Ireland Agrees to Appeal European Commission's Apple Tax Ruling

[Bigsk8r]

Sure it is because apple got the illegal state aid and should not have gotten that, it has to pay that now.

You're obviously reading something in this that I am not. How is Apple following Irelands tax guidelines illegal? If it was illegal for Ireland to present them, then why has it taken over a decade for the EU to do anything? Could it be that the EU is - like many large governments - a corrupt place that didn't act until pressed by the U.S. Congress to do so?

Their system is broken, and demonizing Apple isn't going to fix it.

 

[k995]

You're obviously reading something in this that I am not. How is Apple following Irelands tax guidelines illegal?

You dont seem to understand the EU construct. Apple and ireland have a deal thats deemed illegal by the EU.
It has that right and this is nothing more then the US fedeal gov stating what state x does isnt legal.

If it was illegal for Ireland to present them, then why has it taken over a decade for the EU to do anything? Could it be that the EU is - like many large governments - a corrupt place that didn't act until pressed by the U.S. Congress to do so?

The EU only has these powers since the last decade they were given with the amsterdam agreement of 2007 . Further the EU didnt know apple had such a deal, as it does no taxation it has no clue what coorporations pay.

I forgot how they found out but since then they have been looking into this (last 2-3 years) together with a bunch of other companies.

Their system is broken, and demonizing Apple isn't going to fix it.

You have no clue about how it works and apple isnt being demonized . I would first look into what has actually happened and was said and done before commenting .

 

[Bigsk8r]

You have no clue about how it works and apple isnt being demonized . I would first look into what has actually happened and was said and done before commenting .

You know... we've read the same articles, and drawn different conclusions. And that's all fine and good for these discussions. Perspective - whether you want to admit it or not - is shading a lot of what is going on with this.

But now you've stepped over the line to pompous and condescending. Have fun with that... cheers.

 

[wschutz]

I think you are uniquely unacquainted with the facts...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-apple-tax-ambush-1472599362
[doublepost=1472848436][/doublepost]

When I state the EU got greedy, I am simply stating that they reached for what they think they might win in court in order to drive Apple into a negotiating position. This is a very common legal strategy. The problem is, it only works on persons, groups, or companies that are in doubt of their legal standing, or the outcome of the actual trial.

It does not work on people, groups, or companies that know they are standing on the legal high ground. Apple stood firm and made the FBI blink, and they could write a check for this "penalty" if they had to, do you really think the EU is going to see a fraction of this money?

Apple's greed is a straw man in this discussion and a completely different topic. You also need to acquaint yourself with the facts...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-apple-tax-ambush-1472599362

Funny you point a North-American newspaper talking about a North-American company and the 'ambush' of the European guys.
Should I be unaware of the facts, I welcome you to point them out, particularly when you point an opinion article who is subject to more subjectivity than others from the same editor (which I appreciate actually... but WSJ is defending its investors... not the law of EU nor the Europeans, and that's what I care about, our welfare of state in the EU, not the one of the investors of some private company)

 

[Bigsk8r]

Funny you point a North-American newspaper talking about a North-American company and the 'ambush' of the European guys.
Should I be unaware of the facts, I welcome you to point them out, particularly when you point an opinion article who is subject to more subjectivity than others from the same editor (which I appreciate actually... but WSJ is defending its investors... not the law of EU nor the Europeans, and that's what I care about, our welfare of state in the EU, not the one of the investors of some private company)

Sigh... another person with nothing better to do, itching for an argument. It makes no difference that the writer of the article is a highly distinguished member of the Wall Street Journal Board that would not enter into something like that lightly.

And yes, they defended an American company that has proven over and over to various entities for over 20 years that they have paid every dime of tax that they were owed within the legal structure of the place they are paying it.

On top of that, the overriding point that I have been making in the other responses to this is that if the system is broken, then it should be fixed. And not by punishing someone acting completely within it's rules as they are written today.

 

[k995]

You know... we've read the same articles, and drawn different conclusions.
And that's all fine and good for these discussions. Perspective - whether you want to admit it or not - is shading a lot of what is going on with this.

No you have simple facts, like the EU doesn't get anything from this, facts like this is against several US & european companies, facts like the EU legislation approved by ireland that make this possible.

But now you've stepped over the line to pompous and condescending. Have fun with that... cheers.

You seem to have some irrational hate, have fun with that.

 

[Bigsk8r]

The EU formed on the basis of inclusion of countries and did not setup as an entity to retroactively change pre-existing business arrangements. The fact that a company (any company) from a country not in the EU is conducting business in the same way it has since before the forming of the EU is not the EU's business.

If the EU wants a country to change it's way of doing business with foreign entities, it is with THAT COUNTRY that the dealings should take place. Not a 10 year, retroactive, tax penalty on the company operating under laws & codes that have existed since before the EU formed.

In other words the SYSTEM needs to be fixed. Punishment of the players in it accomplishes very little.

 

[Huntn]

This situation is an opportunity to question when national sovereignty should be overruled, while acknowledging that an organization like the United Nations serves an excellent purpose (although this does not involve UN, I think). If I understand it correctly, Ireland made this deal with Apple for benefits to their employment rate. I don't like the idea that the EO can override this agreement.

A possible parralel, in the US, states stab each other in the back routinely trying to lure business to their turf and the Federal Govt does not intervene.