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

671–680 of 708 posts

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

#671

Post by jltsiren »

Aerroon wrote: post #610
jltsiren wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those numbers are not directly comparable. GDP is a measure of added value, not spending. Public sector spending may be ~50% of the GDP, but private sector spending is something like ~200%, making public sector ~20% of the total.

Why wouldn't they be comparable? It's a measure of how much government taxes take out of 'your' paycheck - tax receipts don't tell the whole story, because they don't show inflation caused by money printing. Government spending does. It effectively indicates that you're working for the manor lord Monday and Tuesday (and Wednesday in France), and are allowed to work on your own field from Wednesday to Friday. At the e…

They are not comparable, because the whole economy is ~250% of GDP when you measure it by spending. The government spends ~50% of GDP. Households spend ~70%. And businesses spend >100%. You should either compare government spending to total spending or the part of GDP produced by the government to total GDP. Either way, the government is ~20% of the economy.

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

#673

Post by touristtam »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #586
vasco wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you make it seem like EU doesn't care at all about what member states do in regards to taxation but there's many limitations to what can be done by any member state in order to harmonize and prevent corruption etc. This in practice makes the EU have a lot of say in regards to taxation. Moreover the EU has special rules to limit moving funds to jurisdictions that have taxes that are deemed too low (read tax ha…

> this directly implies no member state has agency to lower their own taxes as much. Two words: Dutch Sandwitch Because it’s one market, unless countries coordinate, you get massive tax loopholes with profits being shifted to tax heavens. Practical implications override hypothetical concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Sandwich

Hence why a lot of European companies have incorporated in the NL in the last couple of decades.

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

#674

Post by oblio »

xvector wrote: post #576
oblio wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is nothing. Apple's profits over the period mentioned were probably hundreds of billions.

This is 27% of their cash on hand. It simply cannot be spun as "nothing".

Heh: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital

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

#675

Post by andy_ppp »

darkstar_16 wrote: post #139
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.

That's not even the same thing. The govt is bankrupt because it keeps printing money to get out of previous debt and other poor choices. The companies are following the rules and taking advantage of loopholes in the system.

It keeps printing money because we have socialism for the rich, they are never allowed to lose now.

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

#676

Post by pembrook »

gamblor956 wrote: post #668
pembrook wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly haven’t dealt with many of the edge cases then. If you make over $150k as an expat and have a non-American spouse (MFS, as many expats do) you’re looking at roughly $1-$5k in extra taxes that don’t qualify for the Foreign Tax Credit, and since they’re above FEIE, you effectively get double taxed. You can then take that to the country you reside, IF they have a tax treaty with the US, and apply for a credi…

If you make over $150k as an expat and have a non-American spouse (MFS, as many expats do) you’re looking at roughly $1-$5k in extra taxes that don’t qualify for the Foreign Tax Credit, and since they’re above FEIE, you effectively get double taxed. Yes, if you have a bad accountant. If you're getting double-taxed on your global income as an American expat, your tax preparer is committing malpractice and you should i…

No, what's humorous is your insulting tone when you apparently do this for a living but are the one who is misinformed.

Just one example: the Net Investment Income Tax (1), which has been ruled in court to not qualify for the foreign tax credit.

https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2021/nov/tax-treaties-f...

You have to then take that money paid to the US back to your country of residence and hope that their tax officials have any understanding of the situation, and will apply it as a credit against your tax owed.

News flash: Not all countries tax officials know all the rules either. And going to appeals court over $923.65 doesn't really make sense.

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

#677

Post by linotype »

izacus wrote: post #305
linotype wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s strange is to say it’s only an anerican issue.

Which is why I didn't say that :D

> I find it interesting how in american corpspeak "uncertanty" pretty much always means "our lawyers can't find a way to avoid this law without getting caught" ^^

What does “american” here mean then?

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

#678

Post by nothrabannosir »

robertlagrant wrote: post #651
nothrabannosir wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct: a market where sellers compete is good for buyers. Unfortunately in this market the buyers are corporations and the sellers are democratic governments (us). That’s why this is not good for people.

We aren't democratic governments. We are subjects to governments, who we must pay taxes to, and customers of corporations, who we pay if they can produce stuff we like for cheap enough.

This moves the conversation to questioning the notion of representation of a people by its government. It is true that the entire conversation about whether or not it's good if Apple can play governments out against each other in order not to pay any taxes, rests in part on that assumption. That's a fine conversation to have. But in TFA and in here so far, it is assumed.

Note btw that even in your narrower definition of what government is to us, you still mention taxes, and that is precisely what is in question here, so even according to your formulation everything holds and it is still good for us if corporations can't play out governments against each other to lower their tax bill, because that's directly us footing that bill. You'd have to find some kind of definition of government that doesn't cover that, or argue that if Apple doesn't pay taxes, all those gains are passed on to us, the people, in a better way than if they do. Through a stronger tech market leading to better tech products, or something?

Anyway I think the original assumption is fair and the discussion holds. "Cheating on your taxes = stealing from the people" is a such a well established fundamental axiom that challenging it basically changes the conversation entirely.

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

#679

Post by croes »

imchillyb wrote: post #506
croes wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a new rule. They just found that Ireland's tax rules from 1991 and 2007 are illegal tax benefits according to the preexisting rule. Just because they took so long apply existing law doesn't make it retroactive.

While that sounds true, the EU approved Ireland's 1% tax rate. This is a retroactive ruling. This is playing favorites, the opposite game.

An approval doesn't mean it's legal. When they finally looked into it they found it's violating existing laws.

Same with the data contracts with the US, Safe Harbor, Privacy Shield etc. All approved, all later on found a violation of EU law.

That's not retroactive just slow.

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

#680

Post by fennecbutt »

martinald wrote: post #502
nine_k wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically in Ireland, corporate taxes were being lowered from late 1980s until 2003, in a series of agreements with the EU regulators. It's not like Ireland lowered the taxes in a sneaky scheme, or grandfathered-in an abnormally low rate.

Just to be clear - I don't think many people have (much) of a problem with ireland's "headline" 12.5% CT rate. The problem is the selective tax rates that Ireland gave to many multinationals, often as low as 0.005% (effectively in return for ensuring x amount of jobs were created in Ireland). I think these are really very much sneaky schemes.

All tax havens are like that and they should be obliterated. 1% bs.
Post reply on HN