Apple Hit With €500M Fine as EU Enforces Digital Markets Act

[AppliedMicro]

Which they shouldn't have to do, because Ireland shouldn't have been entitled to tax the profits of a non-resident company on sales made outside of Ireland

They were trying to be (too) clever by funnelling profits through a company that’s considered tax-resident nowhere (though controlled by U.S. persons). That’s the thing that - while admittedly not always illegal - is the thing that should immediately offend anyone’s sense of (tax) justice.

Apple already paid $38b in taxes to the US on those profits in 2018

That is irrelevant with regards their tax obligations in Ireland.

The EU took profits Apple booked in America, and gave it to Irish taxpayers

No - they booked it in their foreign (non-U.S.) subsidiaries. If the U.S. taxes profits upon “repatriation” to the U.S. a second time - and at higher corporate tax rates than other (e.g. European) countries, that’s between Apple and the U.S. Maybe they should consider relocating to Europe or elsewhere in that case.

To emphasize:
👉 Paying taxes on repatriated money in the U.S. does not free them from paying local taxes in other jurisdictions.

because Ireland shouldn't have been entitled to tax the profits of a non-resident company on sales made outside of Ireland.

…so why should the U.S. tax them (sales outside of the U.S.)?

and gave it to Ireland, who didn't want it (and wasn't entitled to it under any fair reading of law).

Under a (any any ordinary tax payer’s) “fair” reading of law, companies should be tax-resident somewhere and pay taxes somewhere. Not nowhere.

 

[surferfb]

They were trying to be (too) clever by funnelling profits through a company that’s considered tax-resident nowhere (though controlled by U.S. persons). That’s the thing that - while admittedly not always illegal - is the thing that should immediately offend anyone’s sense of (tax) justice.

Again, the profits were taxable when they were repatriated to the US.

That is irrelevant with regards their tax obligations in Ireland.

Apparently Ireland's tax law is also irrelevant to Apple's tax obligations in Ireland

…so why should the U.S. tax them (sales outside of the U.S.)?

Because Apple is a US company and the profits were booked in the US

Under a (any any ordinary tax payer’s) “fair” reading of law, companies should be tax-resident somewhere and pay taxes somewhere. Not nowhere.

Again, the $38b was paid to the US. Not nobody. They were delaying paying taxes, not avoiding paying taxes. And the EU took that money from the American taxpayer and gave it to the Irish government that didn't want it or deserve it, retroactively declaring Ireland's sovereign tax law illegal.

Be honest here, if Trump had done that to a European company you guys would be screaming bloody murder.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Again, the profits were taxable when they were repatriated to the US.

Again: irrelevant.
When you are considered tax resident in Europe (e.g. Ireland), you have to pay local taxes. It’s really as simple as that.
Your other tax obligations in the U.S. need not concern Europe.

Just as U.S. citizens may be taxed based on their worldwide income by the U.S. - even when they’re not resident in the U.S. When you move to Europe and (still) have to pay taxes to Uncle Sam, that doesn’t mean you get a pass on paying foreign taxes where you live. And your taxes do not belong (let alone exclusively!) to the U.S. Hopefully for you, a double taxation agreement is in place to reduce your burden.

Apparently Ireland's tax law is also irrelevant to Apple's tax obligations in Ireland

Quite the contrary: Apple has/had to pay back taxes based on Irish tax law - it’s just that the EU needed to “convince” Ireland what the proper reading of their tax law - in line with the European framework the country signed up to - was.

Because Apple is a US company and the profits were booked in the US

Their foreign subsidiaries are not.
They are at the heart of the case.
And they were specifically created to reduce taxes.

Again, the $38b was paid to the US.

What the U.S. taxes anyone one earth is irrelevant with regards to someone’s tax obligations elsewhere.

Worst case: the tax subject pays taxes in both jurisdictions in full (absent a double taxation agreement to reduce them) - with both jurisdictions lawfully considering the tax subject as resident/subject to taxation according to their respective laws.

