Apple CEO Tim Cook on EU Apple Tax Case: 'Total Political Crap' (arstechnica.com) 410
Earlier this week, Apple was ordered to pay a record sum of 13 billion euros plus interest after the EU said Ireland illegally slashed the iPhone make's tax bill. At the time, Tim Cook found the accusations "baseless." In a new interview, he had more things to say:A war of words has erupted between Europe's competition chief and Apple CEO Tim Cook after Ireland was ordered to reclaim $14.5 billion in back taxes from the company. Cook, in an interview with the Irish Independent, labelled Brussels' competition chief Margrethe Vestager's decision as "total political crap." He claimed Ireland was being "picked on" and that he hoped to see the Irish government launch an appeal against the ruling. Vestager refuted that claim when quizzed by reporters on Thursday. "This is a decision based on the facts of the case. The figures that we used in our decision are the figures that we got from Apple themselves," she said. "There are very, very few figures in the public domain. More transparency would be a good thing, for example, a country by country reporting. If it was up to me, the non-confidential version of the decision would have been published yesterday, because that is another way of enabling everyone to see what we have decided and on what basis we have made this decision. Right now the ball is in the hands of Apple and Ireland."
Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's "political crap" because it's something you don't agree with. Law of the land, buddy.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue for me is that it's retroactive change in the tax. Never mind having a high tax rate or low tax rate, just don't go and change the tax agreements and rates after the taxes have already been paid. Who's going to want to put a business in Europe when it's uncertain how much the taxes will be; are they supposed to put 10-20% of their income into escrow just in case the tax rates change retroactively?
If EU wants to change Ireland's tax rates then it should do so for future taxes only instead of tryi
Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? (Score:4, Insightful)
It was all legal according to some authorities in Ireland. The EU is saying that these authorities didn't have the authority to make the deal they did, and hence the deal is illegal, and Apple must pay the legally determined taxes. The EU is saying that Apple was wrong about the taxes it owed, and so were the Irish authorities they dealt with.
Suppose California had tax rules that turned out to be unconstitutional, or in conflict with legitimate Federal law, and you got a reduced rate because of those rules. When things shook out, you'd owe your legal taxes, not the taxes assessed through a scheme that turned out to be illegal.
Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
The deal was illegal, it was not retroactive, since the deal could not legally exist. Sign into a contract that is not legal and see if the law allows it to be binding.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But not the *highest* government. That would be the EU, whose laws supercede the member countries. If Apple signed a deal with the government of California that was illegal according to federal law, you can bet they' be getting similar grief.
Re: (Score:3)
Member states of the EU voluntarily gave up their sovereignty when they joined. You are free to join, and free to leave, but while you're a member, you follow the rules.
Also, there is precedent for a Union of States where you can freely join but are not allowed to leave...
Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Law of the land, buddy.
More like "we have (retroactively) changed the terms of the deal. Pray we do not change it further... buddy". Which is why this is political crap.
By all means, adjust the law such that Apple pays more going forward. But this is nothing but ex post facto laws, and those are utter bullshit.
This is the EU saying to Ireland "Your law violates European law - fix it". This is correct. What is sketchy is the retrospective nature of the "and grab a few billion from Apple while you're fixing it". Ireland did close the double-Irish-with-a-dutch-sandwich loophole, but allows existing users of the scheme to carry on until 2020. So that is certainly favouring some businesses over others with different laws for some. This is clearly a violation of European competition law.
Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this 'no retroactive fines' work for me too when I cheat on taxes?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think this is correct.
Suppose you have to go through a routine IRS audit (you're a business or something so this isn't unusual), and you somehow convince your local IRS representative/auditor to give you a giant break on taxes. The main IRS later finds out about this auditor's actions, deems them illegal, and now wants you to pay your back taxes. Sorry, I don't see a problem with that.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think this is correct.
