The money doesn’t go to the EU - it goes to the Irish ... who say they don’t want it ... and are also appealing the ruling! I’ll take it if nobody wants it
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.
Apple CFO Luca Maestri to Lead Challenge Against Irish Tax Ruling in Luxembourg Court This Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The money doesn’t go to the EU - it goes to the Irish ... who say they don’t want it ... and are also appealing the ruling! I’ll take it if nobody wants it
I think the question that I have, and admittedly I haven’t done my research is who do the penalties go to?
If to Ireland then my question becomes why did they tax Apple at such a low rate? Well as one said, it’s likely that the % of the revenue was more than enough to give Ireland what they needed, and the dollar value was what was fair and competitive, even if the % was not.
that said, I’m no expert in international tax laws...
If to Ireland then my question becomes why did they tax Apple at such a low rate? Well as one said, it’s likely that the % of the revenue was more than enough to give Ireland what they needed, and the dollar value was what was fair and competitive, even if the % was not.
that said, I’m no expert in international tax laws...
"The case is inconsequential to Epstein's financials. You see, Jeffery is loaded."
Oh, now Apple is the same as Epstein? LOL!!! Your argument is getting weaker and more silly with every post.
You are very close to just being ignored.
I live in a small Country in Europe and a big company just invested over a billion euros for new production and research facilities. My country has one of the highest taxes in Europe (austria) and yet that is not that important it seems....
A disgrace to who?
[doublepost=1568647480][/doublepost]
I’m a pacifist. I’ll send you a bag of lame, soggy popcorn if you want though.
You are wrong. Read this Wikipedia article for more details. Quote: "Senators Carl Levin and John McCain drew light on what they referred to as a special tax arrangement between Apple and Ireland which allowed Apple to pay a corporate tax rate of less than 2%... The Commission fine is simply the estimated profits of, mainly, ASI applied, at the prevailing Irish corporate tax rate of 12.5%"
Apple tax rate was 6 times lower than normal Irish corporate tax. That's why EU sued Ireland.
I'm not saying apple did anything bad on the same level as Epstein. You're the one arguing apple is loaded, so the case is inconsequential.
Apple followed Irish law, but Ireland didn't follow EU law on state subsidies.
Ireland allowed Apple to avoid tax in a way that it doesn't allow any other companies, and this is essentially the Irish state subsidising a private company, which isn't allowed under EU rules.
So although it was Ireland who broke EU law, the result is that Apple still owe tax at the same rate they would have paid had they not cut a deal with Ireland and structured in the same way as other companies do to avoid tax.
Sir, I am a licensed CPA. I don't need to read a Wikipedia article lol. If you actually comprehended what you just copy and pasted from Wikipedia, then you would understand that you just unknowingly corroborated what I stated previously.
What a company actually pays in taxes has little to nothing to do with the "prevailing corporate tax rate" in a code of laws for any country. The "prevailing corporate tax rate" is a starting point as to what your income is to be taxed at. However, do a multitude of deductions, credits, and LEGAL income shifting, a company's effective tax rate can LEGALLY be far less than the "prevailing corporate tax rate." You'd be hard pressed to find one company that pay's anywhere near the "prevailing corporate tax rate" in any country in the world.
Additionally, using two US Senator's opinions on tax law is like using Trump's Twitter account to understand immigration.
[doublepost=1568648917][/doublepost]
First of all, thank you for providing an actual legitimate discussion point on this topic (seriously).
This could prove to be the biggest sticking point of the argument in EU Court. However, I believe Apple will likely argue that while the structure was indeed technically different, the end result would largely be the same had they followed the same structure as other companies. I would find it hard to believe that Apple's general counsel, as well as tax specialists, did not vet these arrangements beforehand.
Additionally, there is no way Apple will pay $13.5 billion euros. They would never have paid that amount in due course even if this arrangement had not occurred. No company pays the local country's "prevailing corporate tax rate" anywhere in the world!
Last edited:
It’s inconsequential for the financials and health of Apple, as I said.
It’s a waste of time and sets a bad precedent.
This is not just EU sales, worldwide sales are/were routed through Apple International Ireland.
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/how-ireland-got-apple-s-9bn-profit-20140306-j7cxm
As for complying with law, they thought they could ignore Australian reporting laws, so what else are they willing to try
My credit card purchases billed in Ireland, so I switched to cash
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/how-ireland-got-apple-s-9bn-profit-20140306-j7cxm
As for complying with law, they thought they could ignore Australian reporting laws, so what else are they willing to try
My credit card purchases billed in Ireland, so I switched to cash
Thank you for posting.
Wikipedia is a great resource, but is often a gross oversimplification of facts, particularly in nuanced cases like interpretation of law, philosophy and other more open ended topics.
Wikipedia is great for facts, but struggles with interpretation.
Also Ireland is no longer a net beneficiary of the EU and has become a net contributor since 2014: https://www.irishtimes.com/business...-200m-net-to-european-union-in-2017-1.3808700
You clearly do not understand the difference between a tax rate (before any deductions and credits) and an effective tax rate (after deductions and credits).
No, that isn't the subject here.
Apple didn't pay the Irish taxes (if those are fair or not that is an interesting discussing but not for now) they paid much less (almost nothing but again that isn't the subject).
The EU won't get the money, Ireland will.
False. Ireland did not lower taxes for Apple. Apple pays the same tax rates as any Irish corporation that takes advantage of the same tax breaks. The issue concerns the shifting of tax liability from jurisdictions where the sales occurred to a jurisdiction where the corporation resides.
[doublepost=1568650136][/doublepost]
There is no allegation that Apple did not comply with EU laws. Suggest you read up on the subject before throwing out opinions.
Exactly. It seems a lot of people posting here simply do not understand the basic premises of (corporate) taxation. Politicians and "news articles" further their own narratives and tell you what they want you to hear. They don't explain to you "how things actually work." They hit on high points that they think most people would agree with, such as "not paying your fair share of taxes."
A headline that reads "BREAKING: APPLE ILLEGALLY AVOIDED PAYING $13.5 BILLION IN TAXES" is just click bait.
I am by no means attempting to suggest I am an expert in international tax law and could work on Apple's legal or taxation teams. However, IMO if any corporation in the world should be given the benefit of the doubt, it would be Apple.
I am not an accountant and while all you say may be correct in general the specific problem here is that Apple had a special deal with Ireland: "The Irish government agreed a deal with Apple in 1991 to only tax a certain bracket of its earnings, giving it a dramatically lower tax rate than it would have to pay in the US. Apple got its lower tax rate, and Ireland kept Apple in the country."
So, Ireland had special permanent tax rules for Apple and this is illegal under EU rules because it distorts the competition.
You may find more information here.
Taking advantage of how Ireland's base corporate tax rate (which was something like 20% back then and is something like 15% now when the EU norm is about 24%) being lower than most of the EU would be just that. Having a secret no-tax deal with the Irish government really isn't when deals like it have been banned by the founding documents of the EEC, which I have to point out Ireland ratified when they join the EEC in the 1970s!
Apple really is putting up this big fight over having to actually pay the standard Irish tax rate on their EU profits. They don't want to pay the Irish corporate tax rate on those profits, they want to basically pay no tax on those profits. I'm really not kidding here. It's not a case of Apple wanting to get away with a slightly lower tax rate, it's about Apple wanting to get away with paying taxes of 0.005% on all of their EU profits.
The fact that you're not an expert does kind of show in how confident you are in your "knowledge" when you're so badly misinformed it's not even funny.
To put it as simply as I can:
- Ireland has a corporate tax rate lower than most of the EU to attract businesses from outside of the EU
- Apple wasn't satisfied with just paying this lower tax rate, they wanted an even better tax rate
- Ireland and Apple agreed on a secret deal where Apple only paid an effective tax rate of 0.005%
- The reason why this deal was secret was because it was illegal under EU law, which Ireland being an EU member is obviously subject to
- This deal continued for several years until it leaked a few years ago
- EU courts concluded that this deal was obviously illegal under EU law
- Apple ordered to pay Ireland the proper Irish tax rate for that time
- Apple, still wanting to pay that absurdly low 0.005% tax rate, and Ireland, not wanting to scare away other companies with similar secret deals, contest this
So claiming that this deal is legal, when the EU courts have declared it illegal, you're essentially claiming that you know EU law better than the EU itself and it's courts.
Last edited:
I am not attempting to say "I am 100% correct here" as there are a lot of moving parts in these scenarios and I (we) are only as good as the data we have to analyze. However, that article you posted draws it's own conclusions such as:
"The message is clear: We've been here for 10 years, we're a vital part of Cork, and if you don't strike a deal with us then maybe we'll go elsewhere."
...but (un)surprisingly does not provide any details as to what exactly they "agreed to" or how this arrangement was to be set up. If you (the writer of the article) can't provide concrete facts and documents to back your story, then your story is a joke.
That being said, I don't think what you wrote is necessarily incorrect but one cannot take a broad stroke of the paint brush and say "Apple and Ireland conspired into an illegal tax arrangement." It's just not that simple. It's far more complex than that. There are so many businesses right now in Ireland doing effectively the same thing as Apple did.
Did Apple maybe not "dot some i's and cross some t's" properly? Maybe they didn't. But this whole idea that Apple did something so different and nefarious from thousands of other company's who have similar operations in Ireland is just wrong.
[doublepost=1568651610][/doublepost]
No company pays "sticker price" corporate tax rates anywhere in the world. In fact, no one pays "sticker price" personal income tax rates anywhere in the world either.
Additionally, Apple paid 0.005% on the EU profits to the EU. That does NOT mean they didn't pay taxes on those profits at all; they paid taxes on those profits in the USA.
Income shifting is a basic premise of tax avoidance whether in personal or corporate income tax and is entirely legal.
Does anyone think that maybe, just maybe Apple "outsmarted" the EU and now the EU is pretty pissed about it lol? The EU didn't seem to care for 20+ years...before Apple had more money than some country's GDP...