Slashdot Mirror


Apple May Owe $8 Billion To the EU After Tax Ruling (bloomberg.com)

Robotron23 writes: An investigation by the EU Commission may make Apple liable for up to $8 billion in back taxes. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates Apple has paid only 1.8% tax on profits between 2004 and 2012 — this ruling increases their liability to 12.5%. This decision comes hot on the heels of a tax avoidance settlement Apple reached with Italy last month for $347 million.

148 comments

  1. Good! by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bummer!
    And now Ireland gets punished by having to accept those 8 billion dollars of back taxes, that will teach them.

    1. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Steve Jobs must be doing 8 billion R.P.M.

    2. Re:Good! by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      It's actually the whole of Europe that wants a check from Apple. Just close the focking loop holes if you want the tax money.

      At least we know what the cash is for.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Good! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Follow the money. EU politicians aren't getting political donations the way US and national governments in Europe are.

      They want some too! Why d'ya think they went into power to begin with?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  2. $8 billion only? by NotInHere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Great deal apple managers!

    Greek pensioners and the debtor countries still have to pay a high price for the tax hole your evasion created.

    1. Re:$8 billion only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ^This

      The unfortunate side-effect of tax avoidance: lower wages means lower standard of living, which leads to lower health and education. Then, to compensate for that, the government has to create programs. If the government can't fund those programs (because low wages means low tax revenue), then they shut them down, which increases the lower standard of living, health, and education.

      Tax evasion really screws things up for everyone, in the long run. A few hundred dollars a year from everyone is a lot, so it's not just the super rich, big corporations.

      It may be politics, too; maybe the corporations know that, if the tax dollars can't be collected, they'll end the programs. It will hurt the other party's image, and thus, their friends get elected, thereby passing laws to help their greed a bit longer.

    2. Re:$8 billion only? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      $8 billion won't dent Greek's debts, much less divided among Europe.

      The problem lies squarely and mechanically on the ability and desire to borrow from future generations to pay for current consumption (and not for things that arguably benefit future generations, like infrastructure, and war.)

      These are literally people who didn't sav enough for retirement, not just personally, but through government plans either. They don't carry their own weight.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:$8 billion only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem lies squarely and mechanically on the ability and desire to borrow from future generations to pay for current consumption (and not for things that arguably benefit future generations, like infrastructure, and war.)

      Rubbish. You cannot borrow from future generations, that is a stupid simplistic way of saying that you expect future generations to repay the debt. If governments are borrowing, it is because there are people making enough money to be able to lend. The problem is with politicians being bought by those super rich so that laws get passed allowing them to get even richer while paying hardly any tax.

    4. Re:$8 billion only? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not just that. Complicated and expensive (in terms of an absolute euro value) tax evasion schemes benefit large corporation but remain largely unavailable for small companies and middle class individuals due to complexity and cost. This puts smaller companies as a competitive disadvantage. I'm still paying 20% tax on profits for my company, and in many other EU countries that amount is higher still. Meanwhile larger companies are paying bugger all.

      This is a well known fact in political circles, of course. A few years ago an entrepreneur started a fiscal consultancy firm to advise smaller companies on how to avoid paying tax on profits, and to do the legal and bureaucratic legwork for them for a reasonable fee. It didn't take long for the tax office, the finance minister, and the public prosecutor to catch on, and they went after him with a vengeance. Can't have the little people have their break after all... In that sense it is only fair that they are going after the big boys now... as long as they stay within the law doing so, and only prosecute for actual wrongdoings, not just for "unethical behaviour"

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:$8 billion only? by shawn2772 · · Score: 0

      The better solution is just to abolish corporate income taxes. Corporate taxes ultimately come out of the pockets of real people anyway, whether customers (in the form of higher prices), employees (in the form of lower wages) or investors (in the form of lower gains), so corporate taxes are really just a way to tax real people (AKA "voters") in a hidden way. They don't know they're paying those taxes or how much the taxes are because the taxes are washed through the corporation -- which incidentally makes it almost impossible to tell if the taxes are progressive or regressive. This makes corporate taxes not only difficult to collect correctly and subject to huge lobbying pressure, it makes them evil. Taxes are fine, but taxpayers should know what they're paying.

      So the best solution is to eliminate the corporate taxes entirely, and make up the shortfall by taxing real people more. Depending on which segment of the population you want to be paying those taxes, you can allocate them among sales/VAT taxes, personal income taxes or capital gains taxes.

      It would also eliminates this particular competitive advantage of size.

    6. Re:$8 billion only? by Khashishi · · Score: 0

      You know the best way to abolish corporate income taxes? By abolishing corporations.

    7. Re:$8 billion only? by khallow · · Score: 1

      You know the best way to abolish corporate income taxes? By abolishing corporations.

      Because we didn't really want that developed world society anyway.

    8. Re: $8 billion only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Says dipshit in his corporate built house, on corporate built computer, with corporate built software, wearing corporate built clothes, while his wife is out fucking a CEO while he sits around crying about corporations.

    9. Re:$8 billion only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the people who run the large corporations don't pay personal taxes either, and in a many ways it is easier for them to move residence than a company.

      Eliminating corporate taxes would make the current situation far, far worse. What we need is more global action, or at worse, EU wide action to ensure that the rules are applied as fairly as possible. Currently, the bigger the company is, the more jurisdictions it covers, the easier it is to avoid tax. This is what apple is doing.

      So, a nice example of the EU working, as well as corporate taxes.

    10. Re:$8 billion only? by PennyHassett · · Score: 1

      ... A few years ago an entrepreneur started a fiscal consultancy firm to advise smaller companies on how to avoid paying tax on profits, and to do the legal and bureaucratic legwork for them for a reasonable fee. It didn't take long for the tax office, the finance minister, and the public prosecutor to catch on, and they went after him with a vengeance. ...

      Evidence/References please? I don't doubt you, I want to learn more. FYI, there is a UK-tv programme coming up Wed 20th Jan 2016 on a similar subject, I haven't seen it yet so I don't know the details. ref is

    11. Re:$8 billion only? by PennyHassett · · Score: 1

      sorry, I didn't realise the reference would be removed. It's www.bbc.co.uk slash programmes slash b06ygl19. Search for inurl:bbc "The Town That Took on the Taxman"

    12. Re: $8 billion only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The money is owed to Ireland therfore it's Ireland money. Because we are part of the European, loans that were previously on the books as being owed to Germany by Greece could be moved over to Ireland at a lower interest rate. But fir a start, it's obvious that Ireland should get the money. It's our 12.5% tax rate that is owed. It's Ireland that Apple gets its profits from. I'm in favour if the money being used to help out Greece etc. but Not in German hands. In Irish hands. 8 billion of extra loan restructuring into the system to be repaid to Ireland. It's money owed to Ireland, not just the EU

    13. Re:$8 billion only? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      This was the firm "Haags Juristen College" in NL, ran by Toine Manders. I found only Dutch articles on Google. If you do a search, be aware that there are two famous Toine Manderses around, and that most articles on his company are rather biased one way or another (for or against).

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    14. Re:$8 billion only? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Awesome, thanks. I'll be watching that.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    15. Re: $8 billion only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your clothes are built?! How freaking fat are you?

    16. Re:$8 billion only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that sense it is only fair that they are going after the big boys now... as long as they stay within the law doing so, and only prosecute for actual wrongdoings, not just for "unethical behaviour"

      Don't underestimate the importance of ethics in business. There is a long history of abuses of customers, workers, and the public by businesses, abuses that happened as a result of ethics problems. Think of massive environmental damage, all kinds of abuses of people by "debt collectors" and "phone calling centers", abuses involving the stock market, abuses of the DMCA by various organizations, patent trolls, and so on.

      It has been known since Adam Smith's time (the Wealth of Nations was published in 1776) that capitalism requires effective regulation, and ethics problems in business interfere with such regulation. Further, given the potential harm businesses can do to society, especially the really large ones, it is clear that a right of long term oversight over business is a fundamental human right, and ethics problems within businesses interfere with the exercise of that right.

      In this day in age, when governments are routinely being hacked, it is ethics as much as anything that will determine how much hassle and stolen time you have to put up with when your identity inevitably gets stolen: ethical business will do the right thing, unethical ones won't. There are companies such as citi bank that seem to have trouble understanding what running an ethical business requires. Sooner or later somebody will get seriously pissed off, and a company in that position will lose a major lawsuit, but matters shouldn't have to proceed that far to get companies to act in a mature and responsible manner, compliant with all the laws of the land and not just the ones they find convenient. The lessons of Nuremberg apply not just to government officials, but to everyone in a position that involves public trust and responsibility, whether in public or private employ.

      There are major ethics problems in the business of law in the USA, and this not only causes major problems for the USA, but also problems for much of the rest of the world. The US Constitution provides for Congress protecting certain rights with respect to intellectual property, but the manner in which the legal profession has chosen to implement that provision is riddled with ethics problems. The DMCA only makes a bad situation worse.

      Further, going after ethics issues is very much a matter of staying within the law. In the case of the USA, the right to ethics in business can certainly be asserted as a right "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment, and hence protected by the highest law in the land. Actually getting the US legal profession to recognize that fact can be difficult, but that in itself is an ethics problem: the legal position has conflicts of interest with respect to recognizing the authority of the highest law in the land.

    17. Re:$8 billion only? by shawn2772 · · Score: 2

      You know the best way to abolish corporate income taxes? By abolishing corporations.

      What alternative structure would you use to perform capital-intensive projects? Unless you're going to turn all production of goods and large-scale services over to government (we've seen how well *that* works), corporations, or something very much like them, are necessary to provide a means for many individuals to pool their resources in order to do big things... big things like manufacturing essentially all of the goods that you use on a daily basis, including the computer you're reading this on.

      While corporations do create some risks which need to be managed, as all centralization of power creates risks, they're absolutely essential and one of the key innovations that has made our modern high standard of living possible. In fact, it's not unreasonable to say that corporations are one of the most important and beneficial ideas the human race has ever had.

    18. Re:$8 billion only? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Governments borrowing money (from other governments, banks, citizens through bonds, etc.) is borrowing from future generations, since their taxes will be the ones paying off the debts (with interest). How is this not obvious?

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    19. Re:$8 billion only? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      How do you figure tax avoidance leads to lower wages? If anything, it should mean lower prices (lower costs mean you can lower prices to gain volume and still make profit) or higher wages (if the tax bill on your profits is too high, give out some bonuses so your profits drop).

      Lower wages lead to lower prices, which means standard of living isn't necessarily diminished by as much as wages are, and lower prices generally means more tourism. If prices and wages are lower, then while tax revenues are also lower, government salaries should be as well, which means those programs don't cost as much.

      That's not to say I support tax evasion necessarily, but I do think most tax laws are kind of shitty, and this whole "tax money they earn outside your jurisdiction" thing the US and EU keep doing is bullshit.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  3. Tim Cook killing Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tim Cook in my opinion is killing Apple. I would not be surprised given all the negative stock pricing, the tax evasion issues and the pathetic product evolution. That Tim Cook will eventually be forced out. Tim Cook is the Steve Ballmer of Apple. only Tim Cook is so none inspiring to Apple its not even funny.

    1. Re:Tim Cook killing Apple by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 0

      What do you mean by pathetic product evolution? The low-end Mac mini went from a 2.5GHz dual-core i5 down to a 1.4GHz while at the same time removing the quad-core i7 in the high-end model. And let's not forget the non-upgradable memory which is now soldered on-board!

      Oh wait.

