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

271–280 of 708 posts

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

#271

Post by fifticon »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #232
aswerty wrote: post #225

From discussions in the past, I was under the impression there was general sense that if Ireland should have legitimately taxed them to this degree. That ultimately the taxes owed should probably be paid out to the countries where the sale occurs. As one country reaping the rewards of the tax for the entire European operation would be bizarre, when that country just has a medium sized support/sales operation (which w…

> That ultimately the taxes owed should probably be paid out to the countries where the sale occurs. This is hard to implement in practice. Imagine selling in a country with 50% tax, and having a country with 10% somehwere, anywhere in the world. For easier math, let's say you buy dildos from a chinese manufacture for 1eur (including shipping), and sell them for 11eur to end customers. You've just earned 10eur, and y…

That is not a fictional example, in case any might still be wondering. I worked many years for an american/canadian/global company in europe. The software WE developed would be owned by a separate company entity. Whenever we sold "OUR" software systems to our real local customers, "we" would 'borrow/rent' OUR software from that separate entity, at a hefty silly price. Incidentally, that silly price was so high, that "we" (our company entity) would consistently produce a loss each year (even though our parent entity was raking it in, through that separate entity and the silly-price money we were transferring to them). Those losses of course are tax deductible, so our company would consistently pay zero taxes or worse (I don't know if they were also able to trigger things like the state having to reimburse them..) It is/was, as far as I know, totally legal and totally disgusting :-/.

The irony as I see it, was that the software was developed by us locally and used by local clients, but somehow ended up being "owned" by carribean islands.

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

#272

Post by InsomniacL »

mdhb wrote: post #208
InsomniacL wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s almost twice the entire EU defence fund budget. The EU defence spend in 2022 was €240 billion.

That’s very interesting but not what I said. https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-indus...

If you're referring to a single pot of money that exists to support Research and Development, you would typically refer to that as "The European Defence Fund" as "entire EU defence fund budget" would be interpreted differently.

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

#273

Post by e4325f »

igravious wrote: post #263
elAhmo wrote: post #251

Even if this sounds like a huge fine, this is effectively meaningless, even if they end up paying it. 13 billion, for a company with market cap of more than 3 trillion is around 0.4% of their cap. Until these fines become meaningful, companies will just continue breaking the law and asking for forgiveness later, as the changes to their market cap can offset this fine in hours.

13bn is not meaningless for Ireland – that'd fund several major infrastructure projects – stuff the Irish people missed out because of these illegal tax shenanigans.

Apple would have gone elsewhere if the scheme didn't exist, so it's not accurate to say Ireland has missed out on 13bn.

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

#274

Post by piltdownman »

igravious wrote: post #266
elAhmo wrote: post #251

Even if this sounds like a huge fine, this is effectively meaningless, even if they end up paying it. 13 billion, for a company with market cap of more than 3 trillion is around 0.4% of their cap. Until these fines become meaningful, companies will just continue breaking the law and asking for forgiveness later, as the changes to their market cap can offset this fine in hours.

“The most recent projections for the final cost of Metrolink set a maximum outlay of €12.25billion, excluding VAT, though the rail link is not expected to go live before the middle of the next decade at the earliest.”[1] 13bn would cover the cost of Dublin's first metro system, unlike most European capitals Dublin does not have a metro. This is what this ruling means for the Irish public. shame on the government putt…

Irish Corporation tax receipts for 2023 alone were valued at €23.8 billion. The ruling was for the benefit of the Irish public to indicate our willingness as a good faith and hospitable host for American MNCs now and in the future.

Given the propensity for the EU to throw us under the bus when the Teutonic books don't balance, its a lot more important for us to maintain our special cultural, economical and political relationship with the USA.

In any case, that money would never end up ringfenced for a Metro that has been in planning hell since the 80s. We're well able to afford white elephants (e.g. the new Children's Hospital).

