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."

21 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's "political crap" because it's something you don't agree with. Law of the land, buddy.

    1. Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? by thaylin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The deal was illegal, it was not retroactive, since the deal could not legally exist. Sign into a contract that is not legal and see if the law allows it to be binding.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Law of the land, buddy.

      More like "we have (retroactively) changed the terms of the deal. Pray we do not change it further... buddy". Which is why this is political crap.

      By all means, adjust the law such that Apple pays more going forward. But this is nothing but ex post facto laws, and those are utter bullshit.

      This is the EU saying to Ireland "Your law violates European law - fix it". This is correct. What is sketchy is the retrospective nature of the "and grab a few billion from Apple while you're fixing it". Ireland did close the double-Irish-with-a-dutch-sandwich loophole, but allows existing users of the scheme to carry on until 2020. So that is certainly favouring some businesses over others with different laws for some. This is clearly a violation of European competition law.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does this 'no retroactive fines' work for me too when I cheat on taxes?

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    4. Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? by nuckfuts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...in what way does the EU benefit other then to force a member nation to fall in line with the rules they agreed to.

      If one EU country lures foreign investment by offering illegal tax breaks, they undermine the ability of other countries to attract investment. The benefit to the EU of enforcing the rules is that EU members get a level playing field.

    5. 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
  2. A Tax Expert Takes Tim Cook's EU Letter Apart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
  3. Total Political Crap by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Translation: Waaaahhhh!

    --
    That is all.
  4. 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)

  5. 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 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.

  6. Crap? by whitroth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds like both Cook and Apple. They're on overpriced commodity hardware, and playing international games to avoid paying local taxes.

    From the US IRS website:
          1972: 16.67% of the federal revenue stream from individual income taxes, 25% from corporate taxes
          Now: 44+% from income taxes, and 10+% from corporate taxes.

    We pay more, so he doesn't have to. Let's go back to the 1972 tax structure, and see how you like *that*, Cook - you'd be in the 72% tax bracket....

                mark

    1. Re:Crap? by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's all just taxes on people in the end. Corporations aren't real things, they're abstract - they're just groups of people organised together to do a task.

      Corporation taxes are paid as a proportion of profits (incomes minus costs) - if they go up then there are less profits, which someone has to pay for: generally it will be paid for by some combination of:

      - Workers, through lower wages
      - Shareholders, through lower dividends (and by association, lower stock prices)
      - Consumers, through higher prices
      - Less investment in the business, and hence the productivity of the staff, since the lower profits lead to lower retained earnings

      It may be that you are happy with at least one of these groups paying more (I would guess most are happy with shareholders paying more) but my point is that a corporation doesn't pay anything because it doesn't exist, only people exist and only they pay.

  7. Re: So... *IRELAND* did something illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple is not being punished, they are being required to pay back taxes they avoided because of an agreement deemed non legal.

  8. No sympathy for Apple by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the EU saying to Ireland "Your law violates European law - fix it". This is correct. What is sketchy is the retrospective nature of the "and grab a few billion from Apple while you're fixing it"

    I disagree that it is sketchy at all. Apple is going through all kinds of contortions to avoid paying any taxes. This is in clear violation of the spirit of the law and apparently the EU believes it is in violation of the letter of the law as well. Apple enjoys the benefits of public services from the taxes paid but isn't willing to pay their fair share. I have ZERO sympathy for Apple here. They shouldn't be entitled to any tax breaks not available to individuals or small enterprises. Furthermore if what they did was illegal then there is no retrospective anything. It means that Apple rightfully owes money it hasn't paid.

  9. Re:Get ready... by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For Irexit.

    Seeing as how Apple is involved that would make it:

    iRexit

    But seriously, this fight should be between the EU and Ireland. Apple did not write Irish tax laws.

    This would be like a landlord who underpays taxes because he foolishly agreed to rent his property at too low a price and the IRS, instead of keeping the issue between the landlord and the IRS, goes after the tenant for rent the IRS thinks the tenant should have paid to the landlord in order for the landlord to meet the his tax obligation. Or the IRS going after Walmart customers who "didn't pay enough for their purchases" for Walmart to pay all their taxes.

