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

Apple must pay 13B euros in back taxes, EU's top court rules

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 708 posts

Re: Apple must pay 13B euros in back taxes, EU's top court rules

#181

Post by oliwarner »

InsomniacL wrote: post #2

Seems wrong that Ireland cheated the system to attract tech companies then also gets a huge payout.

As Ireland are still saying, this €13bn (plus interest) is going to work against them.

It's supposed to work against them, as a chilling effect for any company trying to work EU states against each other for preferential treatment. I'm sure Ireland will argue that they'll offer any multi-billion multinational this sort of treatment, but that's really the point. The EU doesn't want a race to the bottom and if EU-local businesses are unable to leverage this sort of accounting break, it's a massive leg up for external businesses.

While this is a large lump, this fine covers a decade of accounts, and this final decision comes 32 quarters after the original fine. Each of those quarters could have paid this off from flat profit. They're doing okay.

Re: Apple must pay 13B euros in back taxes, EU's top court rules

#182

Post by Supernaut »

beAbU wrote: post #177
Supernaut wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's... literally how every company in the EU operates. If Volkswagen, incorporated in Germany, sells a car in Poland, they're not required to pay a corresponding sliver of their net profits to the Polish exchequer. It all stays in Germany.

Surely there is VAT on that sale that is paid to Poland?

VAT is a tax paid by the consumer, not the manufacturer. It's collected at the point of sale by the retailer and passed on by them to the local tax authority.

Re: Apple must pay 13B euros in back taxes, EU's top court rules

#183

Post by tmtvl »

InsomniacL wrote: post #174
roel_v wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"13 billions absolutely nothing for Apple" LOL no there is not a single company or person in the world for whom 13 BILLION dollars is 'absolutely nothing'.

> LOL no there is not a single company or person in the world for whom 13 BILLION dollars is 'absolutely nothing'. Apple's revenue last year alone was $383 Billion.

Isn't that more than the EU defence budget from 2022? Not gonna lie, I'm kinda a little scared now. I realise that there's less than a 1 in 1 billion chance Apple is gonna set up its own military and attack the EU, but still...

Re: Apple must pay 13B euros in back taxes, EU's top court rules

#184

Post by oliwarner »

graemep wrote: post #79
tailspin2019 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The previous one seemed to. The jury is out on the current one.

AT best it will be similar. SO far the main difference seems to be a willingness to be harsher to old people and those on moderate (not minimum wage, but lowish to average) incomes.

> harsher to old people

Old people not on pension credit.

The old WFP was £300 in the pocket of every pensioner, regardless of means and that's a stupid thing for a government to be paying for when it's trying to balance the books.

I do accept the problem —as with many means-tested benefits— is catching and supporting the people who don't qualify, haven't filled in the paperwork, and still vitally need the support the WFP gave them. The DWP has to be given the support to help people who need it, and quickly, especially in Y1.

But I think they're getting way too much stick for this.

Re: Apple must pay 13B euros in back taxes, EU's top court rules

#185

Post by jokethrowaway »

ko27 wrote: post #46
linotype wrote: post #38

What does "illegal" mean? Why is it in quotes? Did they break the law or not? If they didn't break the law, if they adhered to the deal they negotiated with Ireland, isn't this a dangerous precedent? You can just ignore deals because you (EU) said so? Edit: Please downvote me if you must but also post a comment about why I'm wrong. Thanks!

> You can just ignore deals because you (EU) said so? Of course you can, because EU law has precedence over Ireland's deal in this situation.

I guess what comes as a shock is how much control the EU has.

At the same time, if bureaucrauts in Ireland were a bit smarter they could have just written in a special exemption for companies with certain specific requirements - which end up being Apple and a few big ones.

Apple was also pretty dumb to go to Ireland while Malta, Cyprus and Bulgaria offer pretty low taxes out of the box. I guess they did that to access UK talent / lower language barrier even if the fiscal setup was riskier.

Re: Apple must pay 13B euros in back taxes, EU's top court rules

#186

Post by jokethrowaway »

Woeps wrote: post #105
SanjayMehta wrote: post #85

I’m confused. So EU runs Ireland’s tax system? What happened to sovereignty? How does this work?

No, the EU checks if the tax systems are fair and held to certain standards. In this case this special deal was only available to a select few companies.

Other countries have deals that cover IP revenue or certain taxation tresholds which effectively give little taxation to multinationals, so discrimination is not enough to be considered unfair.

They probably just screwed with the process and didn't get the deal in a generic enough format to be accepted by the EU.

This incompetence will cost dear to Ireland as the next big tech companies will go elsewhere to sell to Europe.

Re: Apple must pay 13B euros in back taxes, EU's top court rules

#187

Post by skummetmaelk »

yieldcrv wrote: post #117
skummetmaelk wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not much uncertainty for business really. If you're pulling the moves that Apple and other companies pull to "optimize tax", then you are with 100% certainty trying to game the system and violating the spirit of the law.

That doesnt mean regimes we respect should retroactively apply new rules in unpredictable ways

Even if it was retroactive, which it is not, being punished for premeditated tax avoidance can hardly be called unpredictable.

The central difference of opinion is of course whether outright gaming the system is acceptable regardless of the written rules being followed to the letter.

Re: Apple must pay 13B euros in back taxes, EU's top court rules

#188

Post by arez »

andy_ppp wrote: post #51

It would just be really good if companies stopped avoiding tax. Most countries are already pretty much bankrupt - it's worth thinking about for every debt (US National Debt is $35.35 trillion!!) there is a rich person on the end of it with the loan as an asset earning interest. If companies avoid tax and rich people avoid tax it means more tax for normal people who work for a living.

Countries aren't bankrupt, they can't really go bankrupt if they use their own currency. Countries are not businesses they don't need to make money to be able to spend.

Tax shouldn't be seen as the countries income but as a tool for redistribution of wealth and to keep trust in the currency as a whole. If you don't have debt you don't have money, every printed dollar goes into the system and can be used in various things not only an asset earning interest

Re: Apple must pay 13B euros in back taxes, EU's top court rules

#189

Post by izacus »

piltdownman wrote: post #167
izacus wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your interpretation just lost in court, so who here doesn't know what they're talking about?

It's literally enshrined in German Case Law as 'Identitätsvorbehalt'. The Polish constitutional court OUTRIGHT ruled that EU law does not supercede national law. Thus, primacy of EU law is wholly rejected in Poland. https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/07/polish-court-rules-some-... I could go on, but responding to Dunning-Kruger commentary is a Pyrrhic battle at best.

Why are you talking about Poland in Irish case now? :)

A case which questions the ability of EU to override Polish consistution. Did you establish that corporate tax law is a consistutional issue? And note that the decision the tribunal has made that redress for differences between EU law and Polish law will have to be handled by: leaving EU, changing the constitution or changing the EU law. I'm not sure Poland wants to push that.

Re: Apple must pay 13B euros in back taxes, EU's top court rules

#190

Post by Nursie »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #85

I’m confused. So EU runs Ireland’s tax system? What happened to sovereignty? How does this work?

What's to be confused about?

Treaties bind nations to behave in certain ways all the time, it's basically what they are for.

EU membership is in effect a set of treaties that a member-nation signs up to, which create these supra-national bodies like the court and also a lot of trade and tax rules which get harmonised across the union. Ireland has signed these treaties, which give it access to the market and the benefits of being in the EU.

If it wishes to set its tax rules without reference to the EU, it will either need to get the EU rules changed through the political process, or leave the treaties and treaty organisations.

Yes, you can view this as ceding sovereignty, but in some ways every treaty does that.

Post reply on HN