 

[siddavis]

Honestly, so much of this comes down to the realization that some people really love corporate power.

I suspect it's because it's a constant tension of said corporate power putting food on your own table vs all the insidious ways corporate power erodes your experience, rights, value, etc, as an individual.

It's a complicated mess to untangle how and why folks feel how they feel.

Honestly, so much of this comes down to the realization that some people really love government power.

I suspect it's because it's a constant tension of said government Marxist claptrap vs all the insidious ways government power erodes your experience, rights, value, etc, as an individual.

It's a complicated mess to untangle how and why folks feel how they feel.

 

[BaldiMac]

They were trying to be (too) clever by funnelling profits through a company that’s considered tax-resident nowhere (though controlled by U.S. persons). That’s the thing that - while admittedly not always illegal - is the thing that should immediately offend anyone’s sense of (tax) justice.

Nope. Again, the thing they did wrong was temporary changing their Irish subsidiary from two companies to two branches of one company with the permission of the Irish tax authority. The double Irish tax strategy was otherwise legal until 2014. Of course, that's the simple version.

That is irrelevant with regards their tax obligations in Ireland.

No, it's not. Because the profits were booked in the US, not Ireland.

…so why should the U.S. tax them (sales outside of the U.S.)?

Because they book the profits in the US. The Irish subsidiary made minimal profits.

For example, Apple sells a widget for $100 in the EU. Apple Ireland gets $100 in revenue. Apple US charges Apple Ireland $95. So Apple Ireland pays Irish corporate tax (12.5%) on $5 profit. Apple US receives the other $95 as revenue. Apple US then subtract expenses and pays taxes on the profit.

The hitch here is that some of that revenue was temporarily routed to a stateless corporation in order to delay paying US taxes when the US corporate tax rate was 35%. Apple listed the delayed revenue and delayed taxes on their US tax forms.

Under a (any any ordinary tax payer’s) “fair” reading of law, companies should be tax-resident somewhere and pay taxes somewhere. Not nowhere.

And Apple paid taxes in the US. Not nowhere. Again, the whole Irish arrangement was about delaying US taxes.

 

[AppliedMicro]

No, it's not. Because the profits were booked in the US, not Ireland.

…as they should have been (booked in Ireland). As determined by the Commission and ultimately the court.

The hitch here is that some of that revenue was temporarily routed to a stateless corporation in order to delay paying US taxes when the US corporate tax rate was 35%

Stateless = not U.S.

 

[davide_eu]

I do - I should have said ERP Platforms, not applications. But I'd argue ERP platforms like SAP create far more lock-in for business users than the App Store does.

And again, if iPadOS gets declared a gatekeeper despite not meeting the metrics written into the law because "significant numbers of business users" use iPadOS to reach their customers, how can the EU argue with a straight face that ERP platforms shouldn't be considered gatekeepers? Do you disagree that significant number of business users get locked into SAP? Does that lock-in not harm competition?

But it's different - it's the concept of "gatekeeper". If you block the usage of NFC for third parties, you are BLOCKING third parties... it's pretty simple...

 

[MLVC]

Again, the profits were taxable when they were repatriated to the US.

Apparently Ireland's tax law is also irrelevant to Apple's tax obligations in Ireland

Because Apple is a US company and the profits were booked in the US

Again, the $38b was paid to the US. Not nobody. They were delaying paying taxes, not avoiding paying taxes. And the EU took that money from the American taxpayer and gave it to the Irish government that didn't want it or deserve it, retroactively declaring Ireland's sovereign tax law illegal.

Be honest here, if Trump had done that to a European company you guys would be screaming bloody murder.

I'll have to repeat it again, because you keep repeating this false narrative, and you keep ignoring the fact that I keep correcting you, just because the actual facts don't follow your version of the narrative.

This isn't entirely accurate. While Apple did pay $38B to the US Treasury in 2018, that was specifically for repatriation of overseas profits under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act - a separate issue from the EU case.

The European Commission ruled that Ireland provided illegal tax advantages to Apple (violating EU state aid rules), not that they were taxing non-Irish sales. The core issue was that Apple's Irish tax structure allowed billions in profits to go essentially untaxed anywhere.

Ireland initially resisted collecting these taxes because their favorable arrangements helped attract multinational businesses, not because they weren't legally entitled to them under EU law.

The fundamental question isn't about double taxation but whether Apple's Irish structure artificially shifted profits to avoid taxation. The Irish Supreme Court ultimately upheld the EC's ruling.

This is less about the EU "taking money from American taxpayers" and more about closing a specific tax arrangement that the EC determined violated EU competition law.

 

[MLVC]

Again, the profits were taxable when they were repatriated to the US.

Apparently Ireland's tax law is also irrelevant to Apple's tax obligations in Ireland

Because Apple is a US company and the profits were booked in the US

Again, the $38b was paid to the US. Not nobody. They were delaying paying taxes, not avoiding paying taxes. And the EU took that money from the American taxpayer and gave it to the Irish government that didn't want it or deserve it, retroactively declaring Ireland's sovereign tax law illegal.

Be honest here, if Trump had done that to a European company you guys would be screaming bloody murder.

Maybe if I rephrase it:

You're deliberately misrepresenting the situation to fit your narrative.

1. No one "took money from American taxpayers." Apple isn't synonymous with "the American taxpayer" - they're a corporation that used specific legal structures to minimize their tax burden.

2. The profits weren't simply "booked in the US" - that's the entire point. Apple created a complex structure using Irish subsidiaries where profits were attributed to a "head office" that existed only on paper and wasn't tax resident ANYWHERE.

3. Ireland's tax laws weren't declared "illegal" - the specific arrangement with Apple was ruled to be preferential treatment (state aid) that violated EU competition law.

4. The US repatriation tax and the EU case address different issues. Apple wasn't paying US taxes on these profits UNTIL the 2017 tax reform forced repatriation.

5. As for your Trump comparison - the EU regularly enforces these same rules against European companies. Just look at the state aid cases against Fiat in Luxembourg, Starbucks in the Netherlands, etc.

The core issue is that Apple structured their affairs to ensure billions in profits weren't effectively taxed anywhere. Both the US and EU had legitimate claims to tax those profits according to their respective laws.

 

[BaldiMac]

…as they should have been (booked in Ireland). As determined by the Commission and ultimately the court.

Nope. Again, booking the revenue in the US is legal. Using the stateless corporation to hold the revenue was legal until 2014. HOW Apple temporarily restructured their Irish subsidiaries was found to be illegal state aid. At which point, Apple changed their structure again to follow the law.

Stateless = not U.S.

Temporarily. Again, the stateless corporations were used to delay US taxes. The profits were never booked in the EU. However, since the restructured Irish subsidiaries were retroactively made illegal, the EU claimed the profits from the stateless corporation, even though Apple had already repatriated that money and paid taxes on it in the US.

 

[danny842003]

No, the EU just made stupid rules. It's called government overreach.

No it’s called governing.

 

[MLVC]

Nope. Again, booking the revenue in the US is legal. Using the stateless corporation to hold the revenue was legal until 2014. HOW Apple temporarily restructured their Irish subsidiaries was found to be illegal state aid. At which point, Apple changed their structure again to follow the law.


Temporarily. Again, the stateless corporations were used to delay US taxes. The profits were never booked in the EU. However, since the restructured Irish subsidiaries were retroactively made illegal, the EU claimed the profits from the stateless corporation, even though Apple had already repatriated that money and paid taxes on it in the US.

Let's address your exact points:

1. "Booking revenue in the US is legal" - This mischaracterizes what happened. Apple wasn't booking revenue in the US - they were booking billions through Irish subsidiaries while using an internal structure to allocate most profits to a "head office" that existed nowhere.

2. "Stateless corporation was legal until 2014" - The EC ruling wasn't about the legality of stateless entities in general, but about the specific preferential tax treatment that Ireland gave only to Apple, which violated state aid rules that existed long before 2014.

