Apple Must Pay $14 Billion Tax Bill To Ireland, EU Court Rules (telegraph.co.uk) 189
Bruce66423 shares a report: The European Union's top court ruled against Apple Tuesday in the tech company's protracted legal battle over contested back taxes in Ireland. The ruling means Apple will be forced to pay Ireland up to $14.4 billion in back taxes and represents the latest setback in Europe for the tech giant. Earlier this year, Apple became the first company to be accused of violating the EU's new major tech competition law. The tax case stretches back to 2016, when the European Commission (EC) ordered Apple repay Ireland roughly $14.4 billion of unpaid taxes.
The commission argued that the tech giant had received "illegal" tax benefits from Ireland over the course of two decades. Apple had housed its European headquarters in Ireland and paid a corporate tax rate of less than 1% in some years, which the EC argued gave Apple an unfair advantage over other companies. Apple and Ireland appealed the decision in 2019. The European Court of Justice on Tuesday overturned the lower court decision and upheld the EC's 2016 order. "Today is a big win for European citizens and for tax justice. The Court of Justice confirms ... that Ireland granted Apple unlawful aid which Ireland now has to recover," Margrethe Vestager, the EU competition chief, said in a statement Tuesday.
The commission argued that the tech giant had received "illegal" tax benefits from Ireland over the course of two decades. Apple had housed its European headquarters in Ireland and paid a corporate tax rate of less than 1% in some years, which the EC argued gave Apple an unfair advantage over other companies. Apple and Ireland appealed the decision in 2019. The European Court of Justice on Tuesday overturned the lower court decision and upheld the EC's 2016 order. "Today is a big win for European citizens and for tax justice. The Court of Justice confirms ... that Ireland granted Apple unlawful aid which Ireland now has to recover," Margrethe Vestager, the EU competition chief, said in a statement Tuesday.
Works out for Ireland! (Score:4, Interesting)
This works out pretty well for Ireland: they got the HQ and then also now get the taxes they gave up to lure the HQ.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. The ruling should have specified that the taxes go to the EU rather than Ireland, so Ireland wouldn't have benefited from creating the cozy little loophole.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or they could have honored the terms laid out by a sovereign nation and agreed to by a company in good faith.
Ireland isn't sovereign (Score:3)
It's in the EU, whose laws, as demonstrated on this occasion, overrule the promises of states that are members.
Re:Ireland isn't sovereign (Score:4, Insightful)
It's still dealing in bad faith. I'm not a fan of tax shelters like this or Apple but the bottom line is that Ireland offered these terms and Apple accepted them and did business in good faith. If there is some conflict between Ireland and the EU over the matter and Ireland is in the wrong then Ireland and not Apple should pay the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wasn't. Ireland didn't cut Apple a deal. It was tax evasion
There was an open secret than any multinational company with valuable intellectual property could take advantage of called "The Double Irish". It relied on a difference in the way the US and most companies levy corporate profits and how Ireland used to do it. When set up correctly, a corporation would pay ZERO taxes on their profits. No taxes to the US. No taxes to Ireland. No taxes anywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"relied on a difference in the way the US and most companies levy corporate profits and how Ireland used to do it"
Yeah, that is Ireland cutting a deal. Ireland had this as their tax code to intentionally draw these large companies and the economic activity that comes with them to Ireland.
When you structure things so you don't have to pay taxes that is called tax planning, not tax evasion. Tax evasion is when you commit some kind of fraud or otherwise mislead authorities, it isn't a crime to just plan your b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"And that deal was illegal in the EU."
Which is on Ireland not Apple and the various other companies that trusted Ireland as an official entity to follow the laws it was subject to.
Re: (Score:2)
That's some incredible excuse making for a company that makes more money than literally any other entity in a year that isn't the treasury of an industrialized nation.
Unless part of the "deal" that was made also included indemnity against legal problems with the deal, Apple eats the whole meal. That's how deals (and laws) work.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"That's some incredible excuse making for a company that makes more money than literally any other entity in a year that isn't the treasury of an industrialized nation."
I'm not interested in you trying to taint the conversation by slut shaming the victim. I'm not an Apple fan and the taxes here JUSTLY would go to the US because Apple is REALLY an American company not an Irish one. That is all beside the point, if I'm in your country and I follow the laws of your country then your country should indemnify me
Re: (Score:3)
No, the fact is that Apple was only obligated to pay those taxes because Ireland dishonestly presented terms which violated their agreement with the EU. This is more like owing money because your AT&T store told you incorrect terms and conditions for your phone plan and had a poster to that effect. Or being in a position in which is impossible to legally defend yourself because you filed advice of council.