    2. Re:Tim Cook killing Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there is no upgrade path for my Mac Mini (late 2012 quad core) because the new models are slower. I broke down and put an SSD in my existing one and called it good for 2 more years. By then maybe Intel will ship something.

      I don't just blame apple but also intel. The newer cpus are a joke and designed for lowend devices.

    3. Re: Tim Cook killing Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the newer chips a way better than the older chips per clock cycle. I have the best possible 2011 mini, with a 2.7-3.2Ghz i7 and the ati dedicated video; the problem is this overheats so much with the case closed that gets throttled down to 2.4ghz. The new ones don't overheat. But I have 16G memory to handle the memory leaks in the kernel and Safari. 6g is the minimum for the leaky memory buckets that 10.9 and all later OSX are. Anyway, the new minis just use appropriate chips for the thermal capabilities of their cases.

  4. Apple is not "The world’s largest company" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    Saudi Aramco dwarfs Apple

    http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

    "Based on its est reserves & a (conservative) valuation of $10 p barrel, #Aramco cld be worth more than $2.5 tr. 4 times the size of Apple"

  5. Re:ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already owe it. Pulling out won't wipe away the debt.

    And no, they're not going to pull out of the EU. That'd kill their worldwide market share, driving away quality developers.

  6. Re:ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No they won't.

  7. Re: ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good riddance. That doesnt even scare me the slightest, makes room for others that are willing to pay.

  8. Tim Cook disagrees by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tim Cook says Apple pays every tax dollar it owes. Maybe the key word is dollar here. He never said Apple pays every euro it owes!

    1. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, they just creatively define "owes" like every other corporation who feels it should be their right to not pay any taxes.

      When broke humans pay more as a percentage in tax than mega rich corporations, there's a problem.

      Given that they've been outsourcing all the fucking jobs, they don't get to pretend like they drive the economy any more.

      Corporate tax rates should increase proportional to job cuts and off-shoring ... that way they can stop fucking pretending to be the economic driving force they no longer are.

      What's that? You laid off 25% of your work force to move it overseas? Well, that will be a 25% tax increase, assholes.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by Arkham · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In Europe they are fine saying "Yes you complied with every tax law but we just changed our minds. Pay us $8B" and there's nothing you can do if you want to continue to do business there. It's not the US.

      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
    3. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's like a shoplifter saying he paid for everything he bought or a groper claiming that his hand never left his arm.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They didn't change their minds. Apple thought it had found a way to avoid a lot of tax, but the courts disagreed and said that they misinterpreted the rules.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who was listening when he said that, because people keep thinking he said "Apple paid already every tax dollar it will owe for years in which we've already filed." But that isn't what he said. He said that they pay everything they owe. If their filing is rejected or revised afterwards, then his statement is just a statement of fact that they'll pay it after they're found to owe it. It was a complete non-statement. He could have said instead, "look, we're a business not an irrational tax protester, if we're wrong we'll have to pay up when they tell us what we really owe." But that wouldn't lead the sheep around by the nose well enough, so he said the other thing that means the same but sounds different.

    6. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I guess it didn't enter into their thinking that if those loopholes really existed, the European companies would be paying less tax. Why would Apple think it would pay less local tax than the locals? It seems like an irrational expectation.

      If Apple was being told to pay more than what average European competitors pay, then I might be more sympathetic to your point.

    7. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by jbssm · · Score: 2

      Seriously where did you go to get those ridiculous statements? The laws didn't change along the way. Apple thought they found a loophole and tried to exploit it, well, according to the law - i.e. the rulling of the courts - Apple was wrong, though luck. No new laws where passed along the way like you are implying.

      Also it's quite interesting that you are taking sides with a bunch of billionaire pricks that hire a battalion of attorneys in order to try and find loopholes to avoid paying taxes while the common man has no way to escape them.

    8. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope we have dollars in Australia and they avoid tax here when we were (are?) the biggest iPhone buyer per capita.

    9. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Tim Cook says Apple pays every tax dollar it owes. Maybe the key word is dollar here. He never said Apple pays every euro it owes!

      Errm, TFA doesn't say anything about "owing" money, but that it could in the future owe back-taxes because Ireland didn't ask for enough taxes.

      Anyway, if you think this is bad news for Apple, think what it means for other companies (mentioned in TFA, read it) who will have a much harder time paying their back-taxes, not to mention the IRS, who will get less taxes if Apple ever brings home their foreign money.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    10. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      I guess it didn't enter into their thinking that if those loopholes really existed, the European companies would be paying less tax. Why would Apple think it would pay less local tax than the locals? It seems like an irrational expectation.

      What makes you think that the big European companies pay more taxes than Apple? E.g. Fiat has been ruled to pay to little taxes in Europe because they shelter in Luxembourg.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    11. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

      Apple doesn't "think", it is a corporation made up of people. Apple doesn't "feel", either. Apple does have financial advisors that tell them how to handle their money. A few paragraphs back, there was discussion about the mini line and its lack of upgrade path. Coming from the Windows world, my entrance into mac-dom, I was impressed with with the hardware, and the newly ported created Mac OS X as well. I swallowed a lot of cool-aid about how Apple cared. Since then I bought the most expensive computer of my life, A Mac Bro 8-core 16GB-ram (apple ram, i know...) The model I bought was the last one with the 32-bit ,,,,,, Now limited to running Snow Leopard. I have compassion about a mac mini that cannot be upgraded, but my Mac Pro at 6+ grand needed to last me a while. ]To make a long story short=, this thread which discusses the high end relationship between Apple and various goverments is one end-point. The other, customer satisfaction and loyalty from the customer base. In my opinion, Apple is burning it's candle at both ends. If worldwide sales slump because of customer dissatisfaction, there wont be money to pay the expensive tax lawyers, If our hopes for Apple are to come true, The right leader shoud go back to making the customers happy

    12. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Seriously where did you go to get those ridiculous statements? The laws didn't change along the way.

