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

591–600 of 708 posts

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

#591

Post by Nemo_bis »

quonn wrote: post #113
fullspectrumdev wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s interesting is the deal Apple got was fine under Irish law at the time. Nobody foresaw how things would pan out literally decades later.

> literally decades later. So given the time value of money, Apple still has an unfair advantage?

Actually Apple is supposed to pay interest as well, but it's probably going to be a very low "legal interest rate".

From the original decision:

----

1. Ireland shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1(1) from Apple Sales International.

2. Ireland shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1(2) from Apple Operations Europe.

3. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiaries until their actual recovery.

4. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.

----

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2017/1283/oj

Linked in https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...

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

#592

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #587
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with all of this is that it's all sneaky schemes. You probably have something in mind for how a government is supposed to spend tax revenues. Assistance for the poor or something like that. But as a sovereign state they get to decide for themselves. Except that as soon as you admit this there is no point in having any kind of minimum rate etc., because there are a thousand ways for the state to return the…

> There is no real way to prevent this kind of thing You do realise that US, EU and China regularly sue each-other in WTO over this? What counts as subsidies, etc. is a constant subject of dispute. That’s normal,

They regularly sue each other because it's intrinsically ambiguous. There is nothing for a government to spend tax revenue on that isn't a subsidy to somebody. If anything they should be demanding that the other governments have lower taxes so they can't use the money for subsidies to distort international trade in their favor.

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

#593

Post by ClumsyPilot »

somat wrote: post #540
GeekyBear wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> avoiding to pay any corporate taxes in Italy This us a fairly common strategy not limited to tech. For instance, Starbucks in the UK: > Starbucks Coffee Company (UK) made a £149m “gross profit” in the year to October 2023, up from £129m the year before. But after “administrative expenses” of £127m, its pre-tax profits were reduced to £16.9m, on which it paid £7.2m tax... In 2012, it was revealed that Starbucks had…

does the UK have an income tax? Any sane country would rather have the economic boost from the jobs and then take their cut as income tax from that. than tax the company directly, Not to say they will not tax the company, but corporate law is often intentionally designed to let a company pay little tax if it is dumping the money it makes into the economy. why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?

> Any sane country would rather have the economic boost from the jobs and then take their cut as income tax from that. than tax the company directly

What jobs does Starbucks create, exactly? There were no coffee shops in UK before them? They outcompete local shops because they don’t have to pay taxes, and still sell a croissant for $5.

Alternatively, highly skilled population and innovative people are the goose that lays the golden eggs

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

#594

Post by tankenmate »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #592
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no real way to prevent this kind of thing You do realise that US, EU and China regularly sue each-other in WTO over this? What counts as subsidies, etc. is a constant subject of dispute. That’s normal,

They regularly sue each other because it's intrinsically ambiguous. There is nothing for a government to spend tax revenue on that isn't a subsidy to somebody. If anything they should be demanding that the other governments have lower taxes so they can't use the money for subsidies to distort international trade in their favor.

"There is nothing for a government to spend tax revenue on that isn't a subsidy to somebody."

That's just nonsense; so if the USA spent $1 and got a nuclear powered aircraft carrier in return that is subsidising the builder? More like running them out of business.

Government spending is only a subsidy if the government spends over the market price for something. And if your next statement is that the government *always* pays over the odds, you'll need some good evidence. Because although it does happen it is not always.

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

#596

Post by globular-toast »

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.

I think this is a cultural problem. Every accountant everywhere works under the implicit assumption that taxes are to be avoided. Imagine if having a large tax contribution was something to be proud of. Perhaps the government needs to advertise more what the money actually gets spent on. Government works on boring stuff like the culverts that are essential to stopping roads flooding. People have no idea of the work that goes into this and just assume roads don't flood. It's like that old thing where you think everyone's job is pointless/easy except your own.

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

#597

Post by valenterry »

woah wrote: post #389
b112 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downside of state debt is the downward spiral. If you spend 1/2 your tax income on just servicing the debt, that means either fewer services for people, or borrowing yet more, just to keep things going. If you borrow more, then it gets even worse. I really prefer that 1/2 my tax bill doesn't go to interest payments.

Let's say a city builds a bridge that doubles its tax income by opening up a lot of economic opportunities. It pays for this with a 35 year bond. During these 35 years, the entire additional income that the bridge generated goes towards paying off the bond. After the 35 years the bond is paid off and the city enjoys permanently raised tax income (not to mention better economy for residents). Was there a problem that…

> Was there a problem that the city spent 1/2 of tax income on just servicing the debt?

Actually, yes.

Let's say I went to the Casino, put all my money on black and won. Great. Was there a problem that I risked all my money in the casino? There surely was.

The thing is, financing investments via bonds means that only parts of the citizens are actually financing it with their private money (and also enjoy the benefits like interest). But the city could also just make a contract over the 35 years with recurring payments instead of paying all upfront. And then it could simply raise the tax (if necessary) to pay the additional payments. The difference is that now all citizens pay for it rather than just a small share.

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

#598

Post by AnthonyMouse »

tankenmate wrote: post #594
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They regularly sue each other because it's intrinsically ambiguous. There is nothing for a government to spend tax revenue on that isn't a subsidy to somebody. If anything they should be demanding that the other governments have lower taxes so they can't use the money for subsidies to distort international trade in their favor.

"There is nothing for a government to spend tax revenue on that isn't a subsidy to somebody." That's just nonsense; so if the USA spent $1 and got a nuclear powered aircraft carrier in return that is subsidising the builder? More like running them out of business. Government spending is only a subsidy if the government spends over the market price for something. And if your next statement is that the government *alwa…

> Government spending is only a subsidy if the government spends over the market price for something.

All they have to do is control who gets the contract, because the market price for something already includes a margin.

But more than that, the subsidy isn't just who gets the money, its who gets the benefit of what's bought. Who benefits from the US having aircraft carriers, other than the defense contractors? Multinational oil companies, for example, who don't want their tankers captured by pirates or blockaded by adversarial nations.

Who benefits when a government subsidizes higher education? The schools, of course, but also the companies who hire the graduates.

"Well that's the good kind of subsidy", you might say. And so says everyone else about everything else.

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

#599

Post by bjornsing »

timomaxgalvin wrote: post #452
bjornsing wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfair and uncertain taxation is a European specialty.

Taxation in Europe is much simpler and more certain than the US.

Simple and fair are not the same thing. Also, wait until you’ve issued stock based compensation to employees in a few jurisdictions before you make any certain claims.

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

#600

Post by tankenmate »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #598
tankenmate wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There is nothing for a government to spend tax revenue on that isn't a subsidy to somebody." That's just nonsense; so if the USA spent $1 and got a nuclear powered aircraft carrier in return that is subsidising the builder? More like running them out of business. Government spending is only a subsidy if the government spends over the market price for something. And if your next statement is that the government *alwa…

> Government spending is only a subsidy if the government spends over the market price for something. All they have to do is control who gets the contract, because the market price for something already includes a margin. But more than that, the subsidy isn't just who gets the money, its who gets the benefit of what's bought. Who benefits from the US having aircraft carriers, other than the defense contractors? Multi…

"because the market price for something already includes a margin."; that's called value add, and all customers pay it, so it doesn't matter whether the government buys it or directs someone else to pay it, the value add becomes the profit.

The government isn't some magical "outside the market" participant, as a purchaser it's a part of the market like all other participants. If they pay over the market price then they've been ripped off, just like if anyone else paid over the market price.

Post reply on HN