Slashdot Mirror


Apple Reaches Deal With France To Pay Estimated $571 Million In Back-Taxes (macrumors.com)

Apple has reached a deal with French authorities to pay an undeclared amount of back-dated tax. While the amount isn't disclosed, French media suggest the sum is around $571 million (500 million euros). MacRumors reports: France has been working diligently to stop tech companies like Apple from exploiting tax loopholes in the country. The loopholes are said to have allowed Apple to "minimize taxes and grab market share" at the expense of Europe-based companies. French President Emmanuel Macron is one of the leaders behind the tax crackdown on international tech companies, with a goal of bringing a more unified corporate tax system across the nineteen euro area states.

As noted by iPhon.fr, Apple and French tax authorities reached the agreement for the payment of several years of unpaid taxes in December, according to French newspaper L'Expansion. The agreement followed a meeting in October between Apple CEO Tim Cook and President Macron, in which both reportedly agreed that a solution would ultimately be enacted by the European Union rather than France.

13 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. good. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These large companies are built on civilisation, which is paid for by taxes. Everybody needs to pay in so success stories like Apple can exist. And it's certainly fair that those that benefit the most pay the most.

    Anything else is fleecing the middle class to pay for the extravagance of the ultra rich. A strong middle class is needed for a strong economy and demand. If the Apple's of this world all actually got what they wanted they'd be screwed since there would be no one to buy their "premium" offerings.

    It's pure hypocrisy. The excuses for doing it are just terrible too and amount to saying it's ok doing something deeply unethical and borderline illegal if you do it for money.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:good. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      So you believe in 100% TAXATION??!?! Communist Fool!

      There's no taxation in communism, since there's no state. :-p

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:good. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      You know, there are other percentages than 0 and 100. I know you try to exaggerate, hoping that people follow your reductio ad absurdum, but in general you'll find few people are dumb enough for this to work.

      If it causes a company to fold if it has to pay the taxes that every other company (ok, ok, only the smaller ones, the others can do the double-Dutch Sandwich trick) do pay, I guess then this company should not do business in such a country. Avoiding taxes this way is actually legal, you know? Simply not paying them and weaseling out of taxes owed is not.

      If you don't want to pay taxes in a country, simply not do business there. Yes, it's actually THAT simple.

      And no, poor people don't create jobs. People buying stuff do. Because if you built a billion iPhones it would not mean a single dime earned if there wasn't anyone around with enough money to buy one of them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:good. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm glad it's Apple too, because they are one of the worst abusers. They invented the Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich tax dodge.

      By tackling the worst one first they set a precedent that will make it much easier to get the rest to pay their fair share too.

      --
      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:good. by mvdwege · · Score: 2

      I seemed to have missed the news that Apple is pulling out of France. Do you have a link for me? (To a reliable source; Breitbart, Infowars or the Daily Mail will get you pointing and laughing).

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  2. Re:This is still a drip in the ocean by Freischutz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Compared to what they owe planet wide.

    They and every other megacorp out there.

  3. Complicated issue with no simple solution by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since this is slashdot, where the average IQ is meant to be a little higher, I'll have a go at explaining this issue. While I completely agree that having these companies not pay taxes in the local countries that they operate in is a bad thing, I think that the way everyone is trying to make this equivalent to someone's personal tax situation (and, let's be fair, most people get their employers to calculate, file and pay their taxes, so don't even need to understand the tax code) is not useful. We saw this sort of shallow argument during the whole occupy movement, where everyone knew what the banks were doing was bad, but they couldn't articulate exactly what it was that was wrong and how it could be fixed. The end result is the occupy movement fizzed out and nothing much changed.

    The fundamental issue here is that Apple owns the complete value chain (apart from a small cost of manufacturing that goes to China). Most people would agree that some of that value should be taxable in the country of purchase. But most would also agree that rest of the value should be taxable in the USA (where Apple is based). The question then is, how much should be attributable to each country? To further complicate matters we tax profits, not value, otherwise a high volume low margin product would be disproportionately taxed vs a high margin low volume product. To calculate profits you need to attribute costs. So after you've decided what value add should be taxable, how do you apportion Apple's operating costs to each country? Then you've got intangible assets such as the money spent on R&D for a product.

    At the moment the answer to these questions is 'its complicated'. But 'fortunately' for all these multinationals there are giant loopholes in various EU country's tax laws that allow them to avoid that question by reducing in country profits to zero. So guess, what, that is what they all do.

    The solution then is two fold, and not entirely simple. Firstly, the EU needs to shutdown the loopholes that countries like Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the UK have that are really only there to give those countries a competitive advantage over other EU countries. So far that is taking a very long time (so who's fault then is that?). Secondly, there needs to be some sort of agreement on how much of Apple's profits are attributable to each country in which it operates. This is no easy thing to do, and may not even be possible as the best way to do this would be to reach some sort of agreement with the IRS to have it share tax take. But the US itself has a bunch of tax loopholes that allow these countries to avoid US taxes, so you would first have to get those shutdown (again, why is that taking so long...) and then get the IRS to agree to a profit sharing deal (good luck with that). The whole thing is a huge beauacratic mess, and frankly, Apple and its ilk are simply making the most of rules as they stand.