      Exactly. They didn't change - yet. That's why "Apple may owe tax after ruling (which hasn't happened yet)". Gees, how fucking difficult is understanding that?

      Taking tax advice from you guys is a sure way to get in touch with the law.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    13. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by jbssm · · Score: 1

      You clearly don't understand the concept of ruling.

    14. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      You clearly don't understand the concept of ruling.

      You clearly don't understand the concept of RTFA. You should try that before you look any dumber. The whole lot of you.

      Key segments from TFA:

      European Commission investigation seen concluding by March

      If the Commission decides to enforce a tougher accounting standard, Apple may owe taxes

      There has been no ruling yet. Period. And if that ruling comes, (and if that ruling actually comes out as expected - it still may not) it means the Irish tax laws will have to be changed retroactively. To be fair, that information can only be found in better articles. Like this (older) one or this

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    15. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might be a bit too informed here for a slashdot audience, but this is routine law school 101 so to speak:

      http://leedslawrevision.weebly...

      And it's not an entirely settled matter on whether we should consider a ruling as "changing existing laws" or merely "applying what has had been the law". But hey, it usually doesn't really matter in practice.

    16. Re:Tim Cook disagrees by larkost · · Score: 1

      To be more specific: Apple negotiated with Ireland to have effectively a lower rate, by agreeing to a specific amount ahead of time, which both knew was too low, and in return Apple moved much of their profits into Ireland (by using "transfer pricing" games). So Ireland got more tax revenue than they would have, while Apple got to pay lower taxes. Of course this denied the tax revenue that would have gone to other countries.

      The problem for Apple here (beyond any morality involved), is that the European Union has ruled that this was illegal aid by a state for a company, and so Apple will wind up owing the back taxes anyways. I have not heard whether this will be a windfall to Ireland, or the EU will distribute this money around.

  9. *May* owe $8 billion by ilsaloving · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They may owe 8 billion, but what's the chances they'll actually have to pay that? If this were the US, they'd end up just making a settlement for a tiny fraction of that.
    Since this is the EU, who actually make more of an effort to hold corporations accountable for their greed, the amount would be comparatively larger, but I still have trouble seeing them extracting the full amount.

    1. Re:*May* owe $8 billion by jbssm · · Score: 4, Informative

      We don't have "settlements" in EU like you do in the USA. When a case is presented to a legal court (consumer arbitral court is different) the matter can only get settled by the court itself, the parties cannot go around the court. The only thing they can do now it to appeal to an higher court.

    2. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be under the illusion, that US tech can just not pay the taxes and do what ever they want anywhere in the world.

    3. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah the tax evasion practices done in tne US aren't given tacit approval in the EU so now all apple can do is shot themselves in the foot taking their ball and going home, or admit fault and pay up to industry standard taxes their competitors are all paying.

    4. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, it's not even a punishment, if all they pay is the taxes they owe.

    5. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah the tax evasion practices done in tne US aren't given tacit approval in the EU so now all apple can do is shot themselves in the foot taking their ball and going home, or admit fault and pay up to industry standard taxes their competitors are all paying.

      The rest of the tech industry is paying their taxes? LOL... You just made me laugh so hard I spat a mothful of orange juice all over my monitor.

    6. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to avoid tech taxes in France, you just file for innovation tax credit. The point is it does not have to be a market innovation, just a new feature in you own product, that competitors and Open source may have had already for years.

    7. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seem to be under the illusion your member states can squabble to provide tax havens, catch American corporations in them, then point Fingers of Shame and retroactively change the rules. It is like two fishing boat captains arguing, and the crew blames the argument on the fish. I used to think Europeans were educated, but I guess that's been slipping.

    8. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah the tax evasion practices done in tne US

      Tax "evasion" is a crime. It involves having two sets of books to hide reality from the tax collector.

      This is tax "minimization" or tax "avoidance". All people are supposed to practice it, and it's through this mechanism that you can set public policy through tax policy, ex. solar rebates.

      Europe has tax "havens": Ireland and Luxembourg. They have deliberately extreme tax policies so they can lure companies from all over the globe and tax them. They get more taxes than the ~zero they'd have got without the extreme tax policies, while the companies pay less tax than they would have without the extreme policies.

      Please use the right words, and don't forget the second half of the story. Yes, there is a problem here, but seems you'd rather engage in 10 minutes of hate exercises than understand the problem in a way that you can vote to change it. Why is that? Are you simple-minded? Is your democracy broken so that subconsciously you know you can't vote to change it, but you don't want to admit that to yourself so you tell another story where you're powerless in a different way?

      The breakdown of Europeans' ability to reason like responsible adults is the real story here. The last time this happened things didn't go so well.

    9. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by jbssm · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you are the same "Anonymous Coward" answering above but you seem to be under the very wrong impression of what Apple is actually doing here and what those "tax exemptions" are supposed to cover.

      Apple business here, is selling their products. Period. They don't do R&D in Europe, they don't produce their products in Europe and their job creation in here is minimal. This is not what the tax breaks are there for, obviously. Nothing grave would come to EU if Apple just went away except that consumers couldn't be buying their products here anymore.

    10. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Europoors like to punish US tech companies because Europe can't be remotely competitive in tech

      Oops.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Europe has tax "havens": Ireland and Luxembourg. They have deliberately extreme tax policies so they can lure companies from all over the globe and tax them.

      Oh please, not this rubbish again. Irish corporation tax rates are lower than in some countries, yes, but the tax "avoidance", if you want to call it that, that Apple practices has nothing to do with that. They use inconsistencies in corporation tax residency between countries to do what they do. Effectively they tell the Irish tax man that they're an American company, so their tax dealinsg are all with America, other than some stuff that is obviously local. In America, they say "oh, this was all in Europe, so we deal with the Irish tax man on these earnings." Apple has actually said that it considers its international wing not to be tax resident anywhere, ie. they believe they do not have to pay any tax. You can blame individual countries all you want, but the fact is that there are several different methods employed by different countries for how to handle taxation of multinational companies, and demanding that a country change its laws to suit yours will break the law of that country when dealing with others. This can only be settled through global agreements on multinational taxation.

    12. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by stikves · · Score: 1

      In the top-100 of that list, I could recognize "Nokia" as a only known tech company. The majority of large European companies seem to be in the Energy, Utilities, or similar government sanctioned monopolies, or older industry like Automotive. They have much higher revenues compared to tech companies, and I would assume their average age is around 100 years old.

    13. Re:*May* owe $8 billion by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      We don't have "settlements" in EU like you do in the USA. When a case is presented to a legal court (consumer arbitral court is different) the matter can only get settled by the court itself, the parties cannot go around the court. The only thing they can do now it to appeal to an higher court.

      That is exactly how it works in the US too, settlements are done through the court whenever a case has been filed, and a response also filed. So once you're past the very first step that happens before any court hearings, then the settlement has to go through the Court. Sometimes settlements are rejected by the Court, too.

      However, in this case it is a Commission investigation, not a court case. That will follow. And most likely, there will indeed be a settlement, because that is how these things usually end. One side eventually agrees to quit fighting, in order to have the other side agree to introduce ambiguity into their public messaging about the resolution. Often there is also a middle ground set of numbers. In this case, there are a lot of different numbers and theories being floated that imply various levels of underpayment, so there is a lot of room for an agreement to be within what is accused, and still be a settlement that Apple would want to agree to if they think they're losing.

    14. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's cut the crap. We know Apple rakes in handsome profits all over Europe, not just in Irleand. They use clever transfer pricing to artificially shift all the profit to Ireland where they pay the lowest tax rate. Sorry, that doesn't fly. You make profits, you should pay your fair share of taxes too.
      I work in the E.U. for a large US corporation. As all larger corporations there is transfer business between various plants world wide. We use fair transfer pricing that gives every plant a it's share of profit. There are OECD guidelines for that. Apple should stick to that too, their profit is big enough.

    15. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem with that claim is that the accusation isn't that they were in the past out of compliance with a rule that didn't exist yet. If that was the situation, I'd understand your claims.

      But the actual situation is that they're accused of imagining loopholes instead of doing their accounting by the rules, and so they didn't pay what they were supposed to. Very, very different accusation than the one you're trying to defend against. ;)

      As an American I have to point out, it would really benefit the US if Europe cracks down on this. The whole game was to avoid US taxes in the first place. Europe has higher taxes than the US, we shouldn't be losing tax revenue due to that competition. It is only because the US companies are not paying the local European taxes that these shenanigans benefit the practitioners. US and EU both lose out, and some rich investors around the world get a bunch of misappropriated loot.

    16. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily, for those who lack even the most basic familiarity with these companies and what they do there is the next column over which tells you about it.

    17. Re:*May* owe $8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This *is* a kind of settlement for a fraction of what Apple owes. It just happens to be a settlement a court decided.

    18. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I believe a country called 'Murica' was created by the perpetrators, who then created Fox News and Donald Trump.

    19. Re: *May* owe $8 billion by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      This is tax "minimization" or tax "avoidance". All people are supposed to practice it, and it's through this mechanism that you can set public policy through tax policy, ex. solar rebates.

      No, that is not the "mechanism that you can set public policy through tax policy" at all, and no, "all people" are not "supposed to practice it".

      The "mechanism you can set public policy" *is* tax. That's the reason it exists.

      "Tax avoidance" inevitably involves schemes of varying complexity to move money around, obfuscate its origin or destination, and otherwise make your financial dealings opaque enough so that it's not worth examining them. It's the nudge-nudge, wink-wink way of describing tax evasion.

    20. Re:*May* owe $8 billion by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Actually I think it varies from state to state certainly corporations here in the UK have made deals to pay just a fraction of what they owe

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  10. A minor annoyance for Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For Apple this is like a normal person owing a few hundred dollars in back taxes. Sure, it's annoying, but yawn... life goes on...

  11. To whom much is given... by darthsilun · · Score: 1

    ... of him shall be much required.

    Doesn't seem like Apple is holding up their end of the deal.

  12. Apple is cheating on their taxses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...and so is Starbucks, and Amazon. and McDonalds, and Google, and Fiat-Chrysler ... et cetera ad nauseam. I hope they all get to pay billions in back taxes. Tim Cook, Eric Schmidt and the rest of those corporate demigods can regurgitate all the capitalist free market ideological diarrhea they want. As long as I'm paying something like half of what I earn in various taxes, they and their corporations can pay up too. According to Google's 2014 results statement their effective tax rate was 16%, that's a tax rate I can only dream of.

    1. Re:Apple is cheating on their taxses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they pack up shop and go home. I'd love to see those brands simply say "no thanks we're pulling out" and watch the populace riot without their creature comforts.

    2. Re:Apple is cheating on their taxses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple users? Riot?

    3. Re:Apple is cheating on their taxses... by jbssm · · Score: 1

      We would surely have a revolution and a civil war in Europe if we where not allowed to buy MacBooks and eat MacBurgers. Obviously.

    4. Re:Apple is cheating on their taxses... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I can see it now... the anger building, the hyperbole boiling out of control, incitements to rash action from the crowd... and then it starts. One man just finally snaps. Throws his Earth Sugardrink right down onto the unprotected street surface. Complete chaos begins, with wailing and even littering. First one, then two, three [insured] iPhones go flying through the air and smash at the feet of the chuckling riot police, who covet this overtime in a land of short work-weeks.

      The next day, two lawsuits accuse police of damaging rioters' turtleneck sweaters with their water canons.

    5. Re:Apple is cheating on their taxses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or they pack up shop and go home. I'd love to see those brands simply say "no thanks we're pulling out" and watch the populace riot without their creature comforts.

      Apple pulling out would not mean their products are not available. Some other company would import it, and sell it. As a net result they would simply loose sales (due to presumeably higher prices), let someone else get the retail profit (the import company would also get it's share), and they would need to pay US corporate tax on sales done in Europe.

      IMO the EU is too big of a market to play "that will teach them" games with...

  13. Re:Apple is not "The world’s largest company by NotInHere · · Score: 1

    Well at least you can say that $1bn revenue each day is easily met by the US company walmart, and, if you look at absolute numbers, walmart has even more revenue per year than Aramco. But probably 99% of aramco's revenue is net income, while walmart has to pay for the products they sell, and their much higher number of employees (50x as many).

  14. Re:Apple is not "The world’s largest company by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Based on its est reserves & a (conservative) valuation of $10 p barrel" :rolleyes:

    They're comparing one company's total future raw material value to another's present stock value? And you think that's interesting?

    The measure in question is the total *possible future value* of the company. Eventually they will run out of oil and be worth nothing. They are estimating total sales between now and then.

    In comparison, Apple has nothing to run out of and can continue selling updates to their existing products forever. So by the same measure and definition, Apple's value is infinite.

    Infinite >> 2.5 trillion

  15. Crying all the way to the bank (briefly anyway) by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple has, what, $200 billion in the bank? Their quarterly income is what, $50 billion? I'm sure they're quaking in their boots.

    Here's the absolute "worst" case scenario for the company: they pay the fine from change they find on the cafeteria floor, and then send out a press release with a mild complaint about it but saying they're happy as long as the money is put to good use. Ireland cuts them a side deal for the inconvenience, and Apple agrees to remain in Cork for the foreseeable future.

    So basically zero change whatsoever.

    1. Re:Crying all the way to the bank (briefly anyway) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All they will do is find the right people to make the problem disappear for around 250 million. Problem solved for a lot less than they would have to pay.

    2. Re:Crying all the way to the bank (briefly anyway) by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      The problem with that theory is that this is an EU commission. They'd have to bribe somebody from each country, and the late recipients can demand increasing payments as the bribery scheme is spiraling out of control. You might end up paying double, and then still owing the original debt after the lid gets blown off of it.

      Even European soccer is encountering difficulty maintaining their traditional corruption in this environment.

    3. Re:Crying all the way to the bank (briefly anyway) by phorm · · Score: 1

      Well one nice result would be if they move back tax operations to North America/USA, seeing as though they're paying it anyways.

    4. Re:Crying all the way to the bank (briefly anyway) by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Should be hit with a penalty. I mean heck, 1.8% instead of 15%? Any accountant should have spotted that one.
      I'm sure they'll simply write them a check. Here you go. Don't spend it all in one place.

  16. Re:Apple is not "The world’s largest company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    So why doesn't the but-hurt Europeans step up and make their own world-leading corporations and Europe-centric tech news sites? Every time we get this "Oh you're just so America-centric" or "well in Europe we have this and this"... Just shut up with the darn complaining and make your own stuff, or enjoy the ones your complaining about.

  17. To owe is not to pay by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Apple May Owe $8 Billion To the EU After Tax Ruling

    Sure, they might owe it. They'll probably never get around to having to pay it, though. About 0.1% of that amount should be more enough to pay for the lawyers to keep it tied up in court indefinitely.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:To owe is not to pay by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      "indefinitely" means you don't know how long it will go on. It doesn't mean it goes on without ending. The wheels of justice grind, and money may slow that down, but they do keep grinding.

  18. Good by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    $8 billion is piddly squat next to their profits, and they benefit handsomely from Europe's robust social programs (health care for their employees, education, roads, the Internet, etc, etc).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  19. 12.5% seems like a bargain by bennebw · · Score: 2

    For money earned in the US, the corporate tax rate is ~40% (at least for the Fortune 500 co I work for). That would be a $25B tax bill for Apple on the $64B in net. I'm pretty sure that if Apple ever wants to bring the earnings back to the US, they get joy of paying the difference between the 12.5% and the 40%, but IANAL or CPA. Of course the tax experts and EU law experts here on /. can explain why Apple, Google, and anyone else who has significant earnings in the EU have been using this apparently flawed tax strategy. While the schadenfreude is strong with this one, I can't help but feel that even if Apple pays the $8B, they still got of light as compared to what it would have been in the USA.

    1. Re:12.5% seems like a bargain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      12.5 % is the corporate tax rate of the Republic of Ireland.

  20. Re:Apple is not "The world’s largest company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I give your paper an F and you will need to repeat Economics 101 next semester.

  21. Re:Apple is not "The world’s largest company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "well in Europe we have this and this"

    The Saudi company is not European.

  22. Re:Apple is not "The world’s largest company by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Their infinite innovator died a few years back. Currently it's back to golden parachute squatters hoping to bail before their lack of innovation loses too much value.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  23. Fuck 'em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck 'em. Corporations did just fine and dandy paying higher taxes years ago. If Apple doesn't like it, they can move to Somalia.

  24. Honest Company by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    An honest company would pay 30% of its revenue as tax. And they would not try to trick, as they know without a working state and society they cannot exist. However, all the big companies ignore that, as they do not feel responsible for the mayhem they cause and the effects do not occur immediately. Therefore, like a 2 year old they ruin their surrounding. Unfortunately, there are no parents around to stop them.

    1. Re:Honest Company by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2

      Where do you get this? Is it a figment of your hippie mind?

    2. Re: Honest Company by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      That is what all the small companies have to pay here in good old Europe. Therefore, big companies should too.

    3. Re:Honest Company by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All companies take advantage of the methods given to them to reduce the taxes owing. If the governments don't like them then they shouldn't have provided the methods in the first place and change the tax code.