3. "The profits were never booked in the EU" - This is factually incorrect. The entire case centered on profits booked through Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe - both Irish-incorporated entities.

4. "Apple had already repatriated that money and paid taxes on it" - The timing doesn't work here. The EC ruling came in 2016, while Apple's major US tax payment was in 2018 following the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Different pools of money.

The core finding was that Ireland gave Apple preferential tax treatment that wasn't available to other companies - a clear violation of EU state aid rules that have been consistently applied to European companies as well.

 

[surferfb]

Maybe if I rephrase it:

You're deliberately misrepresenting the situation to fit your narrative.

I'd argue that's what you're doing.

1. No one "took money from American taxpayers." Apple isn't synonymous with "the American taxpayer" - they're a corporation that used specific legal structures to minimize their tax burden.

Money that Apple paid to the US Treasury will now be returned to Apple by the US government because it has been retroactively taxed by Ireland, so Apple will get a credit for having paid those taxes. That is taking money from the American taxpayer and giving it to a country that doesn't want (or deserve) it.

2. The profits weren't simply "booked in the US" - that's the entire point. Apple created a complex structure using Irish subsidiaries where profits were attributed to a "head office" that existed only on paper and wasn't tax resident ANYWHERE.

Again, as @BaldiMac has explained, the profits were booked in the US. To quote BaldiMac:

Apple sells a widget for $100 in the EU. Apple Ireland gets $100 in revenue. Apple US charges Apple Ireland $95. So Apple Ireland pays Irish corporate tax (12.5%) on $5 profit. Apple US receives the other $95 as revenue. Apple US then subtract expenses and pays taxes on the profit.

3. Ireland's tax laws weren't declared "illegal" - the specific arrangement with Apple was ruled to be preferential treatment (state aid) that violated EU competition law.

The agreement made between the Irish tax authority was retroactively made illegal, which effectively changed Ireland's tax laws as far as Apple is concerned. And should be a warning to any company making tax deals with EU member states - the EU can come in after the fact and change the rules over the objections of everyone because a Commissioner has a bone to pick with your company.

4. The US repatriation tax and the EU case address different issues. Apple wasn't paying US taxes on these profits UNTIL the 2017 tax reform forced repatriation.

Apple was waiting for a favorable tax environment to repatriate the money. They were reporting the revenue on US tax forms, just not being taxed on it until it was repatriated. Again, they were delaying paying taxes, not avoiding paying taxes.

5. As for your Trump comparison - the EU regularly enforces these same rules against European companies. Just look at the state aid cases against Fiat in Luxembourg, Starbucks in the Netherlands, etc.

Maybe the US should retroactively declare Guinness owes billions in taxes to offset what we're losing to Ireland since you have no issue retroactively changing laws.

The core issue is that Apple structured their affairs to ensure billions in profits weren't effectively taxed anywhere. Both the US and EU had legitimate claims to tax those profits according to their respective laws.

For someone accusing me of deliberating misrepresenting the situation, you keep repeating a falsehood that Apple was avoiding paying taxes. Again, delaying != avoiding. And by the time the ECJ ruling happened, Apple had paid taxes on said profits over half a decade ago. So arguing Apple was avoiding paying taxes is especially rich (pardon the pun).

 

[BaldiMac]

I'll have to repeat it again, because you keep repeating this false narrative, and you keep ignoring the fact that I keep correcting you, just because the actual facts don't follow your version of the narrative.

This isn't entirely accurate. While Apple did pay $38B to the US Treasury in 2018, that was specifically for repatriation of overseas profits under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act - a separate issue from the EU case.

The European Commission ruled that Ireland provided illegal tax advantages to Apple (violating EU state aid rules), not that they were taxing non-Irish sales. The core issue was that Apple's Irish tax structure allowed billions in profits to go essentially untaxed anywhere.

Ireland initially resisted collecting these taxes because their favorable arrangements helped attract multinational businesses, not because they weren't legally entitled to them under EU law.

The fundamental question isn't about double taxation but whether Apple's Irish structure artificially shifted profits to avoid taxation. The Irish Supreme Court ultimately upheld the EC's ruling.

This is less about the EU "taking money from American taxpayers" and more about closing a specific tax arrangement that the EC determined violated EU competition law.

You contradicted yourself in your own description. The profits weren't "untaxed anywhere". They were taxed in the US when the money was repatriated.

 

[danny842003]

I'd argue that's what you're doing.


Money that Apple paid to the US Treasury will now be returned to Apple by the US government because it has been retroactively taxed by Ireland, so Apple will get a credit for having paid those taxes. That is taking money from the American taxpayer and giving it to a country that doesn't want (or deserve) it.


Again, as @BaldiMac has explained, the profits were booked in the US. To quote BaldiMac:

Apple sells a widget for $100 in the EU. Apple Ireland gets $100 in revenue. Apple US charges Apple Ireland $95. So Apple Ireland pays Irish corporate tax (12.5%) on $5 profit. Apple US receives the other $95 as revenue. Apple US then subtract expenses and pays taxes on the profit.


The agreement made between the Irish tax authority was retroactively made illegal, which effectively changed Ireland's tax laws as far as Apple is concerned.


Apple was waiting for a favorable tax environment to repatriate the money. They were reporting the revenue on US tax forms, just not being taxed on it until it was repatriated. Again, they were delaying paying taxes, not avoiding paying taxes.

Maybe the US should retroactively declare Guinness owes billions in taxes to offset what we're losing to Ireland since you have no issue retroactively changing laws.


For someone accusing me of deliberating misrepresenting the situation, you keep repeating a falsehood that Apple was avoiding paying taxes. Again, delaying != avoiding. And by the time the ECJ ruling happened, Apple had paid taxes on said profits over half a decade ago. So arguing Apple was avoiding paying taxes is especially rich (pardon the pun).

Laws weren’t retroactively changed. They were deemed to have been applied wrong by the Irish government. There’s a difference that you’re choosing to ignore.

 

[MLVC]

I'd argue that's what you're doing.


Money that Apple paid to the US Treasury will now be returned to Apple by the US government because it has been retroactively taxed by Ireland, so Apple will get a credit for having paid those taxes. That is taking money from the American taxpayer and giving it to a country that doesn't want (or deserve) it.


Again, as @BaldiMac has explained, the profits were booked in the US. To quote BaldiMac:

Apple sells a widget for $100 in the EU. Apple Ireland gets $100 in revenue. Apple US charges Apple Ireland $95. So Apple Ireland pays Irish corporate tax (12.5%) on $5 profit. Apple US receives the other $95 as revenue. Apple US then subtract expenses and pays taxes on the profit.


The agreement made between the Irish tax authority was retroactively made illegal, which effectively changed Ireland's tax laws as far as Apple is concerned. And should be a warning to any company making tax deals with EU member states - the EU can come in after the fact and change the rules over the objections of everyone.


Apple was waiting for a favorable tax environment to repatriate the money. They were reporting the revenue on US tax forms, just not being taxed on it until it was repatriated. Again, they were delaying paying taxes, not avoiding paying taxes.

Maybe the US should retroactively declare Guinness owes billions in taxes to offset what we're losing to Ireland since you have no issue retroactively changing laws.


For someone accusing me of deliberating misrepresenting the situation, you keep repeating a falsehood that Apple was avoiding paying taxes. Again, delaying != avoiding. And by the time the ECJ ruling happened, Apple had paid taxes on said profits over half a decade ago. So arguing Apple was avoiding paying taxes is especially rich (pardon the pun).

Let's get some facts straight:

1. "Money Apple paid to the US Treasury will now be returned" - This is incorrect. The US foreign tax credit system doesn't work that way. Credits for foreign taxes paid don't result in refunds of previously paid US taxes dollar-for-dollar. They offset future US tax liability.

