Slashdot Mirror


Apple Ordered To Pay Up To $14.5 Billion in EU Tax Crackdown, Cook Refutes EU's Conclusion (bloomberg.com)

Apple has been ordered to pay a record sum of 13 billion euros ($14.5 billion) plus interest after the European Commission said Ireland illegally slashed the iPhone maker's tax bill, in a crackdown on fiscal loopholes that also risks inflaming tensions with the United States Treasury. According to the European Union regulator, Apple benefited from selective tax treatment that gave it an unfair advantage over other businesses. In the meanwhile, Apple has refuted such accusations, saying that EU's conclusion has "no basis in fact or law." EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said, "If my effective tax rate would be 0.05 percent falling to 0.005 percent -- I would have felt that maybe I should have a second look at my tax bill." Apple CEO Tim Cook said, "Over the years, we received guidance from Irish tax authorities on how to comply correctly with Irish tax law -- the same kind of guidance available to any company doing business there. In Ireland and in every country where we operate, Apple follows the law and we pay all the taxes we owe."

362 of 564 comments (clear)

  1. Good by MitchDev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Long overdue

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ah ah

      also US people is already fucked up by Apple, you're paying more taxes since Apple does not pay them, even in US :)

    2. Re:Good by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm all for giving breaks for inventions that feed people in poverty or cure diseases, but the world would have been just fine without the iPhone. Maybe a few hipsters would have lost track of their Starbucks points, no great loss.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Good by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. We still cannot spend more than we make. We can put it on a credit card, but the payments for that card still has to be within our receipts. Deficit spending is like putting it on a credit card, not good, but still limited.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you seem to think invention happens at Apple.

    5. Re:Good by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They print money and devalue the rest.

      Spending has nothing to do with tax receipts. It's just a fact.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Good by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      Nobody's denying Apple's inventiveness (or at least that's a separate topic - but I'm not denying it). You seem to be implying that without the ability to pretend they're an Irish company to avoid paying taxes on their enormous profits that inventiveness would not exist. That's nonsense. Apple would be exactly the same company it is today - with perhaps less cash on hand, but still plenty successful.

      And for what it's worth, the issue of their having their stuff manufactured in China is wholly separate from the fiction that all the 'intellectual property' they developed in California somehow belongs to a post office box in Dublin for tax purposes. Innovation actually does 'magically' grow in environments conducive to it - and Silicon Valley is one of those environments. Apple's not actually located in Ireland - and they're not located there for a reason...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    7. Re:Good by MitchDev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BIng bing bing! Yep, corporations buy the congressmen to create the tax loopholes while still demanding corporate welfare and the working people have to pay for it all, it's ridiculous.

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

      As long as you and your family are able to keep healthy and working and are happy with a declining public infrastructure and inadequate private replacement.

    9. Re:Good by markus · · Score: 1

      You'll be even more fucked if the EU ruling stands. According to what the US government has been saying for the last few days, if Apple ends up paying back taxes in Ireland, the IRS will have to credit them for (part of) that amount. So, Apple would pay even less in the US.

      That's why the US, Ireland, and Apple all agree, you can't arbitrarily change tax rules and pick and choose what you happen to like. There are international treaties and all of them are interconnected. They probably should be changed. But that has to be a concerted effort for there not to be bad unintended consequences.

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

      Its like a credit card? Show me a credit card with a rate lower than 3%

      (Its actually nothing like a credit card)

    11. Re:Good by dasgoober · · Score: 1

      Don't disrupt their iRealityBubble...

      Progressives will twist or ignore the facts in order to "create their own truth"

    12. Re:Good by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Long overdue"

      Indeed. Being forced to accept >14 billions from Apple will teach the Irish that this is a bad idea. :-)

      But seriously, this will just encourage other countries to do even worse, since now they know they'll get the billions anyway later, it's the best investment one can do.

    13. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Would you consider it good if, after complying with your state's tax code for decades, the federal government came in and said "your state was illegally reducing your taxes. You owe us 1 million dollars."?

      Yeah, that's what I thought.

      Should Apple be paying more in taxes? Yes, absolutely.
      Should Apple's taxes be retroactively changed such that they now owe back taxes (with interest, of course. Can't forget about charging 10 years worth of interest on taxes that you did not owe until today)? No, never. Ex post facto laws are a Bad Thing.

    14. Re:Good by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Best part is when the public gets angry and starts asking the government what gives, the government shrugs it off and accuses them of breaking non-existent laws.

    15. Re:Good by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      If Irish tax law contravenes it's treaties with the rest of the EU, that very treaty requires Ireland to abide by the EU's decision. Ireland willingly and knowingly violated it's treaty obligations in its deals with Application and Google, so there is nothing arbitrary or capricious about this ruling.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re: Good by LanceMcGrath · · Score: 2

      But if Ireland broke its treaty with the EU, why punish Apple for following the law as it stood at the time? Punishing Ireland would seem fairer.

    17. Re:Good by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      What if the law existed, but the loophole was just a theory?

    18. Re:Good by toadlife · · Score: 1

      They print money...

      The money the United States borrows is not created out of thin air. It is borrowed from investors, banks, investment funds, nation states and local municipalities in the form of bonds.

       

      ...and devalue the rest.

      Inflation has been near zero for three decades.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    19. Re:Good by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      US bond sales haven't covered the issue amounts in a decade. The US fed buys the surplus bonds with printed money.

      _Reported_ inflation has been near zero for decades.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re:Good by naughtynaughty · · Score: 2

      Where did the Federal Reserve get the money they used to purchase $2.4 TRILLION in US treasury securities?

      https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...

      If the answer isn't "out of thin air" you are kidding yourself.

    21. Re:Good by pauljlucas · · Score: 2
      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    22. Re:Good by naughtynaughty · · Score: 2

      Let's look at your claim that the inflation rate has been near zero for three decades:

      http://www.bls.gov/data/inflat...

      $1000 in 1986 is the equivalent of $2195.68 today

      That supposed "near zero" inflation rate has reduced the value of $1 to 45 cents

      As for the Federal Reserve not printing money, here is how Alan Greenspan described the process of the Federal Reserve buying over $2 TRILLION in US Government securities:

      http://neweconomicperspectives...

      “Now, you might ask the question, well, the Fed is going out and buying 2 trillion dollars of securities – how did we pay for that? And the answer is that we paid for those securities by crediting the bank accounts of the people who sold them to us, and those accounts, at the banks, showed up as reserves that the banks would hold with the Fed. So the Fed is a bank for the banks. Banks can hold deposit accounts with the Fed, essentially, and those are called reserve accounts. And so as the purchases of securities occurred, the way we paid for them was basically by increasing the amount of reserves that banks had in their accounts with the Fed."

      They "credited the bank accounts of the people who sold them". That is creating money out of thin air.

    23. Re:Good by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The whole article centers on "they don't have to carry as much around". Not exactly a compelling case.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    24. Re: Good by Carewolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      But if Ireland broke its treaty with the EU, why punish Apple for following the law as it stood at the time? Punishing Ireland would seem fairer.

      They are not punishing Apple, there is absolutely no punishment levied against Apple. Apple is just asked to pay what they owe Ireland with no damages or punishment added on top.

    25. Re: Good by iris-n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Weird as it may sound, they are punishing Ireland. By giving them 14.5 billion euros. The point is, Ireland was giving illegal state aid to Apple, gaining an unfair competitive advantage over other countries. By making Apple pay back taxes Ireland's advantage is negated, making the playing field level again. This is why Ireland is fighting against this ruling, it wants to preserve its reputation as a tax haven and keep attracting tax-dodging companies.

      --
      entropy happens
    26. Re: Good by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      And are far more likely to be bankrupted for the sin of not being healthy

    27. Re:Good by bytesex · · Score: 1

      The US government is fine with complaining to EU countries that they shouldn't behave like tax havens, but it protests when the EU decides that they shouldn't. I suppose they wanted both the earnings to stay in the US, and not go to the EU at the same time.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    28. Re: Good by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you are from, but that is exactly how this works in the Netherlands. You are responsible for providing the correct information. If after several years you are audited and you did not provide the correct information, you sure as hell will pay the taxes still owed, plus interest.

      I'm not an Apple fan, but in this case I disagree. Yes, of course if I file incorrect tax returns the IRS (I'm in the US) can audit me and force me to pay the difference plus interest and penalties. But that's not what's happening in this case.

      In this case, Apple paid what they were supposed to according to Irish tax law. Now they are being told that the the law was incorrect and they need to pay up.

      How would you feel if you government suddenly informed you that you need to pay them and extra 30% (estimated Apple yearly gross from the EU at $50 billion for 2015) of your yearly gross income this year? Not because of a mistake you made, but because they didn't think you had paid enough, even though you complied with your taxes.

      We've seen how this goes in Greece. Hell, they're pissed because this was necessary to keep the county solvent. That's not even the case here. This is just a case of them following the law and a governing body deciding that the law wasn't good enough and punishing them retroactively.

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

      Retroactive tax code changes that cause huge bills aren't punitive?

    30. Re:Good by worldthinker · · Score: 2

      You've been bamboozled by the previous Clinton President. If you have been paying attention to what it costs you to rent or own your home, buy your groceries, and the other various market baskets of real life goods and services, you know that the cost of living has increased dramatically in 3 decades.

      This guy figured it out that the government stats have no basis in reality. He found this out when a major aerospace company engaged him to figure out why its econometric model wasn't working. The truth is, the changes in what official government inflation stats measure were designed to reduce the official inflation number which reduces the required cost of living outlays for entitlements and benefits. Read this link to get the real story...

      http://www.shadowstats.com/

    31. Re: Good by Phillip2 · · Score: 2

      Asserting the tax law as it always stood is not retroactive. It's quite normal when tax has not been levied as it should have been. Obviously, if Apple can show that the late demand is going to cause it difficulties, it should be given a year or two to pay.

      Apple has access to plenty of lawyers and tax consultants; they should have advised it that paying a 0.005% corporate tax rate was likely to be wrong, and might come back to haunt them. I mean, the rest of us can work this out, why can't Apple?

    32. Re:Good by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Unless they add 100% interest per year, nothing is going to happen. It'll be tied up in court for centuries otherwise.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    33. Re: Good by loufoque · · Score: 1

      They do ask for interest.

    34. Re:Good by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      The US government is fine with complaining to EU countries that they shouldn't behave like tax havens, but it protests when the EU decides that they shouldn't. I suppose they wanted both the earnings to stay in the US, and not go to the EU at the same time.

      I think Tim Cook theatened to shut down someone's iPhone.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    35. Re:Good by jcr · · Score: 1

      If Obama wasn't such a pussy he'd tell them to fuck off.

      He didn't use those terms, but he has weighed in on Apple's side.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    36. Re: Good by kainewynd2 · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points for this. Great summary of what actually seems to be going on.

      --
      I just don't get... eh, ugh... never mind. This post wasn't worth the research I put into it.
    37. Re:Good by jcr · · Score: 1

      We still cannot spend more than we make.

      What's your next guess?

      That's exactly what the Fed is all about.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    38. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree. 14 Billion is only 3 months worth of profit for Apple. Yes, it's true; Apple really does make that much money per quarter !

    39. Re:Good by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Inflation near zero for 30 years?!? Where? Have you bought anything recently? Are you old enough to have bought something 30 years ago and compared what that same thing costs today?

      What "things" am I talking about? Damned near everything except tech items.

    40. Re:Good by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Check out where we spend. Social insurance (Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, Social Security) costs and interest on the debt are 69% of all spending - which consumes 100% of Federal revenues. Everything else - defense, transportation, education, etc. - is paid for with borrowed money, and is just 31% of all spending. It's not defense spending - it's ALL spending, and you cannot solve it without cutting social insurance costs.

      By the way, we've already passed $1.33 trillion in deficit spending this year, we'll probably hit $1.4 trillion. That's more than that 31% in total - meaning we're at the point where we can't even cover our social insurance and interest costs with tax revenues.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    41. Re:Good by r1348 · · Score: 1

      That's quantitative easing, and it's a quite normal practice. It helps keeping the interest rate on bonds low, and as the debt created with it is also owned by a federal entity, it's a zero sum game.

    42. Re:Good by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      What is your own phone? Just curious

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    43. Re:Good by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps they could do all this on a laptop?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    44. Re: Good by bane2571 · · Score: 2

      The difference is that the individual needs to comply with laws where the corporation controls those laws. If I an an individual go to the national tax collectors, I ask "how much should I pay", the trouble is that Apple mostly appear to have been going "we will pay this much" and being told it was OK.

      I'm OK with retroactively changing the laws to adversely affect those that had a major influence in bringing them about in the first place. If it makes Apple start paying tax to the communities it is making money off Then it is a good thing. I'm from Australia, Apple apparently pays 0 tax here, if they are making no profit here then why do they even bother?

    45. Re:Good by TooManyNames · · Score: 1

      Don't know why this was down-modded: The point is a valid one... pretty much every innovation central to modern life (and life expectancy) started out as a convenience, and dismissing something that doctors apparently rely on as merely convenient seems pretty asinine.

      --
      "Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
    46. Re: Good by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Depends how the conversation went.

      As a personal level this would be similar to, for example, my local council telling me to stop paying for refuse collection because they'll do it for free, then the national government going 'that is not allowed, you have to pay for that service' then if I get hit arbitrarily for a bill for four years service, yeah, that's going to hurt.

      If the Government say, "We think this is an illegal service and you are likely to have to pay for it. It'll take us a few years to look into this but we recommend you keep some cash in a reserve account just in case" then it's a very different situation.

      Apple and Ireland knew this investigation was coming, if Apple didn't recognise the future potential tax liability then their finance team need sacking, and they're not being hit with a backdated charge, they're being receiving confirmation of the correct charges.

    47. Re:Good by mjwx · · Score: 1

      "Long overdue"

      Indeed. Being forced to accept >14 billions from Apple will teach the Irish that this is a bad idea. :-)

      But seriously, this will just encourage other countries to do even worse, since now they know they'll get the billions anyway later, it's the best investment one can do.

      However Ireland will have to pay most of that back to the EU and receive a firm finger-waggling from ze Germans.

      It's really a win-win for Ireland, they get to say "not our fault, the EU made us do it" whilst counting the money in the back room.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    48. Re:Good by sabbede · · Score: 1
      What treaties? Under the EU constitution, member nations retain sovereign authority over tax policy. The ruling hinges on the reasoning that this is a violation of the rules regarding government subsidies for businesses, which exist to prevent member nations from giving domestic businesses an unfair competitive advantage. Apple isn't domestic, and isn't being given a competitive advantage. Ireland is out-competing other member nations, not giving Apple an advantage over its competitors.

      Everything Ireland did is legal and proper under the EU constitution. They didn't violate market rules, they realized there was a market between sovereign nations for who houses international corporations and dominated it.

    49. Re: Good by sabbede · · Score: 1

      They did pay what they owed Ireland. Determining what they owed is Ireland's sovereign right, and Ireland decided it wasn't that much. Apple didn't get a competitive advantage from it - that is, they didn't sell more iPhones because Ireland subsidized lower prices, Apple's prices are effectively uniform worldwide. The other EU nations are just bitter because Ireland out-competes them in terms of attractiveness to multinational corporations, because they aren't willing to compete.

    50. Re: Good by sabbede · · Score: 1
      Ah, but those "State aid" rules are in place to prevent member nations from giving domestic businesses price subsidies. Apple did not get subsidies, and did not change their pricing structure. Corrected for exchange rates, iPhones cost the same everywhere. The only competition was between Ireland and other member nations over where multinational corporations located their regional HQs. Member nations retain sovereign authority over tax policy, and just because France (for example) didn't want to lower their rates to compete with Ireland doesn't mean Ireland did something wrong.

      In other words, Ireland lowered the price of their product while the competition chose not to. As a result, Ireland dominates the market, and the competition is trying to sue them out of business instead of, well, competing. Like what Apple and Samsung try do do to each other, except between nations.

    51. Re: Good by iris-n · · Score: 1

      This is not what happened. Read here a description of Apple's scheme.

      The problem was not that Ireland had a tax rate of 12.5% whereas France had 30%. The EC said explicitly that they did not investigate this. The problem was that Apple was not paying Ireland even this 12.5%, it was paying less than 1%. And this is illegal, Ireland must charge all companies the same tax.

      --
      entropy happens
    52. Re: Good by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      As of last year, Democrats have suspended the debt ceiling Through the end of Obama's second term (March, 2017, aprox.), effectively removing the credit limit on our 'Bank of China Credit Card' as then-Senator Obama said when campaigning for President in 2008...

