Live data from Hacker News

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

cnbc.com

471–480 of 708 posts

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

#471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more difficult to determine where the value in software is being created. Still, big tech has a lot of R&D offices in Ireland.

That's not what really Apple did in Europe to pay little taxes. The scheme was essentially like this: - Apple Ireland bought iphones for 200$ or so (talking about pre X numbers, now they're likely slightly higher) - Apple Ireland sold iPhones to Apple Italy for 599€s - Apple Italy sold iPhones for 599€s + vat (thus avoiding to pay any corporate taxes in Italy while making billions) - Apple Ireland had a special agree…

> Apple Italy sold iPhones for 599€s + vat (thus avoiding to pay any corporate taxes in Italy while making billions)

Isn't that the whole point of the European Economic Area? That you can freely sell your goods to other countries within the EEA without having to pay corporate taxes to each individual country?

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

#472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more difficult to determine where the value in software is being created. Still, big tech has a lot of R&D offices in Ireland.

That's not what really Apple did in Europe to pay little taxes. The scheme was essentially like this: - Apple Ireland bought iphones for 200$ or so (talking about pre X numbers, now they're likely slightly higher) - Apple Ireland sold iPhones to Apple Italy for 599€s - Apple Italy sold iPhones for 599€s + vat (thus avoiding to pay any corporate taxes in Italy while making billions) - Apple Ireland had a special agree…

The other weird part is that I beleive the situation had been resolved before any investigation.

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

#473
post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expats aren’t double taxed but you need to file tax returns to offset taxable income that’s already been taxed. There are specific agreements to avoid double taxation but it’s unclear/unlikely the IRS are just going to hand back money Apple already paid (it likely falls outside of what’s required in those international agreements). Companies, and people, make decisions based on the tax laws of the day eg deciding to…

> Expats aren’t double taxed but you need to file tax returns to offset taxable income that’s already been taxed. This is not correct, it is only practically true in trivial cases. Excess taxation is a very real pain point for Americans living overseas, never mind the other indefensible things the US government does to its expats like FATCA. Many types of income cannot be offset nor or they covered by tax treaties. E…

Many types of income cannot be offset nor or they covered by tax treaties.

That's news to me and I've been doing international tax for 15 years. Please, tell me what types of income earned by a U.S. expat isn't covered by a tax treaty?

It is not uncommon to pay more taxes in aggregate as an expat than you would pay in either country separately.

This is objectively false. For an expat, income taxes paid to a resident country are a dollar-for-dollar credit against your U.S. income taxes, and that's on top of the inclusion threshold that doesn't subject the first $X of foreign income to any U.S. taxation at all.

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

#474
post #441
post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is will force a political crisis no it won't > as the government is complaining it has no money to build houses no it isn't

I'm not Irish and I'm a lazy reader at this time so I won't search who's right, but the comment you are answering to was way more convincing than yours.

They're correct on both. The Irish government is running a budget surplus due to massive increases in the corporation tax intake over the last several years. The issue with delivery of housing and projects in this country isn't due to a lack of money, but a lack of capacity. The economy is already running at full capacity and there aren't enough workers available. Throwing more cash at things wouldn't have a material increase in output for several years until supply could ramp up.

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

#475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a general prohibition on EU member states granting state aid to companies, but there are exceptions to this where the aid is justified in order to promote economically underdeveloped regions. There are a lot of rules and court cases about when state aid will fall on one side or the other of that line. See eg https://competition-policy.ec.europa.eu/state-aid/legislatio...

> There is a general prohibition on EU member states granting state aid to companies The EU hands out billions in direct aid to companies every year. Many times together with the country governments. So there's no such prohibition in practice. In the EU regions I am familiar with, at least 70% of companies live on getting subsidies from the EU mainly and income from actual customers as a secondary concern. And I'm no…

The EU does that, yes. He’s saying countries can’t do that to their own industries, however, which I am led to believe is correct.

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

#476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interest free loan for years for 13 billion isn’t too bad!

I haven't read this specific case but normally "back taxes" refers to the taxes, interest, and fees that are owed.

I would guess that Apple's ability to get a return on its cash are likely to exceed the total of taxes, interest, and fees.