Suppose you have to go through a routine IRS audit (you're a business or something so this isn't unusual), and you somehow convince your local IRS representative/auditor to give you a giant break on taxes. The main IRS later finds out about this auditor's actions, deems them illegal, and now wants you to pay your back taxes. Sorry, I don't see a problem with that.
Uhmm... hold on a second here. If it's the local IRS office that closes the deal with you, even if they break the rules, they are the ones breaking rules, not you. Why should you be on the hook for that? If you buy a service from some company for a price they agree on, then their parent company decides you need to pay 10X the price, do you legally now owe that? It sounds like what you're saying is that all deals have to be always approved by the top of the chain. I wonder if the IRS would accept someone tel
Re: (Score:3)
Uhmm... hold on a second here. If it's the local IRS office that closes the deal with you, even if they break the rules, they are the ones breaking rules, not you.
Huh? You're the one who didn't pay taxes. The IRS agent may have been ignorant or even knowingly exceeded his authority (and may be duly punished), but that doesn't exempt you from your duty under the law.
If the mayor of your town says, "Hey -- murder's okay on Thursdays, so go ahead and kill those annoying deliquents down the road if you like today," I don't think you can get off a murder charge by saying, "But the mayor told me so! He broke the rules, not me!" Perhaps the mayor could be charged with
Re: (Score:3)
Law Constant: Had to know this was dodgy (Score:5, Insightful)
If you cheat on your taxes, then yeah you'd be subject to fines for past tax evasion. But if you followed the letter of the tax law at the time, and some time later the government decided the law was wrong and changed it, then no you wouldn't be subject to retroactive fines.
Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If I buy stolen goods from you in good faith (i.e. lawfully on my part), and it is discovered, should I be allowed to keep the goods?
Or, should I be required to surrender them to the rightful owner, in what I would regard to be a blatant retrospective change to the deal?
Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? (Score:5, Informative)
A better analogy would be the US retroactively eliminating deductions (standard or itemized) retroactively and asking you for back taxes and interest.
The US already did something like that, several times [aol.com]:
No sympathy for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the EU saying to Ireland "Your law violates European law - fix it". This is correct. What is sketchy is the retrospective nature of the "and grab a few billion from Apple while you're fixing it"
I disagree that it is sketchy at all. Apple is going through all kinds of contortions to avoid paying any taxes. This is in clear violation of the spirit of the law and apparently the EU believes it is in violation of the letter of the law as well. Apple enjoys the benefits of public services from the taxes paid but isn't willing to pay their fair share. I have ZERO sympathy for Apple here. They shouldn't be entitled to any tax breaks not available to individuals or small enterprises. Furthermore if what they did was illegal then there is no retrospective anything. It means that Apple rightfully owes money it hasn't paid.
Re: (Score:2)
" This is in clear violation of the spirit of the law "
If this was common law, you might have a point.
But there is no "spirit of the law" in tax law nor in corporate contract law. The law is about the "letter of the law.
If you disagree, tell the IRS you won't pay your taxes, because their laws are a "clear violation of the spirit of the US Constitution".
Let us know how that works for you.
Re:No sympathy for Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Work to change the laws if they are unfair (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you one of those that think that Spirit of the Law only applies when you agree with the law, and doesn't apply when you don't.
I don't have a problem with anyone engaging in conscientious objection to what they think is an unfair law. However there are usually consequences for doing that. If Apple thinks the laws are unfair then they should be actively working to get them changed to something that is fair. As it stands they are just trying to weasel out of paying a reasonable portion of their Scrooge McDuck horde of cash. There is no ethical stance being taken here, just pure greed and opportunity.
How do you feel about Hillary skirting the applicable laws regarding Security of Secrets?
I think she should be subject to the same laws as everyone else. Similarly Apple appears to think because they are able to find some clever loopholes because of their power and size that the laws shouldn't apply to them. I disagree.
How about Immigration law?