    53. Re:Good by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Let's look at your claim that the inflation rate has been near zero for three decades:

      http://www.bls.gov/data/inflat... [bls.gov]

      $1000 in 1986 is the equivalent of $2195.68 today

      That supposed "near zero" inflation rate has reduced the value of $1 to 45 cents

      Compound interest. Either you understand it or you don't. You can argue about whether 2.66% is "near zero", but hyperinflation it isn't.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    54. Re: Good by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      How much gold do you consume per year?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    55. Re:Good by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      If taxes were set correctly, fairly, and not full of loopholes and exceptions, then everyone, from the homeless bum on the street, the welfare princess with 5 kids, the low-income earners who rent, the medium income earners who live in a house, and the high earners would ALL pay the exact same % on their gross income.

      For an insane definition of "fairly".

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    56. Re: Good by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      This is unfair. You understand what is going on, you are using an unfair advantage over all the idiot pseudo-libertarian AC's commenting here and are required to dumb down your next 20 posts to level the playing field.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    57. Re: Good by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      They did pay what they owed Ireland. Determining what they owed is Ireland's sovereign right, and Ireland decided it wasn't that much. Apple didn't get a competitive advantage from it - that is, they didn't sell more iPhones because Ireland subsidized lower prices, Apple's prices are effectively uniform worldwide. The other EU nations are just bitter because Ireland out-competes them in terms of attractiveness to multinational corporations, because they aren't willing to compete.

      It is Ireland's right to set any tax level they like, but they are bound by international contracts to set it evenly for all companies and not engage in state subsidies of specific companies.

    58. Re: Good by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Retroactive tax code changes that cause huge bills aren't punitive?

      The tax code is not changed. It wasn't even changed for Apple in the first place. Ireland just promised to look the other way on an obviously illegal paper construct (an office with no employees that is responsible for all taxes but doesn't have to pay taxes because it doesn't really exist)..

    59. Re: Good by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's pure bullshit to say that buying _all_ the leftover bonds at _all_ the auctions is 'quantitative easing'.

      It's shill bidding, plane and simple. There is no 'market rate' for US bonds as there is no effective market.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    60. Re: Good by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      Cool. So would money spent on things like bridges, schools, police, fire fighters, scientific research and space exploration, just to name a few, and those things have the benefit of making our society better, safer and smarter. The military is a fine thing, but it does jack shit for advancing the state of Humanity.

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
    61. Re: Good by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      Considering the primary reason Ireland has so many technology companies is because of the sweetheart deals it made on taxes, if this ruling stands, the stampede of companies exiting combined with the total absence of new companies to replace them would be pretty punishing. As far as "punishing Apple" goes, they have lawyers, and they're pretty smart I hear. They had to have known there was a risk this would happen. If a deal is too good to be true, it probably is -- unless your lawyers can work an even better deal. We will see.

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
    62. Re:Good by aphelion_rock · · Score: 1

      Australia will be next if the ATO has any balls.
      Most Apple products manufactured in Asia are sold via Ireland where the price is inflated and Irish taxes paid.
      They pay tax on a single digit markup in Australia, meanwhile the product is shipped directly from China to Australia.

    63. Re: Good by losfromla · · Score: 1

      As a member state of the EU, they are not sovereign in this respect, thus the ruling.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    64. Re: Good by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Yeah, National Instruments also produces its CDs in Ireland even though its headquarters are in Austin, TX, USA. I always wondered why they did that, now I know.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    65. Re: Good by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      His (or her) point is that gold is a scarce, divisible, unfakable and more or less immutable commodity. Once you've got some, it lasts forever, without changing state. This means that it becomes an effective measurement of the value of money.

      On this planet there is a fixed amount of gold. You can have a crack at determining the value of any given currency by finding out how much gold you can buy. Well - that's the theory anyway. However, though there is a fixed amount of gold, the other thing that money really means is far from fixed. And that thing is the amount of human endeavour and natural resources available on this planet.

    66. Re: Good by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Which respect? They may not retain sovereignty over subsidies, but certainly do regarding tax policy. It was an issue during the Greek bailout, and part of a larger source of instability threatening EU cohesion.

    67. Re:Good by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Problem, we need EVERY country to do this, otherwise the sleazy corps will just keep playing the "move it around" game to keep dodging paying their share

    68. Re: Good by sabbede · · Score: 1
      To what contracts (do you mean treaties?) do you refer? And is it a subsidy? We (America) do it all the time, from the Federal to the municipal levels, and don't consider it a subsidy. Special tax breaks are given to specific businesses and industries as an enticement - cities and States will offer huge breaks to get companies to locate facilities in their area, like no property taxes for a number of years. Like Ireland, the breaks aren't intended to give the business a competitive edge, they're intended to give the community an edge in attracting jobs.

      The rule the ruling hinges on regards industry competition, but it's being bent to apply to competition between nations. This really isn't about Apple, it's about Ireland. Samsung has the same global tax rate as Apple, gets breaks and credits in Poland (and probably it's other European sites), but isn't being targeted. Probably because they have division HQ's all over Europe instead of just Ireland, so the money gets spread around.

    69. Re:Good by JohnStock · · Score: 1

      Well said sir and Cook needs to put up and shut the fuck up

    70. Re:Good by plopez · · Score: 1

      and it only amounts to 30% of Q3 revenue. If extrapolation holds roughly 7.5% of annual revenue and I am sure a payment plan could be sorted out. Apple could even sell stock to cover it.

      And before you start screaming "gross not net" consider if you as a real actual live person is fined you pay it out of your net income, not your gross. If I get fined more than my annual income *I* do NOT get off of the hook.. Why shouldn't a corporation be held to a similar rule?

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    71. Re:Good by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      They'll just spend a small portion of that tax bill on 1 or 2 choice politicians and it will disappear unfortunately...

    72. Re:Good by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Because they can afford to buy the lawmakers and judges?

    73. Re: Good by sabbede · · Score: 1
      Offering breaks and credits as an incentive to businesses is hardly an unusual practice, and like every American State and municipality that does it, Ireland has a formal right to do so. What they don't have is a right to alter the competitive landscape by giving subsidies to businesses. Unless the plaintiffs can show that giving Apple a tax break altered the market, there's no basis for the charges. Since Apple doesn't lower prices, and the break it got did not impact its bottom line (the tax is on profits, Apple would make plenty even at 30%), there's no impact on the relevant markets. The only market that was affected was the one in which nations compete to host international corporations.

      In the current international landscape, that market is unregulatable. I'm not saying that's good, just that it is. Every nation would have to surrender it's sovereignty over corporate tax policy to a super-national body with the power to set and collect international taxes, and they don't want to (though rather surprisingly, Trump suggested it). I suspect that at some point this will happen, but until it does this will remain an unresolvable issue.

    74. Re: Good by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Surprising as it may sound, the EU doesn't give a single fuck about what laws municipalities and states in the US follow.

      According to EU law, it is illegal to give a tax break to a company and not the others. You disagree? Well, I guess you understand EU law much better than the European Comission, so I should follow your wisdom.

      --
      entropy happens
    75. Re: Good by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am aware that the example I used to provide context for the issue isn't legal precedent for EU courts. As it happens, other EU nations have figured out how to give specific tax breaks without getting sued.

    76. Re:Good by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Or if the loophole Ireland tried to offer Apple was illegal according to a higher law?

  2. SubjectIsSubject by p0p0 · · Score: 1

    Okay so the judgement is made. What can the EU do to enforce their decision? Can Apple appeal? I'm sure the bribes to guarantee a favorable ruling is less than 14 billion so when can we expect them to come out on top?

    1. Re:SubjectIsSubject by ArgonautThief · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Both Apple and the Irish Government have already confirmed their intent to appeal and their confidence that same will be successful.

      --
      The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits. - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:SubjectIsSubject by jabuzz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Freeze assets worth 14 billion Euro that are present in the EU, and/or prohibit them from doing further business in the EU till they comply. Walking away from a market the size of the EU is a tough call even with back taxes being asked for.

    3. Re:SubjectIsSubject by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really? Tim Cook undermines his argument by pushing to get a tax holiday to re patriot his Irish earning to America. If he was sincere about Apple' revenues being "earned" in Ireland, then he would keep them there instead if engaging in this ponzi scheme.

    4. Re:SubjectIsSubject by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not sure why you think those are related. Operationally, Apple has only 5,000 employees in Ireland and a lot more in other places, so money needs to be pushed around. From a tax perspective, the cash in the Irish subsidiary are retained earnings, and repatriating them is necessary in order to distribute to shareholders... who are subject to US taxes.

    5. Re:SubjectIsSubject by mrbester · · Score: 2

      That's all after the fact. What Apple pays to shareholders and where is immaterial.

      Apple moved earnings to Ireland because of this sweet deal that enabled them to dodge taxes, and Google have done likewise. That deal has been deemed illegal. Now they've been caught out they should be allowed to move it somewhere else and still not pay their taxes? Try that with your earnings and see how far you get.

      The people they employ certainly don't pay that minuscule peppercorn rate. Why should a multi billion company? Fuck them. Fuck them with a rusty shovel.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    6. Re:SubjectIsSubject by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In other words, the money wasn't earned in Ireland, and Ireland and Apple colluded to create a partial tax shelter, just like the EU is claiming.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:SubjectIsSubject by GNious · · Score: 5, Informative

      From what I gather, it is not the EU ordering Apple to do anything, but the EC ordering Ireland to collect the money as outstanding taxes.
      If Ireland refuses, the EC could fine them, or better, remove Ireland from the Common Market, incl all effects this would have.

      If Ireland does end up having to collect the taxes, and Apple refuses to pay them, then freezing assets would be on the table.

    8. Re:SubjectIsSubject by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      On what grounds? The EU body does not have authority to levy taxes.

      Their compliant is with their own member countries giving sweetheart deals to companies at the expense of all the other members of the EU. None of the corporations broke any laws here, the countries stepped forward with tax breaks that were against the intent but not the legal structure of the EU. Their beef is with Ireland, Denmark and Lichtenstein, not Apple, Google and all the other companies from outside the EU that homed in these countries because of sweetheart tax deals.

      Trying to use this as a weapon against American companies for behavior of EU states is a good way to start a trade ware with the US and I have no doubt the WTO would rule in the US's favor.

    9. Re:SubjectIsSubject by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Ireland says that Apple is fully compliant with Irish tax law. All taxes paid for earnings in Ireland have been paid, per Ireland.

      EU says they're not.

      What if Ireland refuses to take an EU forced Apple payment because they believe it would be illegal under Irish tax laws?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    10. Re:SubjectIsSubject by sabri · · Score: 1

      That deal has been deemed illegal.

      Apple & friends have done nothing illegal. They made a deal with the Irish government where the Irish government provided tax incentives in exchange for local jobs. That's nothing new, a lot of countries, including the US, do so.

      What is new is that non-elected non-judiciary officials have the power to "rule" over an independent state's tax laws and regulations. This is what drives member countries out of the EU.

      It's almost as if you had a bunch of them sit together for a working lunch with one topic: how can we get money out of large tech companies?

      Don't forget, Putin does the same to his opponents. They're always arrested for "tax evasion". Remember Gazprom?

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    11. Re:SubjectIsSubject by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      If Ireland doesn't like EU rules it can always depart the EU. If course then it will lose its privileged access to the Common Market, and let's be clear here, the tax deal with Apple was littl more than the creation of a tax haven for Apple to gain cheap access to the Common Market.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:SubjectIsSubject by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      Not sure why you think those are related. Operationally, Apple has only 5,000 employees in Ireland and a lot more in other places, so money needs to be pushed around. From a tax perspective, the cash in the Irish subsidiary are retained earnings, and repatriating them is necessary in order to distribute to shareholders... who are subject to US taxes.

      Apple Ireland is not the subsidiary, Apple US is a subsidiary of Apple Ireland. Apple is on paper an Irish company for the discussed tax benefits, not American.

    13. Re:SubjectIsSubject by iris-n · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...the countries stepped forward with tax breaks that were against the intent but not the legal structure of the EU.

      This is not true. What Ireland did was patently against EU law, violating the no state aid rule. And this is what the Comission decided today, that this sweetheart deal configured state aid because it was not available to all companies, it was only for some select few.

      And you are being disingenuous by suggesting that Apple did nothing wrong. The deal was obviously negotiated directly between Ireland and Apple. And to suggest that Apple didn't know this was illegal, come on. They can afford some pretty good lawyers, you know.

      This all, of course, without mentioning the massive scam that is establishing itself in Ireland in the first place. Apple pretends to make no profit in any EU country, all of it goes to Ireland. But this is apparently legal.

      --
      entropy happens
    14. Re:SubjectIsSubject by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      What can the EU do to enforce their decision?

      Are you really questioning whether the EU government would be able to confiscate Apple's assets? That's kinda a power governments have. They have to have over $14 B in liquid assets waiting to repatriot to the US in areas under EU control.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    15. Re:SubjectIsSubject by Phillip2 · · Score: 1

      It's nothing to do with an American company. As you know, the complaint is against two companies, Apple Ireland, which is a subsidiary of another company called Apple based in Bermuda, I think.

      Nothing to do with the US at all, which is why neither of these companies pay tax in the US.

    16. Re:SubjectIsSubject by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Have you even read what I wrote? You completely missed my points.

      I guess you are so angry because you believe this is a EU vs US thing. It is not. Several European companies have been fined as well for exactly this same scam. Fiat, BP, InBev, among others.

      And frankly, you shouldn't be angry at the EU to make Apple pay its taxes. You should be angry at the US for letting Apple get away with tax dodging. Last time I heard it had about 200 billion dollars hidden in tax havens.

      --
      entropy happens
    17. Re:SubjectIsSubject by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      I read every word you wrote, did you? You want to Blame Apple for following the guidance they were given by the Irish Tax Authority, the only authority on the matter. You think because Apple is a big company they should be looking at the entire EU and evaluating how the EC commission might view such a deal years (more than 8 years) down the road even though the EC has NO authority over taxation which is a sovereign right of Ireland (as defined by the EU charter).

      You are wrong, and your idea that Apple because they have lots of lawyers should have seen this coming is wrong. This is ex-post-facto taxation, everything about it is wrong. If there is a guilty party here it's the Irish government who sold out the other member EU states for a few jobs. YOU want to blame apple for that. I think you are fucking nuts. Stop blaming companies for the tax policies of member states. Ireland, Denmark and Lichtenstein created this.

      You don't see the real problem here, the EU as constructed allows individual member states to do bad things to other member states. France can't sue Ireland because they are both Sovereign states. That is and has been a serious problem that has existed since the EU was constructed. And what has happened is exactly what the experts predicted. Greece (and possibly others) racked up billions in debt they couldn't pay and obligated Germany and the other member states to bail them out. Three EU member countries cut sweetheart tax deals that fucked everyone else over for a few jobs and euro's of taxes.

      These things will continue to happen unless they tighten up EU policies and require the member states to cede some taxation authority and create a federal type court system where states can sue each other for stupid tax policies like the Irish and Dutch policies which robbed other member states of taxes. There is no negative for Ireland to tell the EC to go pound sand, the EC has no authority to punish Ireland. Though it probably won't go that way the situation is ripe to happen with a radical government in charge.

    18. Re:SubjectIsSubject by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      The EU treaty covers this. The EU supercedes.

      Unless the European Court of Justice decides the ruling was wrong. The EU treaty covers this.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    19. Re:SubjectIsSubject by Zxern · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely crazy if you think Apple lawyers hadn't considered this possibility. Note that Apple isn't being fined here. The EU ordered Ireland to collect back taxes. Taxes that would have been owed had the subsidy deal not been made.

      Apple basically got a decades worth of tax deferments here. Still a good deal for them.

    20. Re:SubjectIsSubject by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I would find this genuinely fucking hilarious.

    21. Re:SubjectIsSubject by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      The tax rate was set at 12.5%, Apple signed a contract saying they'd pay a lot less. The contract has now been found illegal.

    22. Re:SubjectIsSubject by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You think because Apple is a big company they should be looking at the entire EU and evaluating how the EC commission might view such a deal years (more than 8 years) down the road

      Fuck yes. â14bn of potential liability and you think they should ignore it? Shit, the entire board could be sued on an individual basis if they neglect that level of corporate risk.

      Consciously choosing to take that risk is a business decision but ignoring it is fucking insane.

    23. Re:SubjectIsSubject by iris-n · · Score: 1

      You are talking as if Apple was simply paying their taxes innocently as instructed by the Irish government. Maybe you just don't know how the scheme worked; read here a description, it is concise and straightforward. It is tax fraud pure and simple. And it was obviously designed by Apple together with the Irish government. There is just no way that this scam would just be generally allowed by the Irish government and Apple just took advantage of it. If this were the case no corporation in Ireland would ever pay tax. This was a scam designed by Apple, for Apple. And you should also take into account that Apple's revenue is larger than Ireland's GDP. The corrupting influence of such a huge amount of money is hard to overstate.

