Apple and Irish government collared over tax deal
Discussion
twinturboz said:
Statement from Apple http://www.apple.com/ie/customer-letter/
Seems quite reasonable and rational response they say its not about the amount of money paid but which country collects them..........Does that mean we have to send the Fleet to America to collect the dosh and should that be in Bullion, Dollars or Euro's? Also the letter says they support and beleive there should be reforms and any changes to the laws should be applied going forwards not retroactively
So what all this really means is that Ireland has a low corp tax rate. Apple routed all of the EU sales through Ireland and paid a low rate of tax. Which also means that Apple paid zilch as a % on the EU wide sales.
This facility is the basis of the Single Market isnt it? Why should a business not be able to choose a low tax jurisdiction and route all sales there?
this is perfectly in line with Irish corp tax laws and EU single market standards. The EU just cant handle the fact that Ireland was getting all the money and the rest of the 27 lost out.
Now if this was not allowed, then all corporates have to maintain 27 subsidiary offices and route sales and file taxes in 27 different jurisdictions. Single market is useless in this case as the only benefit is 0 customs duty for movement of products between the 27 countries.
thank our lucky stars we voted to get out of this s
tpot!
This facility is the basis of the Single Market isnt it? Why should a business not be able to choose a low tax jurisdiction and route all sales there?
this is perfectly in line with Irish corp tax laws and EU single market standards. The EU just cant handle the fact that Ireland was getting all the money and the rest of the 27 lost out.
Now if this was not allowed, then all corporates have to maintain 27 subsidiary offices and route sales and file taxes in 27 different jurisdictions. Single market is useless in this case as the only benefit is 0 customs duty for movement of products between the 27 countries.
thank our lucky stars we voted to get out of this s
tpot!Hugo a Gogo said:
Hosenbugler said:
janesmith1950 said:
Hosenbugler said:
The issue is sovreignty , if the elected Irish Govt wishes to set a tax rate and agreement with a third party , that should be that, for those to implement or modify as they agree. This is just a tax raid by unnacountable unelected autocrats, potentially costing Ireland thousands of jonbs. Thank God we are getting out the EU
In joining the EU, governments give away their 'sovreignty' to choose when and how they offer state aid. The EU didn't steal anything, the Irish agreed to give it away.They're free to set tax rates, however within reason they cannot offer state aid to Apple by charging them a lower tax rate than they otherwise would, simply to achieve that aim.
Hosenbugler said:
Not state aid, a tax agreement between an elected government and a 3rd party, simple as that. This is a graphic illustration of the autocratic interference the unelected unnacountable EU commision can have over elected sovereign Govts. Thank christ we voted to leave. Appaling , dictatorial bullying of an elected Govt.
If you don't impose any cross-border tax or tariffs on trade, then you need to have some rules about state subsidies and at least some degree of tax harmonisation. Surely that is both entirely obvious and entirely reasonable? A degree of tax competition is a very, very good thing. Wholesale piss-taking is not.Given that the EU Commission exists to enforce the rules that were drawn up and agreed to by the EU member states' sovereign governments, who else would you expect to be enforcing the rules other than the Commission? It's their job. There's nothing autocratic about it. We don't elect our judges or police or civil servants, so why do you think the Commission should have elected representatives enforcing EU competition rules?
Actually I really don't know why I'm bothering to point out how silly your post above is. I could post a photo of a tuna with EU printed on its side and you'd try to spin that into justification for Brexit and yet another sign that fascist legions of bureaucrats are massing on our borders. I have no idea why you think posting hysterical, shrill ramblings lends your argument any weight. One might almost think you were clutching at straws and chucking mud in the hope that some of it would stick.
Terminator X said:
Not all "corporates" just the really massive ones (monetary wise) like Facebook and Google. More powerful than the Govt? Certainly getting there.
TX.
More powerful than the Irish government, certainly. TX.
More powerful than a united front of the U.K. , Germany, France, Italy & Spain? i rather doubt it...
alfie2244 said:
Terminator X said:
Perhaps the UK should "entice" them over here once we leave the EU 
TX.
We will be able to offer them any enticements / inducements / subsidies / bribes...in fact I'd do it now before serving Art 50 just to pee a few people off. TX.
Apple's initial response is this 'Message to the Apple Community in Europe'
http://www.apple.com/ie/customer-letter/
http://www.apple.com/ie/customer-letter/
ATG said:
alfie2244 said:
Terminator X said:
Perhaps the UK should "entice" them over here once we leave the EU
TX.
