Apple’s Cook Confident of Victory in Tax Fight as Irish Dither
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Apple and Google both make great products and should beat the competition based on those skills, not based on their ability rally armies of lawyers and shift money around different sub-branches in different countries.
Their behavior is undermining free trade. How do you get nations to agree to free trade if it just allows multinationals to rig the system. I've been a big supporter of free trade, but I am seriously starting to get my doubts. I am not sure if the advantages make up for the disadvantages anymore.
Of course I am not advocating that everybody is self-sufficient, but that international trade might benefit more from more restrictions than exists today, unless we can solve the problem of multinationals abuse the system by using tax paradises, tax loopholes etc.
On one hand:
* Personal taxes and various hidden charges (and no we do not have free healthcare like the NHS, unless you are unemployed) are massive
* Small companies such as mine do not get any special treatment and have to pay corporate tax at 12.5%, its unfair Apple get preferential treatment
* 13 billion would go a long way to solving all sorts of issues this country faces (tho it seems other countries want some of this money...)
On the other hand:
* The EU seems to be overstepping its bounds and trying a powergrab, last two times I voted YES on EU referendums we had clear promises that EU will not involve themselves in a members tax policy, i feel I was lied to.
* Apple (and pretty much any large company you can think of) are here in Ireland and do hire boatloads of people, who in turn spend the money in the economy
* Without our low corporate rates Ireland would be yet another impoverished peripheral EU state (as it was for long time) like Greece, minus the sun and with loads of rain :(
So yeh I can see the moral and the pragmatist arguments being made on both sides of the debate, but can not decide yet where I fall.
tl.dr: Its complicated...
How would other firms be confident their taxes wont retroactively change? The Irish government is in no position to provide guarantees.
Also, it wouldn't make sense. A normalisation maybe, but harmonisation is stupid and a sure way of creating poverty, turmoil and destroying the EU market by removing jobs hence consumers.
So whilst the Irish tax rate may be the lowest, the cost of operating a business there may, in total, be higher than somewhere with a higher tax rate.
Obviously I am not suggesting they will go elsewhere (given they cost of moving is probably very high) but something worth considering.
The EU sees the beneficial tax rebates for Apple to be an unfair state subsidy under EU competition laws.
In the eyes of the EU, this is not about tax policy, this is about competition policy, something the EU very much has an interest in having a say in (sort of the whole purpose of the EU, if you think about it).
It was agreed on the EU would not interfere with tax affairs a long time ago, this does exactly that. The exact way it was done is irrelevant, it is the result that is the issue.
In the UK it was said when legislation from the EU was rejected or sent for revision, it would be sent back in another chapter of an irrelevant part of a policy document on another issue. This is what used to anger lawmakers.
The way of getting things done is never through the front door (going at taxes directly), it's always using a backhand trick to get around to managing policy (competition policy), which is quite underhanded.
While it is wonderful that Apple will now be paying taxes, who's to say this power will not be abused by the commission in future?
I am sure part of the deal that the EU would stay out of Irish tax policy was that Ireland would not use tax policy to circumvent other EU laws/regulations/treaties.
This isn't the first time the EU has intervened with taxes in Ireland, the other is the water levy. It's getting ridiculous now. Its a country gradually being micromanaged.
To a point.
One thing is maintaining a low corporate tax (no one in the EU has a problem with Ireland's 12.5% corporate tax), another thing - and entirely distinct - is giving select companies tax rebates for no other reasons other than to encourage those companies to operate in Ireland.
That's an unfair state subsidy and that's not cool in the EU. Because the same deal is not offered to other companies.
Why should the EU have a say in how a country sets its tax affairs? This is contrary to the treaty.
This is an Irish issue where it could be challenged in an Irish court, now Ireland is challenging this in an EU court - what?
They instead challenged Ireland in an EU court.
They are not doing that. And the ruling explicitly say that they don't have a problem with the Irish tax policy
If you're going to do analogies, first please understand the topic you're talking about.
It is not just illegal (and IMHO they should be fined on top of the back taxes they're required to pay - Irish government should be fined too), but also immoral. Even worse, Tim Cook's open letter is an insult for Europe's citizens and of extremely poor taste. I've owned several iPhones, Mac laptops and iPads; that ends now.
I'm not buying a single Apple device more and I won't spend a penny in their App Store for the devices I have. If Apple doesn't want to pay the price to sell to me (which is to play fair so we can keep our system running), they can pretty much get out of the EU.
Thing is, taxes always give someone an advantage and the agreement with the EU member states is that because taxes can give countries an advantage over one an another and it being a contentious issue, the EU will not intervene in it.