      Now, about the EC's powers: it is a simple matter of fact that they can make the states recover illegal state aid, as it had done several times in the past (which you would know if you had read the link I sent you), and it is a simple matter of fact that the EC can punish Ireland if it defies its ruling. It is just inconceivable that Ireland will tell the EC to go pound sand. What Ireland will do is appeal to the ECJ, which will deny its appeal, and then Ireland will comply with the ruling. Otherwise it risks economic sanctions.

      It is true that the EU has no taxation power, but this doesn't mean that the member states are allowed to use their sovereign taxation powers to fuck each other over. Otherwise your nightmare scenario of the EU falling apart from "beggar thy neighbour" policies would be true.

      --
      entropy happens
    24. Re:SubjectIsSubject by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Ireland should hurry up and Brexit.

      Nah, they'll have to do an ISIS (Ireland Says It's Shit)

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    25. Re:SubjectIsSubject by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Not necessary to expel Ireland. The EU could just stop sending them EU funds (e.g. agricultural and structural funds) for that amount.

    26. Re:SubjectIsSubject by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Repatriation comes with a 30% price tag. That's why those profits are sitting in Ireland instead of being used here. Ireland is the only nation willing to compete on corporate tax rates, so they're the ones who win. Any other nation could eat their lunch by setting a lower corporate tax rate, if they chose to do so.

    27. Re:SubjectIsSubject by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Freeze assets worth 14 billion Euro that are present in the EU, and/or prohibit them from doing further business in the EU till they comply. Walking away from a market the size of the EU is a tough call even with back taxes being asked for.

      Us Brits are doing it :|

      --

      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.

    28. Re:SubjectIsSubject by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You're making some sweeping statements there about EU law, and I doubt you're qualified to make them.

      If you manage to get an IRS agent to agree to a crazy tax scheme, that counts as following government guidance, but it won't save you in tax court.

      Apple should have asked itself, "Is this too good to be true?" and acted accordingly. Always distrust deals that look too good. You don't know what will turn up later.

      Your vision of the EU economy looks flawed to me. The issue with Greece is that they're stuck on the Euro, and therefore they need to borrow large numbers of Euros just to be able to keep their economy going. Were they on the drachma still, they'd have enough drachmas to run an economy without having to borrow Euros. The situation is basically German economic colonization by taking advantage of Greek problems.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    29. Re:SubjectIsSubject by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Thanks, very well put.

  3. I hate Apple, but no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They can crack the whip now and say that, going forward, the tax laws have changed and Apple should pay more.

    However, you can't claim you're owed past money when Apple wasn't hiding anything. They knew what Apple was doing and let it go. This is nothing but theft.

    I'm all for fixing the tax laws going forward, but I'm not for killing companies that played by the rules that were in place. Apple can survive this hit, but many companies cannot.

    1. Re:I hate Apple, but no by jabuzz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apple got a special tax deal from the Irish government in exchange for locating their European headquarters in Ireland. This has been ruled illegal state aid which was illegal at the time.

      A number of other companies such as Microsoft, Dell and Google have similar arrangements and they are now all under investigation.

    2. Re:I hate Apple, but no by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, if Ireland did indeed step beyond their bounds they can. Apple's bad for not ensuring it was cleared with the EU which has overall governance over Ireland.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:I hate Apple, but no by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's silly, the UN has no say over taxes of member nations.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:I hate Apple, but no by frnic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whether or not the tax breaks were illegal, Apple simply paid what the Irish government told them to pay, so as far I am concerned the EU can pound sand.

      I believe Apple has replied "You can have your back taxes or you can have our jobs - but not both."

      Good for them.

    5. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand that's how you get a Brexit

    6. Re:I hate Apple, but no by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      The UN does not work that way! Goodnight!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah! I paid all the taxes my boss told me to pay and then the IRS came and told me I still owed more! I told them to pound sand too!

    8. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe Apple has replied "You can have your back taxes or you can have our jobs - but not both."

      Good for them.

      What jobs? These Irish headquarters barely produce anything or provide services except as a means to funnel corporate profits to a location with an extremely low tax rate. Apple does most of their design work in the US, manufacturing in Asia, and I can bet you most of their marketing is handled from the US as well. At most their Irish division might handle some EU marketing and customer service duties, but most of their employees are probably accountants and lawyers whose sole function is to keep the scam going.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    9. Re:I hate Apple, but no by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      EU which has overall governance over Ireland

      That's not correct. In this case the EU can't actually force Ireland to collect the tax, but they will because they want to remain part of the club and not face other sanctions. The EU doesn't actually have powers to govern Ireland directly, although Irish law does recognize EU institutions.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:I hate Apple, but no by jabuzz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The EU has enough clout that they easily enough force Apple to pay. They can either seize assets to the value of the back taxes and/or prohibit Apple from doing further business in the EU, which would even with a 14billion Euro back tax bill be economic suicide for Apple to pull out of the EU.

      Now while Ireland might be upset that the jobs are going, they are not going from the EU because Apple will still need an operation inside the EU to trade there, and the EU Commission does not favour the jobs being in Ireland over anywhere else inside the EU.

      So as far as I am concerned both Apple and Ireland can go pound sand.

    11. Re:I hate Apple, but no by locofungus · · Score: 1

      However, you can't claim you're owed past money when Apple wasn't hiding anything.

      I don't know about EU law but in the UK this is, indeed the case.

      Tax avoidance schemes have to be registered with HMRC. If they are deemed to be invalid then you have to pay the tax that was due.

      If you decide to fight it through the courts and the courts find in HMRCs favour then your tax liability is a multiple (greater than or equal to 1) of the tax that you tried to avoid. (plus any legal fees)

      There was a very recent case along exactly these lines:
      http://www.taxation.co.uk/Arti...

      And another that looks like it will go HMRCs way.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/busi...

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    12. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      What? The EU, formally known as the EEC, has existed since 1958, if you discount the ECSC. The provisions against state aid within the single market were established in the Treaty of Rome (1958). Ireland joined in 1973.

    13. Re:I hate Apple, but no by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Then they probably should have signed this deal before 1993.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    14. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

      Whether or not the tax breaks were illegal, Apple simply paid what the Irish government told them to pay, so as far I am concerned the EU can pound sand.

      Apple didn't simply "pay what the Irish government told them to pay", there was a huge amount of negotiation between the two parties, leading to an agreement.

      That agreement does not transcend EU rules, so it was illegal at the time and I'm sure you will understand that illegal agreements are not worth the paper they are written on.

      I believe Apple has replied "You can have your back taxes or you can have our jobs - but not both."

      Good for them.

      Wow. 6,000 jobs. When Apple already employ more than that in the UK, where they have no tax deal. What a wonderful deal the Irish got...

    15. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Arroc · · Score: 1

      EU should reply - "you can have a 1% tax scheme, or access to our 500M market - but not both"

    16. Re:I hate Apple, but no by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. The EU does not have overall governance over Ireland. The EU does not set Irish taxes but only gives broad guidelines in an effort to keep the playing field as level as possible. As a member of the EU and its single market, Ireland commits to keeping to the guidelines. The EU says it has transgressed and Ireland says it hasn't. Either way, Apple has paid all the taxes that the Irish government said it needed to. Apple is not at fault here.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    17. Re:I hate Apple, but no by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      The state aid rules applied to the EEC as well. Basically the EU is a re-branded EEC with slightly different rules and more members. Ireland joined the EEC *before* Apple even existed as a company, 1973 vs 1976.

    18. Re:I hate Apple, but no by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      The real question is: what does the law say about how illegal agreements like these should be handled? In some EU countries at least, if an agreement between government and a private person or company is deemed illegal, it cannot be annulled just like that; the government is supposed to be a trustworthy partner and cannot strike a deal then simply declare it illegal. In some cases the agreement itself will be considered void, but the affected person or company will not be on the hook for the whole amount owed, or will be compensated for incurred costs (like when a building permit that shouldn't have been issued is rescinded when building has already started). In other cases, the agreement stands up to the date of the ruling and is only void going forward (so no back taxes would be owed).

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    19. Re:I hate Apple, but no by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      The Irish subsidiary is (supposedly) the largest tax payer in Ireland. They have roughly 5,000 employees and are growing in Ireland.

    20. Re:I hate Apple, but no by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      Ireland joined the EEC in 1973. The EU officially came into existence in 1992 but it is the same organisation as the one that Ireland joined in 1973.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    21. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow. You are truly a top-notch iShill, my good sir.

    22. Re:I hate Apple, but no by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I used to work with a guy that lived in a $750K house despite the fact that he made $20K/year on paper. Everything was under his corporation and it was most definitely not legit. He was under the impression that he would claim ignorance and blame his accountant for all of it. But it doesn't work that way. It was up to Apple to unilaterally check with the EU and apparently they didn't.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    23. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      What should have been illegal all along is government overreach, stripping of sovereignity, and politicians retroactively punishing for legal behaviors decades later.

      So much vomitous, vile smugness on the part of some citizens who enjoy their overlords wielding unlimited power to satisfy transient outrage.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    24. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Arroc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would agree with you - except that is not a matter of sovereign tax policy. Ireland basically allows Apple tax-free access to the entire EU market. It would have been fine if it was confined to the internal Irish market.

    25. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid that, semantics aside, your point is invalid because the EU, as formalised in 1993 by the Maastricht Treaty, is merely a continuation and expansion of the EEC, formed in 1958, so Apple didn't exist in Europe prior to the rules that the EU are referring to, and the EU has the right to enforce rules as laid out by the EEC and continued under the EU.

    26. Re:I hate Apple, but no by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich has existed as a tax strategy, founded by Apple and approved by Ireland, since the late 1980s.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    27. Re:I hate Apple, but no by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Fair point.

      So it sounds like Ireland's tax laws have been out of compliance for half a century. Free movement of capital, but not taxation.

      So why now, and why Apple? And since the EU is only now going after a ~35 yr old accounting practice, Apple can fairly have assumed that the practice was perfectly legal until recently.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    28. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Tax avoidance "schemes" must be registered?

      What happened to the concept of a free society where every citizen may demand of the government to know if a particular action is legal or not...before doing it?

      Government is not supposed to be able to rub their chin and retroactively apply law in new ways that they had no problem with at the time. This is one of the tools dictators use to deal with uppity opposition, along with general warrants, or no warrants, to filch through the opposition's stuff until they find something illegal.

      Doesn't apply here? So this isn't a political response to outrage over Apple's Ireland operations, at the demands of those in power, to assuage hoi polloi?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    29. Re:I hate Apple, but no by mrbester · · Score: 1

      You try that with your tax office and see how many years in prison they threaten you with.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    30. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Irish subsidiary is (supposedly) the largest tax payer in Ireland. They have roughly 5,000 employees and are growing in Ireland.

      They certainly will be once they pay back $14.5 billion in back taxes. In any case, say they are reporting $100 billion in profit in Ireland. At the rate of .005% that still $500 million in taxes paid. With the volume of sales and cash Apple has, it's easy for them to be one of the highest taxpayers in Ireland even with their ridiculously low rate.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    31. Re:I hate Apple, but no by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Forcing companies to pay taxes on earnings they made in a country, rather than allowing them to move that money to a lower-tax jurisdiction is hardly breaking that company's back. It's about time international bodies started going after these race-to-the-bottom tax avoidance schemes.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    32. Re:I hate Apple, but no by GNious · · Score: 2

      Apple's legal council should have informed them that the tax-agreements with Ireland would/might violate Ireland's international agreements on state aid for companies...

    33. Re:I hate Apple, but no by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Again, though.

      Why are they pursuing a legal loophole in Ireland, though maybe not EU, after it's been used openly & publicly for 35 years?

      Why is Ireland not punished for not just allowing, but encouraging local tax provisions that are supposedly in direct violation of EU laws?
      And they continue to do this, by altering this method slightly:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Under Finance Act 2015, a new system has been introduced whereby innovative companies who choose to incorporate in Ireland can now benefit from the introduction of the Knowledge Development Box (the “KDB”) in Ireland, the scheme is seen a replacement for the “double-Irish” tax system which was recently closed. An effective tax rate of 6.25% can be obtained on qualifying profits generated in periods commencing on or after 1 January 2016.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    34. Re:I hate Apple, but no by GNious · · Score: 2

      Why now and why Apple?

      Apple was one of the front-runners on the Double Irish* tax scheme, and it has taken time to even get here?

      The specific tax agreement between Apple and Ireland dates back to 2003, the active investigation started in 2014 based on leaks and reveals, and the 0.005% tax rate has only been in place for the last few years. This is why this is coming up now, and not in 2003, nor in the 1980s when it first got introduced.
      Other companies have been found to have similar agreements, and not only with Ireland, and many are either under investigation or have already been found non-compliant.

      * older scheme, now sort-of illegal in Ireland since 2013

    35. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Holi · · Score: 1

      If the sovereign nation did not want the benefits of the single European economy, then that sovereign nation should not have joined. Membership has privileges but it also has responsibilities.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    36. Re:I hate Apple, but no by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It's not legit where I live. It doesn't matter whether the corp owns the house or not, you can only claim the amount of the house used for business.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    37. Re:I hate Apple, but no by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      There is no agreement or rule in place to give the EC commission power over individual member state tax rates. It's one of reasons the EU will never succeed as it exists, you can't have a union where any member country can fuck all the others out of tax revenue and where other states can run defects until they are so far in debt they cannot pay it back.

      Ireland is going to win the appeal, the EC commission does not have authority here, taxing authority is specifically retained by member countries as part of the EU charter. Hopefully what comes of this is an agreement among member states to cede some tax authority to Brussles so they can actually enforce the rules that everyone is supposed to follow but in practice almost no one does.

    38. Re:I hate Apple, but no by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Double Irish has been around since the 1980s *and is still legally in use today*. But even back then it, legally, produced very low tax rates.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      In 2014, the Irish government announced that companies would no longer be able to incorporate in Ireland without also being tax resident there, a measure intended to counter arrangements similar to the double Irish.[4] Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan addressed the "Double Irish" during the presentation of his 2015 budget. Under the new rules, companies not already operating in the country may not pursue the “Double Irish” scheme as of January 2015; those already engaging in the tax avoidance scheme have a five-year window until 2020 to find another arrangement.

      Most bizarre part of all of this:
      Ireland says Apple doesn't owe any extra taxes to Ireland.
      EU says Apple DOES owe extra taxes to Ireland.

      What if Ireland refuses to take the payments from Apple, believing they are illegal per Irish tax laws?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    39. Re:I hate Apple, but no by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      Actually it does work that way. A person's LLC shields him from liability unless it can be proven he/she knowingly guided the books to illegally skirt taxes. So if his accountant were to say, testify in court that the point was brought up but ignored -- possibly show emails -- then he'd be on the hook.

      Otherwise, the LLC assets can be seized and the accountant can be charged, but he can't be.

    40. Re:I hate Apple, but no by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      It totally is. But this isn't the U.S. it's Europe. Mob rule has a very different meaning over there.

    41. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this situation is what's motivating the TPP provision that allows companies to, in effect, veto changes to regulations that were in place when the companies set up shop in the country. Under such a treaty, would Apple be able to lock in their sweetheart deal forever?

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    42. Re:I hate Apple, but no by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except the EU does have that power. Ireland is a party to the treaties that create these power. If Ireland finds those rules so onerous, it can always join Britain in leaving the EU.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    43. Re:I hate Apple, but no by cahuenga · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And... had Ireland not received a $64B bailout from the EU a few short years ago, maybe he would have a point.

    44. Re:I hate Apple, but no by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      In this case, the point was brought up and ignored. Person in question bragged about it very loudly.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    45. Re:I hate Apple, but no by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Where I am from, Trump would have to track the use of the plane and could only claim the percentage equivalent to the amount of time the plane was used for business. So if he was meeting business associates for golf, although dubious, would still be a business use. Meeting friends for golf would be a different matter. Same with a house. If you're living in it, you can't claim personal quarters.. You have to declare what percentage of the house is your office and only claim that percentage on all house expenses.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    46. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Yes... Ireland took in just under 7 Billion Euros in corporation tax in 2014-2015. The UK took in just over 55 Billion Euros in corporation tax in the same period.

      Being the largest payer when you are paying in pennies means fuck all in the grand scheme of things.

      Ireland got a shit deal. The UK still got the jobs.

