Slashdot Mirror


Apple CEO Tim Cook on EU Apple Tax Case: 'Total Political Crap' (arstechnica.com)

Earlier this week, Apple was ordered to pay a record sum of 13 billion euros plus interest after the EU said Ireland illegally slashed the iPhone make's tax bill. At the time, Tim Cook found the accusations "baseless." In a new interview, he had more things to say:A war of words has erupted between Europe's competition chief and Apple CEO Tim Cook after Ireland was ordered to reclaim $14.5 billion in back taxes from the company. Cook, in an interview with the Irish Independent, labelled Brussels' competition chief Margrethe Vestager's decision as "total political crap." He claimed Ireland was being "picked on" and that he hoped to see the Irish government launch an appeal against the ruling. Vestager refuted that claim when quizzed by reporters on Thursday. "This is a decision based on the facts of the case. The figures that we used in our decision are the figures that we got from Apple themselves," she said. "There are very, very few figures in the public domain. More transparency would be a good thing, for example, a country by country reporting. If it was up to me, the non-confidential version of the decision would have been published yesterday, because that is another way of enabling everyone to see what we have decided and on what basis we have made this decision. Right now the ball is in the hands of Apple and Ireland."

11 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Put up or shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I agree they should pay, but actually it doesn't matter if Apple has obeyed the law, because this case is not about Apple's compliance with law. It's about Apple _and_ Ireland.

    Ireland could have given Apple a sweetheart deal that was better than any other Irish business was offered, and that could be (dubiously) seen to be in compliance with the Irish tax code (see for example how much Google had to repay in the UK; far less than they should have). Apple could be paying Ireland all that Ireland asked for (which is, apparently, sweet Fanny Adams).

    The point here is that the EU is punishing _Ireland_ for giving Apple that deal, and requiring Ireland to make Apple pay back taxes.

    Why? Because what Ireland did in making this offer is deemed to be unfair competition in Europe -- among other states. In essence, the EU is meant to be a level playing field, and Ireland gave Apple a truly tiny tax bill in a way that distorts fairness within the EU.

    So it's political but it is not crap; it's about Ireland meeting their obligations to the EU.

    Ireland should claim the money, Apple should pay.

    It's a tiny amount of money compared to what Apple makes, and if they are so concerned about fairness, they should take their money home to the USA. But oh no, they want a tax holiday. Which totally explains the deal they struck with Ireland; they are waiting for a tax holiday in the USA and don't want to pay any taxes elsewhere.

    CAPTCHA: clubroom. (I swear there's a sarcastic AI at work)

  2. Re:The EU is dying by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Informative

    So you're saying the EC should sit by and let Ireland violate the terms of its membership in the Common Market? Is that your view, that Ireland is above the very laws it is party to?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. Cry me a river by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is illegal in the EU to provide state aid to entice companies to setup in one country over another. It has been this way since EU year dot, to create a level playing field. It is pretty much the point of the EU. If you don't like it, don't join the EU.

    If Apple funnel all their EU profits through Ireland without paying tax in the country of sale, but only pay tax on sales made in Ireland (because Ireland conveniently ignore the rest), then that is state aid. Ireland know this. If Apple didn't know this they should sack their lawyers.

    All the rest is PR and bluster.

    1. Re:Cry me a river by ljw1004 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If Apple didn't know this they should sack their lawyers.

      Right. That's the thing that gets me. Folks say that "Apple was just following the tax laws" -- or more accurately, that Apple's highly paid team of tax lawyers had figured out detailed and sophisticated ways to leverage the precise letter of the law to their advantage. Except apparently they hadn't researched the precise letter of the law carefully enough.

      Ireland had on its books one set of laws which resulted in favorable tax regime for Apple. Meanwhile the same books have another set of laws relating to EU harmonization, which supersede the first, which didn't result in favorable tax regime for Apple:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      The European Communities Act 1972, as amended, provides that treaties of the European Union are part of Irish law, along with directly effective measures adopted under those treaties.

      Did Apple's tax lawyers simply not know about the EU treaties applicable to their tax liabilities? Did they not know that the favorable tax regimes they planned together with Ireland were in violation of the EU treaties? Or did they know about them, keep mum, and let the Irish government (hopefully not also taxpayer) take the blame if ever they got found out?

    2. Re:Cry me a river by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      The other problem with Apples position is that they didnt just follow Irish tax law, they negotiated with the Irish government over their tax affairs - they are completely complicit in this.

  4. Re:Put up or shut up by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative

    They are being forced to collect what should have been collected. And Apple is being forced to pay what they should have paid. The deal should never have been made, it violated the Common Market rules that Ireland has been party to for decades.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  5. Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? by Holi · · Score: 3, Informative

    Except the money would go to Ireland not the EU, so in what way does the EU benefit other then to force a member nation to fall in line with the rules they agreed to. This rule has been in place since before the EU, it was a carry over rule from the days of the EEC.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  6. Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? by Immerman · · Score: 2, Informative

    But not the *highest* government. That would be the EU, whose laws supercede the member countries. If Apple signed a deal with the government of California that was illegal according to federal law, you can bet they' be getting similar grief.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  7. Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Informative

    A better analogy would be the US retroactively eliminating deductions (standard or itemized) retroactively and asking you for back taxes and interest.

    The US already did something like that, several times:

    * In August 1993, President Clinton signed a law raising tax rates on high-income earners and estates. The new rates applied back to the beginning of 1993, and although disgruntled taxpayers went to federal court seeking to have the retroactive application of the rules invalidated, those arguments proved fruitless.

    * In 1987, Congress passed laws retroactively repealing an estate-tax provision, a repeal which cost one taxpayer $2.5 million. The Supreme Court ruled that taxpayers have no right to rely on tax legislation being permanent, with the majority arguing that as long as lawmakers act with "a legitimate legislative purpose," retroactive application is constitutional. Even though one Supreme Court justice argued that the government had used "bait and switch taxation," he nevertheless concurred with the unanimous holding of the Court.

    * A 1976 tax-law change affected homeowners' ability to shelter capital gains from the sale of a home from taxation. One homeowner took advantage of rules that allowed half of all gains to be free of tax, but six months later, President Ford signed a law retroactively limiting the taxable amount. Just as it did more than a decade later, the Supreme Court upheld the law as being constitutional.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  8. Re:No sympathy for Apple by alexhs · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, but would the EU have done this to one of their own companies?

    Did you check?

    Obviously not.

    Obviously not.

    Translation: "I am a a bigot, and you won't ever catch me educating myself."

    Previous record was against EDF (French utility company).
    FIAT (Italian automobile manufacturer) also had to pay back taxes because of that European rule.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
  9. Taxes are not theft by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    - the law is theft and the entire system is built around that theft.

    Oh fuck off with that stupid argument. Tax is not theft and never was. The argument doesn't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny. The very fact that you have roads and an education and healthcare and police protection and the internet and first responders and clean water and postal service and safe drugs and military protection and plenty more is because of taxes. Without a civil society and people paying taxes to fund things we all benefit from none of that stuff exists. The fact that you can post your witless argument is because of those taxes you are so bent out of shape over.

    AFAIC Apple shouldn't pay a cent and instead hire a private army to go after every single politician involved in this racketeering and I mean to go with full force of every shady tool available to people when that sort of money is involved, up to and including blackmail, kidnapping, extermination and regime change.

    Either you are a troll or a raving lunatic with no concept of reality. I hope it's the former but I'm pretty sure it's the later.