The issue of taxes supersedes the issue of competition.
Low taxes are fine. There are countries with very low tax inside of or in the sphere of influence of the EU (Andorra, Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Luxembourg, The City of London, ...).
If Ireland wants to keep this deal going, they have it easy: Change the tax to be 0.005% instead of more than 12%. That's for everyone, not just for Apple and potentially a few other big companies. This is purely looking after the free market and ending unfair state subsidies, it is not about low taxes. if Ireland has a company tax of 0.005% they'll be competing and they'll also spur fair competition inside the country.
What we have here is Apple corrupting a government to go against their citizens and their neighbours, by effectively lowering their cost to trade in the EU compared to their competition (Android handset manufacturers as an example).
You're missing the point on the EU though. It is not for an EU court to decide this, it is for an Irish court to decide this. The EU should be challenging Ireland to do this, not retroactively changing Ireland's taxes.
Either Ireland controls its own tax affairs, and they're equal for everyone (the actual issue) or they don't.
The EC is overstepping its bounds, that is the issue you are oblivious to.
This is the result of an investigation. Now Apple can appeal and it can be taken to an European Court. Where's the overstepping again?
The EU court and EC has no authority to do what its doing now.
If you think this is overstepping, I'm sure you've got reasons like "there's no EU law against it"; but turns out there is EU law against these subsidies. That's why I don't see it as overstepping, as long as the process guarantees the right of the parts to defend themselves in court.
The question of who is to judge whether Ireland 'broke the law' is mute. Ireland is a sovereign state & with international affairs there is no bilateral treaty obligating Ireland's tax affairs to be delegated by a third country or organisation such as the EU.
You're looking at the EU from a very Amerocentric point of view, the EU is not the US, the EU does not have a federal court with jurisdiction over EU countries on tax affairs.
On the question on who judges this, it's Ireland. When a country disagrees with another country its a foreign affairs problem. If China has a trade dispute with the US there is no court that can easily solve it.
The equivalent of what you're saying is China ruling US companies to pony up tax with the American countries having no presence in China. There is the WTO, but this isn't that sort of case either. What do China's courts have to do with the USA you ask? The same as the EU's courts have a say over Ireland's tax policy.
Ireland broke an EU law about about fair competition between companies. They unfairly subsidised Apple in a way not available for other companies. Ireland and all the EU countries agreed to not do that by creating laws against it.
Also, I'm not sure why you think I've got a US-centric view. I'm an EU citizen :-)
When they gave Apple an advantage, they gave it an advantage over Irish firms too - which is unfair.
It should not be the EU's role to judge this, it should be something done in Irish courts, to make sure everyone else is treated fairly. The EU is doing a job it should not be doing. This is my point, as I hear yours and I agree with it. After all it is a foreign company given an advantage to local Irish businesses - in Ireland. Other Irish businesses suffer.
One day the thing the EU will do will be something very drastic and there will be no recourse.
I guess you would prefer that law didn't exist and I hear you, but whether we like or not, reality is that Ireland broke the law and Apple colluded with them, hence they have to pay back what they owe (and hopefully a fine to not try again).
The EC doesn't have authority in cases of illegal state aid?
Then we should throw away the cases since decades
A US court cannot change that. It is the same with the EC on tax issues.
A country can offer something better than an another EU country can, without it being interfered with.
It isn't about what was right or wrong, it is who gets to decide that. What is witnessed here is the loss of Ireland's sovereignty.
If there was any reason there was a Brexit and it wasn't to do with racism or bigotry it was for reasons that would prevent such a scenario as the one in Ireland.
China doesn't pertain to the EU
> A US court cannot change that. It is the same with the EC on tax issues.
EC authority about state aids has been there for decades
> A US court cannot change that. It is the same with the EC on tax issues.
This is not about tax issues
> A country can offer something better than an another EU country can, without it being interfered with.
Oh, yes, this is legal, but this is not what the case is about
> It isn't about what was right or wrong, it is who gets to decide that.
And in the case of state aids, the one that can decide is the EC
It is an issue of tax, not even as blurry as a subsidy.
China and the EU pertain the exact same way as Ireland and the EU. The EU has no say over Ireland's tax affairs.
Taxes are not state aids, Any form of say on tax in any way at all needs all member states to agree, - as from the Treaty of Lisbon on Tax Affairs.
It's a shame really that this is brought up, because one of two things will happen
1) It will be said the EU has control over the state of Ireland's tax policy, through the guise of 'state aid'. What fun that'll be
2) The ruling will be overturned and the EC will not be able to easily govern on its rulings. Legislation will be brought about to seek more control over EU member states.