    47. Re:I hate Apple, but no by GNious · · Score: 2

      Yeah, the Double Irish is not actually illegal per se, hence my specific wording - They took steps to reduce it, but not totally (yet).

      If Ireland either refuses to collect, or appeals + loses + then refuses to collect, then the EC can impose fines - they do this already in such cases, and have for decades. Those fines would be on Ireland, and not Apple.

      Note: Ireland did commit to follow certain rules, incl rules on state aid for companies, and these are the ones they are being told follow here. EU/EC is not so much trying to force specific tax-rules on Ireland, as they are simply saying this level of taxation is effectively state aid and illegal. This is also why it is the Commission for Competition, that filed the case.

      An option I'd think is valid (but highly unlikely, and very hurtful) would be to simply deny Ireland access to the Common Market, on grounds that Irish companies are not competing fairly - this is the basis for the rules for state aid, and would be in line with the recent ruling.

    48. Re:I hate Apple, but no by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      The EC does have authority over subsidies, and that's what this is.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    49. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Per the head of the investigation:

      “The so-called ‘head office’ did no business. It had no employees, no premises. But under the tax ruling the so-called head office was attributed all the company’s profits for sales throughout Europe Africa, Middle East, and India,” she added.

      “Tax rulings cannot endorse a method that fails to reflect economic activity or reality, for that matter,” the commissioner said.
      [...]
      Apple established two companies—Apple Operations Ireland and Apple Sales International—but almost all sales profits recorded by these two entities were attributed to a "head office" that Vestager said “existed only on paper and could not have generated such profits,” adding that the “situation did not correspond to economic reality.”

      * http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/apple-must-pay-ireland-13-billion-euros-in-taxes-says-brussels/

    50. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      However, you can't claim you're owed past money when Apple wasn't hiding anything.

      That is a very strange legal theory. I don't think you're going to get very far with that. The question is, was their claimed loophole legal, not "did they admit to using the loophole they claimed existed, but that had not been intended by the law."

      There were various parties in Europe saying at the time that such loopholes didn't exist, they just didn't have a mechanism in place to stop them right away and it would take extra time to collect those taxes.

      Lots of schemes are unlawful even when you didn't "hide" what you were doing.

    51. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Ireland tried to get a shit deal, because local governments always love to bring home shit for their constituents, but the EU is forcing them to get a normal, legal deal. Ooops! This EU thing would have sure helped out during the potato famine!

    52. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich has existed as a tax strategy, founded by Apple and approved by Ireland, since the late 1980s.

      Can you give any evidence not based on the claims made (without evidence) by the New York Times?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    53. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Slashdot crackpots keep repeating that, as if tax breaks were not already a known form of subsidy when the EU started regulating subsidies. It is what was regulated all along; money the government gives directly to help companies, money that they choose not to collect from those companies, even money spent on other things intended to benefit the company.

      Also, EU not UN. But even if we give that one out as a free brain fart; your idea is still totally ignorant.

      Regulating subsidies, including attempts at finding loopholes to enact subsidies, is a major part of EU agreements. And generally under EU law, loopholes don't exist. Finding a loophole just means there wasn't an enforcement mechanism in place, and they'll have to use a generic action based on the clear intent of the law. Here in the US, loopholes work because our legal system is hyper-technical. In Europe they're a lot more deliberative, and the law places more weight on intent than on wording. And a good thing, too, since it all has to be translated into zillions of languages.

    54. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      People pointed out it was illegal all along, and pundits waved their hands and insisted it doesn't matter because Apple is a big boy and the other cool kids are doing it to, so nobody can stop them.

      Those pundits were not still listening to those who had said it was illegal, but the response all along was, "the EU might not care how cool they are. What if the judges are frumpy?"

    55. Re:I hate Apple, but no by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Seriously? You can't use google? Or wikipedia?

      here's a pdf from the first footnote on the wikipedia article. It's an article written in 2007.
      http://www.gtlaw.com/portalres...

      Apple came up with this method in the 1980s. It's been well known for a lot longer than any silly NYT article.
      http://www.reuters.com/article...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    56. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      The Irish subsidiary is (supposedly) the largest tax payer in Ireland. They have roughly 5,000 employees and are growing in Ireland.

      5000 jobs created for just €10 billion euros? What a bargain, only 2 million euros for each dead-end low paying job.

    57. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      What happened to the concept of a free society where every citizen may demand of the government to know if a particular action is legal or not...before doing it?

      Nothing "happened" to it, that was never an actual concept. Perhaps it was from a Heinlein book and you misremembered?

      The government enacts laws. They have to meet various basic requirements because Freedom. That is all true. But there is nothing about free binding legal opinions from the government. Sounds nice, but if it ever happens you'll know. If you're an American, it will have an Amendment number and will be on the news all month if it happens.

    58. Re:I hate Apple, but no by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It could, but it won't because that would be even more suicidal for Ireland than Brexit is for the UK.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    59. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Apple simply paid what the Irish government told them to pay

      But the Irish government wasn't allowed to lower their tax rate. And that makes the tax breaks invalid, so they never applied. It's like if an employee at McDonald's signs over all their assets to you. Unless it was a CEO with board approval, that arrangement is going to be declared invalid, because they didn't have permission to sell what they sold you. If you have a further problem, you get to take it up with the guy who "sold" you the assets, not claim McD's is screwing you over.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    60. Re:I hate Apple, but no by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Laws should always be focused on intent rather than wording. Only the wealthy can afford lawyers and accountants to sift through the wording, but most people can understand the intent.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    61. Re:I hate Apple, but no by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Actually, Ireland shut it down, with delayed windows for current users, in 2014. So, maybe it was being abused more when it was first investigated, but not now.

      Still not sure why the EU hasn't forced all countries to conform to their tax laws. And punish the countries, not the companies, who set up these loopholes over the past 35 years.

      Also, you can't call a plan 'unlimited' unless its, you know, actually unlimited. Using a lot of data in an unlimited plan does not make someone an asshole. It shows the company as stupid.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    62. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's just a dangling civic policy assertion.

      There is actually a lot of serious civic theory and debate on the issue; many American lawyers would say that excessive reliance on perceived or claimed intent creates an avenue for prosecutorial and judicial expansion of laws because of the difficulty of pinning down intent. That is why in the US, the plain wording of the law is the most important thing, and then intent of the law is used as an additional constraint. So the law has to apply both in actual words, and also in intent.

      Also, the idea that the intent of a law is more clear to the average man is exactly the sort of nonsense that this situation refutes. The average man is perfectly willing to credulously believe the lawyers when they insist that there is a loophole, and not only that, that the loophole was clearly intended by the way the law was written or it wouldn't exist. That is even when other lawyers were saying all along, there is no loophole there. The laws don't overlap, there isn't a continuous and seamless enforcement mechanism, but nevertheless any purported tax avoidance schemes would not be legal in Europe even if you point at a supposed loophole, because they're unfair or anti-competitive.

      So how does a layperson know which intent is the one to focus on? The one lawyer asks them to, or the one that says, "If it makes a difference which country you're incorporated in, then that violates the intent of a common market." People who don't have a lawyer handy to ask not going to have any better way to understand intent than they have to understand wording.

    63. Re:I hate Apple, but no by drsquare · · Score: 1

      I came to this thread because I knew it would be full of salty yanks throwing a tantrum because one of their precious company's has been slapped down. You haven't disappointed!

    64. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Seriously? You can't use google? Or wikipedia?

      here's a pdf from the first footnote on the wikipedia article. It's an article written in 2007. http://www.gtlaw.com/portalres...

      Apple came up with this method in the 1980s. It's been well known for a lot longer than any silly NYT article. http://www.reuters.com/article...

      Wow, you really suck at proving your point. Thanks for providing no evidence whatsoever for your claim. Hint: your article about the Double Irish doesn't mention Apple, and the article about Apple taxes in Ireland doesn't mention the Double Irish.

      Or is the problem that you don't even know what your point is?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    65. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Tax avoidance "schemes" must be registered?

      For what it's worth, the use of "scheme" there is not pejorative (which is why I assume you have it in scare quotes), it's just a synonym for "plan" that is in common usage in British English (as opposed to American English, where it typically implies that something underhanded is occurring).

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    66. Re:I hate Apple, but no by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the reuters article?

      With quotes from the Apple CEO and president in the 1980s?

      Apple did it first, Google made it popular around 2008-2010.

      Which is about as long as Congress (who gets big $ from Google lobbying) has been talking about a low/no tax repatriation.

      And the NYT made it famous outside technical/legal circles.

      Maybe you should try limiting your google searches to before the NYT article.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    67. Re:I hate Apple, but no by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Ha! "simply" yeah right!

      Poor little richest company in the world with a veritable army of lawyers was just doing what the tiny little government told them to. It's a quite absurd notion. Wide scale tax avoidance of that magnitude is not easy. There is not a chance in hellthey didn't study the crap out of every law and every angle.

      I believe Apple has replied "You can have your back taxes or you can have our jobs - but not both."

      I don't think they'll have a choice about the former. If they want to move their HQ then that's their prerogative. Of course Ireland's corporate tax rate is still pretty low as far as Europe goes, so they'll have to be careful where the move to if they want to actually keep their taxes low.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    68. Re:I hate Apple, but no by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I would say a layperson would expect that taxes are for paying, and that is the intent of the law. If Apple had respected the intent then there would not have been an issue. It wasn't until lawyers tried to interpret the language, and got it incorrect, that Apple ran into trouble here.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    69. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1
      No, the problem is that you didn't read what you claimed - you provided no evidence for it. Should I repeat what you claimed?

      Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich has existed as a tax strategy, founded by Apple and approved by Ireland, since the late 1980s.

      That's not backed up by your "evidence"

      That reminds me: did you work on Samsung's legal team? Their evidence was similarly lacking.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    70. Re:I hate Apple, but no by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So who broke the law: Ireland, which negotiated, offered, and confirmed the "illegal State aid" or the company that took what was given by the Government, in good faith?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    71. Re:I hate Apple, but no by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Looking at the two economies, it seems that - if your figures of 7 and 55 billion Euros are accurate - Ireland collects a lot more corporate income tax per GDP than the UK. It's the UK that's giving breaks via much lower tax-per-GDP ratio...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    72. Re:I hate Apple, but no by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So, to take that to the next level, does it mean that ANY differences in taxation levels must necessarily be the result of subsidies? In other words - if Germany taxes less than France, then Germany MUST be giving subsidies and therefore must force additional taxation? I mean, if lower tax rates are considered subsidies, then whoever has the highest tax is "right" and everyone else must be giving subsidies and should be penalized.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    73. Re:I hate Apple, but no by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Well, it depends upon what the meaning of "is", is.

      Intent is purely subjective and subject to the whims of whomever is currently interpreting the law. The letter of the law is much more concrete and harder to get around unless you want to actually redefine the meaning of words. The letter of the law is the guiding principle; if it was intent then you have kangaroo courts and decisions made based upon the current direction the wind is blowing.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    74. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Yes... Ireland took in just under 7 Billion Euros in corporation tax in 2014-2015. The UK took in just over 55 Billion Euros in corporation tax in the same period.

      Being the largest payer when you are paying in pennies means fuck all in the grand scheme of things.

      Ireland got a shit deal. The UK still got the jobs.

      Yeah, until you bother with the fact that the UK has more than 10 times the GDP pf Ireland. Then only getting 8 times the taxes looks like the shittier deal.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    75. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Laws should always be focused on intent rather than wording.

      Oooh, touchy feely. Are you a SJW by chance?

      If you can't put your intend in words, you shouldn't make laws.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    76. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but a random layperson who said that might also say, "gosh, I heard that taxes are bad for jobs, don't they create a lot of jobs?" They might also say, "of course the powerful find ways to avoid paying." They might also say, "money is power."

      And laypeople who believe taxes are for paying... that might be the 2% of us that are armchair policy wonks with a hyper-sensitive sense of fairness. I think the average layperson just doesn't see themselves as being powerful enough to avoid taxes, rather than having some sort of strong sense of civic duty.

    77. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Well, it depends upon what the meaning of "is", is.

      Exactly! People frothed at the mouth when President Clinton said something like that in the 90s. But it is a real problem. It seems to Average Joe that a word like "is" is very easy to understand, but then, they're also not used to communicating in forms that are capable of containing details.

      Even in your phrase, "The letter of the law is the guiding principle" there is a huge amount of weight on the word "is." How heavily is the law guided? Is this a barely-inclusive is, or something stronger?

      And indeed, both side do accuse the other of having kangaroo courts. Countries that put more emphasis on intent point out the absurdity of deciding real things with stronger guidance from wording than from context, and the ability of lawyers to create loopholes. Not just because the wording was actually unclear, but because it becomes less and less clear the more effort and money is put into making it seem so. With intent you know that an argument over intent is subjective, but with loopholes-asserted-by-opposing-lawyer, it is a more difficult problem for the court; they're supposed to take the wording objectively. Is the proposed loophole something objective that they must follow, or is it a load of shit and the words are actually more clear than the lawyer gave them credit for? Maybe the meaning of the words was clear, but the phrasing was poor. That is a major part of US legal decisions; the court deciding which understanding of the possibly-ambiguous words was actually intended by the legislature. The legislature often can't even agree if they agree or disagree with the courts about their own intent, but they do usually at least agree about what words they enacted.

      If just one side had the "kangaroo courts" argument, I don't think it would be an ongoing point of contention between otherwise-similar civic principles.

    78. Re:I hate Apple, but no by TooManyNames · · Score: 1

      So your quibble is with the "founded by Apple" claim? Maybe the GP overstated things a bit, but it seems pretty clear that the point they were making (and which you argued against initially) had nothing to do with who was first to enact this tax strategy; their point was that the tax benefits offered by Ireland were instrumental to Apple operating there, and known for a long time. Incidentally, this quote from the article they cited pretty clearly illustrates the point they were making:

      "We were the first technology company to establish a manufacturing operation in Ireland," recalled John Sculley, Apple's CEO from 1983 to 1993. He said government subsidies had also played a role in deciding to set up a base in Ireland.

      In other words, it looks like you shifted the goalposts in an attempt to "win" your argument, except that it's really badly transparent.

      --
      "Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
    79. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >For one thing, the government absolutely has the authority to tell a corporation "yes, these are the taxes that you owe".

      Except, clearly, they do not. Ireland is not a wholly independent nation, but a member of the EU, and is governed by EU laws even within its own borders.

      A better analogy might be Apple negotiating a tax break or other incentive with a US state that is illegal according to federal law. When caught, Apple would not simply be allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains - they are bound by federal law and it is their responsibility to make sure they are in compliance with those laws. A state government does not have the authority to waive them.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    80. Re:I hate Apple, but no by TooManyNames · · Score: 1

      Really? Seems to mostly be populated by the "make them pay their fair share" types; not that there's anything wrong with demanding a fair share be paid. That said, it does seem a little ridiculous to effectively say, "Oh hey, you know that thing you were doing for the past 30 years in full public view? Yeah, well, we suddenly decided that we're interested in that, and we'd like a cut for all those years we didn't express an interest."

      It's one thing to demand a fair share forthwith, but another thing entirely to allow an protracted exception, then decide that that exception wasn't really allowed after all. It's entirely reasonable to push back a little in that situation.

      --
      "Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
    81. Re:I hate Apple, but no by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      Quoting at random from the IRS website.
      'Was the estate tax retroactively reinstated for decedents dying in 2010?
      Yes. '
      On congresses right to do this:
      'The Supreme Court “repeatedly has upheld retroactive tax legislation against a due process challenge”. Indeed, the Supreme Court in Carlton rejected the executor’s Due Process argument and upheld the retroactive application of the tax law based upon a two-part test that emerged from its analysis. The test upholds retroactive tax application if: (1) the legislation has a rational legislative purpose and is not arbitrary; and (2) the period of retroactivity is not excessive.'
      https://www.treasury.gov/conne... - lists quite a lot of legislation doing this.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - is also relevant.
      This is analogous to the case of Ireland. Ireland is a member of the EU, and has signed various treaties saying what freedom they have to subsidise firms.
      Removing taxes from a company counts as subsidy.

    82. Re:I hate Apple, but no by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      Refusing to pay risks killing all apple pay/... in the EU - even for existing devices.
      Just because a third party country has trade agreements with the EU does not mean that the phones would be exempted - for example from punitive sanctions on import, or even confiscation.

    83. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No. It would be the IRS saying in 2000, "We think you are breaking the law so prudently assure that if our investigations determine this to be the case, you can pay the differential" and in 2010, "Confirmed, you're breaking the law. Look, we aren't complete cunts, we're not prosecuting you. Just pay the money you very sensibly set aside and everything's dandy."

