Fair enough. When I have time, I'll do my due diligence and go research the topic. Cheers
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.
European Commission Made 'Fundamental Errors' in Irish Tax Ruling, Says Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Fair enough. When I have time, I'll do my due diligence and go research the topic. Cheers
The Irish rate is 12.5%. At issue, of course, is the basis amount upon which this standard corporate income tax rate is assessed. That's where the sleight of hand is happening as profit is shifted out of Ireland, having already been shifted from where the revenue that drove the profit was actually generated.
Apple's effective rate of tax in Ireland is indeed a fraction of the Irish 12.5% nominal rate, so it requires a little more sleight of hand to say the ETR number highlighted by the EU is incorrect. It isn't, as you need to look at both rate and basis. You can't focus on one data point and claim Apple pays tax at the full rate in Ireland without acknowledging that the basis, upon which the nominal rate of tax was assessed, was itself adjusted.
Apple's overall effective tax rate is of course less than the US nominal rate, in part because of structures like the one in question. The debate is all about whether the structure stands up to scrutiny. A key point there is whether everyone else gets to pay tax in Ireland using a similarly reduced taxable base - and if not, why not. That's broadly what underpins the EU state aid argument.
Last edited:
That's certainly the situation. Where we disagree is where you imply that there is anything wrong with shifting the "basis". You seem to acknowledge that shifting it to Ireland is reasonable. Apple (reasonably) thinks that this money should be taxed in the U.S. where the most of the value was generated. That's not flim flam. That's how international tax law works.
It doesn't require "sleight of hand" to say the EU tax rate is made up. They are dividing Irish taxes paid by REVENUE. That is not how an effective tax rate is calculated. In reality, you divides taxes paid by NET INCOME.
The argument that Ireland generated all the value for Apple's European revenue is silly. Ireland agrees.
What Ireland's tax laws allow is for Apple to hold the revenue that they attribute to the U.S. in a stateless corporation until they repatriate it. It's called a double Irish. It's well documented. It isn't limited to Apple. It's used by multiple multi-national corporations. It doesn't hurt Europe at all. The U.S. is the only country that's losing out on anything in the near term.
There's no spin. You claimed Apple did something wrong but they didn't, Ireland did (apparently). Now, the other question is "Did Ireland do something wrong?" On the one hand, they're an independent, legitimate government and should have the absolute right to set whatever laws they like. On the other, as a member, they have an agreement with the EU which restricts their ability to impose certain laws.
From what I've read, IIRC, this tax law has been in existence for decades, back to the '70s or '80s, so why is it only now that there's a problem?
Edit for a missing word
Last edited:
Because the EU wants a taste before the U.S. changes it's tax structure to encourage repatriation.
I think we can probably agree that none of this is as simple as people are trying to make it.
I'm sure we can all agree that international tax law is ridiculously complex with enough havens, loopholes, sweetheart deals, and modification-for-lobbyists after modification-for-lobbyists to even confuse the very people who wrote the law
There are a number of problems with the tax rates that the European Commission reported for ASI. I suppose we could do a deeper dive into those problems if we wanted to. However, what you're suggesting is not one of those problems. The rates that the EC reported are, according to them (and in actuality the best I can tell), based on (reported) income rather than on revenue (which they refer to as turnover).
We can quibble over what the rates really have been - e.g., whether the reported .05% and .005% are misleading, which I think they are. But the reality is that, whatever the actual effective rates (i.e. when we look at Apple's European profits) are, they are pretty low. So I prefer not to argue about whether the rates reported by the EC are BS or not (though, to be fair, I think the EC's choice to be somewhat disingenuous in reporting the super low rates that it did - which I suspect it did for sensationalist effect - may fairly be considered to speak to its credibility more generally).
Rather, I prefer to focus attention on the core disputes in this situation. There are layers of complexity involved. But I think a major aspect of the dispute can fairly be boiled down to this: The European Commission doesn't like the effect created by the combination of two basic prongs of Ireland's tax policies (as they are interpreted by Ireland). First, Ireland doesn't require nonresident companies to pay taxes on profit that is attributable to non-Irish branches of those companies even if those companies are incorporated in Ireland. Second, Ireland doesn't require that a version of the arms length principle be applied in determining where profits can be attributed (as between non-Irish and Irish branches) within such companies. The result of those two general tax policies was to allow companies like Apple to do what they did in this situation. The European Commission considers that to be preferential treatment (and thus disallowed state aid) because most companies (particularly Irish-resident companies) weren't in a position to take advantage of those tax policies, or to take advantage of them to the extent that Apple did. Ireland, on the other hand, doesn't consider that to be preferential treatment (at least not such that it rises to the level of disallowed state aid) because it considers those to be tax policies of general applicability. As with most such generally applicable policies, respective entities' situations dictate whether and to what extent they can take advantage of those generally applicable policies. In other words, most all tax policies effectively apply differently to different entities because the situations of different entities are different.
For my part, I think Ireland's position is the more sound one, legally and otherwise. I see the European Commission's position, at its core, as a complaint about Ireland's tax policies in general masquerading as an allegation of preferential treatment for one company. Because of limitations on the European Commission's authority, it's easy to understand why it would thusly mask the true nature of its position.
I would also say that, while I'm more sympathetic to Ireland's position (and Apple's general position) on this matter than I am to the European Commission's, I do think that Apple has been somewhat disingenuous in some of the arguments it's made in support of its general position.
Last edited:
Apple doesn't use the traditional Double Irish... Their structure is different in certain key respects, and those differences are what help drive the tax results.
As for it "doesn't hurt Europe at all", there are a number of EU member states driving very significant revenues for Apple, and others, that don't see a penny in corporate income tax from revenues generated in their country because of Ireland's facilitation of a smash and grab on the revenues of its EU partners. The US is absolutely NOT the only country losing out - and Apple hasn't shown much willingness to date to repatriate the "stateless" offshore earnings.
The EU is right to take this case.