|
OriginalGriff wrote: tax evasion / avoidance (I'm never clear on the difference
The general distinction I see is the evasion is blatantly illegal and is generally known to be at the time, while avoidance involves actions that are either legal (but potentially unintended consequences of a law to encourage something else) or in gray areas where there isn't any established case law allowing lawyers to credibly argue that the action is completely lawful until such time as the courts pick a test case and run it through the system.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Ireland and Apple agreed to a rate. Apple paid it and became the largest taxpayer in Ireland. Now... years later your lovely EU decides they want more money. How on Earth is that fair?
Why would any business want to do business in Europe when they can retroactively change the rules.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
Because the original agreement was unfair: in 2014 Apple paid £12M taxes in the UK, on profits estimated at £2,000M because it's "head office" where tax was paid (at a rate of 0.005% instead of 36%) was in Ireland thanks to that agreement.
Yes, that made it the largest tax payer in Ireland - but that's like being the person paying the most personal income tax in Greece: £20 per annum instead of £19.50! 
And remember: Ireland and Greece were two of the countries that the EU had to bail out because their tax revenues weren't big enough after the crash. If Apple et al had been paying "fair" taxes instead of "legal" taxes the bail outs would have been a lot smaller...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
So you'll be OK if the UK tax man comes to your door and says "Sorry Griff but we're charging you back taxes despite the fact that you paid the exact amount owed at the time. We decided it really wasn't "fair"?
Right?
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
You mean the Internal Revenue Service doesn't do that? 
The Inland Revenue can revue any tax info you submit and change how much you owe them up or down. Down is rare.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: You mean the Internal Revenue Service doesn't do that?
If the IRS thinks a mistake was made or they believe someone fudged numbers they can and will audit you. But they NEVER change the rate retroactively. That would be illegal!
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
If the EU forced Ireland to close whatever loophole or rate deal they have with Apple thus forcing Apple to pay more taxes going forward you wouldn't hear very much complaint (other than from Apple themselves I'm sure). It's the retroactive taxation that stinks of government corruption.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
You completely misunderstand what is going on. The Commission has no say about the tax rate in Ireland. It's not the tax rate itself that is the problem. The problem is that they have decided that Apple has gotten a market-disrupting government subsidy in the form of extremely low tax rates.
Or are you in favour of government subsidies for the biggest earning company in the world?
|
|
|
|
|
Jeroen_R wrote: Or are you in favour of government subsidies for the biggest earning company in the world?
Not at all. but when the taxing body (in this case Ireland) sets the rate and the tax payer (in this case Apple) pays it, I don't expect a 3rd party to come in 20+ years later and demand more money.
If the EU wants to force Ireland to change the rate going forward that's Ireland's business.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
Think about it like this, maybe that'll make more sense: Ireland gave state aid to a private company, and now that it turns out it's illegal state aid, the company has to pay it back.
The form in which the state aid was given (in this case tax breaks, but it could just as well be cash or something else) is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to the extreme here, because, it's what I do. But if a person went to a country where child prostitution was legal, does that make it any less unethical? Apple made this deal so that it wouldn't have to pay taxes in the United States, where they use the roads and other public benefits without paying their fair share because of this.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, with this decision by the EU, Apple will likely now pay less taxes in the United States due to the tax credit they get for the increased taxes in Europe. This is why you'll find articles (such as this[^]) talking about the US Treasury being angry about this decision.
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
Of course they will. Their profits will be less, or like you noted, their product prices will go up. Tax is tax regardless of which country it's going to. The crux of it for me is that they essentially paid off the Irish government for a substantially reduced tax while they, the Irish, had none of the liabilities of having the physical company there. Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying. What they did was 'legal'. What they really need to do is call this a fine for unethical business practice instead of back taxes. I do like the fact that the EU stands up to these big companies vs the US government where they've become more like an oligarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
You just responded to a whole bunch of points, none of which were the point I was actually making.
In the US, corporations get tax credits based off of how much taxes they pay in other countries. Since they weren't paying very much in taxes in Europe, they weren't receiving much of a tax credit in the US. If this decision by the EU commission stands, their taxes in Europe will go up by a substantial amount, leading to a substantial tax credit here in the US, thus decreasing the amount of taxes they pay here, regardless of anything else that changes (profits/company structure/etc.). With this decision, the EU is essentially taking money directly from the US Federal government and giving it to Ireland (who, in my opinion, is equally complicit in this business agreement and deserve nothing more than has already been paid to them).
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
While Ireland is a sovereign nation and in theory 'should' be able to set their own tax rates to incentivize a large business concern like Apple to settle there as they did with the favorable tax status they have. They signed on to a conflicting agreement with the EU in which the have apparently surrendered part or all of that sovereignty, or so it would seem.
It sounds to me like if they want to keep their good friend Apple they need to do the same thing that the Brits did and pull out of the EU and tell them to take their tax bill and shove it as Apple represents jobs and gainful employment for a large segment of the Irish population, that could be in jeopardy if Apple is forced to fork over this money. They might better be back in the good Ole USA after Trump is done with things.
|
|
|
|
|
Well this just explained the gun ban! LOL
|
|
|
|
|
Does this mean Apple can come knocking on my door and tell me I owe them lots of money for the iPhone I bought two years ago?
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: If Apple et al had been paying "fair" taxes instead of "legal" taxes the bail outs would have been a lot smaller...
I fail to see why's that Apple's fault though, because Ireland agreed on a rate with Apple.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: fair
What are you talking about, you're not a kindergartner - you should have no expectation that anything in real life is fair.
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: you should have no expectation that anything in real life is fair.
Ummmm... Griff used the idea of fairness as to why Apple should pay more taxes. Surely you won't begrudge me for throwing it back at him?
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have to be fair either.
|
|
|
|
|
Probably something in the water over there. 
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. ~ Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, life is not fair.
But that is (or should be) one of the purpose of the governments and institutions (at least those that claim to be democratic and serve the people): to make it more fair, to give a better prospect to those who are dealt a bad hand to start with and to avoid those with power to abuse it (too much). Obviously, they are very regularly failing at that, even in the country where they kind of have that purpose.
Apple have obviously (with some help from the Irish System/Governments) abused loopholes and tax laws from different countries to pay a ridiculously low amount of taxes.
Making people pay retroactively is always going to cause some kind of moral dilemma. When the "offender" was doing something legal (or not illegal) but obviously immoral (and they knew it), may be we should still make them pay. It is not the same as changing the rate when you have not tried to abuse the system by actively finding loopholes. That "could" encourage more people/companies to act in a more moral way. Or not (looking at human nature).
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: Ireland and Apple agreed to a rate.
Under European law, this is tax collusion, and is illegal. That is why this is tax evasion, rather than avoidance. The rules have not been changed retroactively.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: Under European law, this is tax collusion, and is illegal.
Didn't Ireland (as a country) not know that? When a government entity signs a deal, Apple would not have thought that they're being lured into a trap.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
