Apple Faces Large Penalties In EU Tax Probe

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Faces Large Penalties In EU Tax Probe

Posted by samzenpus on Monday September 29, 2014 @12:48AM from the was-that-wrong? dept.

First time accepted submitter chasm22 writes EU Regulators are apparently set to accuse Apple and the Irish government of entering into several sweetheart deals that left Apple with lower taxes than what it legally owed. If the ruling is upheld, Apple could owe billions in back taxes. Interestingly, it seems that the Irish government would actually get the extra money and suffer little for its part in the scheme.

99 of 120 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

From what I've heard... by Chrisq · 2014-09-29 00:50 · Score: 1, Funny

From what I've heard Apple will enjoy being "probed".
1. Re:From what I've heard... by TheP4st · 2014-09-29 01:04 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You are confusing Apple with their customers.
  
  --
  "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
2. Re:From what I've heard... by gbjbaanb · 2014-09-29 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  amateur - a professional knows to get the money up front!
Finally by johnjones · 2014-09-29 00:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

they should pay tax somewhere... I do and most of the world does... it's that or death...
1. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 00:57 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I think we should allow companies with a head office on Mars be exempt from tax. With the money involved some companies might actually profit from setting up a permanent base there.
2. Re:Finally by Thanshin · 2014-09-29 01:04 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  However, unlike death, taxes come more than once.
3. Re:Finally by Andrewkov · 2014-09-29 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Until the first country to stick a flag there will demand retroactive back taxes.
4. Re:Finally by Ihlosi · 2014-09-29 01:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's "death and taxes", not death (x)or taxes".
5. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  News at 11: "IRS" launches Mars mission.
6. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Meh, corporations will simply set up mailboxes on Mars, much like they do in Luxembourg or Lichtenstein, the actual board members will be safely ensconed back on earth while they at maximum (if legally required) send some patsy. Otherwise it was a good idea, we'd get rid of a lot of very greedy people from the planet, then we can revoke the law and set up a society with solidarity as the main idea rather than short term profits for the elite.
7. Re:Finally by lazyforker · 2014-09-29 02:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Apple (and the *many* other companies that indulge in the same behavior) *do* pay all the legally required taxes. The trick is that there are various governments (ranging from municipal to national) that offer perks, tax benefits etc to companies if they locate themselves in their jurisdiction. You can see this at work pretty much everywhere. It's not an Apple story, or an Irish story: it's just corporations using their leverage to get better deals than you or I (probably just average working stiffs) can get. As for the EU trying to get taxes retroactively: surely the EU would have to first prove that *Apple* did something illegal. But if the Irish laws supported Apple what's the legal basis for trying to claim back taxes?
8. Re:Finally by nospam007 · 2014-09-29 03:03 · Score: 2
  
  "Meh, corporations will simply set up mailboxes on Mars, much like they do in Luxembourg or Lichtenstein, ..."
  Bullshit. I'm from Luxembourg and those companies have real offices here, they're just here because for the moment they profit from the low VAT of 15% here because of the current EU law, next year they will move on, when customers will have to pay the VAT to their local governments.
  We can actually go to the Paypal Bank Offices and raise hell if there's a problem. :-)
  Lichtenstein is something else entirely, there it's the foundation laws.
9. Re:Finally by Shatrat · 2014-09-29 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  They do pay taxes. They just negotiated lower taxes in exchange for bringing those jobs to Ireland. It's a WIN-WIN solution for Ireland and Apple. Ireland still collects more revenue due to all the new jobs. The only losers are the countries who want to maintain a high tax rate and don't appreciate competition from Ireland, hence the EU getting their panties in a bunch.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
10. Re:Finally by benjymouse · 2014-09-29 03:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  But if the Irish laws supported Apple what's the legal basis for trying to claim back taxes?
  I believe that the claim is that *both* Apple and the Irish government colluded to bypass Irish laws (derived from EU directives). In that case the Irish government is also going to be in trouble, treaty-wise.
  I have a feeling that we'll soon see a pattern where Microsoft, Apple, Google and more did get illegal tax-breaks by moving european HQs to Ireland. If it can be demonstrated that they colluded to keep the arrangement secrets (to avoid EU commision inquiries) and that Apple et al thus should have known they did not comply with EU law, they could - and should - be in trouble.
  Apple has a big coffer - so naturally that is where the EU commision will look first. I doubt that there is political will to risk the statibily of the Irish economy by forcing fines on Ireland.
  Ireland is a leech, just like Luxembourg, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, the Channel Islands etc.
  
  --
  Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
11. Re:Finally by Carewolf · 2014-09-29 04:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They do pay taxes. They just negotiated lower taxes in exchange for bringing those jobs to Ireland. It's a WIN-WIN solution for Ireland and Apple. Ireland still collects more revenue due to all the new jobs. The only losers are the countries who want to maintain a high tax rate and don't appreciate competition from Ireland, hence the EU getting their panties in a bunch.
  Yeah, all that win for Ireland was why they went near bankcrupt and had to bailed out by the rest of the EU?
  Ireland sold out, but sold out so cheap they didn't even get rich from selling out. Hopefully they have learned their lesson, though it seemed some people like you haven't.
12. Re:Finally by OglinTatas · 2014-09-29 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Even the one who rose from the dead said "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" so pretty much it's just taxes.
  
