Apple Will Start Paying Back Taxes to Irish Government Next Month Amid Legal Battle With European Regulators

[bsolar]

Which is a HORRIBLE law and way to do things. You arent punishng the criminal in this situation. So stupid.

There is nothing stupid, it's just logic. You cannot sell something you have no right to sell and a thief definitely has no right to sell the car he has stolen from somebody else, so it's obvious the whole sale legally never took place.

If I "sell" you the Brooklyn Bridge, you cannot just "keep the bridge" even if you paid the money: I had no right to sell the bridge in the first place...

 

[weckart]

Which is a HORRIBLE law and way to do things. You arent punishng the criminal in this situation. So stupid.

Not to do so would be punishing the victim. You have to catch the criminal to punish him.

 

[Baymowe335]

I am not wrong, sorry. Ireland (and Apple) is bound by EU law. Apple benefited (presumably) from illegal tax state aid. That state was Ireland and Ireland is bound to EU laws (reason for Apple not to be double taxed as per the single EU market).
Ireland offered such tax aid to Apple (among others probably) and Apple took it.

Apple did right according to Irish law but not according to EU law. And that's why Apple will have to return every single cent it didn't pay (plus interest I do hope).
Ireland may not want the money but has to collect it according to EU law because other countries may demand it but as per EU law, it is Ireland the one who has to fix the issue, and so request it to Apple.

Pity... but this is how the EU works (and very proud of it). No tax aids, and hopefully soon no more tax loop holes.

You just gave away that you're biased when you said you "hope" Apple has to pay every cent plus interest. In reality, neither of us know, but I DO know Apple followed the law as understood by very smart people internally.

This is why we have courts - to decide right and wrong when the situation is complex. This is NOT as a simple as, "Oh, they broke EU tax law, so they are paying." Apple isn't stupid.

 

[Rum_Becker]

Which is a HORRIBLE law and way to do things. You arent punishng the criminal in this situation. So stupid.

Would it be better if the original owner did not receive their property back? Without this law there would be no incentive for buyers stay away from questionable merchandise which would increase the amount of stolen goods.

 

[ChrisCW11]

I mean, really, why the **** is Apple in Ireland in the first place if not as a tax haven? The EU called out Apple on their shenanigans and now Apple has to pay for hiding money in Ireland.

What incentive is there for Apple to stay in Ireland, they should just pull out now that Trump handed Apple billions in tax savings, for a few years at least.

 

[bergert]

How "paying into an escrow account" becomes "paying back" -
another example of fake news?

 

[wschutz]

You just gave away that you're biased when you said you "hope" Apple has to pay every cent plus interest. In reality, neither of us know, but I DO know Apple followed the law as understood by very smart people internally.

This is why we have courts - to decide right and wrong when the situation is complex. This is NOT as a simple as, "Oh, they broke EU tax law, so they are paying." Apple isn't stupid.

I am biased when I wished there was a fine, but there is not such fine, just collecting the owed money (and I don't know if with or without interest).
Apple followed the law that the Irish government presented to them. But Ireland, and Apple, are bound by EU law. I don't think you understand this, or at least you don't want to. Should Apple considers that the Irish government has lied to them, they are free to sue the Irish government (something they won't do anyways).
The EU does not control everything in the EU and lets governments decide many things, although within the frame of the EU. Ireland decided (presumably) to offer a discount to Apple that the EU considered later on that it could not be the case in the single market. And so ordered the Irish government to collect the missing taxes.
Apple knew the rules of the EU but took advantage of the deal (presumably) offered by the Irish government, and now will have to pay back.

Apple has indeed very smart people to minimise the payment of taxes bordering local laws as much as possible and using all kind of legal (although not ethical) loopholes. But the EU has also very smart people who analysed a lot of information and concluded this investigation. Apple just... lost.

Apple can take this to the courts as I assume they will. But remember the courts just interpret the current law, which again applies to the whole single market and so state tax aids are considered illegal.

For now Apple will be paying back Unfortunately I imagine such money cannot be used to improve the EU's health, education and welfare system. It hurts us all when taxes are not paid as they should.

 

[bsolar]

I am biased when I wished there was a fine, but there is not such fine, just collecting the owed money (and I don't know if with or without interest).

