Hacker News Reader

I think there is a difference between saying 'we comply with the law' and being happy when someone retrospectively changes the law and then demands n years payments under the new rules.

View on HN

Nothing is changed retrospectively, in the EU you cant give one company a tax break. Ireland knew this, but went ahead and did it anyway, Apple knew this too, and took a chance.

It appears that this is the crux of the disagreement. Does the loophole that Apple used constitute "giving one company a tax break"? There seem to be reasonable arguments on both sides.

Yes, simplest way to validate this is to go to Ireland and try the same thing, I pretty sure you will end up paying 12.5% tax no matter what.

You would now that they've changed their law. You would not have even a few years back.

Apple's structures are a correct reading of international tax rules. The rules should be changed; Apple should not be punished for following the law.

Yes-that is exactly what this case is about.

Nobody changed the law retrospectively. The EU law always existed and Apple obviously knew about it.

If Apple asked for the state of Texas for a tax cut in the state of New York and then got fined for not paying their taxes you wouldn't call name it "retrospectively".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com