  --
  More music, fewer hits
13. Re:Finally by Shatrat · 2014-09-29 04:35 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  What lesson is that? Would Ireland have been better off if Apple and Microsoft and Google moved those jobs to Wales or France or Spain? Ireland is collecting income tax from all those employees, and sales tax from everything those employees buy. Why push employers away out of some fashionable drive for 'social justice'?
  For perspective, this same line of thinking comes up around here all the time. The county granted some tax incentives to an automotive factory to come in and unemployment dropped, new business opened up to support all the new faces and new incomes, and the county revenues went through the roof. Every now and then I hear somebody in a bar complaining about how Toyota isn't paying their fair share but most of us are too busy enjoying all the new parks and schools and better roadways.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
14. Re:Finally by Dragonslicer · 2014-09-29 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  How many jobs were created in Ireland because of this? Was any manufacturing moved to Ireland? Any product development? Even any sales or marketing?
15. Re:Finally by Tough+Love · 2014-09-29 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  they should pay tax somewhere... I do and most of the world does... it's that or death...
  Correction: it's that and death.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
16. Re:Finally by gbjbaanb · 2014-09-29 05:07 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  real offices.... 1 real office block with 100,000 post office boxes and a lawyer. that's how they roll in the Cayman Isles at least, I figured Luxembourg did the same.
  Either way, are you getting "Google Luxembourg" confused with Google? A bit like Google UK that is staffed by salesmen... oh no, wait, they don't actually have any salesmen, oh no, because all sales are made by a member of staff from Google Ireland, I forgot. Or at least, that's what they told the taxman.
  All countries have a subsidiary office for the company, if only to be a front to pass the "IP licencing money" back to the real HQ in the Bahamas (via the other subsidiaries in Holland and Ireland of course)
17. Re:Finally by chuckugly · 2014-09-29 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  I've always been a little fuzzy on why we think corporations paying taxes is a good thing; wouldn't it just be simpler to tax the assets of the shareholders directly?
18. Re:Finally by blackest_k · 2014-09-29 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Apple has a factory in Cork employing around 4000 people, they are currently in the process of expanding it.
  
  --
  Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
19. Re:Finally by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-09-29 05:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  But if the Irish laws supported Apple what's the legal basis for trying to claim back taxes?
  I believe that the claim is that *both* Apple and the Irish government colluded to bypass Irish laws (derived from EU directives). In that case the Irish government is also going to be in trouble, treaty-wise.
  You, like most her, completely misunderstood what's going on. QTFA: "While the companies themselves aren't under investigation, their input is being sought because they would be required to return any unpaid taxes."
  I repeat: Apple is not under investigation, they will not be fined. The worst that can happen to them is be required to pay taxes saved. It's only Ireland who is in trouble (and the other countries under investigation).
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
20. Re:Finally by Carewolf · 2014-09-29 06:09 · Score: 2
  
  What lesson is that? Would Ireland have been better off if Apple and Microsoft and Google moved those jobs to Wales or France or Spain? Ireland is collecting income tax from all those employees, and sales tax from everything those employees buy. Why push employers away out of some fashionable drive for 'social justice'?
  I made no comment on social justice. I said it was bad business. A race to the bottom leaves you at the bottom, and since the rest of the EU was not racing against Ireland, they just raced themselves to the bottom. It was bad business and economically idiotic.
21. Re:Finally by benjymouse · 2014-09-29 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  You, like most her, completely misunderstood what's going on. QTFA: "While the companies themselves aren't under investigation, their input is being sought because they would be required to return any unpaid taxes."
  I repeat: Apple is not under investigation, they will not be fined. The worst that can happen to them is be required to pay taxes saved. It's only Ireland who is in trouble (and the other countries under investigation).
  Thanks. I stand corrected :-)
  
  --
  Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
22. Re:Finally by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-09-29 06:33 · Score: 2
  
  Meh, corporations will simply set up mailboxes on Mars, much like they do in Luxembourg or Lichtenstein,
  
  You are confusing that with Delaware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... - this single-story building is the (US-) residence of 6,500 corporations, and more than 200,000 businesses.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
23. Re:Finally by Shatrat · 2014-09-29 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a race to the bottom, it's an optimization. If corporate tax rate is X and total tax revenue is Y, past a certain point as X goes up, Y goes down because of competitive forces elsewhere.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
24. Re:Finally by Carewolf · 2014-09-29 07:19 · Score: 2
  