    I'm not really sure what the solution is. Personally I think the best approach is to go after the ultimate recipients of the profits (the shareholders) and ensure they cannot avoid income taxes as easily as they are currently able to do. Companies themselves can only invest their profits (which ultimately is good for the economy) or distribute them to shareholders, so going after the shareholders (who it is much easier to lock down to a jurisdiction) seems like the better approach, but that would require voters to educate themselves on the loopholes that get introduced to benefit the 0.1%, and given the current state of western democracies I seriously doubt the ability to deal with these issues.

    1. Re:Complicated issue with no simple solution by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not that complicated. Apple certainly knows precisely how much profit it is making, and there is a corporate tax rates levied on profits... So the amount they owe is a percentage of the profit made selling hardware and services in each country.

      They try to hide it by paying bullshit licencing fees to a parent company based in Ireland, but we just ignore that. If they have R&D centres in a country they can show the accounts for them.

      The IRS is irrelevant for EU taxation. It's up to the US if it wants to double-tax on profit made in the EU, but either way we are getting what is owed to us. That's the price of doing business in our extremely lucrative market.

      --
      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:Protectionism by another name NO IT'S NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is NOT a fine.
    And that's the problem.

    This is just legally due taxes that ANY other corp would have paid in time.
    Apple was(*) stealing money from France for years and nobody cared.
    And when Apple finally paid they're not fined for trying to steal.

    * and Apple IS STILL stealig money with help of Ireland.

    And about EU fines against US I think you're all wrong :
    when US levies fines on EU companies those are fined Billions and not Millions.

  5. Re:Protectionism by another name by hazardPPP · · Score: 2

    Funny how the EU always levies fines on American tech companies, and never dares touch Chinese companies.

    Maybe the Chinese companies aren't dodging taxes? Or they haven't been around in the EU market long enough for their dodginess to be uncovered? Non-tech Chinese products have been on the EU market for a long time...and the EU raised quite a big fuss over some of them.

    Also you will be glad to know that besides dishing out fines for American companies, the EU happily does that for it's own companies and those from other countries (like Japan) as well when they break the rules.

  6. was this a loophole, or actual unpaid taxes? by v1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "loophole" usually means finding a legal way to do something that would normally be illegal. "unpaid taxes" usually means illegally underpaying your taxes. So it can't be both.

    I'm curious as to whether this was actually paying taxes they were legally obligated to do, or more of a settlement / concession / bribe to get them to quit harassing Apple for doing something they don't like but were legally able to get away with?

    I could really see it being a case of them arguing "ok Apple, technically you don't have to pay this, but if you refuse to, we're just going to pass some laws that in the end will cost you more than what we're going to call a 'fine', just go get the public off our backs."

    Tax loopholes are nothing shocking or new. Any person, group, or company with money uses them extensively to hang onto as much of their money as possible. This should surprise no one. "International tax havens" are very similar to your retirement account, they're both designed to entice you to invest your money somewhere in exchange for low property taxes. The investors aren't the ones that made the loopholes, they were created by the people that want to make money off YOUR money while they hang onto and protect it for you. (could be a bank, could be an investment group, could be a country) If you're getting mad at the investors because you can't legally tax them as much as you want to, you're focusing on the wrong party.

    When the public gets upset over international tax havens, it's basically coming down to a problem of the benefit of they money being there having been shifted from taxes to something else in the country. They set up the loopholes in the first place to benefit the country in some way, be it increasing forein investments or something else. Wanting to have those benefits AND still tax the money the same is double-dipping, on a country-size scale. There's only one pie, and two different groups within the country both want the same slices. The loophole just changes the distribution of a few of the slices. In other words, it comes down to a problem created by the greed of a country.

    And because you can't "fix" greed, this issue will never go away.

    Imagine senators saying "hey, Merrill Lynch, our voters are mad at us since we created these tax shelters to increase your investments here, but the public is only looking at the lost tax revenue and thinks it's unfair they can't have their cake and eat it too. So if you don't pay us these token 'fines' so we look like we're 'addressing the problem', we're going to change the laws in a way that hurts your bottom line a lot more than the 'fines' would." Is this basically what's happening here?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  7. Re:Protectionism by another name NO IT'S NOT by Muckluck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is just legally due taxes that ANY other corp would have paid in time.

    Tax evasion is illegally not paying due taxes, tax avoidance (tax avoidance being the legal use of tax laws to reduce one's tax burden) is legal and encouraged.

    Did they avoid taxation or evade taxation?

    --


    --I like turtles...
  8. Strategy by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

    You don't get to be (one of) the richest company in the world by paying your taxes and dues. Just ask Amazon et al.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u