We will be able to offer them any enticements / inducements / subsidies / bribes...in fact I'd do it now before serving Art 50 just to pee a few people off. TX.
Whereas when we are OUT of the EU we can do any tax deals we want and with impunity.
ATG said:
Hosenbugler said:
Not state aid, a tax agreement between an elected government and a 3rd party, simple as that. This is a graphic illustration of the autocratic interference the unelected unnacountable EU commision can have over elected sovereign Govts. Thank christ we voted to leave. Appaling , dictatorial bullying of an elected Govt.
If you don't impose any cross-border tax or tariffs on trade, then you need to have some rules about state subsidies and at least some degree of tax harmonisation. Surely that is both entirely obvious and entirely reasonable? A degree of tax competition is a very, very good thing. Wholesale piss-taking is not.Given that the EU Commission exists to enforce the rules that were drawn up and agreed to by the EU member states' sovereign governments, who else would you expect to be enforcing the rules other than the Commission? It's their job. There's nothing autocratic about it. We don't elect our judges or police or civil servants, so why do you think the Commission should have elected representatives enforcing EU competition rules?
Actually I really don't know why I'm bothering to point out how silly your post above is. I could post a photo of a tuna with EU printed on its side and you'd try to spin that into justification for Brexit and yet another sign that fascist legions of bureaucrats are massing on our borders. I have no idea why you think posting hysterical, shrill ramblings lends your argument any weight. One might almost think you were clutching at straws and chucking mud in the hope that some of it would stick.
alfie2244 said:
ATG said:
alfie2244 said:
Terminator X said:
Perhaps the UK should "entice" them over here once we leave the EU
TX.
We will be able to offer them any enticements / inducements / subsidies / bribes...in fact I'd do it now before serving Art 50 just to pee a few people off. TX.
Whereas when we are OUT of the EU we can do any tax deals we want and with impunity.
TX.
Terminator X said:
alfie2244 said:
ATG said:
alfie2244 said:
Terminator X said:
Perhaps the UK should "entice" them over here once we leave the EU
TX.
We will be able to offer them any enticements / inducements / subsidies / bribes...in fact I'd do it now before serving Art 50 just to pee a few people off. TX.
Whereas when we are OUT of the EU we can do any tax deals we want and with impunity.
TX.
bobbylondonuk said:
So what all this really means is that Ireland has a low corp tax rate. Apple routed all of the EU sales through Ireland and paid a low rate of tax. Which also means that Apple paid zilch as a % on the EU wide sales.
This facility is the basis of the Single Market isnt it? Why should a business not be able to choose a low tax jurisdiction and route all sales there?
this is perfectly in line with Irish corp tax laws and EU single market standards. The EU just cant handle the fact that Ireland was getting all the money and the rest of the 27 lost out.
Now if this was not allowed, then all corporates have to maintain 27 subsidiary offices and route sales and file taxes in 27 different jurisdictions. Single market is useless in this case as the only benefit is 0 customs duty for movement of products between the 27 countries.
thank our lucky stars we voted to get out of this stpot!
It's ironic that you describe what has happened quite well, yet draw a daft conclusion based on a misunderstanding of what the single market is for. If there were no controls on tax competition and state aid, then a small EU member state ... like Ireland ... could corner the market in corp tax receipts. It would mean no other member state in the EU could levy corp tax at all. You'd end up with a few million Irish receiving all the corp tax being generated by the economic activity of 1/3 billion people.This facility is the basis of the Single Market isnt it? Why should a business not be able to choose a low tax jurisdiction and route all sales there?
this is perfectly in line with Irish corp tax laws and EU single market standards. The EU just cant handle the fact that Ireland was getting all the money and the rest of the 27 lost out.
Now if this was not allowed, then all corporates have to maintain 27 subsidiary offices and route sales and file taxes in 27 different jurisdictions. Single market is useless in this case as the only benefit is 0 customs duty for movement of products between the 27 countries.
thank our lucky stars we voted to get out of this s
tpot!Terminator X said:
alfie2244 said:
ATG said:
alfie2244 said:
Terminator X said:
Perhaps the UK should "entice" them over here once we leave the EU
TX.
We will be able to offer them any enticements / inducements / subsidies / bribes...in fact I'd do it now before serving Art 50 just to pee a few people off. TX.
Whereas when we are OUT of the EU we can do any tax deals we want and with impunity.
TX.
Dopey introspective protectionist uncompetitive anti-competitiion EU.