Saying Apple can afford lawyers and should have known better is silly. Apple can't afford as many l
Re: Ireland isn't sovereign (Score:2)
Tax evasion or tax avoidance?
One of them is illegal. The other is not, even if itâ(TM)s contrary to the spirit of the law or societyâ(TM)s expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is some conflict between Ireland and the EU over the matter and Ireland is in the wrong then Ireland and not Apple should pay the bill.
That's not how it works. If Ireland tells Apple to violate EU law, and Apple is stupid enough to do it, that's entirely Apple's fault. Maybe next time they won't trust Ireland but that's another subject.
Apple just had bad lawyers/tax planners that were foolish enough to think they were respecting EU laws. I hope they will be fired for being so bad in their job.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hence why, as painful as it has been, Brexit was the right answer. EU members have lost your sovereignty to a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels that you have no redress against when they wrong you.
If you want to trade with the EU, you'll have to follow their rules, but now you have no say in them. Worked great!
Re: (Score:2)
The door is open, Ireland could leave. But you know what, Irish people support EU membership at 88%.
A Red C survey in 2022, for European Movement Ireland, found that 88% of those questioned were in favour of Ireland remaining in the EU - that’s up 4% on their previous poll. https://www.rte.ie/news/analys... [www.rte.ie]
lost your sovereignty to a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels
Those awful bureaucrats dealing with tax... Damn Commissioner Mairead McGuinness, head of the Financial Services and the Capital Markets Union! Nominated at this position by... wait for it... the Government of Ireland!
Bureaucrats in Brussels are also under Parliamentary control. They can be overturned if the Commission does not defend the interests of the constituents. One President (Jacques Santer) was force
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So now they're being "wronged" when they have to actually live up to what they agreed to in order to have EU membership?
You have a very interesting outlook on events. And by "interesting" I mean "wrong".
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could argue that Apple could afford tax lawyers and know exactly what gamble they were taking by selecting Ireland and its too-good-to-be-true conditions.
I do not understand why everyone thinks Apple did not see this as a business risk and took the gamble. I'm quite sure they knew *exactly* what the EU tax laws are and what they were getting into
Re: (Score:2)
"Or you could argue that Apple could afford tax lawyers and know exactly what gamble they were taking by selecting Ireland and its too-good-to-be-true conditions."
Too good to be true? Is that the standard the EU goes by? The integrity of member states and their laws should be considered questionable and people need to doubt whether they'll retroactively renege on their commitments after the fact?
"I do not understand why everyone thinks Apple did not see this as a business risk and took the gamble."
Why would
Re: (Score:2)
Why would any company think there was a substantial business risk in accepting terms from a stable first world government?
Well, probably because large companies do a process called "due diligence" before committing to things like what jurisdiction to put a wholly-owned subsidiary in for the purposes of tax avoidance.
Part of that diligence would probably include a review of the scheme against applicable tax laws, and "just taking some Irish bureucrat's word for it" isn't really matching the definition of "due diligence" as Ireland is an EU member state, and the EU has it's own taxation framework which applies.
TL;DR: Apple has a
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could have honored the terms laid out by a sovereign nation and agreed to by a company in good faith.
It's like if a US state made a deal with a foreign corporation allowing child rape or slavery. It doesn't matter if such a deal was made in good faith or not. It was illegal (likely unconstitutional) to begin with.
No one can ignore the law. Apple should have known that their deal with Ireland was illegal because it was against EU laws which apply to Ireland.
Instead, Apple is complaining that the court is retroactively trying to ban slavery, while it was ALREADY banned when they made the deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Irish corporation tax is lower than in most EU countries but the Irish government gave Apple a special deal. Other Irish companies were required to pay the full amount of corporation tax due and the Irish government went after them if they didn't pay up. Apple got special treatment from the notoriously corrupt Irish government and under EU rules that's not permitted.
Ben there, Dunn that, bought the Taoiseach.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter whether Apple is indemnified by Ireland as a sovereign state that offered terms or as a representative of the EU that offered terms. A business that complies with the laws offered by the state in good faith should have them honored in good faith. If the EU has an issue with Ireland offering those terms that should be between the EU and Ireland, not recovered from the business.
Re: (Score:2)
Primacy of EU law. Ireland was never a sovereign state to begin with.