  It's not a race to the bottom, it's an optimization. If corporate tax rate is X and total tax revenue is Y, past a certain point as X goes up, Y goes down because of competitive forces elsewhere.
  Yeah, but if you give away more free stuff than you ever get back in revenue you will be losing money. This is what Ireland did. They got less than a thousand jobs out of it, and would lose them in an instant if they ever tried to make Apple or Google pay for what they actually use of public resources. Selling for less than cost is BAD BUSINESS.
25. Re:Finally by jonbryce · 2014-09-29 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  The legal basis is EU State Aid regulations, which prevent governments doing this sort of thing without permission from the EU.
26. Re:Finally by jonbryce · 2014-09-29 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Ireland doesn't actually get that many employees out of these deals, maybe one person to sign official documents, and another person to answer the phone / email and open the mail.
27. Re:Finally by jonbryce · 2014-09-29 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  And that factory isn't where they are saving the money.
  They have a company called Apple Operations International. It is registered in Ireland, and all the staff that work for that company are based in Texas. Under Irish law, the company does not pay any tax because it doesn't do any business or employ any people in Ireland. Under US Federal and Texas State law, it doesn't pay any tax in the US or Texas because the company is registered in Ireland. That company makes a huge amount of money, two thirds of all the profits the Apple Group makes, and doesn't pay tax on it anywhere in the world. Not the very low 12.5% Irish tax rate, not a specially reduced rate. Absolutely no tax whatsoever.
28. Re:Finally by Ihlosi · 2014-09-29 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Even the one who rose from the dead said "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" so pretty much it's just taxes.
  I never looked at it this way, but the argument is astonishingly convincing.
29. Re:Finally by jonbryce · 2014-09-29 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  You can read it in more detail here - http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
30. Re:Finally by Shatrat · 2014-09-29 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Did you make that up, or did you have someone else make it up for you? Apple has thousands of employees in Ireland. http://www.independent.ie/busi...
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
31. Re:Finally by khallow · 2014-09-29 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but if you give away more free stuff than you ever get back in revenue you will be losing money.
  
  Depends what the free stuff costs and what you're getting back in revenue. I don't see that Ireland came out poorly on the deal.
I would like to see a return... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 01:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

to how taxes were done right after WWII. 39% across the board for all companies. Close the loophole. If you have "a" presence in a given country, you pay taxes in that country.
We could have socialized medicine in the US if we could get this money. Countries should band together and collect what owed. Full stop. Let's also kill right now, the notion that corporations are persons. It's a fallacy designed to be pro-business.
1. Re:I would like to see a return... by khallow · 2014-09-29 01:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "to how taxes were done" by whom? When I see stuff like this, it's usually from a US citizen who doesn't have a clue what sort of loopholes were around 50 years ago.
  
  We could have socialized medicine in the US if we could get this money.
  Or we could have something useful. Or just not collect the taxes in the first place, if that's the best you can do with it.
  
  Let's also kill right now, the notion that corporations are persons.
  Definitely from the US. Well, I guess you'll be pleased to find out that everyone including the US Supreme Court already agrees with you. Corporations aren't people and there just isn't any disagreement on that. OTOH, corporate personhood is a legal fiction used to insure that the people involved with a corporation receive proper protection under a variety of developed world legal systems, including the US.
  
  It's a fallacy designed to be pro-business.
  Let me note that pro-business is far less harmful and crazy to human society than anti-business.
2. Re:I would like to see a return... by jellomizer · 2014-09-29 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  Or companies will leave the US in droves, to other countries where they can get better tax rates.
  Leaving the rest of the population without any work nor a tax base to pay for such services.
  It is really a fine balancing act. There is a particular amount of Tax that a company is willing to pay, but not so much that it will just pack up and move.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
3. Re:I would like to see a return... by JosKarith · 2014-09-29 01:36 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I see that BS line trotted out by companies all the time - "If you don't give us favourable treatment we'll go play with our ball somewhere else". I say that government should call their bluff - the next company that tries it just gets their licence to trade pulled and their shares suspended. See how quick the other companies back down.
  