What about it? If someone comes here illegally and gets caught they should expect to get deported. I don't have a problem with that. They rolled the dice when they came here. However since at some point almost all the people who are here in the US had many relatives who came here without the permission of any government or were brought here against their will I'm not bent out of shape about some people coming here for economic opportunity. Do you speak fluent Cherokee? Didn't think so. How do you like those cheap groceries? Are you insisting on paying for only legal labor (read white people) or are you a hypocrite? You should worry about illegal immigration if the people STOP wanting to come to your country. I think the immigration laws in my country are idiotic and hugely racist but they are what they are until sanity hopefully prevails one day.
Re: (Score:3)
Tax is theft?
Good luck finding a shoulder to cry on when John Galt quintuples the price of electricity because he can.
Taxes are not theft (Score:5, Informative)
- the law is theft and the entire system is built around that theft.
Oh fuck off with that stupid argument. Tax is not theft and never was. The argument doesn't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny. The very fact that you have roads and an education and healthcare and police protection and the internet and first responders and clean water and postal service and safe drugs and military protection and plenty more is because of taxes. Without a civil society and people paying taxes to fund things we all benefit from none of that stuff exists. The fact that you can post your witless argument is because of those taxes you are so bent out of shape over.
AFAIC Apple shouldn't pay a cent and instead hire a private army to go after every single politician involved in this racketeering and I mean to go with full force of every shady tool available to people when that sort of money is involved, up to and including blackmail, kidnapping, extermination and regime change.
Either you are a troll or a raving lunatic with no concept of reality. I hope it's the former but I'm pretty sure it's the later.
Re: (Score:3)
His "real" userid is roman_mir. He only uses the other one when his karma's so far down the shitter he gets blocked from posting.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No sympathy for Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. Corporations pay taxes, and they come off profits. Corporate income taxes do not affect employees (their pay is deductible as a business expense), and don't affect customers (since the optimal price to maximize profit is the same whether or not there's income taxes). The result is less profit, which does affect investors and pretty much no one else.
Re:No sympathy for Apple (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, but would the EU have done this to one of their own companies?
Did you check?
Obviously not.
Obviously not.
Translation: "I am a a bigot, and you won't ever catch me educating myself."
Previous record was against EDF (French utility company).
FIAT (Italian automobile manufacturer) also had to pay back taxes because of that European rule.
Re:No sympathy for Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but would the EU have done this to one of their own companies? Obviously not. They just want to stick it to the foreigners - especially Americans. It's a big "fuck you" straight from the EU.
Surely Apple isn't an American company! It's head office is in Ireland, and almost all of its profits are made there.
Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Oh yeah? Then what are you gonna do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
...in what way does the EU benefit other then to force a member nation to fall in line with the rules they agreed to.
If one EU country lures foreign investment by offering illegal tax breaks, they undermine the ability of other countries to attract investment. The benefit to the EU of enforcing the rules is that EU members get a level playing field.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really, it goes all according to the rules. When you are cheating with your taxes, does the Tax Office just say that you should not cheat any more or will it demand all the money you should have paid? Of course the latter.
And as such, there's also a time limit, in this case 10 years (it goes back to 2003 as the 10 years begins from the start of the investigation, 2013) so although there was some
Re: (Score:2)
It not clearly a violation and Ireland is appealing. What really sucks and the EU knows this is that its going to be the American Tax payer holding the bag. Apple will be able to write off much of what is paid to Ireland (who made a deal for tax abatement and wants to hold up their end by not unfairly collecting this tax) from the US tax obligation.
Frankly this is EXACTLY why I am voting Trump 2016! its damn near time the POTUS and State Department demand a 'good deal' for Americans. What we should do i
Re: (Score:3)
As a european, I'm all for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy for terrorists? Is this an attempt at a subtle troll? Does subtle troll/astroturf pay the same as the more blatant ones? Out of curiosity, who is your sponsor?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a free agent, but if you want to hire me, I am willing to consider offers.