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

#275

Post by e4325f »

igravious wrote: post #266
elAhmo wrote: post #251

Even if this sounds like a huge fine, this is effectively meaningless, even if they end up paying it. 13 billion, for a company with market cap of more than 3 trillion is around 0.4% of their cap. Until these fines become meaningful, companies will just continue breaking the law and asking for forgiveness later, as the changes to their market cap can offset this fine in hours.

“The most recent projections for the final cost of Metrolink set a maximum outlay of €12.25billion, excluding VAT, though the rail link is not expected to go live before the middle of the next decade at the earliest.”[1] 13bn would cover the cost of Dublin's first metro system, unlike most European capitals Dublin does not have a metro. This is what this ruling means for the Irish public. shame on the government putt…

This take makes no sense. The whole reason the 13bn exists is because of the tax arrangement. Apple would have gone elsewhere if not for that.

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

#276

Post by gpderetta »

kamikazeturtles wrote: post #175
moomin wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good way of thinking about the EU is as a solution to the prisoner's dilemma.

Do they tax LVMH? Or fine it for monopolistic practices? The EU is a pretty one-sided solution to the prisoner's dilemma

> Do they tax LVMH?

Any reasons to believe it isn't taxed?

> Or fine it for monopolistic practices?

Well, currently it is being investigated it seems:

https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/french-poli...

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

#277

Post by Supernaut »

afiori wrote: post #270
Supernaut wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ultimately the taxes owed should probably be paid out to the countries where the sale occurs. As I wrote in another thread, that's not how business works in the EU. 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.

> their net profits to the Polish exchequer I believe that part of the reason is that they still pay other taxes (eg VAT) in the country of sale.

VAT is a tax paid by the consumer, not the manufacturer. If you buy an iPhone, it's you that pays the VAT on it, not Apple.

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

#278

Post by jkaplowitz »

tpm wrote: post #241
jkaplowitz wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is one of the reasons the EU is set to remove the single country veto rule since it was open to abuse. You'll then need two countries on your side to alter the EU's rulings. There are definitely countries calling for this rule to be removed or otherwise reformed, but I wasn't aware that the EU "is set" to do it. My understanding is that this change would itself require unanimous agreement in order to make it h…

For some issues unanimous agreement is already not needed. For example recently a law was passed in the Council with 20 of 27 votes (only with the help of an Austrian minister against the wish of her government). https://www.dw.com/en/eu-ministers-approve-contested-nature-... The full rules are here, 'of course' taxation still needs unanimous agreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E...

Yes, I'm aware that unanimity is not currently always required. But a claim that the EU "is set" to remove a rule is discussing a change to the status-quo rules in this regard, which I haven't heard about except as a very much not unanimously agreed aspiration of some legislators and some member states.

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

#279

Post by astaunton »

elAhmo wrote: post #251

Even if this sounds like a huge fine, this is effectively meaningless, even if they end up paying it. 13 billion, for a company with market cap of more than 3 trillion is around 0.4% of their cap. Until these fines become meaningful, companies will just continue breaking the law and asking for forgiveness later, as the changes to their market cap can offset this fine in hours.

Just to clarify, the money has already been deposited to a holding account awaiting this ruling. So Apple will not be paying over any money, they will not be getting the money refunded to them.

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

#280

Post by sweezyjeezy »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #195
sweezyjeezy wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's rarely valid to compare countries' economics to your own personal finance, macroeconomics are a lot more complicated. Example: for employed people, going into (or avoiding) debt generally won't affect their yearly wages, but analogously it can for countries (e.g. well spent debt can stimulate economic growth).

> Example: for employed people, going into (or avoiding) debt generally won't affect their yearly wages, but analogously it can for countries While I do agree that personal finances are a bad analogy for state finances, that is not an illustrative example as to the reasons. An employed person can absolutely improve their yearly wage by going into debt, be it for investing in education to aspire to better paying posit…

I did say generally, but fair point :b
Post reply on HN