2. "Profits were booked in the US" - That simplified example misrepresents reality. The EC investigation documented that Apple's Irish subsidiaries recorded ALL sales revenue from entire European region, Middle East, Africa and India. These weren't booked in the US - they were booked through Irish entities.

3. "Agreement was retroactively made illegal" - The EC ruling didn't retroactively change the law. The state aid rules existed the entire time. What changed was enforcement of existing law.

4. "They were reporting revenue on US tax forms" - Not entirely. The investigation found Apple used a "stateless" entity structure specifically to avoid current US taxation. That's why they had over $200 billion offshore before the 2017 Tax Act.

5. "Maybe US should retroactively declare Guinness owes billions" - The US absolutely DOES enforce its tax laws against foreign companies operating here, including retroactive assessments. See: UBS, Credit Suisse, etc.

6. "Delaying != avoiding" - Indefinite deferral through artificial structures is effectively avoidance. Apple CEO Tim Cook himself admitted they had no intention to repatriate until tax laws changed.

The core issue remains: Apple used a structure that resulted in most European profits being taxed nowhere - not in Europe, not in the US.

 

[MLVC]

You contradicted yourself in your own description. The profits weren't "untaxed anywhere". They were taxed in the US when the money was repatriated.

Let me explain this again:

1. The profits in question went untaxed for YEARS (2003-2014) due to Apple's structure. That's the period the EC ruling covered.

2. The 2018 US tax payment happened AFTER the 2016 EC ruling, and was only forced by the 2017 Tax Act.

3. Without the Tax Act, these profits could have remained offshore and untaxed indefinitely - which was Apple's clear intention until legislation changed.

4. The entire structure was designed for tax deferral with no concrete repatriation plans - Tim Cook testified to Congress that Apple had no intention to bring the money back under previous tax rates.

5. The EC case specifically addressed preferential treatment that Ireland gave to Apple (and not other companies) - that's what made it illegal state aid under EU law.

The fact that Apple eventually paid some US tax years later doesn't negate that the structure allowed billions to go untaxed during the period covered by the EC investigation.

This isn't about "taking money from American taxpayers" - it's about enforcing consistent tax treatment for all companies operating in the EU.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Apple said it plans to appeal the decision. The company called it "another example of the commission unfairly targeting the company" with actions that are "bad for the privacy and security of our users."

How predictable. Bad for the pockets our shareholders is the truth.

 

[BaldiMac]

Let's address your exact points:

1. "Booking revenue in the US is legal" - This mischaracterizes what happened. Apple wasn't booking revenue in the US - they were booking billions through Irish subsidiaries while using an internal structure to allocate most profits to a "head office" that existed nowhere.

That's not how I characterized what happened. It was simply a statement of fact. You can clearly see how I characterized what happened in my posts. The same as you described here.

2. "Stateless corporation was legal until 2014" - The EC ruling wasn't about the legality of stateless entities in general, but about the specific preferential tax treatment that Ireland gave only to Apple, which violated state aid rules that existed long before 2014.

Correct. Which is what I said in multiple posts.

3. "The profits were never booked in the EU" - This is factually incorrect. The entire case centered on profits booked through Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe - both Irish-incorporated entities.

Nope. As we've both described, the profits were booked in a stateless corporation.

4. "Apple had already repatriated that money and paid taxes on it" - The timing doesn't work here. The EC ruling came in 2016, while Apple's major US tax payment was in 2018 following the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Different pools of money.

Same pool of money. It came from the stateless corporation. Again, simply delayed repatriating revenue and paying taxes in the US. In fact, the delayed revenue and taxes were listed on their US tax documents each year.

The core finding was that Ireland gave Apple preferential tax treatment that wasn't available to other companies - a clear violation of EU state aid rules that have been consistently applied to European companies as well.

Correct. That was the finding. Outside of your characterization of it being a "clear violation". Considering Apple initially won in court before the EU appealed, the issues certainly weren't "clear".