There is no reason why a company should feel compelled to help a government agency do its job. The FBI gets paid to investigate shit, let em.
The terrorist hasn't paid me, thus I am not his spokesperson.
The problem I have with your troll is that it is an attempt to frame the argument on your terms. That cannot be allowed, this is about freedom (what little we have left) and government overreach. Your attempts at framing by appea
Re: (Score:2)
Put up or shut up (Score:2)
Re:Put up or shut up (Score:5, Informative)
I agree they should pay, but actually it doesn't matter if Apple has obeyed the law, because this case is not about Apple's compliance with law. It's about Apple _and_ Ireland.
Ireland could have given Apple a sweetheart deal that was better than any other Irish business was offered, and that could be (dubiously) seen to be in compliance with the Irish tax code (see for example how much Google had to repay in the UK; far less than they should have). Apple could be paying Ireland all that Ireland asked for (which is, apparently, sweet Fanny Adams).
The point here is that the EU is punishing _Ireland_ for giving Apple that deal, and requiring Ireland to make Apple pay back taxes.
Why? Because what Ireland did in making this offer is deemed to be unfair competition in Europe -- among other states. In essence, the EU is meant to be a level playing field, and Ireland gave Apple a truly tiny tax bill in a way that distorts fairness within the EU.
So it's political but it is not crap; it's about Ireland meeting their obligations to the EU.
Ireland should claim the money, Apple should pay.
It's a tiny amount of money compared to what Apple makes, and if they are so concerned about fairness, they should take their money home to the USA. But oh no, they want a tax holiday. Which totally explains the deal they struck with Ireland; they are waiting for a tax holiday in the USA and don't want to pay any taxes elsewhere.
CAPTCHA: clubroom. (I swear there's a sarcastic AI at work)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The point here is that the EU is punishing _Ireland_ for giving Apple that deal, and requiring Ireland to make Apple pay back taxes.
It requires some real mental contortions to paint grabbing 13 billion Euros from Apple as punishing Ireland. Ireland got what they wanted out of the deal already -- more tax revenue and jobs than they would have had otherwise. This is obviously an attempt to punish Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
The point here is that the EU is punishing _Ireland_ for giving Apple that deal, and requiring Ireland to make Apple pay back taxes.
It requires some real mental contortions to paint grabbing 13 billion Euros from Apple as punishing Ireland. Ireland got what they wanted out of the deal already -- more tax revenue and jobs than they would have had otherwise. This is obviously an attempt to punish Apple.
Seeking owed taxes from anyone will always be "an attempt to punish". The question is, is it a legitimate pursuit of justice.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're missing the point. Ireland doesn't WANT the taxes. Ireland is perfectly happy with what they have. Ireland doesn't think Apple owes them anything beyond what they've already paid.
Tim Cook is completely right. This is nothing more than a spiteful political attack, coming from the "un-cool tech nerds are destroying culture" narrative in general, and bias against US tech companies in the EU in general. And don't think it will stop at Apple. France has been on the warpath against Google for a few y
Re:Put up or shut up (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point. Of course Ireland doesn't want to screw up it's relationship with Apple. Yes Apple and Ireland are happy with the relationship, much the way the way a crook and a fence are happy with their relationship. Ireland is selling tax obligations at a steep discount to Apple for "other valuable considerations" the EU a part owner of those obligations has been sliced out of the deal and is now crying foul.
Re:Put up or shut up (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't about whether Apple followed the law or not, it's about the fact that Ireland had no right, by the terms of its international agreements with the EU and as part of its obligations as a member of the Common Market, to negotiate this special deals with Apple, Microsoft and the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
This may be true.
But why is this not Ireland's fault? Why are they not forced to collect what is supposedly owed?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are being forced to collect what should have been collected. And Apple is being forced to pay what they should have paid. The deal should never have been made, it violated the Common Market rules that Ireland has been party to for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
This may be true.
But why is this not Ireland's fault? Why are they not forced to collect what is supposedly owed?
huh? Ireland are the only ones being "forced" anything here - They are being told to remedy a 13-year long state-aid given to Apple in the form of excessively low tax.
Re: (Score:2)
That's part of the problem. The laws.
See, what Apple and Ireland are being accused of is of passing tax legislation that applies specifically and singularly to the Apple corporation itself. The EU commissioners are crying fowl on that part saying that it violates Ireland's treaty with them. From what I understand, Ireland can tax however it wants but that the tax law must apply to all corporations, equally. Apparently the "Double Irish" wasn't enough tax sheltering for Apple. They got some special deals on
Re: (Score:2)
Crying chicken? I'm confused...Oh, you meant "crying foul"! Never mind....
Re: (Score:2)
But until Apple provides concrete evidence
Guilty until proven innocent.
Apple IS guilty (Score:2)
Guilty until proven innocent.
Is there any question that Apple has been avoiding taxes? Apple admits that fact freely and seems rather proud of it in fact. The only question is whether their activities were actually legal or not but their guilt in avoiding taxes is not in question. Now the EU seems to have determined that they were illegal under the law as well. Apple got special treatment they weren't entitled to and they owe a lot of money they should have paid earlier. Sounds fair to me.
Re: (Score:3)
But until Apple provides concrete evidence
Guilty until proven innocent.
The EC found that the special agreement between Ireland and Apple was illegal - the guilty part is basically proven.
Re: (Score:3)
That "other motivation" would be recent public outcry about a sense of fairness. Legality is one thing; and the other is timeliness: this is happening *now* because the EU cares *now*, and the EU cares now because of a global political dialogue about economics that keeps going from "look how many poor people" to "OMG THE 1% AND BUSINESSES!"
This kind of thing is interesting to me because it doesn't actually help anything, or at least it doesn't in my part of the world (the United States). Over here, bu
Pay taxes? Seriously? But...we're leftists! (Score:2, Insightful)
Taxation and proportional weighting (Score:3)
If a man with five dollars gives a dollar to a starving man, he's being generous.
If a man with a billion dollars gives a dollar to a starving man, he's being a dick.
Point being, Apple's taxes should be proportional to what they make, rather than measured in "more than your company made" dollars.
What? (Score:2)
"There are very, very few figures in the public domain"
What figures is it that she's referring to? Apple is publicly traded, are there numbers about revenue that are being hidden from her? Maybe, and that would be a whole other set of crimes to tack onto tax evasion.
"More transparency would be a good thing, for example, a country by country reporting"
Well let's start with Belgium....surely she has access to those numbers?
"If it was up to me, the non-confidential version of the decision would have been publ
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? The ATF are pansies compared to the SEC.
We Have To Pay Taxes? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand. I just thought we did business in various countries around the world, and didn't pay taxes. People,people are supposed to pay all the taxes.
: P
A Tax Expert Takes Tim Cook's EU Letter Apart... (Score:5, Interesting)
Baseless? [fastcompany.com]
Total Political Crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: Waaaahhhh!
In related news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cry me a river (Score:5, Informative)
It is illegal in the EU to provide state aid to entice companies to setup in one country over another. It has been this way since EU year dot, to create a level playing field. It is pretty much the point of the EU. If you don't like it, don't join the EU.
If Apple funnel all their EU profits through Ireland without paying tax in the country of sale, but only pay tax on sales made in Ireland (because Ireland conveniently ignore the rest), then that is state aid. Ireland know this. If Apple didn't know this they should sack their lawyers.
All the rest is PR and bluster.
Re: (Score:2)
So why isn't the burden on Ireland to fix/pay for this? They're the ones supposedly out of compliance with EU tax laws.