The current wave of protectionist sentiment is harming European SMEs and undermining EU competitiveness
How the EU starves Africa into submission
EU Weak Because Uncompetitive
The raw truth is that the EU hates genuinely free trade as memo shows EU is costing UK billions
Somebody ought to organise a vote to get the UK well away from EU decay
Oceanic said:
Having been a fairly avid remainer, this is the perfect example of EU meddling and interference.
I hope Apple does not pay a dime more than they agreed to with the Irish government.
I am inclined to think that if any fine is due for breaching EU tax rules then it should be Ireland that pays..nothing wrong with an organisation trying to do a deal but perhaps Ireland should have said we would love to cut a deal but unfortunately it is against the EU's rules, regs etc so sorry no can do. I hope Apple does not pay a dime more than they agreed to with the Irish government.
Reading the European Commission's press release, I can see why Apple and Ireland will fight this.
There doesn't appear to be any evidence that the tax rulings in question were not available to other companies. Instead the commission appears to simply not like them whilst agreeing that "Tax rulings as such are perfectly legal."
There doesn't appear to be any evidence that the tax rulings in question were not available to other companies. Instead the commission appears to simply not like them whilst agreeing that "Tax rulings as such are perfectly legal."
ATG said:
bobbylondonuk said:
So what all this really means is that Ireland has a low corp tax rate. Apple routed all of the EU sales through Ireland and paid a low rate of tax. Which also means that Apple paid zilch as a % on the EU wide sales.
This facility is the basis of the Single Market isnt it? Why should a business not be able to choose a low tax jurisdiction and route all sales there?
this is perfectly in line with Irish corp tax laws and EU single market standards. The EU just cant handle the fact that Ireland was getting all the money and the rest of the 27 lost out.
Now if this was not allowed, then all corporates have to maintain 27 subsidiary offices and route sales and file taxes in 27 different jurisdictions. Single market is useless in this case as the only benefit is 0 customs duty for movement of products between the 27 countries.
thank our lucky stars we voted to get out of this stpot!
It's ironic that you describe what has happened quite well, yet draw a daft conclusion based on a misunderstanding of what the single market is for. If there were no controls on tax competition and state aid, then a small EU member state ... like Ireland ... could corner the market in corp tax receipts. It would mean no other member state in the EU could levy corp tax at all. You'd end up with a few million Irish receiving all the corp tax being generated by the economic activity of 1/3 billion people.This facility is the basis of the Single Market isnt it? Why should a business not be able to choose a low tax jurisdiction and route all sales there?
this is perfectly in line with Irish corp tax laws and EU single market standards. The EU just cant handle the fact that Ireland was getting all the money and the rest of the 27 lost out.
Now if this was not allowed, then all corporates have to maintain 27 subsidiary offices and route sales and file taxes in 27 different jurisdictions. Single market is useless in this case as the only benefit is 0 customs duty for movement of products between the 27 countries.
thank our lucky stars we voted to get out of this s
tpot!All it means is that there is single product standard across the whole block with Zero customs tariffs. Effectively a large trading block just like any other Free trade block in the world.
ATG said:
It's ironic that you describe what has happened quite well, yet draw a daft conclusion based on a misunderstanding of what the single market is for. If there were no controls on tax competition and state aid, then a small EU member state ... like Ireland ... could corner the market in corp tax receipts. It would mean no other member state in the EU could levy corp tax at all. You'd end up with a few million Irish receiving all the corp tax being generated by the economic activity of 1/3 billion people.
You seem to be labouring under the assumption that tax competition is a bad thing. Who do you think pays corporate tax?alfie2244 said:
I am inclined to think that if any fine is due for breaching EU tax rules then it should be Ireland that pays..nothing wrong with an organisation trying to do a deal but perhaps Ireland should have said we would love to cut a deal but unfortunately it is against the EU's rules, regs etc so sorry no can do.
I don't think a fine appliesForm the EU announcement earlier
"As a matter of principle, EU state aid rules require that incompatible state aid is recovered in order to remove the distortion of competition created by the aid. There are no fines under EU State aid rules and recovery does not penalise the company in question. It simply restores equal treatment with other companies."
JPJPJP said:
...EU state aid rules require that incompatible state aid is recovered...
Recovered to whom? It's not like Ireland have lost out on tax revenue, if it wern't for the tax deal and structure they would have got nothing. There must be some twitchy CEO's of european corps with a substantial presence in the US right now! Virtual pint says there's a chunky DOJ/Treasury/EPA investigation of a European corporate announced in the coming months...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff