MacPro

gatorguy said:

MacPro said:

gatorguy said:

MacPro said:

gatorguy said:

MacPro said:

gatorguy said:

chasm said:

shrave10 said:

If there is a nickname for the tax loop hole called "Double Irish" then they probably did not name it just for Apple's sake.  Likely lots of other companies used the same loophole.  I suspect Apple and Ireland will win the appeal. 

Indeed, other companies did take advantage of the “Double Irish” loophole. As the article mentions, however, Apple didn’t have to follow the “rules” of the Double Irish loophole the same way the other companies had to.

THAT is what might (might!) get them in trouble.

It's not just the "Double Irish" tax scheme that other companies also took advantage of just as you note. It's that Apple demanded, negotiated, and may have been granted a very special version of it, unique tax treatment not made available to any other company. That's what would get them in trouble, and what you might also have been alluding to.

But outside the court, no one yet knows if this is the end of the story or a new beginning. Well, perhaps Apple already knows. 

Something never yet mentioned is that Apple has been allowed to take some money out of that escrow account to pay taxes in other jurisdictions. Not sure why, but it is. Perhaps there are taxes that courts ordered in other countries around the world, but the profits had already been funneled to their Irish subsidiaries? 

You phrase it like Apple did something wrong.  It's common for a large company to negotiate a special tax deal to locate in a particular place, even in the USA. These incentives can take various forms, such as:

Tax Breaks: Reduction or elimination of corporate taxes for a specified period.

Property Tax Abatements: Discounts or exemptions on property taxes to reduce operational costs.

Grants and Subsidies: Financial assistance or direct payments to support infrastructure, hiring, or expansion.

Job Creation Credits: Tax credits tied to the number of jobs the company promises to create.

Infrastructure Improvements: The local government may invest in roads, utilities, or other infrastructure upgrades to support the company’s needs.

Notable examples include Amazon's search for a second headquarters (HQ2), where cities across the USA offered huge incentives, or Tesla's gigafactories in various states where tax deals were central to the final location decision.

No, I feel it's possible Apple did something wrong, as do some legal experts. But you're phrasing it as it's not possible Apple did anything wrong? 

This type of deal-making is not unique to Apple, nor to Ireland.

Isn't that what the entire ruling will hinge on?

and just to be clear, your opinion is it's not possible that Apple has done anything wrong, tax-wise, in this case?

Of course, anything is possible; Google could be a company that cares about its customers.

We agree.

gatorguy said:

MacPro said:

gatorguy said:

MacPro said:

gatorguy said:

chasm said:

shrave10 said:

If there is a nickname for the tax loop hole called "Double Irish" then they probably did not name it just for Apple's sake.  Likely lots of other companies used the same loophole.  I suspect Apple and Ireland will win the appeal. 

Indeed, other companies did take advantage of the “Double Irish” loophole. As the article mentions, however, Apple didn’t have to follow the “rules” of the Double Irish loophole the same way the other companies had to.

THAT is what might (might!) get them in trouble.

It's not just the "Double Irish" tax scheme that other companies also took advantage of just as you note. It's that Apple demanded, negotiated, and may have been granted a very special version of it, unique tax treatment not made available to any other company. That's what would get them in trouble, and what you might also have been alluding to.

But outside the court, no one yet knows if this is the end of the story or a new beginning. Well, perhaps Apple already knows. 

Something never yet mentioned is that Apple has been allowed to take some money out of that escrow account to pay taxes in other jurisdictions. Not sure why, but it is. Perhaps there are taxes that courts ordered in other countries around the world, but the profits had already been funneled to their Irish subsidiaries? 

You phrase it like Apple did something wrong.  It's common for a large company to negotiate a special tax deal to locate in a particular place, even in the USA. These incentives can take various forms, such as:

Tax Breaks: Reduction or elimination of corporate taxes for a specified period.

Property Tax Abatements: Discounts or exemptions on property taxes to reduce operational costs.

Grants and Subsidies: Financial assistance or direct payments to support infrastructure, hiring, or expansion.

Job Creation Credits: Tax credits tied to the number of jobs the company promises to create.

Infrastructure Improvements: The local government may invest in roads, utilities, or other infrastructure upgrades to support the company’s needs.

Notable examples include Amazon's search for a second headquarters (HQ2), where cities across the USA offered huge incentives, or Tesla's gigafactories in various states where tax deals were central to the final location decision.

No, I feel it's possible Apple did something wrong, as do some legal experts. But you're phrasing it as it's not possible Apple did anything wrong? 