Re: (Score:2)
It is Ireland's burden to remove the illegal laws. But that doesn't mean Apple gets to keep their illegal gains. This isn't just a case of changing the rules, its saying the old rules were illegal so they never could have applied in the first case. Meaning their special privlidges should never have existed and they have to pay the same rate as everyone else. If they don't like that, they shouldn't lobby for special rules. Personally I'd say they should be fined a multiple to prevent them from trying ag
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Informative)
If Apple didn't know this they should sack their lawyers.
Right. That's the thing that gets me. Folks say that "Apple was just following the tax laws" -- or more accurately, that Apple's highly paid team of tax lawyers had figured out detailed and sophisticated ways to leverage the precise letter of the law to their advantage. Except apparently they hadn't researched the precise letter of the law carefully enough.
Ireland had on its books one set of laws which resulted in favorable tax regime for Apple. Meanwhile the same books have another set of laws relating to EU harmonization, which supersede the first, which didn't result in favorable tax regime for Apple:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The European Communities Act 1972, as amended, provides that treaties of the European Union are part of Irish law, along with directly effective measures adopted under those treaties.
Did Apple's tax lawyers simply not know about the EU treaties applicable to their tax liabilities? Did they not know that the favorable tax regimes they planned together with Ireland were in violation of the EU treaties? Or did they know about them, keep mum, and let the Irish government (hopefully not also taxpayer) take the blame if ever they got found out?
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Informative)
The other problem with Apples position is that they didnt just follow Irish tax law, they negotiated with the Irish government over their tax affairs - they are completely complicit in this.
Re: (Score:2)
Crap? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like both Cook and Apple. They're on overpriced commodity hardware, and playing international games to avoid paying local taxes.
From the US IRS website:
1972: 16.67% of the federal revenue stream from individual income taxes, 25% from corporate taxes
Now: 44+% from income taxes, and 10+% from corporate taxes.
We pay more, so he doesn't have to. Let's go back to the 1972 tax structure, and see how you like *that*, Cook - you'd be in the 72% tax bracket....
mark
Re:Crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all just taxes on people in the end. Corporations aren't real things, they're abstract - they're just groups of people organised together to do a task.
Corporation taxes are paid as a proportion of profits (incomes minus costs) - if they go up then there are less profits, which someone has to pay for: generally it will be paid for by some combination of:
- Workers, through lower wages
- Shareholders, through lower dividends (and by association, lower stock prices)
- Consumers, through higher prices
- Less investment in the business, and hence the productivity of the staff, since the lower profits lead to lower retained earnings
It may be that you are happy with at least one of these groups paying more (I would guess most are happy with shareholders paying more) but my point is that a corporation doesn't pay anything because it doesn't exist, only people exist and only they pay.
Re: (Score:2)
companies are multinational.
people are not.
Imagine that Apple didn't pay taxes, but only their shareholders did... which country would get that tax money?
Re: (Score:2)
Hello Ken,
It is a fair point. But keep in mind that you have imposed the condition that only the shareholder pay taxes, whereas this is not the case.
My first post made the point that if you increase corp tax, then it is various groups of people who, one way or another, have to pay for it.
It seems to me that the reverse if also true - if you reduce (or eliminate) corp tax, then those same groups of people, in some combination, would receive more money. These people would therefore pay more tax on the money t
Re: (Score:2)
OP is absolutely right. The fundamental currency is productivity, and only people generate productivity, so only people pay taxes. No matter where you shift the direct taxes, it's always people who'll be paying them indirectly. Corporations are just groups of people working together. So taxing corporations
Re: (Score:2)
We pay more, so he doesn't have to. Let's go back to the 1972 tax structure, and see how you like *that*, Cook - you'd be in the 72% tax bracket....
The world isn't 1972 anymore, the old tax code wouldn't work today... it probably wouldn't even be legal, given newer trade agreements...
Picked on? (Score:3, Funny)
He claimed Ireland was being "picked on" and that he hoped to see the Irish government launch an appeal against the ruling.
