Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple

rte.ie

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 436 posts

Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple

#121

Post by zigzigzag »

verinus wrote: post #102
zigzigzag wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But no taxes were due, according to the tax collectors themselves. Meanwhile the EU is not a tax collection body, it does not set tax policy and it does not issue tax rulings. It has no power to do this and I'm unaware of any countries that want it to have this power.

oh they were. it's actually quite clear: if you exempt some corp from taxes you are paying them the exempted sum compared to another business not receiving the exemption. In my opinion it is highly unethical to construct such financial mechanisms with the only aim to reduce tax payments.

Not taxing someone is not the same as paying them! By that logic I am paid by the government every time I listen to Simply Red without them taxing me for the privilege? Why am I not rich then?

Damn me, the linguistic backflips in this thread are amazing. Tax is the taking of something. Low taxes mean you take less, not that you are generously paying people!

Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple

#122

Post by k-mcgrady »

eru wrote: post #34
marcospri wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the Pub next door pays a higher effective tax

They sell alcohol after all. But fair point. And because the bigger players who can hire expensive accountants can always mask their profits, we shouldn't tax profits. It's too malleable. Hey, even VAT is a better tax.

If you raised VAT even more they would just pass on the cost and make a fuss that it's the governments fault everything is suddenly more expensive. Politically it wouldn't work. If there was a way to globally set the price of a good at one level (iPhone = $400) and then each country could add tax after that so it's clear the company isn't passing the price on to the consumer in various countries with higher sales tax/VAT it might work well.

Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple

#123

Post by [deleted] »

rdslw wrote: post #4

Good. Read how Tim Cook publicly considers Nobel economist Joeseph Stiglitz as a one who do not know what he (Stiglitz) is talking about. Eye opening. Excerpts from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/wp/2016/08/13/2016... Q: What do you say in response to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz’s comments on Bloomberg [television], where he called Apple’s profit reporting in Ireland a “fraud”? Tim Cooks answer: I did…

[deleted]

Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple

#124

Post by icebraining »

zigzigzag wrote: post #95
icebraining wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fiscal State Aid was declared illegal almost two decades ago; Apple was trying to walk a fine line here.

But low tax rates are not "state aid", "aid" is an English word meaning giving something to somebody. "Tax" means the opposite: taking it away. The EU Commission is now engaged in a rather grotesque power grab in which despite having no mandate to interfere with member tax policies they are attempting to gain control anyway, without treaty change, by redefining low tax rates as a kind of subsidy. There is no real pre…

But low tax rates are not "state aid", "aid" is an English word meaning giving something to somebody. "Tax" means the opposite: taking it away.

The rose by any other name is still as illegal. Semantic arguments don't help you when the definition is provided.

Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple

#125

Post by tinkerrr »

shaqbert wrote: post #118

What Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and most other big US company do is the so called "double Irish"[1]. Essentially is a clever way of using two quirks of some EU countries loopholes in tax laws, from treating IP licensing fees (of course the brand and intellectual IP is owned by a British virgin island tax haven, where else could this stuff be created/invented), and the net result is that Apple et al end up payi…

>And with another quirk - this time in US tax laws - the do not even have to pay taxed in the US on those earnings, as they have not repatriated the funds.

This is not a 'quirk' as you think. No country in the world, other than the US, tax their corporations on already taxed profits in a different jurisdiction. This actually ends up hurting the US because corporations cannot repatriate already-taxed funds without being taxed again.

Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple

#126

Post by belorn »

felipeerias wrote: post #103
onion2k wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it Apple's problem that Irish law disagrees with EC agreements? Yes. To the tune of €13bn. At the scale Apple operates their legal team should be considering whether the deals they negotiate are legal in all the applicable jurisdictions, not just the local one. The Irish government should also have done a better job, so part of the blame lies with them, but that doesn't free Apple of all responsibility. In any cas…

The Irish government were doing their job very well. It just so happens that their job, as they understand it, is attracting multinational corporations by having much lower taxes than their neighbours.

The finding by EC is that multinational corporations is taxing much lower that corportations in Ireland. If all Irish corporations payed 0.005% in taxes instead of 12,5%, then the EC would have nothing to complain about. However, if Irland did this, I doubt their budget would survive.

Equal treatment of everyone is a critical aspect to prevent corruption and an unfair market. Selectively lowering taxation is illegal, and I don't find that wrong at all.

Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple

#128

Post by vesinisa »

zigzigzag wrote: post #95
icebraining wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fiscal State Aid was declared illegal almost two decades ago; Apple was trying to walk a fine line here.

But low tax rates are not "state aid", "aid" is an English word meaning giving something to somebody. "Tax" means the opposite: taking it away. The EU Commission is now engaged in a rather grotesque power grab in which despite having no mandate to interfere with member tax policies they are attempting to gain control anyway, without treaty change, by redefining low tax rates as a kind of subsidy. There is no real pre…

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/ha...

EU has held for almost two decades that "an effective level of taxation which is significantly lower than the general level of taxation in the country concerned" constitutes "harmful tax competition". The most logical way to undo such unfair benefit is to rule the company to return the unfair benefit it gained with interest. I don't see anything but a welcome measure to level the field for competition.

Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple

#129

Post by Someone »

Shivetya wrote: post #83

Okay, the EC is wrong in that lower tax burdens are a form of state aid. Higher corporate taxes also tend to cause all sorts of new ways to lower tax burdens which can mean even less tax revenue, let alone simply up and moving to a more tax friendly environment. The EU needs to worry about Africa soon scarfing up companies looking for a way out. Then last of all, they are fooling themselves if they don't think EU bas…

"This seems concentrated only on US based companies for the time being."

AFAIK, Fiat isn't US based (http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-rules-that-starbucks-fiat-ben... neither are FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, and several other Spanish football clubs (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2401_en.htm), or Amsterdam, Antwerp, and other ports (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-124_en.htm)

Significantly lower amounts, yes, but certainly not "only on US based companies"

Taking it broader than tax rulings, many other examples exist.

Meanwhile, I read that both Ireland and Apple are going to appeal this ruling, so one can see this as a shot very close to the bow that doesn't make the ones shot at surrender.

I hope the result will be that the ruling that the deal is illegal will stand, with a smaller payback. Reasons? I think it is immoral that large companies can negotiate such deals, and applaud the EU for standing up against their pressure when smaller countries do not have the spine to do so, but do not think all blame lies with Apple.

Re: Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple

#130

Post by sveme »

verinus wrote: post #102
zigzigzag wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But no taxes were due, according to the tax collectors themselves. Meanwhile the EU is not a tax collection body, it does not set tax policy and it does not issue tax rulings. It has no power to do this and I'm unaware of any countries that want it to have this power.

oh they were. it's actually quite clear: if you exempt some corp from taxes you are paying them the exempted sum compared to another business not receiving the exemption. In my opinion it is highly unethical to construct such financial mechanisms with the only aim to reduce tax payments.

Can't reply to Zigzag, so I do it here:

It's not about lower taxes in general, it is about lower taxes for a single specific company. And that constitutes state aid which is (mostly) forbidden under EU rules, as it is massively uncompetetive.

Post reply on HN