  --
  'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
4. Re:I would like to see a return... by jbssm · 2014-09-29 01:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  We could have socialized medicine in the US if we could get this money.
  USA doesn't need more taxes to have socialized medicine. USA has the 10th biggest public healthcare expenditure per capita of the world already, more than 20% higher than the UK and Canada for instance.
  So, unlike what the majority of the Americans actually thinks, they are paying more for much much less, just out of they congenital spite over "paying stuff to poor people".
  Source: PRB Per Capita Public Expenditure on Health (US$)
5. Re:I would like to see a return... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need that money to have socialized medicine. Norway is spending less *government* money per capita for socialized medicine than the US does just to cover its subsidies to poor people.
  It turns out that the US structure of healthcare is horribly bad. I've experienced using both the US and the Norwegian health system, and had similar types of ailments.
  In Norway, if you use the public (socialized) system, it is slightly slow - some hours of queue that you can pay your way out of by using the competing private system (not supported by public money.)
  I've had similar treatments in both. I've paid more in co-pay in the US system - with top-notch health insurance - than I paid in Norway for covering the complete treatment out of pocket (which I did to avoid the queue.)
6. Re:I would like to see a return... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 01:54 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Good. Let them actually carry their empty threats and try to do a Burger King.
  They will just owe more in import taxes after their temper tantrum is done. In fact, the US government might make more revenue if they add a penalty on their goods, similar to the expat citizen renouncing tax.
  Import duties are quite useful. It allows US businesses a level playing field, and if businesses choose to leave, revenue still comes in.
7. Re:I would like to see a return... by jaseuk · 2014-09-29 01:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The USA may have highest per-capita spending, but that hides the fact that you have a system where very few people OVERPAY for your health-care compared to much of the rest of the developed world. It doesn't mean it's evenly spent.
  http://liberalconspiracy.org/2... : "For a direct comparison, that means that in England the government spends around $3,200 per capita on healthcare and covers the entire population whereas in the US the federal government spends around $3,700 per capita and yet covers less than a third of the population."
  You should have a much better economy of scale, particularly with drugs purchasing, research and best practice. Yet it doesn't bear out in practice somehow...
  Jason.
8. Re:I would like to see a return... by Eunuchswear · 2014-09-29 02:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Just in case anyone is misunderstanding what jbssm is saying.
  The US public spending on healthcare is the 10th biggest in the world, larger than many countries (E.G. the UK) that have "socialised" health care.
  I.E. The taxes Americans already pay are enough to provide "free" healthcare for every American. And you could stop paying health insurance and all other health costs.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
9. Re:I would like to see a return... by MrL0G1C · 2014-09-29 02:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And yet the UK Tories are doing everything they can to move towards the American system so that someone can turn ever larger profits at our expense.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
10. Re:I would like to see a return... by Xest · 2014-09-29 02:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yep, they'd never follow through with the bluff anyway. If the UK government called say, Amazon's bluff, and said we're forcing you to pay this tax so go ahead, leave the country if you want and Amazon left then that'd create a massive void in which a competitor for Amazon could start up in the UK and use it as a launchpad to challenge Amazon elsewhere in the world.
  It is genuinely a ridiculous argument that they'd leave if they had to pay intended corporation tax, especially in a country like the UK - no major company is going to forfeit a market like that over a 21% corporation tax rate, it's just still way too profitable to ignore and way too risky to leave open to a competitor that would gladly fill the void and gain a foothold.
  It's even more ridiculous in the context of companies like Starbucks who face heavy competition in the UK from companies like Costa and Cafe Nero - these guys could take over Starbucks' premises and hire all their staff within no time so you wouldn't even really see anything more than a very very short term hit in terms of job losses in many cases. As we've seen during the recession as a result of bankruptcies, you can take over another companies stores post-Administration and rebrand them and get their staff working for you in their old premises within a matter of only as little as a week or two in many cases.
  Companies aren't simply going to turn away and say "We can only make Â£100 million in profit if we pay corporation tax, instead of Â£120 million, it's just not worth it" if they were given an ultimatum between paying corporation tax and leaving the UK market altogether. They might well sulk, but millions in profit is millions in profit and you don't say no to that- especially when all your competitors are at the exact same disadvantage.
11. Re:I would like to see a return... by alexander_686 · 2014-09-29 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  If you have "a" presence in a given country, you pay taxes in that country.
  How does that work? If you have a presence in 2 countries you pay 78%? (2 X 39%) In 3 countries 117%?
  I will point out that America the only major country which works on a "domicile" approach – If you are a US subsidiary in a foreign country you pay US and local taxes. This can result in taxes over 100% - which the US fixed by putting in loopholes.
  The rest of the world work on a saner approach and uses "residency" – profits earned locally pay the local corporate tax rate. This still leaves the issue of transfer payments – figuring out what portion of the profits belong to which country.
12. Re:I would like to see a return... by Rhipf · 2014-09-29 02:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The reason no one heads to Canada for medical treatment is that they wouldn't be covered and would have to pay out of pocket.
  Are there problems with the Canadian healthcare system? Sure.
  Would I be willing to give up my healthcare coverage for a US type system? No @#$%ing way!!!
  I am more than willing to put up with the limitations of the Canadian system secure in the knowledge that I won't go bankrupt if something happens to me that involve extensive medical care.
13. Re:I would like to see a return... by Charliemopps · 2014-09-29 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  to how taxes were done right after WWII. 39% across the board for all companies. Close the loophole. If you have "a" presence in a given country, you pay taxes in that country.
  We could have socialized medicine in the US if we could get this money. Countries should band together and collect what owed. Full stop. Let's also kill right now, the notion that corporations are persons. It's a fallacy designed to be pro-business.
  If true... this isn't a loophole. It's fraud.
14. Re:I would like to see a return... by asylumx · 2014-09-29 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  The reason no one heads to Canada for medical treatment is that they wouldn't be covered and would have to pay out of pocket.
  Seems obvious, doesn't it? Yet still posts like the GP show up all the time...
15. Re:I would like to see a return... by ConfusedVorlon · 2014-09-29 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  you could socialize medicine in the USA with the taxes you currently collect.
  The cost of medicare in the USA is about the same (as a proportion of GDP) as the cost of universal healthcare in the UK.
  