I'm sure Ireland will stand up for their rights and not be forced to accept this kind of treatment. It's appalling. I sure would if someone would "pick on" me by ordering a foreign company to pay me 15 billion euros. I mean really, who would put up with that kind of treatment? What's wrong with Europeans, this isn't the dark ages, you can't treat people like that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Ireland will stand up for their rights and not be forced to accept this kind of treatment.
What do you mean "stand up for their rights"? No one's going to invade Ireland and force them to take that tax off Apple.
Oh I see you mean thay the EU should let them be a member of the club with all the benefits but without sticking to the rules! Ireland agreed to a set of rules in order to join a club. If they don't like the rules, they are free to leave and no one will stop them.
Simply really really very b
So... *IRELAND* did something illegal... (Score:2, Insightful)
... but we're going to punish Apple.
Hey, it's just like anti-gun rhetoric. Bad guy does something bad with a gun, let's punish everyone except the bad guy.
Re: So... *IRELAND* did something illegal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is not being punished, they are being required to pay back taxes they avoided because of an agreement deemed non legal.
Re: (Score:2)
When your accountant screws up your taxes, YOU are the one who is expected to pay up, why is this any different? I'm sure Apple can sue some bureau in the Irish government afterward to try and recoup losses. Whether that will work or not is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
They both did something illegal - Apple negotiated the deal it had with Ireland, it wasnt simply following Irish law, so now the deal has been declared illegal, Apple is on the hook for the money it should have been paying had it not negotiated...
These allegations are a "political attack" (Score:2)
There are two possible translations, based on the context.
1. Are the allegations based on a) verifiable facts or on b) unconfirmed or debunked rumors?
If answer=a, then translation="I'm so mad we got caught!"
If answer=b, then translation="This is a political attack."
what a punk (Score:2)
the multi-national corporate tax system is crap (Score:2)
Might be an advantage to Apple (Score:2)
From what I've read, this is a net wash for Apple, because they get to reduce their US taxes by the amount they pay in foreign taxes. ... but foreign taxes would be paid out of foreign money ... whereas the US tax refund would be in US money.
Therefore, Apple would get $14B or so re-patriated, without having to pay US taxes for doing so.
Currently, Apple has a huge cash reserve, but it's not in US money ... so they take loans against it, rather than repatriate it (and pay 35% on it, minus the taxes that have
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So you're saying the EC should sit by and let Ireland violate the terms of its membership in the Common Market? Is that your view, that Ireland is above the very laws it is party to?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. They should just continue allowing our better equals to pay %1 tax or less while the rest pay 15x the tax.
I thought we didn't have feudalism anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Which USA would that be? (Score:2)
If you mean the constitutional republic, you're well behind the curve. Long dead. Arguable that it was stillborn.
However, if you mean the nation, then, no. The oligarchy is running just fine. And your implication that it is in place to benefit the people in general, and that defines its life or death is adorable, truly.
Re: (Score:2)
This goes both ways. The EU also needs to show the numbers they used to decide this, which they haven't yet by their own admission:
"If it was up to me, the non-confidential version of the decision would have been published yesterday, because that is another way of enabling everyone to see what we have decided and on what basis we have made this decision"
What's stopping them from doing this?
Re: (Score:2)
I did try to minimize my tax burden. However, what I did not do was make an illegal bargain with the IRS to reduce the amount of tax that I pay.
It's not about the amount, it's about an agreement between Apple and the Irish government that violated the international treaties between the Republic of Ireland and other EU countries.
Re: (Score:2)
So, that's Ireland's fault, not Apple's.
Re: (Score:3)
So, that's Ireland's fault, not Apple's.
And Apple, having had access to the relevant papers, would full-well know that special tax-agreements like these have been illegal inside the Common Market, and before that in the EEC, for decades.
They aren't innocent bystanders here, there's not really a basis for declaring themselves ignorant of facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me suggest that you find a corrupt IRS agent, and use this person to reduce your taxes below what is legally required, then, when audited, blame the IRS agent. See how far that gets you.