As for good faith, the only thing at arm's length were the Irish politicians they were jacking off. It was clear fraud start to finish.
Re: (Score:2)
It is never clear that following the law of the land is fraud, even if it should be. It's not on random private parties to make EU member states follow EU law, it is on the member states who should indemnify the private parties. Especially in this case where it sounds like the EU passed the law after the fact. Otherwise why would anyone risk doing business in any EU state?
Re: (Score:2)
According to this court judgement, they did not follow the law of the land. That's the whole point.
Re: (Score:2)
So none of the EU member nations have embassies in other nations? They don't have ambassadors? They don't grant embassies and consulates to foreign governments for those governments to conduct relations locally?
You don't know what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
This works out pretty well for Ireland: they got the HQ and then also now get the taxes they gave up to lure the HQ.
It doesn't, because they are going to now see a complete exodus of companies which located there to avoid taxes [wikipedia.org]. There's no other reason to be there. They get a payout now but will lose all the future payouts. It's not like they were getting nothing out of it. Soon they will.
Re: (Score:2)
All those companies still want / need to have a presence in the EU.
They are going to get the same taxation in any other EU nation, as this is a decision from a EU court.
Why would they pay shloads of money to move away, when they're going to get the exact same deal (or worse!) in any other EU nation, where they still want / need to be?
Unless there is a major savings opportunity by moving somewhere else (savings in real estate leases, for example) they're staying put because moving costs money.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would they pay shloads of money to move away, when they're going to get the exact same deal (or worse!) in any other EU nation, where they still want / need to be?
That's not how anything works. Most of them have a fake-ass office there. They will gain nothing from keeping it there and it will be cheap to move someplace less inconvenient. The ones that have a real presence there (which are few) will also want to move to someplace less inconvenient, where there is more talent available, and better connectivity, which is an obvious reason.
thats a lot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not excessive, it's the amount they illegally saved in tax over those years. It has nothing to do with the population of Ireland. It's not just a random fine. The number is big, because Apple illegally avoided taxes on even bigger numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is being fined on approximately 111 billion Euros they shielded from taxes between 2004 and 2014. They have been fined 13 Billion Euros. That's only 11.7%.
Ireland's corporate tax rate on foreign income is 25% (https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ireland/corporate/taxes-on-corporate-income)
Apple got off light.
Re: (Score:2)
They route a stupendous amount of tax evasion through Ireland, Irish GDP was completely distorted by it to the point they had to start using an alternative way to calculate it.
Re: (Score:2)
What is excessive is Apple playing out countries against eachother to make sure they paid zero tax on billions European spend.
we will pay with an in app system that we get 30% (Score:3)
we will pay with an in app system that we get 30% of!
Illegal tax laws ? (Score:2)
It sounds like someone is trying to talk out both sides of their mouths.
I hate it when managers do that.
Re:Illegal tax laws ? (Score:4, Informative)
It happens all the time. In the US States pass laws that are unconstitutional, or that would override federal laws, and these state laws are struck down. Cities pass ordinances that are overruled by state laws. In the European Union, member countries' laws have to fit within the EU's laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand what an illegal law is.
Get yourself a dictionary, open it to the Js, and look up the word "jurisdiction".
If you still don't understand, GTFOH.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, here's a USA analog:
Mississippi passes a law. It doesn't matter what the law is, or what context it's in for this example. And I'm not picking directly on Mississippi, I chose that state randomly.
The reading of that law's text appears to conflict with the United States Constitution in some way.
Mississippi attempts to enforce their new law on someone.
That someone hires a competent lawyer, who countersues in federal court that the Mississippi law is unconstitutional, and also asks for an injunction agai
misunderstood governemt (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
What's to prevent Ireland from writing a check to Apple for 14B?
Re: (Score:3)
What's to prevent Ireland from writing a check to Apple for 14B?
That would be effectively Apple receiving government support from Ireland, i.e. a state aid, which is generally prohibited in the EU [europa.eu].
A company receiving government support may gain a distortive advantage over its competitors. Therefore, Article 107 TFEU generally prohibits State aid unless exceptionally justified.
Given the specific situation here, there is zero chance that such a state aid would be deemed justified.
Why wouldn't the EU receive the money? (Score:2)
Ireland had low tax levels. Someone abused it (supposedly). Now they pay the taxes they should have to... Ireland?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well, if your own companies can't be successful (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not at all. It was a tax dodge known as the "Double Irish", in the accounting biz. Ireland did or does have lower than average corporate tax rates, but this was something else entirely.
You can read up on the concept here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Also, the "Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich": https://www.investopedia.com/t... [investopedia.com]
In a nutshell, for about two decades US companies could used a difference in the way the US and Ireland tax corporate profits. In the US, corporate income taxes are levied based on where the profit is realized. Ireland used to levy taxes based on the where a corporation's seat of control. Apple had a subsidiary in Ireland that held ownership of all Apple's intellectual property (patents, trademarks, etc.). Then, they would pay that subsidiary hefty fees for use of said IP. As a result, the American Apple division would see very low profits because they were paying the Irish IP holding company every bit of spare change they could. The Irish subsidiary owed no taxes to Ireland because it was owned by a foreign entity.
The upside for heavily tech invested companies, like Apple, Google, and Microsoft, is that they could shield their corporate profits from all income taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
The legality was questionable. They were allowed to hold off on the tax payments while the courts decided. They have now decided and the accrued taxes must be paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It takes time for courts to act. Ireland is a part of the EU and thus has to follow those rules (or else exit). 8 years ago it was ruled that Apple owed the taxes, then 8 years later it is upheld, so it's really not the case that today someone is deciding to retroactively change rules. Ireland's tax rate was 12.5%, but Apple did not pay that rate, with the EC arguing that this was dodging international tax rules. Ireland was essentially acting as a tax haven
Now the Digital Markets Act is indeed new, and
Re: (Score:2)
The EU thinks otherwise.
Also, a 13B € fine on a profit of 111B € isn't even a penalty. It's less than 12%, when Ireland's foreign passive corporate tax rate is 25%. Apple is still getting a deal.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU thinks otherwise.
More precisely, the EU court which has the right to decide this issue has ruled otherwise, so kind of by definition, this was illegal.
They Gambled and Lost (Score:2)
The key thing is....it was LEGAL.
Apparently not. Courts decide whether something is legal and in this case they have decided that what they were doing was not legal. They are not changing the rules, as far as I know the laws are the same, all that is happening is that the courts are finally getting to rule on what has been going on.
You can certainly argue that it has taken the courts a long time to finally rule on this but complex legal cases are never fast and part of the delay is because Apple chose to appeal. Overall I have zero sym
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing retroactive here. If Apple didn't drag this into courts, they would have paid this amount over the years instead of now.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no more retroactive than energy revenue collection agency in any government going after an invalid or illegal tax avoidance scheme. Do you think if you use an illegal evasion scheme to avoid paying taxes to the IRS, that it just goes "Welp, our bad! Guess we lost that money!" Nope, they come after you.
Blatant Hypocrisy. (Score:2)
The simplest answer for Ireland, is to stop allowing foreign corporations to take advantage of the loopholes they provide American companies.
Naturally their “representatives” are not interested in preventing both hands from being feeding both of their faces.
Re: Blatant Hypocrisy. (Score:2)
Re: Blatant Hypocrisy. (Score:4, Informative)
Ireland wanted jobs and that meant attracting companies, even if it meant those companies would pay a lower tax rate than local businesses did. If Ireland was independent of the EU then this would be legal, though still unethical, ala the Cayman Islands offshore shell company schemes. But Ireland is in the EU, and their courts rules this scheme illegal eight years agao.
This is very similar to American municipalities which would offer big box stores like Walmart sweetheart tax deals (not voted on by residents, and sometimes not informed) as long as they brought in their stores and the "promise" of jobs. The stores turned up, with vastly fewer jobs than expected, and local competition inevitably dried up being unable to compete fairly. While America allows this unfair competition scheme, the EU does not. Ireland is allowed to set its own corporate tax rates but cannot decide that some companies don't have to pay it.
Re: (Score:3)
The low taxes are the main reason tech companies locate in Ireland.
If Ireland raises taxes to the level of the rest of the EU, all the jobs will disappear, and Ireland will collect $0.
Harmonizing taxes makes sense for the EU as a whole but doesn't benefit Ireland.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Blatant Hypocrisy. (Score:5, Informative)
No, Ireland ALREADY had a tax rate that was very low compared to EU, 12.5%. The EU allows this, and the EU does not requires all members to have the same tax rate. EU is not harmonizing tax rates. The problem is that Irish companies had to pay the 12.5% but Apple was enticed to open up their "shell" subsidiary in Ireland, with local jobs, while not having to pay the IRISH tax rate.