Either way, each spell trouble for the EU. You can see the Brexiteers laughing.
Second time, what China does is not EU problem
> It is an issue of tax, not even as blurry as a subsidy.
No, it is not a tax issue., Read the press release.
> China and the EU pertain the exact same way as Ireland and the EU. The EU has no say over Ireland's tax affairs.
The EC has authority over state aids and this ruling has nothing to do with the tax system or tax rates from EU members
> Taxes are not state aids, Any form of say on tax in any way at all needs all member states to agree, - as from the Treaty of Lisbon on Tax Affairs.
This is not a tax affair.
But as it is clear that you have not read the press release, you don't want to read it and you will repeat the same wrong things again and again, have a nice day.
But reality is what it is and this cas is not a damn tax case
Read about what Ireland gave Apple.
They didn't give them cash, unless I misunderstand that. They gave Apple a tax deal, and the EU has no control over tax affairs of its member states.
It really is quite simple.
By all means, do explain why the EU does not have this right.
> The exact way it was done is irrelevant, it is the result that is the issue.
I hate to repeat myself, but please do explain -- it would most certainly seem that the EU has an interest in tax and competition affairs such as these. Moreover, individual EU member states as well as every company competing against Apple have interests in this. It's pretty silly to say that "the exact way it's done is irrelevant" -- in complex international tax/competition affairs the "exact way" things are done means all the difference.
I'm not familiar with all the tax regulations of the EU, but I have to say that statements such as yours need to be substantiated with sources that support your arguments (and I'd genuinely be interested in seeing those). Otherwise this should just be considered a political statement and/or your opinion on the matter - if that's the case, please clarify that.
Everyone agreed to that, to stop the EU stiffling competition between states.
There's not much to say, the EU simply does not have the right to interfere with tax affairs, at the treaty level. It's all well and good they have an interest in it, but no actual say.
You seem very confident that the EU has no right to do what it's doing. I hope you have reason to be so confident based on actual treaties, law and agreements.
If you do, it should be easy to prove. If you don't, you should be ignored.
Basically for tax matters, unanimous approval is required. Except when it involves getting rid of double taxation.
Basically, according to the commission Ireland's special deal gives Apple unfair advantage over other Common Market businesses, other companies in the same domain don't get to take advantage of a sub-unit corporate tax rate and keep an extra >10% off the top.
In that view, that this is provided through special-purpose tax breaks rather than direct subsidies or whatnot is immaterial and irrelevant.
[0] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120...
Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said: "Member States cannot give tax benefits to selected companies – this is illegal under EU state aid rules. The Commission's investigation concluded that Ireland granted illegal tax benefits to Apple, which enabled it to pay substantially less tax than other businesses over many years. In fact, this selective treatment allowed Apple to pay an effective corporate tax rate of 1 per cent on its European profits in 2003 down to 0.005 per cent in 2014."
Something doesn't add up.
It'd be great if people could be less vague about their opinions, and a lot more specific if they believe the EC is making a mistake - the EU isn't perfect, but please don't discount it on a superficial hunch (which unfortunately seems to happen a lot these days).
From the press release I referenced:
Therefore, only a small percentage of Apple Sales International's profits were taxed in Ireland, and the rest was taxed nowhere. In 2011, for example (according to figures released at US Senate public hearings), Apple Sales International recorded profits of US$ 22 billion (c.a. €16 billion[1]) but under the terms of the tax ruling only around €50 million were considered taxable in Ireland, leaving €15.95 billion of profits untaxed. As a result, Apple Sales International paid less than €10 million of corporate tax in Ireland in 2011 – an effective tax rate of about 0.05% on its overall annual profits. In subsequent years, Apple Sales International's recorded profits continued to increase but the profits considered taxable in Ireland under the terms of the tax ruling did not. Thus this effective tax rate decreased further to only 0.005% in 2014.
But, there are billions of Euros of profit that, according to Ireland, no tax needs to be paid on. Being able to choose not to pay corporation tax on 99%+ of your profits isn't an option available to most companies operating in Ireland.
For example, governments often want to encourage innovation. That can mean giving tax breaks to income from IP. It can also mean creating a loophole if you structure the company such that profits get directed towards a holder of the IP.
IMO it's ok for governments to use tax policy to encourage some things and discourage others. Not all companies will be able to take advantage of such policies, by their very nature; some companies do less of the desireable things, others more. So I don't see this as a black and white issue.