    84. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Cederic · · Score: 1

      See, this is why the UK could leave the EU. We had a catchy one word description for it.

      Ireland doesn't have that.

      But then, even with a catchy name, Ireland wouldn't be able to leave the EU. If the referendum result is wrong they just keep running them until it's right.

    85. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Cederic · · Score: 1

      He wouldn't ever meet friends for golf though. He'd be renting a fully equipped mobile office and starting his vacation after he reached Scotland.

      Although since he owns the golf course, he isn't on vacation, he's inspecting the facilities and doing UAT on the course itself.

      Friends? Shit, he's lucky he isn't having to pay them to help with the UAT.

    86. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Tax avoidance "schemes" must be registered?

      Yes. The tax law in the UK is "pay tax, and don't take the piss". Staying in the letter of the law is pointless if HMRC decide you're just being a complete twat and trying to avoid paying your fair share.

      Disclaimer: I invest in companies using a tax avoidance scheme. Each company individually requests HMRC approval and I submit the paperwork to prove it on my annual tax return.

    87. Re:I hate Apple, but no by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      There are I believe minimum tax rates set by the EU, but the problem in this case is that Apple had a special deal with the Irish government that was not available to all companies in Ireland. If the deal that Apple has/had with the Irish government had been the same for all companies in Ireland it would have been fine.

    88. Re:I hate Apple, but no by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      This is only the start, expect Ireland to be fined for giving illegal state aid over the coming months probably to something close to the tune of what they have collected in back taxes.

    89. Re:I hate Apple, but no by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Both. It's called collusion.

    90. Re:I hate Apple, but no by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with your last paragraph, and it is the true "fair spirit" of tax law.

      I simply take issue with it being applied retroactively after 20 years, and without promise of local tax authorities within the EU not being able to double-dip.

    91. Re:I hate Apple, but no by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Exactly! People frothed at the mouth when President Clinton said something like that in the 90s. But it is a real problem. It seems to Average Joe that a word like "is" is very easy to understand, but then, they're also not used to communicating in forms that are capable of containing details.

      But at the end of the day, the simple, plain Average Joe understanding of "is" won. The President was impeached, and he lost his law license. He tried to play the cute word game and lost. I think 99 times out of 100 it ends up that way - the usually, the other time, it's different because the judge just feels it's right. The 9th cicuit court is famous for that - and they get overturned with quite regular frequency.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    92. Re:I hate Apple, but no by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So there are minimum tax laws that Ireland is responsible for. And thus it's Apple's fault that Ireland broke its own agreements and laws. Doesn't make sense to me. Government has the ultimate power, the final call, and when it screws up somehow the private sector is responsible.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    93. Re:I hate Apple, but no by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      They can crack the whip now and say that, going forward, the tax laws have changed and Apple should pay more.

      However, you can't claim you're owed past money when Apple wasn't hiding anything. They knew what Apple was doing and let it go. This is nothing but theft.

      I'm all for fixing the tax laws going forward, but I'm not for killing companies that played by the rules that were in place. Apple can survive this hit, but many companies cannot.

      Yea... tell that to the IRS and see how far it gets you. I've seen cases where they had opinions in writing from the IRS and later they said - sorry, that's not the law.... pay up and BTW, here's the interest on top as well. Don't like it - Tough.

    94. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1
      He made a specific claim, I asked for evidence for that specific claim, he failed to provide it, instead he shifted goalposts. And you still declare him winner, claiming I shifted goalposts .

      Jesus Christ, admit that he didn't know what he was talking about, and admit his defeat before looking dumb yourself. If you aren't one of his sockpuppet accounts, you can do that.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    95. Re:I hate Apple, but no by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No, some differences in taxation levels can be considered subsidies while others aren't. Duh.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    96. Re:I hate Apple, but no by robsku · · Score: 1

      Yeah - I'm always baffled, amused and a little bit sad to see how Yanks are so willing to rush into defense of their corporations committing "legalized tax fraud" against them. Instead of talking about what taxes they should be paying or not here in Europe, maybe they should focus on why the taxes of US company are being paid not-USA-land.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    97. Re:I hate Apple, but no by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      The Apple outfit that collects all the sales from the entirety of Europe is an empty shell company with no employee whatsoever. This is pure tax fraud. Read it here. There is no economic deal "jobs vs. taxes". Ireland did not treat Apple like a normal company, they had a tax rate in 2015 of 0.005%. There is little chance that this was agreed to without some widespread corruption there.

    98. Re:I hate Apple, but no by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      It's only 10 years. The EU says it was illegal 10 years ago to propose this tax deal to Apple, because it is actually anti-competitive. If you did something very illegal 10 years ago and it is not prescribed, you have to pay your dues, my friend.

    99. Re:I hate Apple, but no by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Of course, never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explain by stupidity. However, in that case, I would rule in favour of malice. The nice lawyers who thought up the Apple vs Ireland tax scheme surely got off a long time ago with their nice bonus.

    100. Re:I hate Apple, but no by TooManyNames · · Score: 1

      Wow dude, calm down before you have a paranoia-induced aneurysm or something. I'm my own account and, if anything, his would be a sock-puppet of my account, based on user IDs.

      admit his defeat before looking dumb yourself

      Your willingness to demand correctness on pain of ad-hominem pretty much sums up why you look so very, very wrong.

      --
      "Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
    101. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Apology accepted.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    102. Re:I hate Apple, but no by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Do not go gently into that good night.

      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    103. Re:I hate Apple, but no by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Just because you got away with it for a while doesn't mean you get away with it when the law catches up with you.

    104. Re:I hate Apple, but no by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's derpy as fuck. The President was acquitted, and voluntarily gave up his law license to avoid having to deal with the nonsense, because he was obviously never going to be a practicing lawyer as an ex-President. He didn't need it, why create the circus defending it?

      It is just incredibly moronic, My Joe Average Low Information, to try to spin that failed attempt to attack President Clinton over a blow-job as some sort of victory where he was found guilty.

      No, you did not demonstrate any understanding of complicated words like "is."

  4. 'Refutes' or 'denies'? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did Cook actually 'refute' the conclusion, or did he just disagree with it? Those are very, very, different things.

    1. Re:'Refutes' or 'denies'? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Apple and Ireland are appealing, so I would say they are refuting it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:'Refutes' or 'denies'? by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

      Did Cook actually 'refute' the conclusion, or did he just disagree with it? Those are very, very, different things.

      I think he was arguing that Ireland is a "tax distortion zone".

    3. Re:'Refutes' or 'denies'? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The letter they posted is signed Tim Cook, and does indeed refuse the EU's claims, however it contains obvious lies of omission and seems to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of how the EU works.

      The Commissionâ(TM)s move is unprecedented and it has serious, wide-reaching implications. It is effectively proposing to replace Irish tax laws with a view of what the Commission thinks the law should have been.

      No Tim, the EU member states have all agreed on some basic ground rules for taxation so that they can have a free market without any of them gaining a competitive advantage. It's hardly a shock to anyone that the extremely advantageous tax arrangements in Ireland were incompatible and the EU has been warning Ireland of this for many years. In fact Ireland changed its laws in 2010 to block companies from doing what Apple did, and as I'm sure you are aware even Apple will have to find a new corporate structure by 2020 or start paying that tax anyway.

      The letter is pathetic. It makes out that Apple did Ireland a massive favour by opening a factory and bringing jobs, ignoring that it only did so in order to dodge billions of Euros worth of tax that rightfully belonged to the Irish people.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:'Refutes' or 'denies'? by locofungus · · Score: 3, Informative

      extremely advantageous tax arrangements in Ireland for Apple were incompatible

      FTFY.

      The problem is that Ireland didn't even charge Apple it's standard corporation tax rate that other businesses were liable for. That is state aid.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    5. Re:'Refutes' or 'denies'? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Only problem is the EU Commission has no authority to set tax rates as taxing authority is still a sovereign exercise. They've got ground rules and no way to enforce them.

    6. Re:'Refutes' or 'denies'? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      They are going to attempt to refute the ruling. Whether they refute it or not in fact depends greatly upon whether their appeal is successful.

      At any rate, Ireland's reputation for basically being a tax haven that allows cheap access to EU markets has long been established. The EU is finally getting around to fixing what amounts to a significant problem. If Ireland wants to be part of the Common Market, it needs to play by the Common Market's rules.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:'Refutes' or 'denies'? by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, "refute" has two commonly used meanings. The sense of the word that you (and I) understood was to "disprove" a claim - however, it can also be used to simply mean to "deny" a claim.

      I think it's disingenuous to say refute when you mean deny; but headline writers love their clicks.

    8. Re:'Refutes' or 'denies'? by Zxern · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Apple doesn't mind. Even if they pay it back, they still ended up with a fantastic tax deferment subsidy for years. The interest gained alone would have made it worth while.

    9. Re:'Refutes' or 'denies'? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      It's not about tax rates. It's about illegal state aid to specific companies. The EU has plenty of powers regarding these matters including anti-trust law and its in the treaties.

    10. Re:'Refutes' or 'denies'? by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      The second meaning is not contained within the word "refute" but rather "rebuke", at least in British English.

  5. Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's see.. $14.5B in tax savings... 6500 employees in Ireland...
    If they'd paid the Irish employees an average of $2.2M each, it would still not be as much as this tax bill.
    The point is, $14.5B went into Apple's pocket, and Ireland gets what out of it? 6500 measly jobs?

    1. Re:Money by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      I don't know why this was downmodded.. It puts into perspective just how insane the deal was. Ireland really got very little out of it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Money by jabuzz · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes but 6500 jobs plus the tax from profits in Ireland is better than nothing. That back tax which the EU want paying would not have been paid to the Irish government had they not given Apple the special tax deal. So the deal that Ireland cut Apple was good for Ireland. Problem for Ireland and Apple is the deal has been ruled illegal under EU state aid laws.

    3. Re:Money by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      If they are going to argue over it, they can just give me the .005%

    4. Re: Money by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Not quite. Apple have "large numbers of foreign workers".

      https://www.theguardian.com/te...

    5. Re:Money by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Thing is, the letter linked in the summary admits that Apple needed an European base of operations, so chances are they would have built one in Ireland (being a source of relatively cheap by skilled labour in the 80s) even without the tax-dodge incentive. At the very least, it would have had to have been somewhere in the EU, and back then Eastern European countries were not members (the wall was still up).

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

      While it doesn't change your point too much, you are off by an order of magnitude, since the tax is for 10+ years.

      The taxes that Ireland did get are jurisdiction shopping-- they got 1% of a very large number rather than 12.5% of a very small number. Ireland lost nothing by the arrangement, but the other EU nations did, at least in theory.

      Apple's presence in Ireland at the time of the agreement made a huge positive impact on Ireland, creating jobs at a time of a massive brain-drain and putting it on the map as a technology center. At the time of the agreement, it was a fairly balanced deal. Things are only skewed by Apple's tremendous growth over the past 10 years.

    7. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that if any other State goes for this deals soon we're back to the old days of trade wars and escalating things quickly. Precisely the reason States can set their taxes as they wish but they can't give special treatment as they see fit (as it was the case) just to poach a deal. Luxembourg did it and got caught, Ireland as well... so time to man up and face the consequences, oh and Apple isn't innocent as it would surely know that it was illegal to have special treatment from a State member (and one thing you can't say about Apple is that they don't have enough lawyers and know not about the law).

    8. Re:Money by ectoraige · · Score: 1

      That $2.2m per employee though would be over a long period, some of this dates to 1991 I think. Apple established in Ireland in 1980 with 60 employees, and ramped up to 700 within a few years, and have expanded their workforce ever since. They have been a centrepiece in the IDA's showcase trying to attract FDI which Ireland have build their economy around.

      --
      Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
    9. Re:Money by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      The bill is for eleven years and includes interest. Plus Apple did pay some taxes in Ireland, probably around a billion euros. To give you some perspective, it looks like Ireland collects around €45 billion each year in all taxes and around €7 billion in corporation tax. This €13 billion would be a substantial windfall for them.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    10. Re:Money by mrbester · · Score: 1

      EEC rules became EU rules. Ireland was in EEC before Apple was even incorporated.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    11. Re:Money by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They probably threatened to put the factory somewhere else, so Ireland thought it was a choice between getting nothing and getting 6500 jobs and a small amount of tax.

      The thing is, the EU doesn't play the "race to the bottom" game. The whole point of having a single market is that rules are harmonized and the playing field is level for everyone. No member state can offer terms like this to get business, which is ultimately bad for everyone except Apple anyway.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Money by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      At the time of the agreement, it was a fairly balanced deal. Things are only skewed by Apple's tremendous growth over the past 10 years.

      It's not balanced if you consider the impact on the whole of the EU. Ultimately what Ireland was engaged in here was a race to the bottom. Apple should have paid higher rates of tax in other countries: instead, Apple avoided tax in other EU countries, while paying a pittance in Ireland.

      Apple and Ireland benefited from the EU rules on free movement of goods and people, while not conforming to the rules that make the free movement possible.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    13. Re:Money by GNious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ireland joined the EEC, now the EU, in 1973
      Apple was CREATED in 1976

      You might want to review your statement, especially since you're basically saying that the EEC's creation in 1958 is after Apple opened an Irish branch in the 1980s.

    14. Re:Money by dasgoober · · Score: 1

      Ireland sucked Cook's cock for a tax base..

    15. Re:Money by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      If I owned a small island nation somewhere and Apple offered me $1M to have its profits (which only mean something on paper) recognized in my country I would be happy.

      I would be grateful for the $1M and the fact that $1M is small compared to $14.5B means nothing to me.

      This seems to be the same situation Ireland is in.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    16. Re:Money by cristiroma · · Score: 1

      Not really, the EU officially started in 1999 while TFA says the taxes are from 2003 to 2014.

    17. Re:Money by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Well, they got to tax 2% (instead of their common 10%) on the full Apple profit. As Apple couldn't care less about Ireland, and will move their HQ out of that sorry nation very soon when this goes through, Ireland is going to be out of a sweet few billion of tax money per year.

    18. Re:Money by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Except that Apple has a presence in multiple European countries, and there's no reason to believe that they saved much money by doing their accouning and money storage in one country instead of several, if you take the tax break out of the picture. It may be that Ireland got exactly as much as they otherwise would have, and that most of the taxes would have been paid in their Munich or Paris offices instead. If so, Ireland got those jobs in return for taking money out of the coffers of other countries—effectively free from their perspective.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:Money by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They saved a lot of money because Ireland doesn't tax profits made abroad. Profits made in other EU countries are redirected to Ireland where they pay no tax.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:Money by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      You're making a fundamental error, here.

      You can't simply offset those billions of dollars against the number of jobs. You need to look at what would have happened had Ireland not made this deal to begin with. It's fair to say that Apple would never have funneled their profits through the Irish tax haven had this deal not been in place, so the question is really "Are the 6500 jobs, plus however much actual tax revenue was collected, a greater return for Ireland than not having Apple's money in the country at all?"

      I don't know the answer to that question, and I won't speculate on the matter, but that's the calculation in play here. Claiming otherwise is either ignorance or bias.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    21. Re:Money by TooManyNames · · Score: 1

      That math should really be something more like $2.2M / number of years tax incentive was in place (since that's how the $14.5B was derived). From what I've read, this was in place since the mid-80s, so that should be $2.2M / 30. So, really, that'd be ~$73K per employee, which seems a lot less unreasonable.

      --
      "Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
    22. Re:Money by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      That's the whole point. Because that profits made abroad not being taxed was only offered to certain companies; aka ones Ireland was attracting to their shores it has been ruled illegal state aid.

  6. demands by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Funny

    The last time I was in Walmart I told them, "You can have the money for this USB flash drive or you can have the tax for it, but NOT BOTH". It didn't go so well.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  7. Sure you followed the law by houghi · · Score: 1

    And the EU just said that the Irish law was not right. And don't hide behind the people who did the dirty worrk.
    Just because your lawer says you are not guilty does not mean you are innocent.

    So apperently he hired the wrong people, because they gave him bad advice, or (more likely) they gave him good advice and he decided not to listen to the part that it might not work.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  8. Ex Post Facto Or Not by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    It's one of the more evil multinational megacorps getting hit with fees, which if done elsewhere could bankrupt it. This is great, especially love Tim Cook's crocodile tears.

    1. Re:Ex Post Facto Or Not by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      At worst it's in the averagely evil bracket. I could name a significantly more evil company for any given definition of evil. Also, have you seen Apple's cash reserves? They could take a fine this size in every major trading bloc in the world (EU, BRICS, African trade bloc that I can't remember the name of, NAFTA) and consider it cash lost down the back of the sofa.