 

[AppliedMicro]

Money that Apple paid to the US Treasury will now be returned to Apple by the US government because it has been retroactively taxed by Ireland, so Apple will get a credit for having paid those taxes

Effectively, yes.
But Apple's taxation (or non-taxation) in the U.S. is their problem with the U.S. The U.S. does not have to give Apple tax credits for foreign taxes (though there may be good reason or an applicable DTA in force to make them).

Again, as @BaldiMac has explained, the profits were booked in the US

"In 1991 and 2007, Ireland issued two tax rulings in favour of two companies in the Apple Group (Apple Sales International (ASI) and Apple Operations Europe (AOE)). Both companies were incorporated in Ireland but not tax resident in Ireland. Those tax rulings approved the methods used by ASI and AOE to determine their chargeable profits in Ireland in relation to the trading activity of their respective Irish branches.

In 2016, the European Commission found that, by excluding from the tax base the profits generated by the use of intellectual property licences held by ASI and AOE, on the ground, essentially, that the head offices of those companies were located outside Ireland and management of those licences depended on decisions taken at the level of the Apple Group in the United States, the tax rulings had, from 1991 to 2014, conferred on those companies State aid that was unlawful"

👉 The companies were incorporated in Ireland.
👉 The companies held intellectual property licenses that generated profits
👉 The companies were not considered tax resident in the U.S. (neither by the U.S. nor Ireland)

The profits were not booked in the U.S.
...until repatriation. Which, again, is irrelevant to the case here.

Again, they were delaying paying taxes, not avoiding paying taxes.

They were avoiding paying taxes in Ireland.

 

[turbineseaplane]

How predictable. Bad for the pockets our shareholders is the truth.

Yeah, the Apple invocation of "privacy and security" is getting a bit tiresome.

They've turned those largely into buzzwords.

It's become the Apple Corporate version of throwing around signaling terms like "woke", "DEI", "Benghazi", "the laptop", etc..

 

[Ethosik]

that’s not a logical point of view. If you want to operate in a market you have to comply. Apple have chosen not to.

Funny how that keeps coming up but people defend Epic for not complying to the App Store market.

 

[MLVC]

That's not how I characterized what happened. It was simply a statement of fact. You can clearly see how I characterized what happened in my posts. The same as you described here.


Correct. Which is what I said in multiple posts.


Nope. As we've both described, the profits were booked in a stateless corporation.


Same pool of money. It came from the stateless corporation. Again, simply delayed repatriating revenue and paying taxes in the US. In fact, the delayed revenue and taxes were listed on their US tax documents each year.


Correct. That was the finding. Outside of your characterization of it being a "clear violation". Considering Apple initially won in court before the EU appealed, the issues certainly weren't "clear".

1. You're confusing legal entities with tax residence. Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe were Irish-INCORPORATED entities that booked the European sales. The "stateless" part refers to their tax residence status, not where the revenue was recorded.

2. "Same pool of money" - No. The EC ruling covered profits from 2003-2014. The US repatriation tax covered profits accumulated offshore as of 2017. These aren't identical pools - there's significant non-overlap.

3. "Profits were booked in a stateless corporation" - This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The profits were booked in Irish subsidiaries, then internally allocated to a "head office" that had no tax residence. The revenue absolutely WAS recorded through EU entities.

4. "Simply delayed repatriating" - For over a decade with no plans to repatriate until forced by legislation. And the scheme was specifically designed to avoid Subpart F income rules that would have triggered current US taxation.

5. "Initially won in court" - Apple and Ireland won in the General Court on a procedural technicality, then lost definitively when the European Court of Justice overturned that ruling.

The core issue remains unchanged: Apple received preferential treatment not available to other companies, and used that to create a structure where substantial profits weren't effectively taxed anywhere for many years.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'm a little blown away folks are defending Apple's tax shenanigans.

All of the debating would accomplish more and feel a bit more in good faith if some points were acknowledged.

Always true of both sides of anything.

 

[jakey rolling]

Funny how that keeps coming up but people defend Epic for not complying to the App Store market.

Funny how people seem to not understand the difference between laws and corporate policies.