One thing for sure, it's definitely an encroachment on Ireland's sovereignty with respect to tax. I don't expect the judgement to stand as is on appeal. If it does, the EU will risk further fracture. If the biggest countries in the EU use EU policy to attack smaller countries' tax policies, the club will start looking less appealing by the day.
(Disclaimers: I am Irish, living in London, not a fan of Brexit, etc.)
How do you think the single market would work if say Irish owned companies paid half the tax of spanish owned companies in Ireland?
1. https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/o...
It is worrying that the case will prove that the EU can actually do this, using the EU court to do it (EU law have primacy except with the sections stated such as taxation - using competition to bypass this is disturbing).
No one but Germany wants this political union, the EU was supposed to be a union based on trade, not this.
But if that is the case then the matter should be handled via courts, Revenue and the Gardai(police).
Who made the EU Commission the judge, jury and executioner?
You have to remember the EU is not the US, it is a much looser union where member states apparently meant to have most of the power, so in this case it seems there is somesort of powergrab and I do not like it
I voted for Europe in each and every referendum but I do feel like i was lied to when it comes to all the assurances made about states being able to make their own tax policy.
This Apple thing could open a pandoras box and could be a slide towards a more federal Europe, something that myself and I assume alot of people here and across europe do not want.
I don't think this is a fair assessment of the case. The EU Commission have accused Apple and Ireland of unfair competition. They now have time to appeal that decision, after which it will be put before the EU high court, a court that is entirely distinct from the Commission.
Think of the EU Commission more as a police investigation, one which one has the opportunity to appeal through the judicial system. Hell, I am not even sure the Commission counts as any of judge, jury and executioner.
This is not a tax issue. Full stop. Doesn't matter how much you say it is by using your throwaway account.
The EU are judge jury and executioner because Eire are part of the single market of free trade and free movement. So they are asserting Apple and Eire stop taking us for a ride.
low corporate tax rates aren't the question here, it's not even a matter of using the Double Irish. The EU is not questioning what Cisco, Facebook, Microsoft or Google do in Ireland.
In this case _only Apple_ got a deal with the government, and that deal was "let's make up a number for the taxes you'll pay cause you're special". The EU complaint is that this conditions are not available for other EU companies, not that they are too lenient.
You might find some extracts of the talks between Apple and Irish Revenue interesting to read[0].
[0] https://www.ft.com/content/233744b6-4886-11e4-ad19-00144feab... (paywall but googling "Interview extracts between Apple tax advisers and Irish Revenue" will works)
Yet.
This is not the end of this line of inquiry for the EU. Microsoft is very much in line as are probably a handful of other companies, like Mc Donalds and Coca Cola.
What is this line of inquiry? If it is "illicit state aid" then sure, it will not end here. In fact the EU has sanctioned Starbucks in NL and IIRC is investigating {FCA, Amazon] in LU.
If the line of inquiry is "big companies that earn money and pay little taxes", why would you expect something new to happen considering that corps like Coca Cola have operated in europe for a century?
The EU has no voice on local taxation, only on competition issues. Coca Cola, for example, would not have been able to get the same tax deal that Apple did, which means it was anti-competitive.
We are accused of giving Apple a subsidy via an artificial tax break tailored specifically to Apple. If true then we interfered with our own taxation system.
I don't know how many times we have bought stuff from Spain or Italy or some other southern European country that simple broke down and didn't work in Norwegian climate and conditions. They won because they undercut out companies in price but they can't deliver quality. But these are EU rules. I get why they have to be there.
I don't think it would be fair if Ireland would skip on the rules. I already think it is grossly unfair how Ireland is operating.
Irish tax policies is hurting everybody else. We are also a small country and are under severe pressure to lower corporate taxes to stay in the game. Ireland is creating a race to the bottom. If everybody did like Ireland, everybody would be big losers. Everybody can't be a tax heaven. Tax heavens benefit at the expense of everybody else.
I've worked with a lot of people who got laid off in Norwegian games industry because Canada offered special tax incentives so they moved everything there. Countries should compete on talent, infrastructure, salaries, regulation etc not on a race to the bottom on taxes.
Of course you can evaluate offers for suitability to your climate. It's just a bit late to try and do that when you have never put it down in the requirements.
Happens all the time, in every country.
Usually municipalities are more affected because they don't have as much experience and tend to learn only from their first big disaster.
When Tim Cook accuses the EU of pulling a 0.005% tax rate out of nowhere and then counters it with a $400 million dollars actually paid in "tax" I think he's being totally unclear as to what the "tax" he's talking about is and where it came from . Is it even the same thing the EU were talking about? I highly doubt they paid $400 million in corporation tax in Ireland.