    Cook is spot-on. It's political crap from a collapsing union in decline, sinking under the weight of an overbearing collectivist bureaucracy, entitlements, and Newspeak PC political/ideological horseshit.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  10. Apple does not pay their fair share by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple paid about $7,000,000,000 in taxes to the US govt last year.

    That isn't the real number. In 2011 the tax on their GAAP statements was $6.9B but the amount the actually sent to the IRS was less than half of that. Taxes are done on a cash basis, not accrual basis so you have to look deeper than their financial statements. Apple pays in some cases single digit percentages of their profits.

    Is that a fair enough share for you?

    Considering that the amount they paid as a percentage is FAR less than what many other companies pay and less than the percent I pay the answer is a clear NO. Furthermore they pay a lot of tax because they are absurdly profitable. Complaining about having such good fortune is absurd.

    Do you try to minimize your tax burden?

    Don't pretend that Apple's situation and my personal tax situation are remotely comparable. I pay a FAR higher tax rate than Apple does. Furthermore Apple gets to play all sorts of games playing jurisdictions off against each other which isn't something you or I get to do. It's not fair, it's not right, and it's not ethical. Evidently the EU agrees that it isn't legal either. Perhaps Apple shouldn't be entitled to hire people from public schools and universities or get protection from police or fire. After all they seem to think that we should have to pay for those things on their behalf so they can make even more billions than they already are. When is enough money enough?

    Do you take any deductions? Are others not allowed to because they made more money?

    Spare me. When Apple pays as much of their profits in taxes as I do on my income then you might have an argument. As it stands it's not even a discussion.

  11. Work to change the laws if they are unfair by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are you one of those that think that Spirit of the Law only applies when you agree with the law, and doesn't apply when you don't.

    I don't have a problem with anyone engaging in conscientious objection to what they think is an unfair law. However there are usually consequences for doing that. If Apple thinks the laws are unfair then they should be actively working to get them changed to something that is fair. As it stands they are just trying to weasel out of paying a reasonable portion of their Scrooge McDuck horde of cash. There is no ethical stance being taken here, just pure greed and opportunity.

    How do you feel about Hillary skirting the applicable laws regarding Security of Secrets?

    I think she should be subject to the same laws as everyone else. Similarly Apple appears to think because they are able to find some clever loopholes because of their power and size that the laws shouldn't apply to them. I disagree.

    How about Immigration law?

    What about it? If someone comes here illegally and gets caught they should expect to get deported. I don't have a problem with that. They rolled the dice when they came here. However since at some point almost all the people who are here in the US had many relatives who came here without the permission of any government or were brought here against their will I'm not bent out of shape about some people coming here for economic opportunity. Do you speak fluent Cherokee? Didn't think so. How do you like those cheap groceries? Are you insisting on paying for only legal labor (read white people) or are you a hypocrite? You should worry about illegal immigration if the people STOP wanting to come to your country. I think the immigration laws in my country are idiotic and hugely racist but they are what they are until sanity hopefully prevails one day.

  12. Law Constant: Had to know this was dodgy by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you cheat on your taxes, then yeah you'd be subject to fines for past tax evasion. But if you followed the letter of the tax law at the time, and some time later the government decided the law was wrong and changed it, then no you wouldn't be subject to retroactive fines.

    ...but that is not what happened. Eu law has remained the same. Ireland refused to follow that law and as a result Apple has lots of back taxes owing. I would have had a lot more sympathy for Apple if they had been paying a reasonable rate of tax and the EU had come along and said sorry it should have been 12% instead of 10%. However they were paying something like 0.05% (IIRC the Guardian). Sorry but when you are paying such an insanely tiny tax rate you have to know that you are doing something dodgy. Just because it took the EU some time to figure this out does not mean that you should get off scot free.

  13. Re:Put up or shut up by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're missing the point. Of course Ireland doesn't want to screw up it's relationship with Apple. Yes Apple and Ireland are happy with the relationship, much the way the way a crook and a fence are happy with their relationship. Ireland is selling tax obligations at a steep discount to Apple for "other valuable considerations" the EU a part owner of those obligations has been sliced out of the deal and is now crying foul.

  14. 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.