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

#477
post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the court ruled that it was unfair to other countries , not to Ireland. Ireland gained from the deal, didn't lose anything.

No, it's unfair to other _companies_. The issue like I said was that Apple was taxed ~1%, when others were taxed ~12%, which impact fair competition.

True. In any case, not unfair to Ireland.

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

#478
post #99

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.

This is a very naive way of thinking about debt. Cash has a time value. Cash now is worth more than cash later. I have a mortgage. This mortgage is worth more than the cash I own. That doesn't mean I'm bankrupt. The mortgage is paid on a fixed schedule over 30 years, and during those 30 years I'll have a home and be able to accrue other assets. If I didn't get a mortgage then I would still be saving for my home. The…

> Cash now is worth more than cash later.

This is accurate, regarding preferences for optionality, and how our economy currently works. But I think it's worth questioning the expectation that giving up that optionality deserves compensation, whether morally or practically (resulting in compounding "money-on-money returns", usually at low risk if sufficiently diversified).

The Italian economist Silvio Gesell noted, that no other good besides currency works this way. Every other good with a use value (food, houses) tends to lose value over time (entropy being fundamental to the universe), and/or, to carry risk (a share of stock which represents unpredictable ROI). There is course an exception in land, which doesn't intrinsically depreciate, but whose value trends upwards thanks to location value (and which can be addressed separately via Georgist land tax).

Gesell proposed a "demurrage currency" [0], which gradually loses value as it is held: the idea being, rather than being entitled to a return, retaining high long-term optionality is actually a privilege that one should have to pay for, since the real-world value it represents is depreciating. And the incentive to invest (whether at high or low risk) instead becomes to break even (with the rate of demurrage tracking what we currently call the discount rate).

I have no idea if such a concept is practical in a trans-national, growth-dependent global economy (with deflationary crypto-currencies as a BATNA!); if anything, I'm fairly confident it's not. But it's at least worth thinking about: that it's not at all axiomatic that holders of value should be entitled to compensation for "forgoing consumption" (not only because the wealthy don't necessarily need such an incentive, but also because increased consumption can mean an increase in the velocity of money, and more total value created, per the multiplier effect, and the "hotel riddle" [1]).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Gesell#Economic_philoso...

[1] https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/an_answer_to_a.html

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

#479
post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly why I asked. If the government approached Apple, to offer them a special (specific to Apple) tax deal in exchange for X ... why is Apple now being held accountable for Ireland doings.

Because in this area, EU has rule of law, not Ireland.

More helpfully, you probably mean EU law supersedes Irish law in this area.

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

#480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what really Apple did in Europe to pay little taxes. The scheme was essentially like this: - Apple Ireland bought iphones for 200$ or so (talking about pre X numbers, now they're likely slightly higher) - Apple Ireland sold iPhones to Apple Italy for 599€s - Apple Italy sold iPhones for 599€s + vat (thus avoiding to pay any corporate taxes in Italy while making billions) - Apple Ireland had a special agree…

> Apple Italy sold iPhones for 599€s + vat (thus avoiding to pay any corporate taxes in Italy while making billions) Isn't that the whole point of the European Economic Area? That you can freely sell your goods to other countries within the EEA without having to pay corporate taxes to each individual country?

Sure, but I think it's the sort of "self-dealing" that's the problem.

Suppose it were possible for a wholesaler in Ireland to purchase a product in bulk at around 1/3 of MSRP. Market equilibrium would drive the price of that product down, right? If any other company could do that, price competition would prevail and eventually the delta between the import cost (in Ireland) and the export price (to an Italian phone shop) would shrink. Likewise, the retailers that wholesaler sells to would want to have some margin as well. This would put pressure on the wholesaler - likely competing with other wholesalers - to have a small margin as their "value added" is insubstantial.

But, crucially, this is not a case of three independent entities: a manufacturer, a wholesaler, and a retail business. This is one entity, with three subsidiaries and setting prices between them to minimize tax burden, and setting prices in ways that are simply nonsensical, like selling products from one subsidiary to another at or below cost, and then to another at full retail price. If they were three separate companies, the manufacturer and the retailer would go under. In this scheme, the wholesaler is somehow adding all of the value to the product, despite doing nothing more than acting as a shipping hub.

Post reply on HN