Apple ordered to pay Ireland €13bn in unpaid tax

[Sandydragon]

It is likely morally dubious and the rule of law defines such practice illegal. Ignoring it is just opening the door to corruption. It's an unfair advantage based on who has more money. Fuck that for a precedent. Again, how much tax revenue would be lost by Apple jobs going elsewhere relative to the profit upon which apple has not paid tax on? Is it more than 13 billion?

Morals, shmorals in the words of Salvor Hardin 'Never let you sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right'. Ithe Irish
goevernment decided to give Apple a tax break to give their economy a bit of a boost & creat a couple of thousand jobs. All
OK as far as I'm concerned

It's OK for Ireland and their government as Apple have paid the taxes due there, but the the Irish government seem happy to shaft the rest of Europe by letting them fund money through Ireland to avoid tax elsewhere in Europe

Common practice though. Locate inside the EU and big companies can take advantage of the lack of internal tariffs across the EU.

[canta_brian]

If the Irish government is looking for a jobs stimulus why choose 1 big multinational? Why not offer a 0% corporation tax rate to new start businesses, or give a corporation tax rebate equivalent to the tax gained from new jobs created within existing companies.

Apple could have benefitted from the same rules as the rest of the country this way and there would be little issue.

I guess apple could never employ enough people in Ireland for their taxes to offset the profits they were channelling through the loophole though.

[Mellsblue]

I think we're beyond the legalities of it now and discussing whether it's morally acceptable and/or economically advantageous enough to treat different entities differently.

To me there's no contest. You can't feed people on moral scruples. Unless the proposed company is doing something completely reprehensible, then I'd be all for encouraging them to locate into a run down area. The gains on I come tax and NI would be sufficient justification, as well as the social gains that higher employment makes to an area.

Cut taxes to all sorts of businesses and they could employ more people. I'm still seeing no reason why some people should have to pay and others not.

Because some bring greater benefits with them. It's not overly palatable but Apple's jobs are in demand across Europe so they will get preferential treatment. In a free market economy this is what happens at every level.

Would you want the same on wages? Everyone must be paid the same regardless of what they bring to the business?

[Mellsblue]

I guess apple could never employ enough people in Ireland for their taxes to offset the profits they were channelling through the loophole though.

The vast majority, I think, of the £13billion fine/back taxes is due to profits from other EU states being booked through Ireland. So, the Irish exchequer would never have seen those euros anyway.
Would the ignored portion of domestic corporation tax been greater than the tax generated by the jobs provided?
a) no idea. I'd hope someone in the govt would've made that calculation before making the decision
b) is it all about money? The up side, beyond simple monetary value, of a secure job for people stuck in deprived areas with no previous chance of a job is huge. To just do the mathematics of 'amount of corporation tax' v 'amount of income tax and saved benefits' is not the sole or perhaps the correct way to make the decision.

As for your ideas on tax, I think any incentives to help businesses thrive are good; but, unless your incentive is a blanket change in tax rate you will always discriminate against certain sectors and/or certain businesses. Your proposal to offset corporation tax against tax earned by new jobs discriminates against business in low labour intensive sectors and sectors/businesses that are becoming more efficient and profitable by automation.

[Digby]

To me there's no contest. You can't feed people on moral scruples. Unless the proposed company is doing something completely reprehensible, then I'd be all for encouraging them to locate into a run down area. The gains on I come tax and NI would be sufficient justification, as well as the social gains that higher employment makes to an area.

Cut taxes to all sorts of businesses and they could employ more people. I'm still seeing no reason why some people should have to pay and others not.

Because some bring greater benefits with them. It's not overly palatable but Apple's jobs are in demand across Europe so they will get preferential treatment. In a free market economy this is what happens at every level.

Would you want the same on wages? Everyone must be paid the same regardless of what they bring to the business?

Putting people on the same wages isn't the right comparison, a better one would be highly paid employees being subjected to a lower rate of taxation because they supposedly bring more to an economy. Although the idea companies such as Apple bring more isn't close to being proven, and frankly I'd be more likely to guess you'd create a lot more jobs if you gave the same rates of tax as Apple pays in Ireland to all the SMEs

[Digby]

The vast majority, I think, of the £13billion fine/back taxes is due to profits from other EU states being booked through Ireland. So, the Irish exchequer would never have seen those euros anyway.

I'd heard most of the money should have been taxed in the USA, partly as Apple in theory considers the wealth is created upon the back of their R&D and that's overwhelmingly done in the USA, and partly as it represents actual sales in the NA market with the firm using an Irish subsidiary to purchase the phones manufactured in Asia before selling onto the American market. And the only reason they don't bring the money back into the US where it'd attract 35% US Corporate Taxation (although hands up who thinks any major firm is actually paying 35% even if declaring profits in the USA). I'd assume the public relations people at Apple aren't averse to putting out so many different versions of what might be going on that many people may give up long before working out what they're doing.

[Mellsblue]

Cut taxes to all sorts of businesses and they could employ more people. I'm still seeing no reason why some people should have to pay and others not.

Because some bring greater benefits with them. It's not overly palatable but Apple's jobs are in demand across Europe so they will get preferential treatment. In a free market economy this is what happens at every level.

Would you want the same on wages? Everyone must be paid the same regardless of what they bring to the business?

Putting people on the same wages isn't the right comparison, a better one would be highly paid employees being subjected to a lower rate of taxation because they supposedly bring more to an economy. Although the idea companies such as Apple bring more isn't close to being proven, and frankly I'd be more likely to guess you'd create a lot more jobs if you gave the same rates of tax as Apple pays in Ireland to all the SMEs

I think it is the correct comparison. With wages you are paid commensurate with what you bring to the party. Hence, the more benefits a company brings with them the less they may be able to pay in taxes.
Whether Apple do bring more so as to deserve their tax treatment, well, I suppose we won't know unless we have access to rooms full of paperwork.

[Mellsblue]

The vast majority, I think, of the £13billion fine/back taxes is due to profits from other EU states being booked through Ireland. So, the Irish exchequer would never have seen those euros anyway.

I'd heard most of the money should have been taxed in the USA, partly as Apple in theory considers the wealth is created upon the back of their R&D and that's overwhelmingly done in the USA, and partly as it represents actual sales in the NA market with the firm using an Irish subsidiary to purchase the phones manufactured in Asia before selling onto the American market. And the only reason they don't bring the money back into the US where it'd attract 35% US Corporate Taxation (although hands up who thinks any major firm is actually paying 35% even if declaring profits in the USA). I'd assume the public relations people at Apple aren't averse to putting out so many different versions of what might be going on that many people may give up long before working out what they're doing.

There was a piece in The Times yesterday saying that this problem, and doubtless hundreds of other, is mainly caused by the US having such a high rate.

[Digby]

Because some bring greater benefits with them. It's not overly palatable but Apple's jobs are in demand across Europe so they will get preferential treatment. In a free market economy this is what happens at every level.

Would you want the same on wages? Everyone must be paid the same regardless of what they bring to the business?

Putting people on the same wages isn't the right comparison, a better one would be highly paid employees being subjected to a lower rate of taxation because they supposedly bring more to an economy. Although the idea companies such as Apple bring more isn't close to being proven, and frankly I'd be more likely to guess you'd create a lot more jobs if you gave the same rates of tax as Apple pays in Ireland to all the SMEs

I think it is the correct comparison. With wages you are paid commensurate with what you bring to the party. Hence, the more benefits a company brings with them the less they may be able to pay in taxes.
Whether Apple do bring more so as to deserve their tax treatment, well, I suppose we won't know unless we have access to rooms full of paperwork.

To me that just seems utterly barking. I'd still be against it on principle, but at the very least you'd need to have some rigorous analysis of where gains might come and not just a figure plucked from the air that allows certain very limited companies access to compete on an unfair basis.

If there are to be breaks to act as incentives then I'm not ruling them out and they could be reasonably cited as having their uses, but make them available to all business so they can compete on an equal basis, looking to lock in dominance with protectionist moves for Company A over Company B isn't free market, it's cronyism, possibly corruption and more akin to central planning than free market.

[Mellsblue]

Putting people on the same wages isn't the right comparison, a better one would be highly paid employees being subjected to a lower rate of taxation because they supposedly bring more to an economy. Although the idea companies such as Apple bring more isn't close to being proven, and frankly I'd be more likely to guess you'd create a lot more jobs if you gave the same rates of tax as Apple pays in Ireland to all the SMEs

I think it is the correct comparison. With wages you are paid commensurate with what you bring to the party. Hence, the more benefits a company brings with them the less they may be able to pay in taxes.
Whether Apple do bring more so as to deserve their tax treatment, well, I suppose we won't know unless we have access to rooms full of paperwork.

To me that just seems utterly barking. I'd still be against it on principle, but at the very least you'd need to have some rigorous analysis of where gains might come and not just a figure plucked from the air that allows certain very limited companies access to compete on an unfair basis.

If there are to be breaks to act as incentives then I'm not ruling them out and they could be reasonably cited as having their uses, but make them available to all business so they can compete on an equal basis, looking to lock in dominance with protectionist moves for Company A over Company B isn't free market, it's cronyism, possibly corruption and more akin to central planning than free market.

[Mellsblue]

Putting people on the same wages isn't the right comparison, a better one would be highly paid employees being subjected to a lower rate of taxation because they supposedly bring more to an economy. Although the idea companies such as Apple bring more isn't close to being proven, and frankly I'd be more likely to guess you'd create a lot more jobs if you gave the same rates of tax as Apple pays in Ireland to all the SMEs

I think it is the correct comparison. With wages you are paid commensurate with what you bring to the party. Hence, the more benefits a company brings with them the less they may be able to pay in taxes.
Whether Apple do bring more so as to deserve their tax treatment, well, I suppose we won't know unless we have access to rooms full of paperwork.

To me that just seems utterly barking. I'd still be against it on principle, but at the very least you'd need to have some rigorous analysis of where gains might come and not just a figure plucked from the air that allows certain very limited companies access to compete on an unfair basis.

If there are to be breaks to act as incentives then I'm not ruling them out and they could be reasonably cited as having their uses, but make them available to all business so they can compete on an equal basis, looking to lock in dominance with protectionist moves for Company A over Company B isn't free market, it's cronyism, possibly corruption and more akin to central planning than free market.

I'm all for rigorous analysis (I base my support for Ireland's actions on tax levied on domestic profits being subject to such rigorous analysis and not that someone loves their new iPhone) and if that proves that an advantage is gained by giving certain entities preferential treatment then I'd want my govt to take advantage of that. To not want that is ideological, which isn't something I'd expect of someone so contemptuous of Corbyn.
Also, I'm not convinced Apple's dominance is based on Ireland's model of taxation, and that were smaller, indigenous tech companies given equal treatment they would be able to usurp Apple, Microsoft etc etc.

[Digby]

I think it is the correct comparison. With wages you are paid commensurate with what you bring to the party. Hence, the more benefits a company brings with them the less they may be able to pay in taxes.
Whether Apple do bring more so as to deserve their tax treatment, well, I suppose we won't know unless we have access to rooms full of paperwork.

To me that just seems utterly barking. I'd still be against it on principle, but at the very least you'd need to have some rigorous analysis of where gains might come and not just a figure plucked from the air that allows certain very limited companies access to compete on an unfair basis.

If there are to be breaks to act as incentives then I'm not ruling them out and they could be reasonably cited as having their uses, but make them available to all business so they can compete on an equal basis, looking to lock in dominance with protectionist moves for Company A over Company B isn't free market, it's cronyism, possibly corruption and more akin to central planning than free market.

I'm all for rigorous analysis (I base my support for Ireland's actions on tax levied on domestic profits being subject to such rigorous analysis and not that someone loves their new iPhone) and if that proves that an advantage is gained by giving certain entities preferential treatment then I'd want my govt to take advantage of that. To not want that is ideological, which isn't something I'd expect of someone so contemptuous of Corbyn.
Also, I'm not convinced Apple's dominance is based on Ireland's model of taxation, and that were smaller, indigenous tech companies given equal treatment they would be able to usurp Apple, Microsoft etc etc.

Advantageous now Vs in the future. You might be helping to stop the next Apple who'd be bigger and better (or worse) than Apple.

[stud muffin]

Amazon and Starbucks pay less tax than sausage stall, says Austria

Amazon and Starbucks pay less tax in Austria than a local sausage stall, the country's Chancellor Christian Kern has said in a newspaper interview.
"Every Viennese cafe, every sausage stand pays more tax in Austria than a multinational corporation," Mr Kern told Der Standard.
"That goes for Starbucks, Amazon and other companies," he said.
He added that EU countries with low corporate taxes were undermining the structure of the union itself.
"What Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg or Malta are doing here lacks solidarity towards the rest of the European economy," he said.
He praised the European Commission's recent order that Apple should pay 13bn euros (£11bn) more in tax to Ireland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37259278

Perhaps the structure of the of the EU is wrong?
When the UK leaves the EU, will Apple have to start paying tax on the profits made here?

[Mellsblue]

To me that just seems utterly barking. I'd still be against it on principle, but at the very least you'd need to have some rigorous analysis of where gains might come and not just a figure plucked from the air that allows certain very limited companies access to compete on an unfair basis.

If there are to be breaks to act as incentives then I'm not ruling them out and they could be reasonably cited as having their uses, but make them available to all business so they can compete on an equal basis, looking to lock in dominance with protectionist moves for Company A over Company B isn't free market, it's cronyism, possibly corruption and more akin to central planning than free market.

I'm all for rigorous analysis (I base my support for Ireland's actions on tax levied on domestic profits being subject to such rigorous analysis and not that someone loves their new iPhone) and if that proves that an advantage is gained by giving certain entities preferential treatment then I'd want my govt to take advantage of that. To not want that is ideological, which isn't something I'd expect of someone so contemptuous of Corbyn.
Also, I'm not convinced Apple's dominance is based on Ireland's model of taxation, and that were smaller, indigenous tech companies given equal treatment they would be able to usurp Apple, Microsoft etc etc.

Advantageous now Vs in the future. You might be helping to stop the next Apple who'd be bigger and better (or worse) than Apple.

Possibly, but that's all guesswork. But, I'd like to think any future business, tech or otherwise, that can't build themselves in Ireland (probably to be later purchased by Apple, Facebook or Microsoft) probably doesn't have the business model, management structure or product to become the next Apple. Regardless of tax structures, I think the big players are here to stay, hoovering up the promising sme's, for some time to come.

[Digby]

I'm all for rigorous analysis (I base my support for Ireland's actions on tax levied on domestic profits being subject to such rigorous analysis and not that someone loves their new iPhone) and if that proves that an advantage is gained by giving certain entities preferential treatment then I'd want my govt to take advantage of that. To not want that is ideological, which isn't something I'd expect of someone so contemptuous of Corbyn.
Also, I'm not convinced Apple's dominance is based on Ireland's model of taxation, and that were smaller, indigenous tech companies given equal treatment they would be able to usurp Apple, Microsoft etc etc.

Advantageous now Vs in the future. You might be helping to stop the next Apple who'd be bigger and better (or worse) than Apple.

Possibly, but that's all guesswork. But, I'd like to think any future business, tech or otherwise, that can't build themselves in Ireland (probably to be later purchased by Apple, Facebook or Microsoft) probably doesn't have the business model, management structure or product to become the next Apple. Regardless of tax structures, I think the big players are here to stay, hoovering up the promising sme's, for some time to come.

It's bloody guesswork if you give tax breaks in the here and now to a select few (or a select many as the case might be).

In rugby terms this would be taking the RWC monies and dividing it up equally and then giving NZ an extra tranche as they add the most 'glamour' (and actually we see this in F1 with Ferrari) or perhaps France as they bring in the most money.

I'd much prefer to see a much more even level of competition in business, though I'm also open to the idea that taxing profit/success mayn't be the best way to go about directing resources within society on a global or national basis.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

To me there's no contest. You can't feed people on moral scruples. Unless the proposed company is doing something completely reprehensible, then I'd be all for encouraging them to locate into a run down area. The gains on I come tax and NI would be sufficient justification, as well as the social gains that higher employment makes to an area.

Cut taxes to all sorts of businesses and they could employ more people. I'm still seeing no reason why some people should have to pay and others not.

Because some bring greater benefits with them. It's not overly palatable but Apple's jobs are in demand across Europe so they will get preferential treatment. In a free market economy this is what happens at every level.

Would you want the same on wages? Everyone must be paid the same regardless of what they bring to the business?

There comes a point in some arguments when I realise that the other side is from a complete different planet. this is it.

[Digby]

When the UK leaves the EU, will Apple have to start paying tax on the profits made here?

Seems unlikely based on this story so far.

[morepork]

Free market economy....what an oxymoron.

[Mellsblue]

Cut taxes to all sorts of businesses and they could employ more people. I'm still seeing no reason why some people should have to pay and others not.

Because some bring greater benefits with them. It's not overly palatable but Apple's jobs are in demand across Europe so they will get preferential treatment. In a free market economy this is what happens at every level.

Would you want the same on wages? Everyone must be paid the same regardless of what they bring to the business?

There comes a point in some arguments when I realise that the other side is from a complete different planet. this is it.

From a different planet or an enterprise zone in the East Midlands, Leeds, Manchester, Luton Airport, Hereford etc etc, where businesses are given tax breaks to help the local economy.

[Digby]

Because some bring greater benefits with them. It's not overly palatable but Apple's jobs are in demand across Europe so they will get preferential treatment. In a free market economy this is what happens at every level.

Would you want the same on wages? Everyone must be paid the same regardless of what they bring to the business?

There comes a point in some arguments when I realise that the other side is from a complete different planet. this is it.

From a different planet or an enterprise zone in the East Midlands, Leeds, Manchester, Luton Airport, Hereford etc etc, where businesses are given tax breaks to help the local economy.

Known breaks, and breaks available to more than a select few.

[Mellsblue]

There comes a point in some arguments when I realise that the other side is from a complete different planet. this is it.

From a different planet or an enterprise zone in the East Midlands, Leeds, Manchester, Luton Airport, Hereford etc etc, where businesses are given tax breaks to help the local economy.

Known breaks, and breaks available to more than a select few.

Can't argue against known breaks, but thought we'd gone beyond how Apple are treated to the general premise of different taxation for different entities. Yep, it is more than select few, but I'm not trying to say it's exactly the same just that the idea is not from a different planet.

[Digby]

I wonder when an Apple will push beyond the tax break and start to ask for an outright payment to base jobs in an area. If it's not already happening.

[kk67]

I wonder when an Apple will push beyond the tax break and start to ask for an outright payment to base jobs in an area. If it's not already happening.

Of course it's already happening. WhT re you, a f*ckwit...?..

The real world is going to f*ck you when the revolution comes.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I wonder when an Apple will push beyond the tax break and start to ask for an outright payment to base jobs in an area. If it's not already happening.

It's a distinction without a difference.

[Digby]

I wonder when an Apple will push beyond the tax break and start to ask for an outright payment to base jobs in an area. If it's not already happening.

It's a distinction without a difference.

Yes and no. It's more of the same, but I wouldn't care to fund the difference