I am not talking about being right, but about being right about being confident.
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 Expects Appeal of Irish Tax Ruling to Take 'Several Years' With No Impact on Near-Term Financial Results
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Liberals only like taxes when other people are paying for them. Tim Cook is the biggest hypocrite.
It may be true that Apple has deeper pockets, but Ireland isn't going to pay a penny because of this - quite the opposite. The EU is telling Ireland to charge Apple additional taxes. If it happens, money would go from Apple to Ireland. And not a penny to other countries.
The damage to Ireland would be that they cannot offer big companies deals like "you put all your revenue into little Ireland, and we allow you to pay a low tax rate", so big companies would see little reason to move their headquarters to Ireland.
In this case, the Irish people didn't suffer. They get more money if Apple pays a low percentage of all profits in Europe, then they would get if Apple paid a high percentage of the profits in Ireland.
Apple presently isn't being punished; they are just being asked to pay the taxes they should have paid at legitimate tax rates. The second part of this action will be did they have a unfair competitive commercial position arising from not paying their legitimate taxes. This may indeed conclude with punishment.
Considered legal by who ? It was a secret until 2014 if I recall correctly.
Last edited:
This ruling is by the "Competition Committee" of the EU. It is not recognised by US Treasury, Ireland Finance minister, Apple or the other companies in a similar position. It is not yet clear if it is recognised by the EU court system. It addresses past (2002-16) tax code and years that have been settled for years and fully compliant with each country's SOVEREIGN rules. The EU Competition Committee is trying to establish new and unique powers to ask for retroactive changes to the tax due despite the compliance as agreed by all involved parties.
I don't know how they can even claim this power or jurisdiction to begin with. What really surprises me is it is true in every country and jurisdiction that GAAP rules do not allow retroactive taxation.
I don't know how they can even claim this power or jurisdiction to begin with. What really surprises me is it is true in every country and jurisdiction that GAAP rules do not allow retroactive taxation.
Pay your god damn taxes you shirking bastards.
[doublepost=1472571846][/doublepost]
When it comes to the Irish government, "no value is created" is their mantra. What didn't get passed to TDs in brown envelopes would have been pissed away by any other means possible, anything to avoid it actually being invested in the real economy.
[doublepost=1472571846][/doublepost]
Says Ireland used for research and distribution, yet no value is created there.
Yes Apple, logic
When it comes to the Irish government, "no value is created" is their mantra. What didn't get passed to TDs in brown envelopes would have been pissed away by any other means possible, anything to avoid it actually being invested in the real economy.
It was no secret that Apple was getting tax deals from Ireland. It's been common knowledge since at least the early 80s. Indeed, a look at the Apple's financials would have shown that was the case.
Where do you get this? If i recall correctly this is from the amsterdam & lisbon treaty both accepted by ireland .
No its not, it got these powers mainly from the lisbon treaty in 2007 . Nothing new and thispart of the treaty ireland does not have an opt out.
Taxation rules not retroactive? Then how would they ever be able to do anything? Its quite normal for taxation regulation and such cases to go back years.
It seems agreed that Apple have operated legally, that Apple And Ireland have colluded in a mutually beneficial manner resulting in an outcome that is anti competitive. That Apple should pay a higher rate of tax and that few have any sympathy for them in this situation.
What does it take for a tech company to become irrelevant? Nokia and Blackberry had the market once and lost it, can the same happen to Apple for different reasons?
I adopted the Apple ecosystem six years ago. It's good, it works, I am happy. This tax thing leaves me unable to envangelise about the tech that wont need replacing for five years.
So as a consumer I won't be replacing or recommending macos/iOS system and there must be many like me out there that. Would that be enough to harm the brand? I just don't know.
All I know is that the mighty can fall.
What does it take for a tech company to become irrelevant? Nokia and Blackberry had the market once and lost it, can the same happen to Apple for different reasons?
I adopted the Apple ecosystem six years ago. It's good, it works, I am happy. This tax thing leaves me unable to envangelise about the tech that wont need replacing for five years.
So as a consumer I won't be replacing or recommending macos/iOS system and there must be many like me out there that. Would that be enough to harm the brand? I just don't know.
All I know is that the mighty can fall.
