You are saying you think how the legal system of EU works is wrong. Or rather how most civil law countries their national competition authorities (NCAs) does thing. And that’s fine, but civil law countries like European states does things very differently from the USA.
No, I didn’t. You’re just putting words in my mouth to fit your narrative.
The EU commission clearly lied. Unless you think they are ignorant of the difference between revenue and income. And they had no other reason to do so than to manipulate public opinion.
Then what does “Or... people believe that the way the EU commission works in some situations is wrong” even mean? It’s functioning exactly as it’s supposed to and can’t work differently.
What purpose is there to manipulate public opinion if it has zero impact to the legality of their findings or what the judge will do?
You literally said that 🙄
The world isn't black in white. Objecting to the way the EU commission works in "some situations" is very different than objecting to the entire EU legal system.
I think we all understand why politicians manipulate public opinion.
If you didn't know what I was talking about, why did you say they didn't lie? The EU commission repeatedly and deliberately lied by claiming that Apple paid an effective tax rate that they calculated by dividing tax by revenue. In reality, an effective tax rate is calculated by dividing tax by income.
That’s the issue, they didn’t lie. The European Commission calculated Apple’s taxes based on the argument that Apple’s tax arrangements with Ireland allowed it to pay significantly less tax than other companies, which could be considered illegal state aid under EU rules. The EC’s method focused on the profits attributed to Apple’s Irish branches and the intellectual property licenses held by Apple subsidiaries in Ireland
Sure, but it’s how they always seem to always worked since the Lisbon treaty of 2007/2009 that reformed the EU institutions and organization after the expansion of membership in 2001 that automatically triggered treaty reconstruction.
Of course, but you still must substantiate it with something outside of “because”.
If your argument is that almost all revenue that Apple generates in the EU should be considered profit, than you're simply not being reasonable. The vast majority of this revenue is eventually booked and taxed in the US. In fact, revenue and taxes deferred through the stateless corps are listed on their US financials.
For example, in Q1 2015, Apple used the CAIA tool when its Irish subsidiary purchased US$300 billion in intangible assets from an Apple subsidiary based in Jersey. The CAIA tool enabled Apple to write-off the US$300 billion price as a capital allowance against future Irish profits (e.g. the next US$300 billion of profits Apple books in Ireland are free of Irish tax).
None of that makes any sense. Your confusing multiple issues here. You're describing a normal international business transaction and implying something is wrong with it. It has nothing to do with the EU Irish tax complaint.
Of course it matters. Income is only taxed in the jurisdiction in which it is booked.