- The EU ruling finds that Ireland broke the law.
- The penalty is that Ireland gets a boatload of money.
- Ireland is appealing the ruling.
1) win and things continue as they are 2) lose, and leave the EU 3) lose, and Apple and 1000s of other companies leave Ireland and Ireland loses in the Long run.
If the EU wants taxes to be paid they need to fix local tax laws not chase businesses to pay. Fix why companies offshore this stuff to begin with. Taxes are too high.
Taxes are a red herring, the EU doesn't see this dispute as a tax issue but as a competition issue (which is why it's understood as state aid not as tax policy): by giving them special tax arrangements Ireland is unfairly advantaging Apple against other businesses of the Common Market which don't get to pay sub-unit corporate tax.
It's a free market after all and that's what the EU is fighting to keep. I'm extremely surprised to see so many Americans against it - it's the root of your very own system. I guess it's just misinformation.
If the EU gets it's way, it's Ireland that loses, not Apple.
The EU was a brilliant idea that has been poorly executed and it should be disbanded completely.
Are you aware that Ireland pertains to the EU, isn't?
You're making no sense whatsoever, this isn't about "EU becoming competitive" it's about competitive environment between companies operating in the common market. If one specific company gets a sweetheart corporate tax deal the market is distorted, because every other company has to pay the posted tax rate and doesn't get to keep an additional 10% of their income.
And the EU is not "throwing its weight around", the rule on state aid dates back to the foundational EEC treaty (the Treaty of Rome, back in '57), it predates both the modern EU and Ireland's accession to the EEC.
Ireland's corporate tax rate is 12.5%…
> It's naive to assume this is about special treatment alone.
No, it really isn't, and again that's besides the point. If Ireland believed their corporate taxes where still too high, they could lower them across the board rather than give one specific company its own deal.
"They just picked a number from I don't know where. In the year that
the Commission says we paid that tax figure, we actually paid $400m.
We believe that makes us the highest taxpayer in Ireland that year."
...
Cook also said the 0.005pc tax rate it is accused of paying the Commission
is a “false number”.
“I have no idea where the number came from. Here is the truth, in that year
we paid $400m to Ireland and that was based on the statutory rate of 12.5pc.”
So fucking what if it's not the figure any other business would have paid based on sales?
Yes, it's certain that Apple is getting a sweet deal on tax. The tax that's under discussion is for their "European Sales Office" which was allowed to repatriate profits to some "Head Office" in the sky which was not subject to tax.
I guess what this all boils down to is the taxation on these sales within Europe, so the whole "Designed in California, made in China" argument is moot, since they are "Sold in Europe". Thems the rules and by internationally accepted standards they are reasonable.
But, to say that Ireland is owed 15 Billion is disingenuous in the extreme. The EC does not (yet) have jurisdiction over our taxation, so we can effectively tax them however we damn well like. That's why this is being spun as a "competition" issue - the contention is that Apple got a deal that other companies couldn't have got.
The public finances are hurting a lot in Ireland the last few years so the thought of trousering such a huge amount is indeed appealing, but if this revolves around the ethics of Apple's taxation, there's also counter-balancing ethics around the fact that we didn't actually do anything to earn it, aside from perhaps providing a low-tax platform for Apple to sell into Europe.
So to whom is the tax owed? To "Europe" it would seem. But Europe doesn't collect its own taxes. So they expect us to be their tax collector? WTF seriously guys?
Apple could easily give us the money without batting an eyelid. In fact I'd like it if they did just "give" it to us, but the format of the exchange under discussion is one that undermines our sovereignty all other foreign investment programmes that we have got going on.
Then there's the whole thing of them telling us we can spend the money however we want, which everybody just knows is a PR stunt to try and force our hand. As soon as we take it, there'll be some new eurocrat standing on a podium telling us something else about how it has to be paid into some European fund or other.
In this light I believe Apple's position that the EC are just making it up as they go along carries some water.
So what are we doing? We're publicly going to challenge the ruling, which should certainly be challenged, but should we really be the ones doing the challenging?
Nobody is a "good guy" here. They're just a bunch of asshats squabbling over money but I'll tell you one thing - if there was an ally that I wanted to keep onside for the future, if I had to choose, it wouldn't be the EC.
To recap:
- Apple should be paying more tax.
- Ireland needs the money. But more importantly we have an economy and business relationships that we'd like to keep intact thank you very much.
- The EC are a bunch of turncoats who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them.
All variables considered I'd keep Apple in Cork, but try to squeeze a good bit more money out of them in the near term.