This type of deal-making is not unique to Apple, nor to Ireland.

Isn't that what the entire ruling will hinge on?

and just to be clear, your opinion is it's not possible that Apple has done anything wrong, tax-wise, in this case?

gatorguy said:

MacPro said:

gatorguy said:

chasm said:

shrave10 said:

If there is a nickname for the tax loop hole called "Double Irish" then they probably did not name it just for Apple's sake.  Likely lots of other companies used the same loophole.  I suspect Apple and Ireland will win the appeal. 

Indeed, other companies did take advantage of the “Double Irish” loophole. As the article mentions, however, Apple didn’t have to follow the “rules” of the Double Irish loophole the same way the other companies had to.

THAT is what might (might!) get them in trouble.

It's not just the "Double Irish" tax scheme that other companies also took advantage of just as you note. It's that Apple demanded, negotiated, and may have been granted a very special version of it, unique tax treatment not made available to any other company. That's what would get them in trouble, and what you might also have been alluding to.

But outside the court, no one yet knows if this is the end of the story or a new beginning. Well, perhaps Apple already knows. 

Something never yet mentioned is that Apple has been allowed to take some money out of that escrow account to pay taxes in other jurisdictions. Not sure why, but it is. Perhaps there are taxes that courts ordered in other countries around the world, but the profits had already been funneled to their Irish subsidiaries? 

You phrase it like Apple did something wrong.  It's common for a large company to negotiate a special tax deal to locate in a particular place, even in the USA. These incentives can take various forms, such as:

Tax Breaks: Reduction or elimination of corporate taxes for a specified period.

Property Tax Abatements: Discounts or exemptions on property taxes to reduce operational costs.

Grants and Subsidies: Financial assistance or direct payments to support infrastructure, hiring, or expansion.

Job Creation Credits: Tax credits tied to the number of jobs the company promises to create.

Infrastructure Improvements: The local government may invest in roads, utilities, or other infrastructure upgrades to support the company’s needs.

Notable examples include Amazon's search for a second headquarters (HQ2), where cities across the USA offered huge incentives, or Tesla's gigafactories in various states where tax deals were central to the final location decision.

No, I feel it's possible Apple did something wrong, as do some legal experts. But you're phrasing it as it's not possible Apple did anything wrong? 

As I said, the underlying practice of negotiating tax deals is quite common among multinational corporations. In Apple’s case, the company reached an agreement with the Irish government that allowed it to pay a significantly lower effective corporate tax rate for years. This led to the European Commission ruling that Apple owed €13 billion in back taxes, claiming that Ireland’s tax arrangement amounted to illegal state aid. However, both Apple and the Irish government have argued that the deal was legal under existing tax laws at the time.

For its critics, Apple’s tax strategies are viewed as emblematic of corporate greed or unethical behavior. But from a business perspective, what Apple did in Ireland is part of a standard practice where companies seek favorable tax environments to optimize profits and reduce operational costs. Ireland has long attracted tech companies with its low corporate tax rates, and the country has benefited economically from the jobs and investment that these companies bring.

This type of deal-making is not unique to Apple, nor to Ireland. Many countries and regions around the world compete to attract large corporations by offering similar incentives. The controversy often arises when these deals are viewed as unfair or when they appear to deprive governments of much-needed tax revenue, particularly when contrasted with the higher taxes paid by smaller businesses or individuals.

So, while Apple’s actions are seen as controversial by some, they align with broader corporate strategies that are quite normal, especially in the context of global business practices.

gatorguy said:

chasm said:

shrave10 said:

If there is a nickname for the tax loop hole called "Double Irish" then they probably did not name it just for Apple's sake.  Likely lots of other companies used the same loophole.  I suspect Apple and Ireland will win the appeal. 

Indeed, other companies did take advantage of the “Double Irish” loophole. As the article mentions, however, Apple didn’t have to follow the “rules” of the Double Irish loophole the same way the other companies had to.

THAT is what might (might!) get them in trouble.

It's not just the "Double Irish" tax scheme that other companies also took advantage of just as you note. It's that Apple demanded, negotiated, and may have been granted a very special version of it, unique tax treatment not made available to any other company. That's what would get them in trouble, and what you might also have been alluding to.

But outside the court, no one yet knows if this is the end of the story or a new beginning. Well, perhaps Apple already knows. 

Something never yet mentioned is that Apple has been allowed to take some money out of that escrow account to pay taxes in other jurisdictions. Not sure why, but it is. Perhaps there are taxes that courts ordered in other countries around the world, but the profits had already been funneled to their Irish subsidiaries?