      It's a bit over 15% of their cash reserves, not nearly enough but other EU countries will likely do the same thing shortly - it could hurt Apple pretty significantly over time along with the other multinationals getting away with it. But even if it's 15% and the EU does it with ever other multinational in the area as they stated they intend to - that's 15% off the coffers of all the old-money liberal extremists ruining society with their propaganda and brainwashing. 15% less "social justice" and "political correctness" might not be everything but damn if it won't make the life of nearly everyone reading this thread better.

  9. Re:The EU needs money desperately by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is government corruption of the highest order and for all of you high-fiving what a wonderful day this is against corporate overreach realize the EU will NOT spend this money on the people or social services but use it to further ingratiate their power base.

    It absolutely is, but it is one clinicly retarded evil globalist entity taking resources from a competent evil globalist entity. It's an overall win because the EU will piss it away on social causes, in fact if other EU states follow the same routine it could bankrupt Apple and then a whole host of issues like Apple's slave labor of highschool students in China will go away. Hopefully every multinational corporation gets hit by this stuff, giving the EU funds to piss away for a half decade or decade is a very minor evil to tolerate for the destruction of sustainable evil entities.

  10. Why should Ireland get the money? by da_guy2 · · Score: 1

    The worst part of this is all that tax money is going to go to Ireland which accounts for next to none of Apple's sales. The only winners in this are the Irish people (over $3000 per Irish citizen), everyone else loses.

    1. Re:Why should Ireland get the money? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      The worst part of this is all that tax money is going to go to Ireland which accounts for next to none of Apple's sales.

      But Apple claims lots of sales (well, lots of sales revenue) came through Ireland. The Ireland subsidiary holds the rights to trademarks, patents, etc and other divisions and subsidiaries license their use from the Irish subsidiary at exorbitant rates. This reduces the profits (and therefore taxes owed) in countries with higher rates and moves all the profit to Ireland where they were paying .005% on those profits.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Why should Ireland get the money? by iris-n · · Score: 1

      I find it unbelievable that the other EU conuntries allow this to happen. Why? it's not as if Ireland has any political/military/economic power to force the other countries to accept this rotten deal. Germany, for example, lost billions of euros in tax revenue. For nothing.

      I suspect it was Britain who was lobbying behind the scenes to keep the scam going on.

      --
      entropy happens
    3. Re:Why should Ireland get the money? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I find it unbelievable that the other EU conuntries allow this to happen.

      erm. They don't. See also: multi billion tax settlement.

      Germany, for example, lost billions of euros in tax revenue. For nothing.

      Germany could lower corporation tax to 0% and a lot of companies would switch their EU HQ to Germany.

      But how have Germany lost anything?

      Keep it at its simplest: Apple don't make phones in Germany. So every phone sold in Germany is made elsewhere and must be imported. Apple Germany don't make any phones, they buy them from Apple Sweatshops Inc.

      Apple Sweatshops Inc. charge for the raw materials, the manufacture, the testing, the design, the IP, the licences. It comes to 95% of the retail price of a phone. Apple Germany choose to run at a gross profit margin that lets them barely cover operating costs and make no profit.

      How are Germany losing out here?

      Obviously Germany could also ban transfer pricing, but that's probably in conflict with EU rules too, because it's effectively a trade barrier or tariff. Germany could demand realistic transfer pricing but that's a very subjective topic.

      Solve this one and you've got a lucrative career providing consultancy services to G8 governments.

    4. Re:Why should Ireland get the money? by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Is this a serious question? You seriously don't know how Germany is losing out? Let me spell it out for you: Apple reported 50 billion dollars revenue in Europe in 2015. Since Germany's GDP is about 20% of Europe's GDP, let's say that 20% of this revenue came from Germany (of course, Apple will not reveal the true numbers), so 10 billion dollars. I guess Apple's profit margin is a fabulous 15%, so 1.5 billion dollars. Germany's corporate tax is about 30%, which would make 450 million dollars. So this is what Germany is losing out. 450 million dollars. Every year.

      And come on, do you seriously believe that the G8 would have any difficulty in stamping out these tax scams if it wanted to? It knows Apple's revenue, and it knows Apple's expenses. The only reason it falls for this creative accounting is because it wants to. As the US just made perfectly clear, it is radically against Apple paying any tax.

      --
      entropy happens
    5. Re:Why should Ireland get the money? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Erm, no. Apple's profit margin in Germany is approximately 0%. Revenue is totally irrelevant.

      Why do you think the German operations are as profitable as those in other countries? Why should the Apple Germany subsidiary get to use IP from other companies without having to pay for it?

      Those phones aren't free. If you want to start haggling about price, welcome to the UK Government's approach.

    6. Re:Why should Ireland get the money? by iris-n · · Score: 1

      You are not actually believing Apple's fiction that its subsidiaries are separate companies with their own revenue and expenses.

      And this is not even how Apple has structured itself. There is no Apple Germany. There is a company based in Ireland, called Apple Sales International, that buys phones from the manufacturers in China, and makes payments to Apple headquarters in the US to fund R&D. When you buy an iPhone in Germany you are actually buying it directly from Apple Sales International, so there is no German revenue or profit to be talked about. Apple Sales International, on its turn, makes a healthy profit, which is taxed at less than 1% by the Irish government.

      All this legal fiction is completely irrelevant. iPhones are actually sold in Germany, and Apple does make a healthy profit from them, otherwise it wouldn't bother setting up operations there. And this profit should be taxed in Germany, as it would be if our politicians were not corrupted to the core. Instead it goes to Ireland, and from there to some tax haven in a tropical island.

      --
      entropy happens
    7. Re:Why should Ireland get the money? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I was using intentionally fake names because I can't be arsed to properly research the actual Apple corporate and tax structures.

      I do agree that the profit should be taxable where it's generated, but right now transfer pricing rules allow it to be generated in lower tax regions.

      If you don't like this, step one is to force standard corporate tax rates across the EU. Fuck it, that's only a small step towards the European superstate that's so dearly desired by Merkel and friends, as soon as the UK's out you can steam on ahead.

    8. Re:Why should Ireland get the money? by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Why is step one forcing standard corporate tax rates? This is never going to happen anyway, the EU member states will not give up their taxing authority.

      Note that this is unrelated to transfer pricing, as there is only one subsidiary involved here, Apple Sales International. What is necessary to end this scam is simply to require sales made in Germany to be reported as sales made in Germany. Very easy to do, if there is political will for it. In this way Ireland can set its corporate tax rate to zero, and it will only bankrupt itself.

      And thanks for pointing out the first positive aspect of Brexit: the UK was who was blocking every attempt of the EU to deal with corporate tax dodging. Now that they are out (politically speaking) I think we are finally going to get something done.

      --
      entropy happens
    9. Re:Why should Ireland get the money? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's an odd situation where the British government are demanding companies pay tax in the UK but not supporting some of the international changes (not just in the EU) that would help achieve that.

      On the flipside now that Corrupt Cunt Cameron has gone we might get some movement that meets the needs of the country and not his cronies.

    10. Re:Why should Ireland get the money? by iris-n · · Score: 1

      How is the British government demaning companies to pay tax in the UK? I hadn't heard of it.

      Let's see what Theresa May will do. I simply do not know whether she is corrupt or not. What I was sure was that David "my father had millions in Panama" Cameron would never do anything against tax havens.

      --
      entropy happens
  11. Reductio ad absurdum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Try considering whether it's a functional business stance to decide to have no employees by which to generate Apple's massive profits.

    While some CEO's may consider employees to be an unnecessary burden, that's the only way Cook's position can be morally valid (per Kant's Categorical Imperative, for those interested), if I can be applied fully and independently regardless of the -particular- social context affected.

    No, "you can have taxes or have jobs not both" is not a rational position. It is not possible for Apple to not "offer" (that is, retain to have a business at all) jobs. It is only possible for them to play one country against another for where those jobs will be. Governments need to collaboratively stop this or they and their citizens will be the ones paying from an Apple wishes to only take, everywhere, all the time, and ideally give absolutely nothing back, anywhere, at any time.

    But we sort of knew that already from the wholesale appropriation of BSD, er, "OS/X". Taking millions in value, giving the absolutely minimum pittance back that they can get away with.

    1. Re:Reductio ad absurdum by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Call is bluff. Where the fuck is Apple going to go China. Come on Timmy boy move to China. I think Cupertino would welcome that since you are raping their resources...

  12. What Authority ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... does the EU have over member nations' INCOME tax rates and collection policies? I know they have regulations covering the collection of VAT. But Ireland doesn't want big corporate income taxes since they are burden on growth and economic health. Ireland already has a low income tax rate on domestic profits. So what's to stop them from setting it at 1% or 0.1% and just telling the EU to mind their own business?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:What Authority ... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The central government never gets weaker. State's rights never get stronger. It's only a matter of time before the EU removes the provision allowing member states to leave.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:What Authority ... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      LMOL ok Zippy. Taxes are are in no way, shape or form, a burden on economic health. Taxes pay for government services and infrastructure. You know roads and schools and water treatment. Economic growth started heading into the toilet the past 30 years when we started cutting and cutting taxes and companies stopped investing profits into the company and started paying them out to investors beyond what they normally paid out. Businesses became myopic and focused on short term gains.

    3. Re:What Authority ... by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      None, but that's the wrong end of the stick many seem to be grasping. The EU laws are pretty clear; a member state can set its own taxes (with some constraints on levels), but they have to set them equally with no specific tax breaks for specific companies - that would be considered State Aid. Dublin basically decided to give Apple (and probably all of the others under investigation) a tax break in return for them setting up shop in Ireland instead of elsewhere in the EU, but didn't extend the tax rate to every other corporation in Ireland. (They also turned a blind eye to the huge scam of what is essentially a shell company operating on that discount tax rate and avoiding higher rate taxes elsewhere, but that's a totally separate issue for another court.) Hence they contravened EU law and the reason they are running scared and siding with Apple as the chances are pretty good that "tax break" could well turn into "bribe" as far as the Irish tax office is concerned, which could in turn potentially mean criminal prosecutions.

      And no, Apple et al don't get off the hook. That the default tax rate a lot more than what they were paying can't have failed to escape their notice (they were probably getting bonuses based on it after all), and ignorance of the law, in this case the "no company specific tax breaks" bit, is never an acceptable defence. Of course, with so much money at stake spending a few million more - chump change by comparison - on lawyers in the hope that you can get it negated, or at least reduced, on appeal is pretty much a no-brainer so Apple's position is hardly surprising.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re:What Authority ... by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      There are EU regulations about government assistance for corporations. These are in place because Europe has a single market and government subsidies for one company are the same as tariffs for everybody else. The EU thinks that Apple paying corporate tax at 1% when the official rate is 12.5% in Ireland amounts to an illegal subsidy.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    5. Re:What Authority ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      You realise that the provision to leave was enacted recently (2009), when apparently it should, according to you, be ever harder to get such a provision enacted...?

    6. Re:What Authority ... by PPH · · Score: 1

      fiscal dumping

      Do you actually have a legal definition for that? Particularly as it applies to taxes?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:What Authority ... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Define 'assistance for corporations'. As long as Ireland applies their rules and rates uniformly, are they 'assisting' anyone? Or is this an EU-wide issue? Is a country that charges less than Belgium's 34% corporate tax rate 'assisting' corporations? Because that would be a race to the bottom: Allowing the sloppiest and most inefficient governments to dictate tax and fiscal policy to the rest of the EU.

      Ireland doesn't want the money. Perhaps they want to live within their means and not hve piles of cash sitting around as a magnet for the continent's deadbeats. Its their choice and I believe they have a right to make it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:What Authority ... by PPH · · Score: 1

      no specific tax breaks for specific companies

      It's my understanding that Ireland's not collecting 'unitary' taxes on foreign earnings is uniformly available to all Irish companies. Apple Ireland (and many other companies) just happen to earn the majority of their profits from foreign sales. How many iPhones can the Irish buy?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:What Authority ... by lgw · · Score: 1

      That was contingency planning for Greece. They didn't expect a country with a real economy to leave. Bit of a furor over Brexit, after all, and talk of punishing Britain or adding incentives for other nations to stay. I won't be surprised if they just take the option off the table instead.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:What Authority ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Article 50 cannot be used to boot a member nation out of the EU, and nor does it have any link to the Euro, whereas Greeces only problem was with the Euro (it had no control over its currency, and thus had issues with its budget) - there is no corresponding Article 50 for the agreements that make up the Eurozone. Yes, while EU rules say member nations (with a few exceptions) must join the Euro, its an entirely separate set of treaties and bodies and there is no current way enshrined in treaties to leave.

      Removing Article 50 will require unanimous consent of member nations - its not being dropped any time soon.

    11. Re:What Authority ... by peppepz · · Score: 1

      Define 'assistance for corporations'.

      Having Apple pay a tax rate of 0.005%, and others pay a tax rate of 12.5%; check out the document from the EC.

      As long as Ireland applies their rules and rates uniformly

      They don't, that's the point.

      Is a country that charges less than Belgium's 34% corporate tax rate 'assisting' corporations? Because that would be a race to the bottom: Allowing the sloppiest and most inefficient governments to dictate tax and fiscal policy to the rest of the EU.

      That would be very wrong, and unsurprisingly it's not the case.

      Ireland doesn't want the money.

      Then they may accept a 0.005% tax rate from all the other companies. And probably go bankrupt. Until they do, the difference between what they effectively ask from Apple and what they need to ask from everyone else in order to provide for the needs of their citizens is a measure of the unjust sacrifice that they impose on the rest of the EU members.

      Perhaps they want to live within their means and not hve piles of cash sitting around as a magnet for the continent's deadbeats. Its their choice and I believe they have a right to make it.

      Ireland is receiving more money from the EU than they give, each year. Portraying them as the source and the rest of the EU as the sink is a complete overturn of reality.

    12. Re:What Authority ... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Define 'assistance for corporations'. As long as Ireland applies their rules and rates uniformly, are they 'assisting' anyone?

      They don't, Apple had their own special deal with the Irish government.

      Perhaps they want to live within their means and not hve piles of cash sitting around as a magnet for the continent's deadbeats.

      When Ireland joined the EU they were the deadbeat. They didn't live within their own means, they were given money by other EU countries, and used that to lower taxes to steal business from them.

      With ignorance like this, I'm guessing you're American?

    13. Re:What Authority ... by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they're doing that too. That's the "shell company" issue I mentioned in the first paragraph, but it's not something that was addressed by the current EU finding - they've just been driving all those other iThings from across the whole of the EU (and maybe elsewhere too?) as sales that appear to be from Ireland so they can "legally" pay their taxes in Dublin at sub-1% rates instead of the normal corporate tax rates in the countries in question. Basically, the amount covers tax owed on *all* those iThings that have been processed through Ireland, so in other words Dublin gets to claim the tax on *all* the goods Apple has sold across the EU, not just in Ireland.

      The only reason I can see that a country in such marginal financial straits as Ireland would not be all over that deal and sending the bailiffs around to Apple's offices first thing the following day is that some senior figures were fully complicit in the deal, including knowing that it was in blatent breach of EU legislation, and are now terrified that it's going to come out and they are going to end up going to jail.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    14. Re:What Authority ... by PPH · · Score: 1

      As long as Ireland applies their rules and rates uniformly

      They don't, that's the point.

      http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-microsoft-avoids-taxes-loopholes-irs-2013-1

      Old game. Many multinationals play it to one extent or another. No special 'deals' needed.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    15. Re:What Authority ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on *completely* misunderstanding the post, and not reading the post it was a reply to. Im not sure how you could misunderstand it that badly either...

    16. Re:What Authority ... by robsku · · Score: 1

      No thanks, can't see anything good coming from that (...kind of ideas, and comparing different countries with mostly capitalist economies with varying levels of a) market regulation, and b) socialized public institutions/services, it seems to me that the less a country has and does either one of the two the worse that country fares on:
      * healthcare accessibility and quality on average (and the price of it - I don't get why even selfish sociopath, in fact especially such person, would want to pay more for healthcare to make sure his healthcare spending isn't going for anyone else but his healthcare).
      * safety from a) criminal activity and b) police brutality
      * general level of education
      * general feeling of content, satisfaction and happiness on average
      * etc. etc.
      I know that's a gross oversimplification, but whether one disagrees or agrees with it the act of pretending not understanding what I mean and acting like I meant something else just makes a person seem dumb, so please for your own sake everyone, consider not doing so (I know it's the long lasting trend on internet).