It's very clear that Apple used this subsidiary as a tax haven. Step one, pay the subsidiary most of your profits, so that the profits don't exist in America. Step two, claim that the subsidiary is merely an independent subsidiary and that Apple shouldn't have to pay the subsidiary's taxes. Step three, Ireland agrees not to tax the subsidiary at normal Irish tax rates because those profits were not earned in Ireland. Step four, hire a lot of lawyers to fight the EU when they try to remedy this loophole.
Re: (Score:2)
The low taxes are the main reason tech companies locate in Ireland.
If Ireland raises taxes to the level of the rest of the EU, all the jobs will disappear, and Ireland will collect $0.
Harmonizing taxes makes sense for the EU as a whole but doesn't benefit Ireland.
Oh no, how could Apple ever afford that?
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that Apple shouldn't pay taxes at all?
I mean come on Apple are playing exactly the same game. The only reason they looked at setting up in Ireland at all was to dodge taxes in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should America have a right to tax products made in China and shipped directly to Europe?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the company making the profit on that activity is registered and headquartered in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of perfectly reasonable Americans out there and here on Slashdot.
However, some (not all!) Americans on Slashdot will shit on American companies like Google, Apple or Tesla all day. However when you make one gesture towards an American company from a different country those exact same commenters get as defensive as if they are Tim Cook themselves. I bet this small group would literally defend Blackwater randomly killing civilians here as they take any criticism on any American as a personal
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically the conservative argument. Corporations and the rich are held in higher status than the common person. How dare Apple have to pay taxes!
Re: (Score:2)
Apple books all of the revenue they get from the Americas (north and south) in the US. If they wanted to dodge taxes to the highest degree possible, they wouldn't do that. They would book US revenue in the US, and everything else in the lowest tax jurisdiction they could find, where they legally can book it.
EMEA + Asia revenue is booked through Apple Operations Ireland for the advantageous tax rates, and that's what this article is about.
The US isn't owed taxes on any business not conducted by a US compan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't change the law. The Irish tax shelter they were taking advantage of was deemed illegal under the EU. This was deemed illegal years ago, but Apple appealed.
That appeal is now settled. It's still illegal. Pay up.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because Ireland is part of the Single Market, and part of being a member is that you don't have tax rules that give you an unfair advantage.
Basically you must play fair to get tariff and border free access to other countries' economies. A little like how the US feds regulate interstate commerce.
It's nothing to do with Apple specifically, they just happened to be one of the biggest abusers. Other companies, including European ones, are affected.
Re: (Score:3)
FYI - Apple is based in the EU, in Cork, it is a European company. They incorporated there to avoid US taxes.
Looks like they didn't think their plan all the way through.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple, Inc. is a US company.
Apple Operations International (AOI) is a wholly-owned subsidiary corporation incorporated in Ireland for tax advantages. That's who we're talking about here.
Don't conflate the two.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple Inc. is incorporated in the state of California.
Nope.
Apple is incorporated in the state of Delaware.
Most companies big enough to be listed on a stock exchange are incorporated in Delaware.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a money grab because the EU will not see a dime of that money. What the EU is saying is Ireland can't give random tax breaks to companies they like. Ireland is willing to give tax breaks because they expect Apple to play ball and bring jobs. But undercutting everybody's tax rates and draining everybody else's jobs isn't a popular option in the other members of the bloc.
This ruling isn't about Apple, it is about Ireland. Ireland chose long ago to escape poverty by becoming sort of a tax haven, and w
Re: (Score:2)
Aww, the company that made $383B in revenue last year has to give a country that they book almost all of their non-Americas revenue through a little over 3.5% in tax.
My heart is pumping purple piss for them.
Maybe stop being a corporate stooge.
Re: (Score:2)
What an idiotic analogy. You're saying tobacco settlements were the result of tobacco being too successful so the government had to take them down a notch?
Simplicity (Score:3)
You're overthinking it.
Governments want money. Some companies have a lot of money. The companies with the most money, you sue to get some of it.
The US government is putting together a lawsuit against nVidia because a lot of people want their GPUs. They aren't preventing anyone else from making GPUs. There are a lot of alternatives available. If you want to do AI stuff, nVidia GPUs are simply the most in-demand. So the US government is going to sue them. How does that even begin to make sense? Easy, nVidia h
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the GPUs.
It's about the software, especially CUDA, which gives Nvidia an advantage.
And the money. It's always about the money.
CUDA (Score:2)
And Intel has oneAPI, and AMD has ROCm, and Apple has Metal, and Amazon has DLMI, and Google has whatever they have.
