Since Apple makes all its money in Ireland they could save some expenses by closing their money-losing branch office in California.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adverse Ruling Against Apple Expected in European Tax Probe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Since Apple makes all its money in Ireland they could save some expenses by closing their money-losing branch office in California.
30 billion sounds about right, tack on some compound interest and a 30 billion in punitive damages and we're good to go
The reality is completely to the contrary -- taxation policy is very closely tied to trade (tariffs?), and, is actually the first thing that the old EEC agreement was about (see Treaty of Rome, 1957). They just screwed up this part-- corporate income taxes-- obviously.
This is no new tax. This is about illegal state aid. Apple did not need state aid. They should pay it back.
You're right. The EU is bigger than I thought in sales. However, almost half of that is the U.K. alone, the rest of EU is actually down since 2012. And I never said they were picking on Apple only. They want more taxes from every American company regardless of deals that were already in place. No matter how you feel Apple of Starbucks or any American company is avoiding taxes, it's a simple shakedown from the EU.
This have mostly nothing to do with US/EU relationship, IKEA and Fiat are not US companies, but they are under the same scrutiny. There have been lot of illegal state aid cases in EU over the times, but usually only get national or transnational attention. The reason these cases get so much attention worldwide is that the companies are large multinationals, and of course the reason they are mentioned on Macrumors is that one of these companies are Apple.
In addition to that, Ireland is not part of the UK, North Ireland is.
I know you're joking, and I'm positive you recognize that it's safe to joke about "President Trump" only because Americans are relatively safe from that actually becoming a reality... But the next President won't be sworn in until January 2017.
Republic of Ireland didn't vote - not apart of the UK. northern Ireland did.
The UK hasn't exited the EU. Only ( a non binding ) vote. The UK still had to invoke article 50 - wont leave the EU until 2 years after.
Oh hyperbole
Still true though. The interface is a mess and is confusing and Apple Music is the first thing you see when using it, or did they now change that due to the negative backlash? No hyperbole at all.
Just so you know the majority of the public across all EU member states are demanding that these giant American and home country Corporations are forced to pay their taxes, it is these corporations customer base demanding the action. It is not a shakedown, it's the fact that all EU and other companies have to pay taxes, yet giant ones do not. I think you need to understand the mood of the people behind this first as it will help.
American ones have been in the spotlight of late but they aren't the only ones being scrutinised.
Yes, does this investigation cover all of Ireland or just the Northern Part?
Last edited:
I know you're joking, and I'm positive you recognize that it's safe to joke about "President Trump" only because Americans are relatively safe from that actually becoming a reality... But the next President won't be sworn in until January 2017.
Oops thanks! For the joke Trump was more fitting than Obama
You say that Apple's behavior here shows greed. Possibly. Is it illegal? We'll see but I don't believe that's true because you say so (unless you're some sort of EU legal scholar).
It may seem unfair to do the maneuvering Apple's doing, but taking advantage of financial loopholes isn't illegal until laws are passed to close them. That's why they're called loopholes.
If they acted contrary to existing EU trade law, then they should be held accountable. If they technically acted consistent with current EU trade law, then criticize them all you want for being sneaky, greedy, icky, or whatever, but don't declare they've done something illegal.
I'd also add that these first rulings on major cases often get very limited or even overturned on appeal (see Apple v Samsung), which means:
1. The decision you'll soon read regarding this ruling may not be the last word, and
2. If judges and a courtroom of legal scholars sometimes get it wrong, you probably shouldn't position yourself as some sort of expert arbiter of legal truth.
It's no more safe or unsafe to joke about Trump than the other increasingly obvious criminal candidate who turned every state they touched into a warzone. These might be two of the worst people in America and they are running for president. What a country.I know you're joking, and I'm positive you recognize that it's safe to joke about "President Trump" only because Americans are relatively safe from that actually becoming a reality... But the next President won't be sworn in until January 2017.
It's retroactively changing the taxes after 12 years because you are going broke
.[doublepost=1472399112][/doublepost]
Interpretations of most laws will change over 12 years. It's one thing to say you have to pay more in the future but it's another thing to say you have to retroactively pay 12 years of taxes due to an arbitrary interpretation change.
