321–330 of 436 posts
Companies try to pay the taxes by the "legal minimum" principle: pay what is required, but not more. If you have 2 parking slots in the downtown next to each other and one of them is cheaper, you will park where is cheaper... Why pay more if not required? Question is: Did politicians, who created such laws, received bribes?
The double irish is more like parking your car on the bicycle lane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is not that Apple did not pay tax, nor is it Ireland giving Apple a good deal. Ireland charged tax based on reported earnings in Ireland, not world wide, for a child company of Apple that says it is based in Ireland but has revenue income from around the world. The EU has decided that all revenue income for that company should be charged in Ireland, although the US say they have also paid tax in the US. Fun…
Ireland is hardly a scape-goat. The commission has dealt in a similar manner with Amazon in Luxembourg, Starbucks in the Netherlands, and Anheuser-Busch InBev in Belgium. Whether or not there is an agreement between Apple and Ireland or just an understanding that Ireland would not tax them on almost any income is irrelevant. The point of the matter is that the effect of the scheme has been that Apple has paid next to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've got an unusual definition of "sovereignty". I'm not sure about US states (I would have thought they are considered sovereign member states of the Federation, but I haven't researched the issue), but the much less incorporated European Union certainly consists of "sovereign" states. Or was it just a linguistic shortcut for "Ireland has submitted itself under treaties and laws of the European Union"?
You're not sovereign if some other entity can micro-manage your tax policies. It's a big stretch to call U.S. states "sovereign" but even they get to decide on how they give tax breaks.
If you follow your line of thought a bit further to its extremes, your home state is not sovereign, because its administration ordered some paper clips from a supplier and is now bound to pay for them, without the senators being asked if they really want to pay. ;-)
Given Ireland broke the law, not Apple, shouldn't they get the punishment?
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…
I Believe this is not just yoit standard double Irish, there was an extra loophole that Eire closed in 2014 where the second company could be based in no country at all, not just a fiscal haven
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…
Or we could have just burned the various EU and international bondholders...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 bei…
The US tax code is a huge mess, agreed. But you gotta pay your dues (aka taxes) somewhere, and here Apple et al goes essentially Scot free. That is not cool.
First, Apple did nothing illegal. There is no wrong doing here. They pay tax in every country they owe tax. Period.
Second, perhaps it's not Apple that's the problem? Perhaps it's the tax that is the problem.
If you have mega corps building entities outside its main jurisdiction to avoid the main jurisdictions tax burden, perhaps you need to revamp your insane tax code. Hmm?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I Believe this is not just yoit standard double Irish, there was an extra loophole that Eire closed in 2014 where the second company could be based in no country at all, not just a fiscal haven
Unless you're speaking Irish, please don't refer to the country as 'Eire' - it's akin to referring to Germany as 'Deutschland' in English. It's either 'Ireland' (the country's name in English) or 'Republic of Ireland' (its official description) if you're more comfortable with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US tax code is a huge mess, agreed. But you gotta pay your dues (aka taxes) somewhere, and here Apple et al goes essentially Scot free. That is not cool.
Every time this apple in Ireland tax issue comes up it makes my brain hurt, literally hurt to read all these replies who don't seem to look at this problem correctly. First, Apple did nothing illegal. There is no wrong doing here. They pay tax in every country they owe tax. Period. Second, perhaps it's not Apple that's the problem? Perhaps it's the tax that is the problem. If you have mega corps building entities out…
Apple engage(ds) in aggressive tax planning - and they, along with FBK, Google, etc - deserve to be smacked down with a heavy bill. An effective tax rate of 0.005% - when your next door business neighbour is paying 20% - is morally wrong and damaging to society and the common good.
Morals are irrelevant in this story. Tax law is a system of rules. There should be no second arbitrary standard people (and companies) should be expected to follow.
Rigid adherence to rules without consideration of what's going on doesn't usually end up with a better place.