  --
  VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
16. Re:I would like to see a return... by Shatrat · 2014-09-29 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  This happens all the time.
  Some county or city negotiates lowered taxes for some factory to move in.
  20 years later the mayor gets greedy and lets those agreements lapse.
  The company builds a shiny new factory in the neighboring county or across the country.
  Competitive forces don't only apply to widgets in micro econ.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
17. Re:I would like to see a return... by mlw4428 · 2014-09-29 04:01 · Score: 2
  
  > all other health costs.
  
  Let's clarify this. Universal Coverage doesn't mean "free" healthcare. It would work the same way a private insurance plan works now, except it's the government running the program and doing so without charging money to pay for CEO private jets, bonuses, and lobbying efforts. No one I know has a problem with paying copays, deductibles, or coinsurances, it's the massive premiums (of which a not-insignificant chunk of which goes to paying silly things while insurance companies actively work to deny claims for any small reason they can find).
18. Re:I would like to see a return... by jratcliffe · 2014-09-29 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  to how taxes were done right after WWII. 39% across the board for all companies. Close the loophole. If you have "a" presence in a given country, you pay taxes in that country
  Except that's not how US taxes work - the US says, you pay US tax on ALL your corporate income. If Apple makes a phone in China and sells it in Germany, the US says that the profit on that sale is taxable. That's highly unusual (unique, actually) among major developed economies.
19. Re:I would like to see a return... by Eunuchswear · 2014-09-29 04:12 · Score: 2
  
  No one I know has a problem with paying copays, deductibles, or coinsurances
  Why not? Ask someone in the UK what "copays, deductibles, or coinsurances" are and they will look at you blankly.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
20. Re:I would like to see a return... by mlw4428 · 2014-09-29 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  You're very much correct about the UK. However France requires a copay and I don't disagree with that. Truly free healthcare leads people to go to the ER for stuff their Primary Care Physician should be handling (as the uninsured do now). This presents the ER staff with a large triage issue and it affects emergency care quality. A reasonable fee would discourage this and allow for the creation of additional funding that could be applicable to public funded medical research. Stipulations on that research could be things such as private companies using the research must not patent protect any application of that research (so a drug company using public money couldn't patent and restrict access to a new drug that, say, cures cancer).
  
  Medical research is rather expensive and pure taxation wouldn't be enough. I'd love to see the bulk of medical research moved into the public domain vs companies discovering a cure and making a pill that has to be taken forever (at great cost) instead of using the version of the pill which cures in one round of treatment.
21. Re:I would like to see a return... by Eunuchswear · 2014-09-29 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  You're very much correct about the UK. However France requires a copay and I don't disagree with that
  My "copay" is 100% reimbursed by my mutuelle.
  
  Truly free healthcare leads people to go to the ER for stuff their Primary Care Physician should be handling (as the uninsured do now).
  Why? If I visit the ER I pay nothing on the spot, and the bills get paid by the securite sociale and my mutuelle later on. If I visit my doctor I have to fork over the cash or cheque and get reimbursed later.
  The major advantage of seeing my doctor is that I don't have to wait for hours in the ER. (He even does house calls).
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
22. Re:I would like to see a return... by roman_mir · 2014-09-29 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  We could have socialized medicine in the US if we could get this money.
  Or we could have something useful. Or just not collect the taxes in the first place, if that's the best you can do with it.
  absolutely.
  At the time when an average /.er writes another meaningless statement as to how to use more government violence to steal more money from individuals to create more monstrous government monopolies, Switzerland stands its ground and votes against such notions.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
23. Re:I would like to see a return... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but while you're in the hospital a death panel will be waiting to press the big red "let Rhipf die" button, and meanwhile the socialist government will be teaching your children not to believe in God. At least, that's what I've been told would happen in the U.S., so I presume Canada is already like that.
24. Re:I would like to see a return... by mlw4428 · 2014-09-29 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  France has a different culture and population and economic class separations than does America. It's a people problem more than a procedural problem. Ironically we could do the insurance thing totally cashless fairly easily (government provided debit card/insurance card with a payment guarantee for covered procedures).
25. Re:I would like to see a return... by Khashishi · 2014-09-29 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Easy for you to say. Now tell me, how do you legally define "a" presence. If Pear corp buys a widget from Pear distribution(a wholly distinct entity) corp in Ireland and sells it at cost in the USA, so their revenue is zero, then how much taxes do they owe? Meanwhile, the shareholders of Pear corp happen to coincidentally own shares of Pear distribution, which is making plenty of money.
26. Re:I would like to see a return... by khallow · 2014-09-29 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically we could do the insurance thing totally cashless fairly easily
  I doubt there's 1 in 1,000 people in the US who pay for their insurance with cash. It's close enough to cashless. Maybe we ought to look at problems instead.
27. Re:I would like to see a return... by mjwx · 2014-09-29 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  We could have socialized medicine in the US if we could get this money.
  USA doesn't need more taxes to have socialized medicine. USA has the 10th biggest public healthcare expenditure per capita of the world already, more than 20% higher than the UK and Canada for instance.
  So, unlike what the majority of the Americans actually thinks, they are paying more for much much less, just out of they congenital spite over "paying stuff to poor people".
  So why does the US have such a woeful health care system?
  
  It makes the NIH in the UK look like the paragon of efficiency.
  
  It seems the problem isn't funding but Americans. It would be a good idea if you could paid Canada to run the whole system for you.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
28. Re:I would like to see a return... by mjwx · 2014-09-29 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  The reason no one heads to Canada for medical treatment is that they wouldn't be covered and would have to pay out of pocket.
  Not quite everyone.
  
  Many other commonwealth countries have reciprocal agreements with health care. A Canadian in Australia would be covered under our Medicare system as much as an Australian in Canada would under your system...
  
  That being said, neither Australians nor Canadians need to travel overseas to get essential medical services.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
29. Re:I would like to see a return... by Eunuchswear · 2014-09-29 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to have the wrong end of the stick - mlw4428 is talking about whether the doctor/pharmacy/hospital is paid by the health insurer directly, or by the patient who is then reimbursed by the insurer.
  He's also bringing up the ridiculous "America is different" argument in order to explain why Americans must pay out of their pockets or they will spend their whole lives in the ER, that apparently being how Americans want to spend their time.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
Some justice by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 01:03 · Score: 1

If the Irish get the money it'll help pay off the immoral "bailout" which was forced upon us by the ECB. Taxes have increased across the board for citizens and new ones invented just to pay for the shortfall in the banks' reckless actions.
I wonder will the EU be so quick to probe France's tax sweeteners on "research" and similar schemes in other countries.
1. Re:Some justice by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Ireland is free to fix its tax's level for all companies. The problem seems that Apple got a better (well, lower) rate than other companies in Ireland.
  About tax/research in France and other schemes in other countries, well, as long as it is equal opportunity for all candidats, no problem. Each country sets its rules, and the EU checks that everyone play according to the ones they published. Same as Delawar and California.
2. Re:Some justice by pijokela · 2014-09-29 01:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  EU actually does have minimum and maximum levels for some taxes. So as a member of EU they are not completely free to choose the level of their taxes. I also think that Ireland has been one of the countries opposing a raise in the minimum tax paid by companies. But anyway, the current beef is like you said.
Ireland perhaps not so unscathed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 01:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

If this probe results in a precedent that companies can't use Ireland to handwave their taxes away, that may cause companies to stop setting up "headquarters" there, which I imagine could be worse for Ireland than any fine could ever be.
Takes two to tango by qbast · 2014-09-29 01:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

So if deal between Apple and Ireland was illegal, shouldn't Ireland be fined as well?
1. Re:Takes two to tango by __aaltlg1547 · 2014-09-29 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody can do that.
2. Re:Takes two to tango by MrL0G1C · 2014-09-29 01:32 · Score: 2
  
  So if deal between Apple and Ireland was illegal, shouldn't Ireland be fined as well?
  
  Nobody can do that.
  Sure they can and they should be. The UK faces being fined not dealing with it's traffic pollution.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
3. Re:Takes two to tango by JosKarith · 2014-09-29 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't realise the EU court had moved from Strasbourg to Ireland...
  
  --
  'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
4. Re:Takes two to tango by MrL0G1C · 2014-09-29 01:38 · Score: 2
  
  Ireland can't violate the law; it's a sovereign country.
  Whether or not EU countries are sovereign is highly debatable, I'd say they are not sovereign, they would have to declare independence from EU to regain their sovereignty.
  
  Every law that applies to Ireland is made by Ireland.
  Wrong, most laws that apply to Ireland are made by EU commission then passed by the EU parliament and are automatically rubber-stamped in Ireland.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
5. Re:Takes two to tango by yet+another+SanTiago · 2014-09-29 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  EU court (European Court of Justice) resides in fact in Luxembourg.
  It is ECHR (European Court of Human Rights, unrelated to EU) that resides in Strasbourg.
6. Re:Takes two to tango by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Most is a bit of a stretch. In certain areas there is a lot of stuff based on EU regulation. But stuff like criminal law is hardly harmonised at all. And there is a *lot* of wiggle room in regulations, inevitable when you have to get so many countries to agree on something.
7. Re:Takes two to tango by james_pb · 2014-09-29 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  So if deal between Apple and Ireland was illegal, shouldn't Ireland be fined as well?
  Why? Not fining Ireland serves a very useful purpose: it means any country can easily agree to these schemes, and then back out painlessly. Apple pays all the costs of crony capitalism (presumably they have to spend time and money placating politicians), and receives none of the benefits. Attempting to fine the Irish government would just make it harder to punish Apple, since presumably the Irish would also fight any penalties directed at them.
Not true by MikeMo · 2014-09-29 01:26 · Score: 5, Informative

The EU never made such a statement and never levies fines in such cases even if the action turns out to be illegal.

This is another case of breathless reporters doing their best to get clicks by accusing Apple of something, anything.
1. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  ...while virtually every other tech giant is doing the exact same thing (MS, Google, etc)
2. Re:Not true by Charliemopps · 2014-09-29 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  The EU never made such a statement and never levies fines in such cases even if the action turns out to be illegal.
  This is another case of breathless reporters doing their best to get clicks by accusing Apple of something, anything.
  It clearly states in that article that they may very well find that Apple is altering prices in an illegal way and may get fined. It's just not as simple as the original article made it seem. And if you doubt at all that Apple is doing this, you're a tad naive. If they get caught at it or not is the only real question.
3. Re:Not true by MikeMo · 2014-09-29 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  They won't face a fine, although the EU may require Ireland to collect the "rightful" taxes. In any case, I was objecting to the article summary which states that "EU regulators are set to accuse Apple..." which is misleading, at best.
Re:Interestingly? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 01:30 · Score: 1

They wouldn't have gotten ANY taxes from Apple if they wouldn't have provided the "tax incentives" to lure the business there in the first place.
Re:No because it is Apple by qbast · 2014-09-29 01:34 · Score: 1

Yes, of course. European Commission has 'Linux has failed envy' and that's why they are unjustly punishing Apple. You may get '-18 flamebait' soon but only because there is no '-18 retarded cultist'
I sense bias here... by cloud.pt · 2014-09-29 01:38 · Score: 1

it seems that the Irish government would actually get the extra money and suffer little for its part in the scheme
So, if the government was the victim because some of its members decided to abuse power in order to get personal compensation (be it money or just public opinion), why would the government itself be penalized? It's true that the government is made by elected members of the people in a democracy, but these people did NOT represent the government's best interests with the deal, as the deal did not do justice to the government by breaking its law.
It might even have benefited the country overall, with new money getting in through other revenue from Apple keeping business there, but that is just a political illusion of benefit to the government - it is more of a treat to the elected political party, who managed to gain popularity to the eyes of the community by committing public taxes for it.
Deals like this can be done, as long as they are made under the guise of a solid investment and they do not break any trade policies without lawmakers consent, which does not appear to be the case.
Typical by Jonifico · 2014-09-29 01:40 · Score: 1

Well, everybody gets what they want. Apple, no real action against them and the gov't free money! Ain't that great?
Another nonsense article by gnasher719 · 2014-09-29 02:13 · Score: 2

Fact: The EU is having a close look at the deals between Apple and the Irish government. Fact: There is no indication whatsoever that anyone is asking for any back payments, and there is no indication whatsoever that anyone is asking for large penalties.

In other words, the whole article is pure nonsense.
So Ireland wins coming and going by nedlohs · 2014-09-29 02:16 · Score: 1

They get whatever benefit they were getting for offering the low low taxes. And then later on they get to jack the tax rate retroactively and get the cash too.
Well played.
$8.283 billion taxes in 2011 Re:Finally by justcauseisjustthat · 2014-09-29 02:29 · Score: 2

Apple made provisions for tax of $8.283 billion (Provision for income taxes 8,283). Which was indeed 24.2% of their profits declared in that year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...
1. Re:$8.283 billion taxes in 2011 Re:Finally by SpzToid · 2014-09-29 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  But what would the U.S. Government do with all that money anyway? Surely Apple could put that huge amount of cash to better use, either by innovating more, or by creating new jobs and growing the economy that way. Apple could then rise above the scenario that forced them into conditons that has now lead to a class-action lawsuit, alleging collusion and conspiracy to pay their workers less income by means of a non-poaching agreement Apple should at a minimum negotiate a better tax repatriation deal! /sarcasm
  Of course, you or I are not allowed to negotiate squat with the government, because we're just people.
  