What's "funny" about this is the fact that if we / our small / medium sized companies fail to pay taxes we end up paying thru our noses as soon as we're caught. However, when we talk about billions its relative matter and is open for discussions.
Regarding Apple's mantra about creating jobs, that's just bunch of nonsense. Apple employed 4000 people in Ireland. If 14 billion is cost of creating those jobs then the cost of employment to Irish government was 3.5 million euros per each employed person. I'd say this was very bad deal for Ireland. In any case Ireland already has extremely low corporate tax so I have hard time understanding what is the purpose of negotiating deals pushing it below 1%.
Regarding Apple's mantra about creating jobs, that's just bunch of nonsense. Apple employed 4000 people in Ireland. If 14 billion is cost of creating those jobs then the cost of employment to Irish government was 3.5 million euros per each employed person. I'd say this was very bad deal for Ireland. In any case Ireland already has extremely low corporate tax so I have hard time understanding what is the purpose of negotiating deals pushing it below 1%.
Personally I don't get it. If a country wants to offer special rates to a company they should be able to do so. Is it different than the average consumer? Yes, but that's a part of life at this point. Seems to me that yet another instance of the EU trampling over countries like this isn't so great on the heels of Brexit.
Apple is not being punished or sanctionned by the EU. They're just asking them to pay what they should have payed, not a cent more.
But this is complicated by the fact that technically, BOTH Apple and the Irish Government are guilty :
- Ireland has offered a 2% deal instead of the normal 12% that is clearly illegal by the EU.
- Apple is not some small 10 people startup that doesn't understand how all this works. Thay have armies of lawyers and they must have clearly known that they're accepting an illegal deal, and have probably even pushed for lower percentages themselves. But they didn't put a gun on Ireland's head either.
So technically , both should pay back and revert to the legal percentage they should have used in the first place. But should the citizens of Ireland pay for something they didn't know about and didn't agree to and was done on their behalf by their government ? Also , Apple didn't sign with North-Korea or the Mafia, they signed with a legitimate government that basically told them, "hi guys, we're the government, we know what we're doing"
So this is much more complicated than it seems, and it will probably take years before the responsabilties are equally identified on who should pay what ...
But this is complicated by the fact that technically, BOTH Apple and the Irish Government are guilty :
- Ireland has offered a 2% deal instead of the normal 12% that is clearly illegal by the EU.
- Apple is not some small 10 people startup that doesn't understand how all this works. Thay have armies of lawyers and they must have clearly known that they're accepting an illegal deal, and have probably even pushed for lower percentages themselves. But they didn't put a gun on Ireland's head either.
So technically , both should pay back and revert to the legal percentage they should have used in the first place. But should the citizens of Ireland pay for something they didn't know about and didn't agree to and was done on their behalf by their government ? Also , Apple didn't sign with North-Korea or the Mafia, they signed with a legitimate government that basically told them, "hi guys, we're the government, we know what we're doing"
So this is much more complicated than it seems, and it will probably take years before the responsabilties are equally identified on who should pay what ...
Yes Apple, pay your cash to Brussels £$€ sucking vampires, what you waiting for? It is not like they don't deserve it and use it for people's good!
On a second though, no actually. Don't give them a dime!
The trouble is, it's just a whole load of bellyaching. People will complain bitterly about the corporations that use legal tax loopholes to minimise their tax liabilities whilst continuing to hand over money to those companies for their products and services.
If the average consumer even remotely cares about the amount of tax big corporations pay, why do they continue to buy their products and services?
Sometimes companies just make it worse for themselves when they drag things out, but in this case I certainly understand Apple's motivation to drag it out until they get a better outcome, either paying a lot less or nothing. Well, actually with attorney fees they will still pay a good amount if it actually takes years to settle.
You wanted to say dublin no? These taxes are 100% for ireland, nothing for the EU.
[doublepost=1472575621][/doublepost]
EU has rules that makes it illegal for companies to get preferential treatment.
Its to make sure countries dont offer sch favors the specific companies to lure them away from others. AKA its to not get a "who can offer the lowest rates and pretend thats good for a country" race.
Ireland is actually a net reciever of EU aid, simply said; EU is paying ireland because it gives some comapnies a 0.05% tax rate.