Yes, it's with compound interest according to a specific regulation. I think it's 8% in this case.

 

[Baymowe335]

I am biased when I wished there was a fine, but there is not such fine, just collecting the owed money (and I don't know if with or without interest).
Apple followed the law that the Irish government presented to them. But Ireland, and Apple, are bound by EU law. I don't think you understand this, or at least you don't want to. Should Apple considers that the Irish government has lied to them, they are free to sue the Irish government (something they won't do anyways).
The EU does not control everything in the EU and lets governments decide many things, although within the frame of the EU. Ireland decided (presumably) to offer a discount to Apple that the EU considered later on that it could not be the case in the single market. And so ordered the Irish government to collect the missing taxes.
Apple knew the rules of the EU but took advantage of the deal (presumably) offered by the Irish government, and now will have to pay back.

Apple has indeed very smart people to minimise the payment of taxes bordering local laws as much as possible and using all kind of legal (although not ethical) loopholes. But the EU has also very smart people who analysed a lot of information and concluded this investigation. Apple just... lost.

Apple can take this to the courts as I assume they will. But remember the courts just interpret the current law, which again applies to the whole single market and so state tax aids are considered illegal.

For now Apple will be paying back Unfortunately I imagine such money cannot be used to improve the EU's health, education and welfare system. It hurts us all when taxes are not paid as they should.

Just a correction...it's in an escrow account, meaning no one is being paid back because it can't be accessed.

Everything else you said is speculation and nonsense. The verdict will come in several years.

 

[0388631]

I've read that Ireland offers up these tax benefits and they don't want the money. And that their arm is being twisted by the EU stating they must collect this money for their country. Is that what this is?

 

[bsolar]

I've read that Ireland offers up these tax benefits and they don't want the money. And that their arm is being twisted by the EU stating they must collect this money for their country. Is that what this is?

Yes, the reason being that these tax benefit have been found by the EU Commission to be illegal state aid granted to Apple by Ireland. In the EU it's illegal for state members to provide state aid to companies except in specific circumstances with the approval of the EU Commission, so the Commission ordered Ireland to recover the state aid illegally given to Apple.

 

[charlituna]

I wonder how this money will be spent once it's turned over. I'm sure some worthy cause.

If it’s turned over. Remember both Apple and Ireland say that the EU is full of crap and Apple’s deal was not a special deal.

And all this move is about is Apple putting the money in escrow in case they lose. It’s not an uncommon practice. They and Samsung probably both did the same thing in those suits as well.

 

[gavroche]

What you are either ignoring or not aware off is the the EU is a Financial union with a single currency and common laws. The EU is more akin to the US Federal Govt while the individual countries are akin to the US states.

I am neither unaware of it nor ignoring it. Although you are over simplifying it. The EU relationship is NOT identical to the relationship between the states and the Federal Government.
That said, you are apparently suggesting that EU law in respect to this issue is clear, and established, with clear case law precedent? Hogwosh. The mere fact that member countries of the EU don't agree on this issue, and are litigating it, is proof enough that it is anything but clear. And if those very countries disagree on the issue, how is any one company supposed to know what to do? And answer me this: If any company is in the process of choosing where to operate a plant or business, and is choosing between two locations.. one in a EU country and one not... and other than that location are fairly similar in all other respects from a cost/benefit standpoint... which do you think they are likely to choose? They will choose the one that is more certain from a political/taxation standpoint.
[doublepost=1525034548][/doublepost]

What are you on about? Big corporations must pay taxes like everyone else, they are not exempt from that no matter what laws they try to twist! And I don’t see why the people of Europe should pay for a Apples tax shortfall and give money to Ireland, whilst they launder billions between them!

Anyone that things this issue is about Apple thinking they are "exempt from paying taxes like anyone else" proves they are completely unqualified to participate in the conversation.


For anyone that actually wants to see a (brief) description of Apple's concerns regarding the European Commissions decision, see here:

https://www2.deloitte.com/ie/en/pages/tax/articles/negative-decision-for-apple.html

The whole subject is quite interesting and unique (nothing similar to it has ever occurred). For as much as people want to make this out to be an Apple issue, or a "Apple thinks its above the law"... and all that nonsense.. this subject is so much more broad reaching than you could possibly imagine.

 

[cube]

Apple paid in full including interest. The EU drops its case against Ireland.