      Also, while it may seem at first that those on the top of the material wealth pyramid might be able to nullify any and all such effects to their own life, I don't think even that is really true anyway - all their money is at least good for keeping them from seeing what they are missing out on. Just like the loved leader (pun intended) of North Korea, I'm sure his feeling like king of the world and he don't really have to worry about not affording something, but really I'm sure that anyone can see how much of stuff that actually matters he must be missing out on when compared to any average upper middle-class citizen in Europe, US or Japan (for example).

      And I don't think all the time I've spent on writing all this here is worth it, for whose opinion is it going to change?
      Still, I rather not go with the dog-eat-dog kind of system you're proposing and rather go with system where everyone is expected to chip in for the general good of the people, as it's compatible with natural human behavior - I do believe it's not only more ethical, but in general it's results are better for upper as well as lower classes, business owners as well as working class, everyone except maybe the 1% and even for those the only way it's not better for them is money wise, which really doesn't matter for them unless they insist on sticking with the mental delusion that the amount of unnecessary money and power is worth anything.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    17. Re:What Authority ... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      As long as Ireland applies their rules and rates uniformly, are they 'assisting' anyone?

      Except they don't, they have a special tax break for Apple. Do you even RTFA before embarrassing yourself on the internet?

  13. Irish Government by NaiveBayes · · Score: 1

    "Over the years, we received guidance from Irish tax authorities on how to comply correctly with Irish tax law" The Irish financial regulator once supported people from AIB bank to do a fund raising scheme that was ultimately determined to be completely illegal. Mightn't want to always trust the Irish government.

  14. Tit for tat by petes_PoV · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The american government fines european companies billions (BP, Volkswagen). Now the EU has started fining american companies in return.

    It seems fair.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Tit for tat by GNious · · Score: 1

      Time-lines does not align with your suggestion.

  15. Re:Fine Ireland, not Apple by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    Ah the Apple trolls are out in force today.

  16. Re:The EU needs money desperately by jabuzz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Funnelling the sales through Ireland was not illegal.

    What was illegal was Ireland giving Apple a special tax deal where they only needed to pay tax on profits generated in Ireland, so all the profits from sales in the rest of the EU where tax free. EU has now decided that this is against the state aid rules. Had every firm in Ireland had the same tax deal it would not have been illegal.

    So while Mr. Cook is claiming that they complied with Irish law and may well be right, this is utterly irrelevant to whether they broke EU laws.

  17. Corporate welfare by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    It amazes me how a company, sitting on as much cash as Apple has tucked away (i.e., appx $200Billion), still needs to be the beneficiary of corporate welfare.

    1. Re:Corporate welfare by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Needs to? No. Wants to? It's the epitome of the "I've got mine, fuck you" attitude.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Corporate welfare by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Also, pressuring the poorest workers in China to deliver products even cheaper.

  18. EU wins... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple CEO Tim Cook said, "... Apple follows the law and we pay all the taxes we owe."

    Yes, and the EU's law just said you owe 14 billion. Pay and quit whining about it - maybe if Apple had pulled its profits back into the US, they wouldn't be having these issues.

    --
    That is all.
  19. Re:The EU needs money desperately by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 2

    You got things mixed up. By paying 0.05 percent taxes on their profits, Apple and Ireland have cut out a deal in which they basically refuse to pay their rent.

    Apple in Ireland is enjoying Irish infrastructure and services like roads, power, water supply, bridges, security, fire department assistance, etc. And since Ireland is/was one of the poorest countries in the EU, it's more than likely quite a bit of that infrastructure and services was financed with the help of EU money.

    And for all of this Apple pays 0.05% of their profits.
    It's Apple and Ireland enjoying all the perks of the EU and giving nothing back in return.

  20. We have stop the race to the bottom. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    "Profits made in Ireland" "profit due to sales in EU" are all really meaningless. Apple A sells something to Apple B. It can price it such that A makes 100% of the profit or vice versa or any percentage it chooses. We do not want governments to enact laws, regulation about these internal details. Enforcement will be difficult, and compliance will be too onerous to the companies.

    What USA says is, "don't care who makes the profit where. Your total tax burden can not be below this threshold. Pay this much tax to any jurisdiction you choose, using whatever law/accounting practice you want. If all the taxes paid to all the foreign governments do not add up to this threshold, you owe the rest to US government".

    This is a very logical, clean, simple effort to derail the race to the bottom. But industry spins it as "US government taxes world wide income! Onerous, We don't owe US government for profits made outside USA!" No USA does not really want to tax profits made abroad. USA just wants to make sure you don't play one country against another to reduce your tax burden. We just don't want you to game the system. Pay X% as tax to any government you choose.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:We have stop the race to the bottom. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      "Profits made in Ireland" "profit due to sales in EU" are all really meaningless. Apple A sells something to Apple B. It can price it such that A makes 100% of the profit or vice versa or any percentage it chooses. We do not want governments to enact laws, regulation about these internal details. Enforcement will be difficult, and compliance will be too onerous to the companies.

      Yes, we do. Enforcement and compliance is easy: Apple A (in the US) and Apple B (Ireland) are both divisions of the world-wide Apple corporation. Apple A does the design work and Apple B owns necessary patents, trademarks, etc. Apple A just paid $10 billion to license the "Apple" name from Apple B for the year. Congratulations, Apple A just imported a good valued at $10 billion, now pay a duty of 30% (since it's imported from Ireland which is a known tax haven), for a total of $3 billion.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Re: The EU needs money desperately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not a fine but back taxes.

    If there was any corruption, it was within the Irish government for breaking EU laws, with the possible knowledge and collusion of Apple and their tax lawyers and accountants

  23. Re:The EU needs money desperately by unixisc · · Score: 2

    How is the Irish government breaking their own law? They have the right to determine their taxation levels for companies they're trying to attract. Now, in the WTO, some members might think it unfair how they managed to get Apple to prefer them over other countries, but aside from that, Ireland i.e. the Irish people, or at least the Irish employees of Apple who get to be employed there as a result of Apple being in Ireland, have a lot to gain!

  24. Re:Proves that Brexit was the right call by gmack · · Score: 1

    Apple would never have even considered this deal if Ireland had not been a part of the EU. The reason the EU has these rules is that once you are inside the Eurozone, there are restrictions on how much anyone but your home country can tax you and they have a right to be pissed that Apple redirected all of it's EU profits to Ireland and then payed almost no tax.

  25. Re:Proves that Brexit was the right call by jabuzz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    More Brexiter nonsense and ignorance.

    Ireland could only make that attractive deal with Apple because they where in the EU. The deal is that Apple don't have to pay tax on profits generated in the EU outside Ireland in exchange for setting your headquarters up in Ireland. If you are outside the EU you can't offer that tax deal because "tax passporting" aka a firm in the EU only has to pay tax on the profits in the EU in theq country it is head quartered would not be possible.

    So while Apple was compliant with the tax laws of Ireland, Ireland by giving a special deal to Apple was breaking EU state aid rules and the EU commission has every right in the world to poke their noses in.

    Apple is wrong, the guidance of Dublin is all well and good, but that does not get you out of EU state aid rules, and they should have checked.

  26. Re:The EU needs money desperately by mrbester · · Score: 1

    They've already come for me as I pay 35% tax. Now it's Apple's turn. So I'll fucking high-five if I want to.

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  27. Re: Ireland should pay, not Apple by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    Ireland should pay

    If you read the actual story, it will tell you that the EU is insisting Apple pays the unpaid tax to Ireland

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  28. Re:Talk about circular logic by jabuzz · · Score: 2

    Thing is he probably believes the shit he wrote as well as voting leave. The level of ignorance and lack of understanding amoung Brexiters is truly staggering.

  29. Re:The EU needs money desperately by jabuzz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Irish government are a member of a club that has rules, and they where breaking the rules of that club. Ireland could just leave the club if they wished, but then the illegal deal they gave Apple would not have been possible. While in the club they need to abide by the rules of the club. That club of course being the EEC/EU.

  30. Re:Talk about circular logic by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Then the EU needs to tell Apple how much tax to pay those countries where they made their sales - be it France, Belgium, Italy, et al. If Apple sat w/ Ireland and worked out any deal, they were well within their rights. If in the process, they were screwing other EU member states, then that's b/w EU, Apple and those states, not Ireland!

  31. Apple's home by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Apple's home country is Ireland? Funny, I just checked out their web site, and 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino - just off the 280 - is still their corporate headquarters address

  32. Re:For the Yanks who are confused. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In other words; European nations aren't sovereign.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  33. Re:The EU needs money desperately by GNious · · Score: 1

    You might want to go back and read stuff ... This is the EC finding that Ireland failed to uphold international tax agreements, based on investigations started in 2014

    - EU is not robbing Apple
    - This is not related to UK's #BreakShit in any ways what-so-ever
    - Margrethe Vestager is not a timelord who recently went back in time to force Joaquín Almunia to start an investigation against Ireland

  34. Re:The EU needs money desperately by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    whether they broke EU laws.

    There is no such thing. This is why people talking about the EU just don't get it. Ground rules were established on tax rates and deficits but all taxing authority was retained as a sovereign exercise and the EC has no authority over it. This is the primary reason people in the economic community have been predicting the death of the EU since it's foundation and they pointed at Greece as a prime example and now they have another in this Ireland issue.

    The EC has no authority over Irish tax rates, rules or collection policy. None. Just like they don't have any over Denmark or Lichtenstein who also put in sweetheart tax deals that fucked over everyone in the EU but them. Until there is a change in the EU charter to give them authority all they can do is nothing, they have no authority and they have no way to punish Ireland for failing to comply with their illegal order.

  35. Re:The EU needs money desperately by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    No there's no equivalence, it's like a clinically retarded evil gorilla in a world of ants stomping on competent evil ant, because he's an ant not because he's evil. The former can destroy the world, in which the latter is but a role player. Seriously. It's fucking Europe against a company.

    It's all about a cut. A continental gangster. Be afraid.

    In your analogy it would me much more akin to the retarded evil gorilla stomping on a colony of ants existing in a parasitic relationship with the other ants but a symbiotic relationship with a large number of the bannana trees available to the gorilla. Does it help the other ants? No. Will the retarded evil gorilla keep stomping on ants? Yes, until he stomps on all the ants otherwise protecting the bannana trees and starves to death himself. Retarded evil gorillas cannot subsist on ants alone, they need bannanas.

  36. Re:The EU needs money desperately by Hevel-Varik · · Score: 1

    that was pretty cool.

  37. Re:The EU needs money desperately by imgod2u · · Score: 1

    The Irish government is breaking EU guidance. I'm not sure what legal powers and/or consequences the EU has about that but one of the principles of such guidance is to prevent member states from racing to the bottom with their tax laws and thus giving away bargaining power.

  38. Votes, not money by perpenso · · Score: 1

    I don't know why this was downmodded.. It puts into perspective just how insane the deal was. Ireland really got very little out of it.

    The currency of politics is votes, not money. Bring jobs to your constituents is one of the most effective ways to get those votes.

    Plus its more than 6,500 jobs. Money fans out into a community and supports many other jobs as workers spend it.

    1. Re:Votes, not money by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      6500 jobs is not worth $14.5 billion. 6500 jobs is a drop in the bucket. You could easily support more than 6500 families for their entire lifetimes with that much money.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Votes, not money by perpenso · · Score: 1

      6,500 jobs leads to the perception of being a job creator and can keep a politician in political office, or get them a better political office. Votes are even more important to politicians than money.

    3. Re:Votes, not money by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Without the tax incentives Apple wouldn't have put their HQ in Ireland though. So the $14.5bn would've gone elsewhere - Luxembourg, perhaps.

  39. Re:Ireland should pay, not Apple by GNious · · Score: 1

    Apple and Ireland in 2003 entered into an agreement that both should have known is not in compliance with Ireland's pre-existing agreements with the EEC/EU.

    The EC told Ireland to correct this, and collect outstanding taxes from Apple.

    If Ireland refuses, they can be fined (has happened to other countries), or better, removed from the Common Market (never happened, arguably not a likely step).
    If Ireland proceeds to try and collect, and Apple refuses, this is a matter between Ireland and Apple, at least until Ireland requests that the rest of the EU seize Apple property to make up for the outstanding taxes.

  40. Timmy Get Kick To The Nuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ha ha ha.

    Timmy Cook deserves every kick to his nuts.

    Sweet!

    And $1 Billion for each of the U.S. Citizens he murdered in San Berdadino last year with his two ISIS children who pulled the trigger.

    Ha ha

  41. Re:Proves that Brexit was the right call by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Proves that the UK was right in deciding to go the Brexit route, and that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - despite their reservations - would be better off.

    No, not really.

    Now the EU comes in and rules that the tax exemptions that Ireland gave Apple are illegal?

    Yes, because Ireland agreed with the other EU states that they wouldn't do that as part of a trade agreement.

    his is precisely why there are so many who think that leaving the EU is the right choice.

    Yes and those people are stupid because leaving the EU doesn't give you the magic ability to violate trade agreements with no consequences.

    no capability of addressing the real needs of the citizens of Europe - namely being safe from 'terrorists'

    I am safe from terrorists. We have an amortized annual death rate sue to terrorism of about 6 people per year in the UK which is about double the rate of people killed by lightning strikes, and an order of magnitude less likely than being killed by a falling object and two orders of magnitude less likely than dying as a result of falling down the stairs. You're 3 times as likely to drown in the bath as you are being killed by a terrorist. On the other hand, you're more likely being killed by a terrorist than you are to be stung to death by bees, wasps or hornets (aggregated), by about a factor of two.

    The numbers simply do not support a fear of terrorism.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  42. "Gimme Some Irish Engineers On This Project NOW!" by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    ...said no project manager, anywhere, ever.

  43. Click bait headline! by flacjac · · Score: 1

    There is no order to pay anything. It is just a directive from EC to Ireland that their deal with Apple is illegal and Ireland should collect "back taxes" from Apple at a rate the EC has determined. It is up to the Irish government to decide how to proceed. This will most likely end up as an appeal and get dismissed silently (like Amazon and Starbucks) or may be with a very small penalty. The statutes that provide tax benefits might change but other incentives would be used to provide the same benefits (as done by Luxembourg and the Netherlands). Or in the worst case, Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg could threaten to exit the union. ;-)

    For the general folks that are holding euros, watch the forex rates carefully for the next few months. Italy is calling !

    EC press release : - http://europa.eu/rapid/press-r...

    1. Re:Click bait headline! by admiral+snackbar · · Score: 1

      There is in principal no difference between this ruling and earlier rulings againt Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg. Its just bigger. And no, they were not dismissed. In my opinion Ireland and Apple brought this on themselves. If Ireland wants Apple to pay only 0,05% in taxes, fine. All Ireland has to do is lower the statutory rate to that level. But you can't set a 12.5% rate and then give sweetheart deals to big multinationals. That is simply illegal in the EU. Setting a general rate of 0.05% is legal.

  44. Re:Proves that Brexit was the right call by iris-n · · Score: 5, Informative

    You are apparently completely ignorant of what Apple's tax arrangement was. Please read the statement of the European Comission.

    To spell it out: Ireland was charging Apple the 12.5% tax on sales made in Ireland. The sales made in the rest of Europe were not taxed. At all. So Ireland was simply robbing the other EU countries of their tax money. Stopping this scam is precisely what we need the EU comission to do.

    And you think exiting the EU would be the proper answer to this? Go ahead, please. Let's see how Apple likes to stay in Ireland without access to the European market.

    --
    entropy happens
  45. Re:countries are no more? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    If they want to be part of the European Common Market, they have to abide by the rules all the members, including Ireland, agreed to. If Ireland wishes to go its own way, it can invoke Article 50 like Britain has. Of course, that would likely mean companies like Apple and Microsoft would move their European headquarters, because the real reason that Ireland and these companies struck up these rather favorable tax deals was because they could gain access to the Common Market while gaining a very advantageous tax rate from being taxed in Ireland, rather than, say, Britain or Germany.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  46. Tim Cook: Meet consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The company is helmed by an uber-leftist who supports all the usual left-wing suspects in politics and all the usual left-wing policies, which include all that "tax the rich", "pay their 'fair share'", and "corporations are NOT people" rhetoric. He simultaneously keeps his corporate power doing what all these left-leaning super-rich CEOs do: dodging all the taxes they can so that all the burdens of the welfare states they back fall upon the middle class workers while the wealthy live a life of ease off the untaxed wealth of these businesses.

    It's all a fraud. These people like Mr Cook do NOT support higher taxes on the rich to pay for goodies for the poor - they, and the politicians they back, support higher taxes on the middle class and reduced opportunities for the middle class to make things very slightly better for the refugees they shift from country to country while they themselves use walls and armed security and private planes to hide from all the societal devestation they create.