      And why would a company pay 30% of it's revenue as tax? What if their margin is only 5% or 6%? Organizations don't pay taxes on revenue but on profit.

      So may I assume that you don't make use of any deductions on your income tax? After all you should feel responsible for your impact on society.

    4. Re:Honest Company by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      And why would a company pay 30% of it's revenue as tax? What if their margin is only 5% or 6%? Organizations don't pay taxes on revenue but on profit.

      Because years ago, someone decided that instead of "profit", "net revenue" was a better term to use. There is probably some technical difference between "net revenue" and "profit", but the term is confusing to many.

      In this case, I think that the GP means 30% of net revenue.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:Honest Company by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Ah, the famous "you're wrong because... hippies!" argument. Slam dunk, right?

    6. Re: Honest Company by Namarrgon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Corporations already get a sweeter tax deal than "real" people ever did. People can't deduct their rent or supplies or other daily costs of being able to get work done.

      Imagine if you only got taxed on your disposable income. Better still, imagine if you lived simultaneously at home and in a tax haven, and your working self paid most of your net revenue as a skill-set licence to the tax-free self who was living it up for you in the Bahamas.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    7. Re:Honest Company by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      No, it's utter baseless nonsense, and not amenable to logical rebuttal. In fact, it's "not even wrong", merely illucid.

    8. Re:Honest Company by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      You do realise that revenue is not profit, right? Most "blue chip" multinationals earn less than 20% (pre-tax) profit on their revenue, 15% is considered a good return on investment for a very large corporation, 5% is not uncommon at the big end of town. Large corporations have the same organisational costs as large governments. Human cooperation just doesn't scale very well, anymore than a handful working towards a common goal and we suddenly need an org chart and lots of people who spend all day coordinating and directing other people's work.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:Honest Company by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      An honest company would pay 30% of its revenue as tax.

      30% of its revenue as tax? What are you smoking?

      As an example, Walmart makes $480bn revenue per year, with $34bn profit. How on earth would Walmart be able to pay 30% = $144bn in tax?

    10. Re: Honest Company by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      That is what all the small companies have to pay here in good old Europe. Therefore, big companies should too.

      What a bloody idiot. You say small companies have to pay 30% of their revenue in tax? UK Corporation tax rate in 2015 is 20% _of profit_, not on bloody revenue. If you don't know what you are talking about, shut up. Or do you really not know the difference between revenue and profit?

    11. Re:Honest Company by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Well, if it is "wrong" to utter baseless, illucid nonsense in the context of commentary is a moral question.

      I stand by it being wrong. You should be mildly embarrassed, at least. If not... shame on you.

      But actually, your defense is a failure. It isn't baseless nonsense at all; it is nonsense based on the claim that hippies have some sort of mental deficiency that leads to an inability to tell imagination from reality. Therefore, it is not even entirely illucid. Just hateful, and such a weak statement that it cannot support or defend itself.

    12. Re: Honest Company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather than question how corporations pay tax shouldn't you be questioning why you pay taxes the way you do? Why is it appropriate to pay *income* tax and why should it be payed on your wage rather than your gain? Should it even be paid at all?

    13. Re:Honest Company by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 1

      Why should you be taxed on revenue? You should be taxed on profit.

    14. Re:Honest Company by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      And why would a company pay 30% of it's revenue as tax? What if their margin is only 5% or 6%? Organizations don't pay taxes on revenue but on profit.

      Because years ago, someone decided that instead of "profit", "net revenue" was a better term to use. There is probably some technical difference between "net revenue" and "profit", but the term is confusing to many. In this case, I think that the GP means 30% of net revenue.

      Well, then he should have said so, because there sure as hell is a difference between "revenue" and "net revenue".

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    15. Re:Honest Company by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Why should you be taxed on revenue? You should be taxed on profit.

      Well, what about Amazon? They have a huge revenue but usually very little if any profit. Yet they use public infrastructure like no other company.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    16. Re: Honest Company by adhdengineer · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. My wife is self employed, with her place of business being our home. She can claim all sorts of deductions on her tax so while her income is more than mine, by the time the deductions are taken off I'm earning more.

      Some of the deductions seem to me to be stupid; for instance she can claim depreciation on her car as well as portions of our electricity and home heating bills. All of which we would be paying if she were employed.it probably amounts to about 20% of her income all told.

    17. Re:Honest Company by jewens · · Score: 1

      Can we assume the GP was implying that if the 30% "Apple" tax in the Apple App Store is good enough for Apple then it should be good enough for Apple?

      --
      That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
    18. Re: Honest Company by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      If you can come up with a tax regime that has broadly similar impact (to living costs, lifestyle etc) over a population with very wide differences of ability to contribute, and is also effective and enforceable, then I imagine there's some economics departments that might want to talk to you. It's not a simple problem.

      The mixed income/consumption tax approach is far from perfect, but most "obvious" alternatives are worse, or are too difficult to administer or enforce.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  25. Re:Apple is not "The world’s largest company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just reinforces a previous poster's point about most americans being too dumb to find the next state over on a map let alone another country.

  26. Re:ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why will I be left sobbing in the corner? And what the hell makes you think I'm an Apple fan?

    Fact is, if Apple tries to avoid paying the debt, it'll find itself paying it anyway, regardless of whether it pulls out of the EU. The EU will find ways.

    You're an idiot.

  27. Net present value by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're comparing one company's total future raw material value to another's present stock value? And you think that's interesting?

    Sure. Present stock value is a consensus estimate of the Net Present Value of all future free cash flows of a company. In both cases you are looking at an estimate of the future prospects of the company.

    The measure in question is the total *possible future value* of the company.

    Correct. That is what is being measured in both cases, albeit with a different measuring stick.

  28. I have no idea... by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 1

    If what Apple did is legal or not, but if it paid only 1.8% tax on its profits that's wrong and it should have to pay more.