The *only* special thing about CUDA is that nVidia spends a lot of time and effort making sure it's works properly on all of their hardware. This makes it cheap and easy to do development.
If you want something cross platform, OpenCL runs on everything, including nVidia hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
And Intel has oneAPI, and AMD has ROCm, and Apple has Metal, and Amazon has DLMI, and Google has whatever they have.
Those don't do the same thing as CUDA.
They run on top of CUDA. DLMI, oneAPI, and Google's TensorFlow all rely on CUDA.
If you want something cross platform, OpenCL runs on everything
That's good if you have a billion dollars to develop your own TensorFlow clone. Otherwise, you have to use existing software, which is based on CUDA, not OpenCL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're overthinking it.
Governments want money. Some companies have a lot of money. The companies with the most money, you sue to get some of it..
That still makes little sense. Why use an 8 year court battle to get a lump sum when you could simply raise the corporate tax on everyone and get a bigger payout?
Taxes (Score:2)
Taxes affect everyone, and there are usually ways around them. You want to go after select companies.
As for length and cost of court, these are government employed lawyers. They get paid whether they work on a case or stare at the wall. There is little marginal cost to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hilarious that you don't think legal precedent is a thing.
The double-Irish is now ruled illegal by an EU tax court, which means every other company that was using that avoidance tactic is also going to have to pay up, regardless of nationality, or get hauled into court over it themselves and surely lose.
But do go on about how this is unfair targeting of a specific company. Hint: they're only the first, because they were the most obvious target to make a case against.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government is putting together a lawsuit against nVidia because a lot of people want their GPUs.
It's up to the courts decide the validity of the argument, but the argument isn't that everyone is buying Nvidia's GPUs. The argument is that Nvidia is abusing their dominant position there to strong arm sales for other divisions. I'm sure there are more details to be had, but that is the general idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe can't really do world class companies, be it FAANG companies, or WITCH companies, where nothing in Europe matches the skillset of companies like TCS or WiPro. So, they do the next best thing... drag them to a kangaroo court and fine them, just so the bureaucrats have jobs. Anti-American jingoism sells there, and ensures people retain their political jobs.
Let them continue bowing and scraping in China's direction. That will be good practice when the Russian boot is on their neck, and the Iron Curtain extends to Lisbon.
Did you really just say that nothing in Europe matches the skillset of companies like TCS or WiPro? That is probably one of the funniest things I have ever read. Thank you for the laugh.
Re:European Union hates American Companies (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. The EU fines plenty of domestic and foreign companies. https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.... [thomsonreuters.com]
The fines also seem proportional and not a simple slap on the wrist compared to the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a legal precedent that will apply to all companies that were using the "double irish" tax avoidance scheme. Yes, Apple is the one that got the judgement against them, but it applies equally to all.
Stop with the nationalism bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
So I take it that you think that US companies shouldn't have to pay taxes just because "Go 'Murica"?
Re: Imagine if the EC was a thing (Score:4, Informative)
The parent post was far from eloquent, but I fail to see how you arrived at that interpretation.
Re: (Score:2)
25% of Apple's 2023 revenue came from Europe.
You think they're just going to exit the market and cut their business by 1/4 ($100B/year) because they had to pay $14.5B in additional taxes over multiple years?
Tell us you know exactly nothing about business without telling us you know nothing about business.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. Apple, however, has a net worth of over 3 trillion dollars and can easily afford to pay this fine.
Look for more fines against Apple, Google, and Microsoft soon.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why the EU went after Apple, and got a legal precedent that is very publicly known. And if Apple's herd of lawyers got beat, what are the chances a mom-and-pop is going to try litigating it with established legal precedent working against them?
All of those companies are going to start self-correcting before the tax authority finds them and applies penalties and interest.
Re: (Score:2)
"We want to give huge multi-national companies with revenue greater than the GDP of several countries free money to trade unfairly just because they're giving us kickbacks"
EU: "No."
Re: (Score:3)
More accurately:
Ireland: "we don't want to apply taxes"
EU: "You will apply the taxes if you want the benefits of the EU single market, as taxation is the ticket to ride without tariffs."
Ireland: "ok we'll apply taxes!"
Re: (Score:2)
We're more "stunned" at your dumb ass interpretation of events as some kind of nationalistic "gotcha" game.
This sets a legal precedent that applies to ALL companies doing business in the EU, and specifically companies attempting the "double irish" scheme of tax avoidance.
You're welcome.