You don't even need a corrupt IRS agent. Just get an accountant to file an incorrect tax return on your behalf and see if you have to pay the correct tax when the issue is discovered.
Apple knew (or should have known) the details of the EU agreements. Just like the USA, where
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's a big number it's fair? I was under the impression that to assess that at least one other number was needed.
Yes, yes, no. We're not talking about a plumber getting a deduction for his van, a contractor working out of town claiming his hotel, or an engineering firm building a new R&D lab.
We're talking ridiculously convoluted transactions that have nothing to do wit
Apple does not pay their fair share (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple paid about $7,000,000,000 in taxes to the US govt last year.
That isn't the real number. In 2011 the tax on their GAAP statements was $6.9B but the amount the actually sent to the IRS was less than half of that. Taxes are done on a cash basis, not accrual basis so you have to look deeper than their financial statements. Apple pays in some cases single digit percentages of their profits.
Is that a fair enough share for you?
Considering that the amount they paid as a percentage is FAR less than what many other companies pay and less than the percent I pay the answer is a clear NO. Furthermore they pay a lot of tax because they are absurdly profitable. Complaining about having such good fortune is absurd.
Do you try to minimize your tax burden?
Don't pretend that Apple's situation and my personal tax situation are remotely comparable. I pay a FAR higher tax rate than Apple does. Furthermore Apple gets to play all sorts of games playing jurisdictions off against each other which isn't something you or I get to do. It's not fair, it's not right, and it's not ethical. Evidently the EU agrees that it isn't legal either. Perhaps Apple shouldn't be entitled to hire people from public schools and universities or get protection from police or fire. After all they seem to think that we should have to pay for those things on their behalf so they can make even more billions than they already are. When is enough money enough?
Do you take any deductions? Are others not allowed to because they made more money?
Spare me. When Apple pays as much of their profits in taxes as I do on my income then you might have an argument. As it stands it's not even a discussion.
iPhone: Proudly Designed in California (Score:4, Interesting)
Headquartered in Ireland (to avoid tax laws)
Since more and more countries are closing those loopholes, I hear rumors they're building a giant ship to move their entire operation to the lawless libertarian paradise of international waters; manufacturing slaves on the lower decks, one percenters soaking up the sun on the upper decks.
Re:Get ready... (Score:5, Insightful)
For Irexit.
Seeing as how Apple is involved that would make it:
iRexit
But seriously, this fight should be between the EU and Ireland. Apple did not write Irish tax laws.
This would be like a landlord who underpays taxes because he foolishly agreed to rent his property at too low a price and the IRS, instead of keeping the issue between the landlord and the IRS, goes after the tenant for rent the IRS thinks the tenant should have paid to the landlord in order for the landlord to meet the his tax obligation. Or the IRS going after Walmart customers who "didn't pay enough for their purchases" for Walmart to pay all their taxes.
Cook is spot-on. It's political crap from a collapsing union in decline, sinking under the weight of an overbearing collectivist bureaucracy, entitlements, and Newspeak PC political/ideological horseshit.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Your fallacy is trying to apply the laws between person and person (or person and state) to a situation of corporation and state.
This is comparing Apple (*scnr*) to Oranges.
For example traffic laws for road vehicles are fundamentally different than those for railway vehicles and of course also different to those for ships. This is not unfair, this is completely normal.
Re: (Score:3)
Really not sure how you got upvoted for brownnosing Tim Crook.
Your analogy is completely wrong as well. This would be more like a tenant who has made a special 'deal' with his landlord to pay a double figure rent while everyone around him in the same building is paying thee digit rents.
Then the Housing committee drops by and declares the arrangement illegal.
Nothing wrong with that, its called obeying the legal system.
The last line about political crap and collectivist bureaucracy is just hilarious ^^
Re: (Score:2)
What if Tim Cook offered to buy Ireland for â1 in echange for moving global HQ to Dublin? :)