    1. Re:I have no idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Intel, etc etc etc all benefit substantially from stable economies , well educated populace.

      THAT situation comes from people and businesses paying their share of taxes. They also benefit from the laws and courts, you know copyright, patents, etc.

      If they were given a choice
      Pay taxes (proper/fair taxes, none of this dodge bullshit)
      OR
      pay zero taxes BUT All their products are non tax deductible for local businesses ( e.g. adverts on Google can not be tax deducted for tax paying businesses) AND they loose all trademark, copyright, patent protections for 95 years (or what ever they balloon copyright out to to protect Disney).

      Fines for breaches are minimum of 50% of yearly turnover up to 100% for serious breaches.

    2. Re:I have no idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for having an opinion just like everyone else. Seeings as where you backed up none of it with something a bit more substantial it doesn't really mean shit.

    3. Re:I have no idea... by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you don't see the irony of your response.

  29. Europeans are Nazis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whenever someone comes along whobis better than them, they start goose-stepping. Once it was the Jews, now American tech companies. Europeans are simply livid because for all their vaunted "superior culture" they cannot compete. They are objectively inferior. And that's why each and every European is a Nazi.

    1. Re:Europeans are Nazis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But never an american because your all the mongrel shit we dumped last but one centuary ago.

    2. Re:Europeans are Nazis. by jbssm · · Score: 1

      Deep.

  30. Re:ROFL by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    [Apple] don't care, they'll never pay and you'll be left sobbing in a corner going "why apple?! why?".

    No, I shall be laughing in the open going "Good riddance to Apple!"

  31. VW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Payback for VW

  32. Re:Apple is not "The world’s largest company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    generalizations are fun, we can all participate!

  33. Isn't this how WWI lead to WWII ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The intention has always been to borrow until the debt is high enough that you default. Then start over.
    You can accellerate this by invading the countries that you owe money.

  34. Ahhahaha haha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best news I've read all week!

  35. Re:Apple is not "The world’s largest company by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    As far as economics go it was a slam dunk. If there is room for complaint, it is in the area of communication; there are other even stronger refutations that might have been used. ;)

    And Apple isn't the "world's largest company." But the attempted demonstration using Aramco was a total failure. Hyundai would be a much better example, with about 70 times the market capitalization of Apple. Apple does tend to have the world's largest "war chest," because other companies re-invest more of what they're not using. Apple is run by the most elite of the elitists, who are simply more willing to sit on a cash hoard than anybody else. The other big companies are dominated by business people, who look at that money pile the way they look at a sloucher. "Get back to work!"

  36. WTF by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Facebook benefit from a well educated populace?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  37. Only by their self-declared accounting. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    In reality, the EU disagrees and sees Apple as being $8 billion + (interest and penalties) short.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  38. Re:Apple is not "The world’s largest company by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    And Apple isn't the "world's largest company." But the attempted demonstration using Aramco was a total failure. Hyundai would be a much better example, with about 70 times the market capitalization of Apple.

    And you just won the price for being the Internet's greatest dummy.

    When you take Apple's market caps in US Dollar, and Hyundai's market caps in South Korean Won, then Hyundai's number is 70 times higher. However, one US dollar is worth about 1,200 Won. So when converted to US Dollars, Apple's market caps is about 18 times higher.

  39. It Is The $800 Billion That Is The REAL Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to get their hands on the $800 billion in Apple Money, the EU is taking this by introducing mini-federal complaint cases which when summed together at a later date will constitute the coup de grace to the head of Apple CEO "Queer GOD" Timmy Cook and LGBTQ Apple.

    Let us pray for a quick death.

    Ha ah

  40. Re:ROFL by khallow · · Score: 1

    Fact is, if Apple tries to avoid paying the debt, it'll find itself paying it anyway, regardless of whether it pulls out of the EU. The EU will find ways.

    You're probably talking to someone who believes Apple isn't going to pay $8 billion because it has more power than the EU. And it has more power than the EU because it has more money. Seriously, that's the argument I keep hearing.

  41. Re:Apple is not "The world’s largest company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    generalizations are fun, we can all participate!

    All but the Americans, they are too dumb.

  42. Re:ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Besides Pulling out has always been considered as the least effective form of ahem .. debt minimization ...

  43. Re:ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If that's the argument you keep hearing then you're talking to a lot of people who don't understand basic economics.

    Apple has a big market cap yes. But is by far the largest company in the world. I'd say with Assets instead of Market Cap being the decider. Chinese Banks reign as the most powerful in the world. Apple sort of sits in there near the oil companies. Just like any massive multinational company but nothing like the banks though. I think some of the largest banks have about 3 trillion on their ledgers. And of course oil companies still stick it out over AAPL because of their asset sizes even when Oil isn't doing well (which could very well change soon).

    Nothing to be ashamed of though the company is doing well. At least 2x as solid as Alphabet or MSFT stocks.

    And yeah the EU vs AAPL. Silly argument! Taking on the EU means taking on the ECB which is a central bank. Therefore they have direct control over monetary policy for the Euro. And is what drives the entire argument to be devoid of any rationale. Because you need Euros to trade and stock shelves with iPhones. Anything done untowards the EU from Apple. Is akin to playing chess except the EU is the chess board and Apple has to simply "play by the rules" or "don't play" motive. And the "don't play" motive will translate into worse losses for the company.

  44. Re:Apple is not "The world’s largest company by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    Good catch, but that is actually that is just Hyundai Motor Company. It is less than 6x once you include the rest of the Hyundai Group.

    However, when you compare revenue then Hyundai is bigger than Apple. And if you use the 10 year average, it isn't even close.

  45. EXACTLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last I knew, back mid-summer I think, Apple had over $200 billion in reserve. What the hell!?

    You don't amass that much, that quickly, without fucking someone along the way - and I'm not talking about their customers.