I might be wrong, but it seems to me that there is a "economic war" between the US and the EU, in the sense that each of them constantly forces companies from the other side to pay billions in fines for various things.
You can’t compare recent fines against Volkswagen with these fines for Apple. Investigations against Apple, Starbucks, Fiat and more started already 6 years ago. It’s not an act of revenge, war or something else, it’s just pursuing criminals.
They had a legal agreement with the Irish government. Your gripe should be with the latter.
Overseas businesses negotiate with foreign governments and their offerings (tax, employment and other possible advantages) to the foreign country from that government's point of view, will vary.
I guess, to put it bluntly, no one in government cares if your small business relocates in Ireland or not but they do care if Apple does. That's life. They should therefore be able to make special arrangements if this is definitely in the interests of the Irish nation. Ireland will argue that their arrangement was within EU law but the courts will decide. Of course if public disquiet (as in your understandable reaction) is intense thanks to 'special arrangements' then a balance has to be struck.
I would argue that your business shouldn't be paying the 47% not that Apple should pay more.
Like the other poster said, they had an agreement with Ireland and I think it sets a bad precedence when agreements between a government and another entity are not honored.
Also, where are you that you are paying 47%? That can't possibly be the effective rate can it?
Apple should pay what is due, not what you or Apple think is fair.
The core of the issue is that the EC has deemed the tax rate applied by Ireland to Apple is in conflict with the Agreements that Ireland has with the EU, and that has been so for a long time. The agreements that Ireland has have to be, in these matters, according to EU rules - as Ireland has accepted when joining the EU. That is the point of the EU: a set of rules that your partners will impose on you whenever you try to abuse them, exactly as you will impose those rules whenever they try to abuse you. It's a legal framework for collaboration, which OF COURSE means sometimes you will be forced to do things you would rather not to.
After the ruling, the EU is requesting repayments of the taxes not paid since the investigation started. Is not retroactive legislation.
I agree that they should pay what's due. Absolutely. Although I think in this case that is very murky because of the agreement they have with Ireland.
I think the only fair thing to do in this situation is to tax apple going forward but to not punish Apple for assuming that an agreement with Ireland was valid. That one is on the Irish government not Apple.
I was simply replying to the parent post saying "My small business has to" since if there is going to be an emotional argument I think it should be in the other direction. "I shouldn't have to pay either" vs "They should pay what I pay"
11 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 37.4 ms ] threadNo need to discuss this. Rules should of course be the same for all businesses in the EU.
13B Euro is nothing. They saved multiples of this amount by using practices only known from the Mafia.
Overseas businesses negotiate with foreign governments and their offerings (tax, employment and other possible advantages) to the foreign country from that government's point of view, will vary.
I guess, to put it bluntly, no one in government cares if your small business relocates in Ireland or not but they do care if Apple does. That's life. They should therefore be able to make special arrangements if this is definitely in the interests of the Irish nation. Ireland will argue that their arrangement was within EU law but the courts will decide. Of course if public disquiet (as in your understandable reaction) is intense thanks to 'special arrangements' then a balance has to be struck.
Like the other poster said, they had an agreement with Ireland and I think it sets a bad precedence when agreements between a government and another entity are not honored.
Also, where are you that you are paying 47%? That can't possibly be the effective rate can it?
The core of the issue is that the EC has deemed the tax rate applied by Ireland to Apple is in conflict with the Agreements that Ireland has with the EU, and that has been so for a long time. The agreements that Ireland has have to be, in these matters, according to EU rules - as Ireland has accepted when joining the EU. That is the point of the EU: a set of rules that your partners will impose on you whenever you try to abuse them, exactly as you will impose those rules whenever they try to abuse you. It's a legal framework for collaboration, which OF COURSE means sometimes you will be forced to do things you would rather not to.
After the ruling, the EU is requesting repayments of the taxes not paid since the investigation started. Is not retroactive legislation.
I think the only fair thing to do in this situation is to tax apple going forward but to not punish Apple for assuming that an agreement with Ireland was valid. That one is on the Irish government not Apple.
I was simply replying to the parent post saying "My small business has to" since if there is going to be an emotional argument I think it should be in the other direction. "I shouldn't have to pay either" vs "They should pay what I pay"