If they walked into an illegal deal knowing or suspecting that it was so, then yes it was illegal.
Just the same as if I get into a stolen car whilst knowing about it even tho I didn’t steal it then I have broken the law.
[doublepost=1472403999][/doublepost]
No. The deal they did was always suspect. Who cares if the EU are bringing it up now. Guess what, if the taxman finds out that I underpaid years ago, I’ll still have to pay back. WTH should they get away with it?It's retroactively changing the taxes after 12 years because you are going broke
[doublepost=1472399112][/doublepost]
Interpretations of most laws will change over 12 years. It's one thing to say you have to pay more in the future but it's another thing to say you have to retroactively pay 12 years of taxes due to an arbitrary interpretation change.
I'm seriously jealous of the sheltered life you must live. The two major candidates wouldn't even come close to being some of the worst people I've met.
In any case, there are others running for the office of American President, and if you really think the two majors are criminals, I recommend branching out and doing what you can to support the alternative(s).
I'm very calm. Very, very calm. I just get very slightly annoyed when people make statements to the effect that because Apple has lots of money, Apple should have been paying more taxes. To me, that seems very illogical.
Is the sequence of events here fairly simple, or, is this a very complicated situation?
What I don't understand is how it apparently took the EU so long to figure out that Ireland was doing something irregular?
Interpretations change over 12 years. If they thought it was illegal 12 years ago, they would have done something then.
It's similar to a referee changing the result of a decision in a sports game 12 years after the game because the referee is interpreting the rules differently than the original referee.
It reallly, really isn't. International business is more opaque and complicated than a sports game. Cases take a while to build up and execute at the best of times to say nothing of the backlog of those cases already in train. Trying to portray what is happening here as a personal and covetous dig at US corporations is nothing but jingoism.
I'd rather phrase that in a way that only because Apple has so much money do they even have the possibility to negotiate such a shameful deal that makes them pay 2% (!) taxes. It's only those super rich mega-companies that can avoid paying taxes. I have an extremely hard time understanding anybody that defends such a behavior. They profit by an incredibly huge amount by what we, as a society, invest into our infrastructure, since those big players, despite their marketing, are incredibly immoral to everything we have to make them pay their due share.
We can discuss whether me paying about 40% taxes is too much / not enough but 2% is just out of the question imo. By a large margin.
Whether it was illegal or not remains to be seen, but America has no problem to intervene (for the good imo) into all kinds of stuff (Swiss banking system in general, German banks operating in the US, German car manufacturers selling cars in the US, etc. pp.) - and that should go both ways. Those companies may be founded in one country or another but they operate 100% globally so setting double standards because of nationalistic perspectives harm all of us.
Last edited:
OK, analogy fans, particularly those aiming invectives at Apple, Inc. Here it is (stipulating that it's only accurate until it's proved that Apple (not Ireland or anyone else) violated a law):
They do because they can, it's not nice but it's technically legal, and it's no less legal just because the rest of us don't like it and can't manage it. If enough people don't like it, impose a speed limit that levels the field.
If Apple was technically following the letter of Irish/EU law, I can't conceive of a reason they should pay back taxes. Naturally, if they weren't, they should pay the taxes they've owed plus some sort of penalty. Again, the final word on legality is a long way off.
Blaming Apple for paying an exceptionally low tax rate is like blaming exotic car drivers for going 140mph on the Autobahn.
They do because they can, it's not nice but it's technically legal, and it's no less legal just because the rest of us don't like it and can't manage it. If enough people don't like it, impose a speed limit that levels the field.
Making Apple pay retroactive taxes +/- a fine is like making said driver pay a speeding ticket because someone decides that having no speed limit is unfair to the rest of the car driving community.
If Apple was technically following the letter of Irish/EU law, I can't conceive of a reason they should pay back taxes. Naturally, if they weren't, they should pay the taxes they've owed plus some sort of penalty. Again, the final word on legality is a long way off.
Last edited: