Google and Apple Face Billions in Penalties After Losing E.U. Appeals | Hacker News Reader

Google and Apple Face Billions in Penalties After Losing E.U. Appeals

nytimes.com

67 pointshellcow43 comments

Just ran into this on Amazon looking to buy a vacuum cleaner, the initial search top search results where all refurbs being sold back by the Amazon refurb service and cost more than the retail price of the same vacuum directly from the Shark store. I had to sculp my search to actually get to the real vendor store (Shark) on Amazon.

You need to be a query engineer to overcome the perverse search algorithm that goes out of its way to sell you junk and knock off's. It didn't used to be this way and how much revenue is enough revenue when it comes at the expense of the consumers.

I can't imagine how difficult it is for regular consumers who haven't developed these skills as part of their job to navigate these sites now.

I use Amazon for basic reviews (knowing sellers and reviewers fully game this) to get an idea of basic considerations, then buy locally or via some other online portal.

I only actually buy stuff on Amazon that are low-cost, non-critical items or if the shipping time is critical and I can't get it locally.

Can anyone knowledgeable about this stuff explain this?

> “This case has never been about how much tax we pay, but which government we are required to pay it to,” Apple said in a statement on Tuesday. “The European Commission is trying to retroactively change the rules and ignore that, as required by international tax law, our income was already subject to taxes in the U.S.”

Is Apple being treated differently here in any way than other international companies?

Let’s see how much of these fines actually get paid.

There's nothing regarding Google in the article, but it is specifically mentioned that Apple's back taxes are already in escrow.

Since 2018. Can't help thinking that if with that money they had bought Apple shares, it would be now 3 times more.

It would kinda be funny if they did as they probably not want Apple to get fined as now they’d be shareholders

Would also be funny, if they were allowed to increase the penalty, based on how much they could have done with that money during that time. Opportunity cost.

The back taxes accrue interest - IIRC like €1.2B

Even at their market cap, I don't think this would be trivial to operationalize

> Since 2018. Can't help thinking that if with that money they had bought Apple shares, it would be now 3 times more.

If only they could have known the stock price six years into the future, they'd have made a killing in the stock market!

What's ironic is that the escrow account is now lesser because they used that money to buy eurozone government bonds which have since fallen.

From https://www.ft.com/content/d6b7d0fd-a41b-45a9-a830-9cacb10c5...

> The total in the account has fallen from the original €14.3bn set aside in 2018, as the money was invested in eurozone government bonds, which have dropped in value.

Apple already has €1.2bn interest on top of their 2016 ruling. They could probably try to keep this in courts but it seems unlikely they'll get further hearings on this now.

Ireland were petitioning heavily for them not to pay, but now get a windfall all the same.

The true losers here are Ireland.

It is interesting how places like Luxembourg get away with similar antics.

In this case it's quite easy: Luxembourg does not discriminate between the companies that want to use their country for tax breaks, they will all be treated/taxed the same. Ireland did not apply the same tax rate on every companies, which distort competition and is anti-market behavior, and the ECJ just validated that.

Wild that this about behavior from 7 years ago - imagine additional fines that will need to be paid in 7 years for current market manipulation by some of these giant players (incl in US). Things are moving really slow. The amounts are also just a drop in the bucket...

Splitting up Google seems more and more likely, probably would raise the overall market cap and drive innovation

Wonder how liability for actions taken by Google and other tech companies would be divvied up if some of them split into smaller companies.

At some point the US just engages in trade retaliation over this.

I don't think Apple's tax evasion through Ireland is something that the US would be keen to endorse.

True.

I don't get that impression. The US has a recent history of declawing its own tax collection agency.

At some point expecting cheap market access without paying taxes for public services is just free riding.

Why would they? This is about Apple and Google not following EU laws inside the EU. It's more likely that this will spurn the US to also be more aggressive in holding big tech companies accountable for their actions.

Trade retaliation because a US company engaged in tax dodging abroad? I knew the US school system is bad but I didn't think it was this bad for people to make such connections.

Seems ridiculous to me that Ireland doesn't have authority over its own taxes to give Apple a tax break, but even more ridiculous that Apple is on the hook for that deal being ruled illegal after the fact.

>Seems ridiculous to me that Ireland doesn't have authority over its own taxes to give Apple a tax break

Ireland can have full authority over its own taxes ... if it leaves the EU. But then Apple, Google, et-all would also leave Ireland for another EU tax heaven sicne there wouldn't be much advantage for them staying there anymore. The EU giveth and the EU taketh away. Ireland can't have its cake and eat it too.

At what point does the liability to ex post facto changes in law affect corporate willingness to do business in the EU?

Apple is free to stop doing business in the EU at any time if it doesn't like the rules. Nobody is forcing them to.

Should maybe be merged into: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41499666

Guess it's time for the EU to milk that cash cow.

Guess it’s time to follow the law of the land you operate in…

Having US corporations obey the laws of the countries they operate and do business in, is historically a foreign concept for them and the US government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company

Ireland

They gave Apple more than enough options, and plenty of time, to just comply with their pro-consumer rulings.

Apple very clearly and intentionally decided to not do that in the most transparent way possible, because they either assumed that the EU would just give up, or they assumed that any penalties they'd incur would be lower than the revenue they currently gain from their monopolistic, anti-competitive behavior. This is a typical FAFO situation for Apple, and I hope they learn from it when other jurisdictions, particularly the US, come after them.

I think you're misunderstanding something. This case was about a tax deal Apple had with Ireland a decade ago, not about consumer rights or anti-competitive behavior.

Tax evasion is anti-competitive. If you illegally pay less taxes than your competition, then you have more resources available than your competitors.

Laws are country dependent. Ireland seemed okay with it, and the US was more than okay with it, I'm sure.

Except they were avoiding tax in the rest of the EU, so the EU can fine Apple for skirting taxes on products that were actually sold in those other areas.

tl;dr - EU makes rules that companies need to follow no matter which EU country they operate in.

I don't agree that "retroactively made illegal" is the same thing as "illegal", nor should it be called "skirting taxes" when everyone who was involved was okay with it until today where the EU unilaterally decides to alter the deal and punish apple.

The rest of the EU countries who were being defrauded of their tax revenue sure cared.

You act like it's a victimless crime and it most definitely is not.

and that's fine - make sure that other companies who were taking advantage of the same deal are punished accordingly.

The article connects this specific case with other actions the EU is currently taking against Apple and Google. I assumed the "guess it's time for the EU to milk that cash cow" comment alluded to this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com