  --
  You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
2. Re:$8.283 billion taxes in 2011 Re:Finally by Tough+Love · 2014-09-29 05:00 · Score: 2
  
  If this ruling sticks then a major adjustment in AAPL's price is coming down the tracks. Should be good for roughly a 15-20% drop. At 16, AAPL's p/e is looking a little pricey in any case. Other tech perps are no doubt peering anxiously over their shoulders but AAPL is the standout bad actor.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
3. Re:$8.283 billion taxes in 2011 Re:Finally by Plumpaquatsch · 2014-09-29 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  If this ruling sticks then a major adjustment in AAPL's price is coming down the tracks. Should be good for roughly a 15-20% drop. At 16, AAPL's p/e is looking a little pricey in any case. Other tech perps are no doubt peering anxiously over their shoulders but AAPL is the standout bad actor.
  Then please do short Apple - this should be fun.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Time to short by paysonwelch · 2014-09-29 02:55 · Score: 2

Apple CEOs recently sold off a lot of their stock at the height of the iPhone 6 release: http://www.businessinsider.com... My guess is that they knew this was coming and cashed out at the highest possible value. It might be time to short AAPL.
1. Re:Time to short by gnasher719 · 2014-09-29 03:40 · Score: 2
  
  Apple CEOs recently sold off a lot of their stock at the height of the iPhone 6 release: http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com] My guess is that they knew this was coming and cashed out at the highest possible value. It might be time to short AAPL.
  You are welcome to short AAPL, but you should be careful, since apparently you have not a clue how the stock market works. When insiders like Apple's CEO trade shares, they can't use the insider information which they obviously have, because that would mean jail time if the SEC finds out. Instead, they have to enter these trades a long time (around a year) before the trade is executed, and there is no way to back out of this. So Tim Cook could today set up a trade to sell 10,000 AAPL shares on the 23rd of September 2015, and if he does that, the sale will go through on that day - even if AAPL is at a low on that day and Tim Cook has news that will double the share price on the next day.
2. Re:Time to short by paysonwelch · 2014-09-29 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Hello, I never claimed to be an expert. I'm pretty sure I know how the stock market works, but you would have been correct had you suggested that I don't know how corporate officers liquidate their holdings. A year is enough time for them to get the feeling if and when the music might stop or go against them. Tax loopholes (especially Ireland related) have been in the news for a while. They also did a 7/1 reverse split this year, probably trying to get the numbers up a little before cashing out. If you read between the lines you will notice that most of the people referenced in that article liquidated all or close to all of their holdings in Apple. Regardless if they planned it a year ago or not I think it was pretty convenient they liquidated right after the iPhone 6 release.
Apple should pay taxes where their sales are by lowlands · 2014-09-29 04:17 · Score: 1

Excellent news. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Starbucks and all those other euro-tax avoiding organizations should be forced to pay taxes where they sell their products. I hope that the EU for once does something that benefits Europeans and return billions to the EU economy. Not play and relay but pay to play.
The tricks that those Transfer Pricing consultants from the big tax advisory firms pull have gone way too far. It's time they are reigned in. And their customers should be hit where it hurts most. Next the EU should create new tax regulations that at least 50% of the revenues from foreign designed/manufactured products/services should be spent in the country where the sale of said products/services took place. With regulations like that, extreme globalization, dangerous trade deficits, evil transfer pricing schemes and billions in off-shore havens doing nothing will become a thing of the past.
Imagine what those billions of avoided euro-taxes in off-shore tax havens could have done for the EU economy.
They pay lots of taxes already by SuperKendall · 2014-09-29 04:59 · Score: 1

Apple pays a huge amount of tax in the US.
They ALSO pay a lot of tax in the EU.
The fuss form the US government is that UNLIKE ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD we like to double-tax foreign revenues for which tax was already collected.
The fuss from the EU is that the tax Apple pays they consider to be too low, because Apple has money and the EU does not.
That's the simp truth. Apple found the place that collected the lowest taxes and based international operations there. Doing something legal and having a huge pile of untouchable money angers bureaucrats (and irrational Apple Haters) to no end.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:They pay lots of taxes already by Namarrgon · 2014-09-29 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  What angers people is that multinational corporations like Apple (and Google and many others) collect a lot of revenue from many the countries they operate in - but somehow make such tiny profits in those countries that they pay tiny taxes.
  Taxpayers in those countries pay for infrastructure and services that the multinationals' local offices depend on, consumers in those countries contribute greatly to their revenues, yet see very little return in corporate taxes thanks to the profits being funnelled away to tax havens via disproportionate expenses for intangibles like internal licencing fees (for example, there's a big Google R&D office in Australia, but the results of that work are given away to Ireland and licenced back, at a cost that eats up most of Google's local profits). It's a legal loophole that governments are increasingly unwilling to tolerate.
  I know you'll go far to defend Apple from any perceived attack, but the "simp(sic) truth" is that these methods of minimising tax/revenue ratio to maximise their profits deprive their host countries of tax income that is badly needed to continue providing services that all depend on, including the multinational's offices and their own employees.
  
  --
  Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Re:No because it is Apple by GuB-42 · 2014-09-29 07:21 · Score: 1

Nothing to do with Apple hate, more like the love of money.
Apple is a US company that is very profitable and wants to make loads of cash selling stuff in the EU. Of course the EU want its share, and it knows that Apple can pay.
Umm by easyTree · 2014-09-29 10:03 · Score: 1

If the ruling is upheld, Apple could owe billions in back taxes
iPhone 6S in 3, 2, 1.....

--
Requiem for the American Dream