Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrks_hy | Hacker News Reader

Another article: https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-scores-surprise-w...

Full ruling: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...

Fascinating, how does that work? Can anybody explain in simpler terms how that was legal to begin with?

> Both companies were incorporated in Ireland but not tax resident in Ireland. Those tax rulings approved the methods used by ASI and AOE to determine their chargeable profits in Ireland in relation to the trading activity of their respective Irish branches.

View on HN

That appears to be a summary of the ruling, although it contains a link to the docket: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-465/20%20P

Judgment: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...

Thank you, and sorry. Had the wrong link in my clipboard.

Well, they had Ireland on their side.

> "Ireland granted Apple unlawful aid which Ireland is required to recover," the Court of Justice said on Tuesday.

>Well, they had Ireland on their side.

This is one of the reasons the EU is set to remove the single country veto rule since it was open to abuse. You'll then need two countries on your side to alter the EU's rulings.

> This is one of the reasons the EU is set to remove the single country veto rule since it was open to abuse. You'll then need two countries on your side to alter the EU's rulings.

There are definitely countries calling for this rule to be removed or otherwise reformed, but I wasn't aware that the EU "is set" to do it. My understanding is that this change would itself require unanimous agreement in order to make it happen (without effectively forking the EU in an extreme step no country has yet seriously proposed), and that this unanimous agreement is not yet present.

Have I missed some recent major announcement on this point? I know the EU Parliament voted about this some months ago, but their wishes on this point will never become EU law through the current procedures without unanimous agreement from the member states.

Won't this lead to this-for-that alliances within the EU and might turn member countries against each other in the long run? "France didn't help us veto a decision we wanted, so we won't help them either on this other front" or a more straightforward "if you help us veto this tax decision we will help you veto something that would affect you later".

Definitely, but at least it's a step in not making vetos as easy as before.

For some issues unanimous agreement is already not needed. For example recently a law was passed in the Council with 20 of 27 votes (only with the help of an Austrian minister against the wish of her government).

https://www.dw.com/en/eu-ministers-approve-contested-nature-...

The full rules are here, 'of course' taxation still needs unanimous agreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E...

Yes, I'm aware that unanimity is not currently always required. But a claim that the EU "is set" to remove a rule is discussing a change to the status-quo rules in this regard, which I haven't heard about except as a very much not unanimously agreed aspiration of some legislators and some member states.

Yeah this is not going to happen.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. AFAIU, Ireland just refused to demand the money from Apple. I'm not sure what that has to do with vetoes. Can you point to a concrete instance relating to the Apple case, in which Ireland used a veto?

Ah, so the Netherlands and Cyprus, and off you go... If a third country is needed, a flirty wink to Luxembourg, and the party continues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com