The Irish government still doesn't want the money.

 

[weckart]

The Irish government still doesn't want the money.

Really? I hope this is taken into account when the EU sets its budgets in future.

 

[s2mikey]

Would it be better if the original owner did not receive their property back? Without this law there would be no incentive for buyers stay away from questionable merchandise which would increase the amount of stolen goods.

But how is a buyer supposed to know whats valid and what isnt? There are only so many checks you can do or ways to verify something. C'mon. Who keeps receipts for every little thing? Why is the buyer the one that gets screwed? What is reasonable due diligence when an item is for sale used to determine whether its stolen or not? How the hell are you supposed to know? Its one thing if the situation is extremely shady and/or the price is way too low. There ARE certain red flags that should be obvious but in most cases it isnt so obvious!

ONLY the criminal gets away with no damage:

The original owner of the item = loses the item due to it being stolen and gets nothing back.
The unsuspecting buyer = loses the item and the money they spent on it.
The thief = zero negative result

Thats not right, sorry.

 

[cube]

Really? I hope this is taken into account when the EU sets its budgets in future.

The amount paid is equivalent to 7% of Ireland's national debt.

 

[weckart]

But how is a buyer supposed to know whats valid and what isnt? There are only so many checks you can do or ways to verify something. C'mon. Who keeps receipts for every little thing? Why is the buyer the one that gets screwed? What is reasonable due diligence when an item is for sale used to determine whether its stolen or not? How the hell are you supposed to know? Its one thing if the situation is extremely shady and/or the price is way too low. There ARE certain red flags that should be obvious but in most cases it isnt so obvious!

ONLY the criminal gets away with no damage:

The original owner of the item = loses the item due to it being stolen and gets nothing back.
The unsuspecting buyer = loses the item and the money they spent on it.
The thief = zero negative result

Thats not right, sorry.

Hence "Caveat Emptor". If you can't afford to lose the money, choose your seller carefully.

and

The original owner of the item = loses the item due to it being stolen and gets nothing back.
The unsuspecting buyer = loses the item and the money they spent on it.

Both can't happen. Either the original owner loses his property or restitution happens at the expense of the ultimate buyer. If the ultimate buyer identifies the thief, the the latter does not get away scot-free either.

 

[Baymowe335]

I am not wrong, sorry. Ireland (and Apple) is bound by EU law. Apple benefited (presumably) from illegal tax state aid. That state was Ireland and Ireland is bound to EU laws (reason for Apple not to be double taxed as per the single EU market).
Ireland offered such tax aid to Apple (among others probably) and Apple took it.

Apple did right according to Irish law but not according to EU law. And that's why Apple will have to return every single cent it didn't pay (plus interest I do hope).
Ireland may not want the money but has to collect it according to EU law because other countries may demand it but as per EU law, it is Ireland the one who has to fix the issue, and so request it to Apple.

Pity... but this is how the EU works (and very proud of it). No tax aids, and hopefully soon no more tax loop holes.

Yes, you were wrong. Apple wins the appeal and will not be paying the EU, correctly and as I stated all along.
[automerge]1595425810[/automerge]

Sure... no. The case from the EU is pretty strong, and this is surprising considering that they could not access a lot of information. I would not be surprised if the amount goes up after all

The case wasn’t strong because Apple followed the rules. The EU can’t come in and dictate what happens absent of law. This appeal proved that following the rules matters and you can’t come in later because you didn’t like the rules.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Yes, you were wrong. Apple wins the appeal and will not be paying the EU, correctly and as I stated all along.
[automerge]1595425810[/automerge]

The case wasn’t strong because Apple followed the rules. The EU can’t come in and dictate what happens absent of law. This appeal proved that following the rules matters and you can’t come in later because you didn’t like the rules.

And there are other entities that should be investigated, and prosecuted, for tax evasion, and money irregularities I'm sure. Going after Apple probably seemed like a 'safe target'. Someone they could 'make an example of'.

 

[Baymowe335]

And there are other entities that should be investigated, and prosecuted, for tax evasion, and money irregularities I'm sure. Going after Apple probably seemed like a 'safe target'. Someone they could 'make an example of'.

Unfortunately for them, Apple is probably the smartest company in the world and knew they had followed the rules.