have set up in another country instead.  By allegedly breaking the law and offering Apple a discount, Ireland has received at least the following economic benefits:
- the (reduced) taxes that Apple paid
- a lower unemployment rate
- income tax collected off of every worker that Apple employed in the country
- sales tax or vat off of every dollar that Apples employees spend
- Apple spent money on leasing office space, paying for utilities such as phone, electricity, gas, etc
- and much more 

My point is that Apples presence in Ireland resulted in significant $ stimulus into the Irish economy.  If the agreement is declared illegal - why shouldn't Ireland be on the hook to return the $ that was obtained illegally?  Is it okay to profit from criminal activities in the EU?  If the deal had never been offered, and Apple had set up shoe elsewhere, Ireland would not have had ANY of those cash injections listed above.  So - a "fair" thing to do would be to calculate the $ value of all of that - and then deduct it from whatever the EU determines Apple owes!  Right?  

Or can somebody explain why Ireland should be allowed to keep that illegally obtained money?