    Guess what, Timbo?

    Sooner or later, the people get tired of the charade that only makes the rich richer and the middle class poorer.

    Oh, and all those liberal politicians you back love your products, but they love their jobs even more, so when their welfare states inevitably need more cash they're gonna be forced to choose between you and their jobs...... and they'll choose their jobs.

  47. Re:For the Yanks who are confused. by lastman71 · · Score: 1

    Confused? Well they live in the United State of America, they should know better.

  48. Re:For the Yanks who are confused. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    It's not like a treaty, it IS a treaty. The ECC has been around in one form or another for nearly sixty years, and the whole point of the common market is to allow the free flow of goods and services between member states. That requires rules to deal with member states who try to gain unfair advantage by, say, granting large multinationals absurdly low tax rates, and, once they've set up shop, can now gain access to the entire Common Market.

    I'm not clear what critics are objecting to here. Are they saying nations should be able to just ignore treaty provisions which they willingly and freely signed up for whenever they want? Are critics saying that other signatories to said treaties have no right to demand redress?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  49. Re:The EU needs money desperately by skoskav · · Score: 1

    EU does indeed have laws. This order is based on a violation of anti-competitive law because a specific company was favored, as the Dublin webshop down the street had to pay the full 12.5% corporate tax.

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., specifically Article 107 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal....

  50. Re:The EU needs money desperately by drsquare · · Score: 1

    This is total bullshit. They can set whatever corporation tax they like, and it isn't a fine.

  51. Re:The EU needs money desperately by drsquare · · Score: 1

    They have authority over state aid, which includes tax breaks. Get with the program.

  52. Re:"Gimme Some Irish Engineers On This Project NOW by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Ayup. I don't even know anybody that knows anybody that is an Irish engineer.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  53. Isn't this really Ireland's problem not Apple's? by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

    It seems the problem was Ireland's offer and Apple's acceptance of this incredibly generous tax agreement. It's a bit late for the EU to step in and try to retroactively rewrite the actions of a member state, while handing the bill to a company that negotiated in good faith, thinking they were dealing with a government that had the authority to regulate its own taxes.

    That said, the business of foreign tax havens is extremely common throughout the corporate world. It's one of the most successful tax dodges on the planet. Worst of all, it encourages hoarding of cash in low-tax countries, which does nothing to help the economy in countries where products were sold and profit was earned. As much as I'd like to see the corporate tax havens disappear, that's not going to happen.

  54. Re:Not Apple's responsibility to police Ireland by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Of course, it's far /easier/ for the EU to try to punish Apple, as they really don't want to engender any more centrifugal forces in the EU right now by whomping Ireland with a $15bn invoice.

    That wouldn't make any sense either.

    Apple benefitted to the tune of $15bn over other companies by making a deal illegal under EU Law. It's Apple that owes the money. And the only people they owe it too are Ireland. The EU demanding money from Ireland wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense.

    Ireland agreed in principle to collect that tax as a condition of entering the free market. Now the EU is reminding them of the agreement.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  55. Re:End of euro? by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 2

    Apple has not paid all taxes as per the law in Ireland. They paid taxes according to a special deal with the Irish government. Such a special deal has been found to be equivalent to state aid. This is illegal in the EU. So the deal is null and void. Apple now has to pay all taxes as per the law in Ireland.

  56. Re:Wow... by Cederic · · Score: 1

    0.005% is half a percent of one percent.

    It's like paying $4 in tax on a $80k salary. Shit, if I had a tax rate like that it'd save me hundreds a year.

  57. Re:Most likely no "special deals". by Cederic · · Score: 1

    The EU isn't trying to get Irish income taxes. The EU is mandating that Ireland complies with its treaty obligations not to provide state subsidies.

    some welfare states in the EU

    ..like Ireland? Net recipient of EU funds almost every year.

    It's not that EU members want $14.5 Billion. They just want it taken from Apple as a lesson that they can't hide.

    You appear to lack basic reading comprehension, and have a very malignant and malformed view of reality.

    Just why are you so vitriolic towards the EU requesting one of its members not to break the treaty they signed?

  58. Re:US response by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Curious. What the fuck does this have to do with the US?

    Incidentally, this is Slashdot and not Facebook. You're allowed to have adult conversations here.

  59. Re:Not Apple's responsibility to police Ireland by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

    Apple is not being fined. It was found that Ireland was giving Apple an illegal state subsidy. Apple has to pay it back. Ireland is the one that is possibly facing fines.

  60. Re:In other news by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Better to keep it in the EU, just set a national corporation tax rate at close to 0 and implement generous rules on what can be offset against it.

  61. Re:Isn't this really Ireland's problem not Apple's by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

    How do you suggest the EU would deal with this proactively? Every tax deal that any country makes needs to go through Brussels first to be approved?

    Ireland has been warned time and time again that these shenanigans are against existing treaties. That the actual legal proceedings take time is a given and any good lawyer would have known that this is a possible outcome. Apple has good lawyers: they knew this was either illegal or borderline legal according to EU treaties and took their chances.

  62. Re:For the Yanks who are confused. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Who is confused? American states are not sovereign, neither are EU members.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  63. To all the tax dodgers by originalGMC · · Score: 1

    Leaving tax burden on the working poor (your CUSTOMERS) is such a dick move. Pay your damn taxes.

  64. EU assails Apple with tax claim by RobertJon · · Score: 1

    Dislike Apple as much as the next sentient creature. But the EU is way out of bounds. Apple has followed the law; Ireland is protesting bureaucrats in Brussels, and the dirigistes will get smacked down in due course. Here's how to think about it - nations compete just as much as individuals and corporations. A low-tax, low benefit state competes on the merits with a high tax, high benefit state. People can vote in elections for what they prefer, and vote with their feet if that doesn't work. The only loser in that situation is the high-tax BUT low benefit state. And that's the EU. The bullies in Brussels lose on the merits and so try to squash the competition. That's too bad. It's only the competition that keeps the politicos and hacks in any sort of control.

    1. Re:EU assails Apple with tax claim by admiral+snackbar · · Score: 1

      Apple may have followed the law, Ireland has not. Apple is not getting fined by the EU, Ireland is told it collected too few taxes, and they have to collect them after all. Its a matter of tax fairness. Countires cannot offer sweetheart deals to individual companies. The EU slapped the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg earlier, and now its Irelands turn. This cannot have come as a huge surprise to Apple, considering the precedents.

    2. Re:EU assails Apple with tax claim by RobertJon · · Score: 1

      That is incorrect, my MonCalamari friend. This is clear from the word "fairness", There is nothing unfair about Ireland's tax rate, nor has the EU been able to bully Ireland to raise. Ireland has had the same tax rate for many years now. Failing on the direct assault, EU now claims that low taxes in general are "subsidies.' No, low taxes are sound public policy for Ireland. IF that sound public policy embarrasses Brussels, too bad. The EU cannot torture the concept of market competition to abuse Ireland. In fact, what the EU seeks is protectionism for the high tax states, freedom from competition by more efficient and less greedy countries. Protectionism bad for industries, just as it is bad for states. Abd "unfair" is when the EU subsidizes Airbus, or when the Export-Import bank subsidizes Boeing, or when the US taxpayers subsidize ethanol. That's unfairness for you, not Ireland doing its best for Irish workers.

    3. Re:EU assails Apple with tax claim by admiral+snackbar · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I worded it not carefully enough. Ireland is free to set its tax rate as low as it wants. The complaint is not that the tax rate is too low, but that it did not correctly apply it to Apple, letting Apple pay much less taxes. Its almost the equivalent of setting a VAT rate for Apple Iphones of 5%, and setting it for Samsung at 25%. That is unfair. If Ireland wanted so little corporate income tax from Apple, it had a very simple solution. Lower the statutory rate. If Ireland wants to set a statutory rate of 0.005%, the European Commission can do nothing. But if Ireland sets a rate of 12.5%, it should impose that rate on all companies, not just the small ones and letting Apple or other big companies off with a sweetheart deal. It's very simple: If you want low taxes, lower the statutory rate. If you want high taxes, increase the statutory rate. Stop with all the bullshit special rules and special fiscal regimes for companies that try to find loopholes. Because this is what you get. And I applaud the European Commission for doing this, because even if they fail in this case, in the long run, the legal uncertainty they create helps combat this stupid practice by national governments and the companies that exploit them.

    4. Re:EU assails Apple with tax claim by RobertJon · · Score: 1

      First, thank you for engaging! I could not agree with you more about tax manipulations by governments. Tax Peter to pay Paul soon gets Peter pissed off. So governments raise rates on all but give unequal deductions to hide the redistribution. BUT if you pursue equity you must come to court with clean hands. EU is as dirty as they come. Apple sets not one but two high hurdles for the weasels in Brussels. FIRST prove that something was available to some firms but not others. SECOND then show how Ireland is acting any differently than the EU itself. See for example http://www.forbes.com/sites/lo... See, EU wants "flexibility" in its own dealings but not have to face competition from others. "It's not cronyism when WE do it..."

    5. Re:EU assails Apple with tax claim by admiral+snackbar · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt that the EU will be hypocrits with regards to applying their own policies and their judgement of others. Hopefully the WTO will sort this out. But still, IMO that is irrelevant for the Apple case. Just like in the US you can't complain that the government has no business prosecuting X because unrelated person or company Y in a different case got away with it too, or that it's ok if you bribe a US government official because the US government bribed government officials of other countries. As for the proof something was available to some companies but not others, I think the European Commission will not find it too difficult to prove it. They can just subpoena all the tax rulings the Irish tax office has made in the past decade or so. They have made similar demands of many member states in the past. Example: https://www.ft.com/content/6fc...

  65. Soylent Purple by baristabrian · · Score: 1

    Yeah, what we *really* need is a Special Olympics for *all* businesses whereby they are *all* handicapped (always need *more* taxes, right? gotta keep up with exponentially increasing gubmint waste and inefficiency) to the same degree. >> Or, better yet, the "State" come in and take over *all* the businesses. >> Have to make it "fair" for *everybody!* >> It won't be "fair" until we are *all* eating Soylent Purple. >> Yes, there will *still* be the evil "rich" people and (probably) a "One Percent," but ... at least the playing field with be "level" and nobody will have "unfair advantages," right? >> Dolts. >> Enjoy your Soylent Purple. >> HINT: Big Government is my enemy, not Apple >> HINT TWO: All you ignorant fucks ranting about "raise taxes" on the "rich?" Fucking retards, they're coming for *you* because (in a world where the Gubmint spends more and more and more and becomes more centralized—as in GLOBAL) eventually, *you* are seen as rich because you do—in fact—have much more wealth than most people. That's right, libtards, we want *your* money because, well, you have *more* than us and people like I (poor and homeless for most of the past 17 years. >> HINT THREE: It's just not "fair" that you have more than I do (whether you get paid what you *think* you "deserve" or not) ... $400-700 a month.

    --
    -- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
    1. Re:Soylent Purple by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Come on, are you even trying to make a proper argument? If you want to be taken seriously, you could try writing without all this ALL CAPS and *starts* and this weird structure >> you just sound like a raving lunatic.

      --
      entropy happens
    2. Re:Soylent Purple by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I marked you off as TL;DR just on form alone and assumed you're an idiot due to your weird paragraph structure.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
  66. So, not taking is the same as giving by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Good to know, EU.

    They're out to give Wickard v. Filburn a run for its money, looks like.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  67. Re:The EU needs money desperately by robsku · · Score: 1

    God, please do the latter one already!

    --
    In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  68. Re:Fine Ireland, not Apple by robsku · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing you also believe that apple went with this deal in good faith.

    --
    In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  69. Re:Just move the jobs to Northern Ireland by robsku · · Score: 1

    You really know everything about this case, don't you? Like, why it's really good idea to try and do what they did in Ireland from non-EU country instead, LOL :D

    --
    In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  70. Prevention is better by NewYork · · Score: 1

    1. Tax Corporation Revenues, Not Profits;
    2. Regulate Market Capitalization of Corporations;

  71. Re:The EU needs money desperately by robsku · · Score: 1

    Fuck Off troll. Considering all reports say the UK fucked itself pulling out of the EU

    What "all reports"? I bet you've been reading articles that supports your own views again, haven't you?

    Because, what I've read is only confirming what everyone, never mind what camp of long term results they belong, said already before the vote: that on short term it will cost UK to leave EU. The long term results are still only speculation, and while I do have an opinion about it I also acknowledge that we don't actually know for sure how it will play out for UK. You neither, and there are no reports that prove what will happen either - not ones that you should take seriously anyway. Now speculations/theories, that's a different thing, and no, there is no agreement between different analysts there.

    Sorry for poor English - and I mean my writing :D

    --
    In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  72. Re:Most likely no "special deals". by PPH · · Score: 1

    the EU requesting one of its members not to break the treaty they signed?

    How did they break it? The claim of the EU regulator is that Ireland gave Apple a special subsidy. In reality, this provision of their tax code is available to ANY company doing business in Ireland. And has been for years. Microsoft has taken advantage of it (my next door neighbor works for the R&D division involved in this), as have a number of drug companies. Apple has just been more aggressive than most and as a result, profited more from it.

    have a very malignant and malformed view of reality.

    I have corporate tax attorneys in my family who are very familiar with this loophole.

    Just why are you so vitriolic towards the EU

    Because I'm in favor of the rule of law rather than a kleptocracy that goes after someone just because they realized a bigger gain.

    Here's the thing: IF it can be shown in the appropriate court that Ireland broke some treaty by implementing tax code the way that they did, Apple broke no laws. They complied fully with Irish regulations, according to Cook. So, until the EU can demonstrate that laws have been broken, Apple should owe zero. And even then, if it turns out that the Irish government violated a treaty, unless Apple can be shown to have persuaded them to do so, they (Apple) owe zero. Aside from that, the beef that the EU regulator has is with Ireland, not Apple.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  73. Re:Not Apple's responsibility to police Ireland by robsku · · Score: 1

    It's not Apple's job to ensure Ireland's offer is in conformance with EU policy. That's it. It's a company's duty to its shareholders to legally reduce its tax burden; by making an agreement with a GOVERNMENT, they fulfilled their role completely.

    After all the unethical stuff done by corporations I've seen defended and justified by someone with the same tired argument, every time I see it the more I'm thinking that corporations should be outlawed as unethical by nature, seeing that apparently they have a legal obligation to their shareholders to participate in unethical practices.

    --
    In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  74. Re:Most likely no "special deals". by Cederic · · Score: 2

    If (as Ireland and Apple claim) there hasn't been any special treatment then there is no subsidy and the regulator will get overruled.

    a kleptocracy

    As I said, malformed and malignant. You're making shit up, projecting motivations and overlaying your own warped viewpoint on the facts. The regulator believes there has been a transgression of agreed rules, and has responded by identifying a correction mechanism. Where's the fucking theft?

    So, until the EU can demonstrate that laws have been broken, Apple should owe zero

    At this moment in time the regulator has ruled that the laws have been broken, and so Apple do owe the money that they have retained due to the illegal subsidy.

    An appeal is almost certain, and a court will rule. At that point it may be determined that there is no illegal subsidy and at that point Apple will owe nothing. We haven't yet reached that point but surely this is the simple rule of law you're demanding?

    if it turns out that the Irish government violated a treaty, unless Apple can be shown to have persuaded them to do so, they (Apple) owe zero

    If the Irish Government have illegally subsidised a company then that subsidy should be reversed.

    If I steal a car and sell it to you for a bag of peanuts, are you saying that you should be allowed to keep it, because you didn't steal it?

    Laws in this country disagree with you. The EU disagree with you. Shit, Ireland disagrees with you; their claim is that the law wasn't broken.

  75. Re:Most likely no "special deals". by PPH · · Score: 1

    Ireland disagrees with you; their claim is that the law wasn't broken.

    But we keep jumping back and forth between Irish law not being in compliance with EU treaty and Apple breaking a law. The Irish say that Apple didn't and their regulators and courts are sovereign in this case. If the Irish tax code is judged to be out of compliance with EU treaties, then that's an issue between Ireland and the EU.

    When our federal government implemented a national 55 MPH speed limit, some states resisted the change. The only thing the feds could do was to withhold federal funds from states. There was no way they could force the states to issue speeding tickets for 70 in a 55 zone when the states maintained the higher speed limit.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  76. Re:Most likely no "special deals". by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Not at all. If Apple accepted an illegal subsidy then they've clearly misbehaved.

    Irish law is irrelevant here; it's availability and applicability to all companies is the issue.

  77. Re:The EU needs money desperately by drsquare · · Score: 1

    They can suspend them from the EU. This kills the Ireland.