Economy EU orders Ireland to make Apple to pay up to 13 billion Euros

None of our founding fathers envisioned the taxes we have today. Or raising taxes on the rich to pay an overblosted government. I suggest you move to Europe if you love their way of doing things.

From Thomas Jefferson

To James Madison

28 Oct, 1785

"property of this country is absolutely concentrated in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored.

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise."

Nice try with the "If you dun like Murka, then you can giiiit out!" lol
giphy.gif
 
From Thomas Jefferson

To James Madison

28 Oct, 1785

"property of this country is absolutely concentrated in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored.

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise."

Nice try with the "If you dun like Murka, then you can giiiit out!" lol
giphy.gif

And not all founding fathers agreed with him or each other. He’s one of my biggest heroes in history and I agree with almost everything he did, but I don’t agree with this. His biggest contribution to the country was the Declaration of Independence and his leadership decisions during the Barbary War. Can’t say I agree with him on taxes. Many of his colleagues and other founding fathers believed he was too European in that regard.

My offer still stands. You can gtfo if you want to be taxed more. Because in the end, you still support a globalist organization stealing a businesses money.
 
French central banker nods to Ireland in ‘race to the bottom’ tax comments
Fri, Feb 2, 2018, 15:41

image.jpg

Ireland’s corporate tax regime has been highlighted by the governor of the Bank of France, who has raised the danger of a “race to the bottom” in taxing corporate profits.

Speaking at a seminar in Dublin to mark the 75th anniversary of the Central Bank of Ireland, François Villeroy de Galhau referred to the risks from “a race to the bottom of corporate tax rates”, which he said raised fairness issues. He added that this was “pointed out sometimes in relation to Ireland” and its corporate tax regime. He warned too that recent US tax reform, while it would boost US growth in the short term, also risked worsening global imbalances.

Ireland’s corporate tax regime, centred on the 12.5 per cent rate, has long been criticised by France and reform of EU corporation tax has been targeted as a key policy area by president Macron.

Mr Villeroy added to warnings from ECB figures about the danger of any attempt to talk down the value of the US dollar. The ECB has reacted strongly to comments in Davos by US treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin that a lower dollar was good for US trade.

Mutual trust

The French governor, while not mentioning the US , referred to recent “unfortunate declarations” and pointed out that at an IMF meeting last autumn, all major countries had agreed not to engage in competitive devaluations. Doing so would be a breach of mutual trust, he warned.

He also cautioned that protectionist trade policies only added to inflation and hurt growth in the long term.

The ECB would follow a “predictable sequence” in withdrawing the stimulus of current monetary policy, he said. Among the factors taken into account would be developments in inflation and the euro exchange rate.

Whether the ECB stops its policy of bond buying in September or tapers it off more gradually is not an “existential question”, he said. The so-called quantitative easing programme is due to end in September, at the earliest. However, Mr Villeroy, who sits on the ECB’s governing council, said that what was important was the entire ECB policy package, including its stock of assets and the guidance it gave to the markets.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...-in-race-to-the-bottom-tax-comments-1.3377887
 
EU plans new tax for tech giants up to 5 percent of gross revenues
Francesco Guarascio | February 26, 2018

r

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Commission wants to tax large digital companies’ revenues based on where their users are located rather than where they are headquartered at a common rate between 1 and 5 percent, a draft Commission document showed.

The proposal, seen by Reuters, aims at increasing the tax bill of firms like Amazon [AMZN.O], Google [GOOGL.O] and Facebook [FB.O] that are accused by large EU states of paying too little by re-routing their EU profits to low-tax countries such as Luxembourg and Ireland.

The plan resembles a French proposal on an equalization tax that was supported by several big EU states. However, it is likely to face opposition from small countries that fear becoming less attractive to multinational firms.

The document says the tax should be applied to companies with revenues above 750 million euros ($922 million) worldwide and with EU digital revenues of at least 10 million euros a year.

The proposal is subject to changes before its publication which is expected in the second half of March. Some of the key figures on rates and thresholds are in brackets, showing that work is still ongoing to define the final numbers.

Firms selling user-targeted online ads, such as Google, or providing advertisement space on the internet, such as Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, would be subject to the tax, the document said, citing these companies.

Digital marketplaces such as Amazon and gig economy giants such as Airbnb and Uber also fall under the scope of the draft proposal, the Commission said.

Online media, streaming services like Netflix, online gaming, cloud computing or IT services would instead be exempt from the tax.

The levy would be raised in the EU countries where users are located, rather than where companies are headquartered, reducing the appeal of smaller low-tax states.

“This would entail additional reporting requirements so that the tax authorities of member states can calculate how much tax is due in their jurisdiction,” the document said.

In the case of online advertisers, the tax should be levied “where the advertisement is displayed” and “where the users having supplied the data which is being sold are located.”

For online shopping, the tax would be collected in countries “where the user paying for being able to access the platform (or to conclude a transaction within the platform) is located,” the document said.

The levy would be calculated on the “aggregated gross revenues” of a business and should have a single EU rate “in the region of 1-5 percent.” It would be possible to deduct this tax as a cost from national corporate taxes.

The tax would be a temporary measure that would be applied only until a more comprehensive solution to fair digital taxation is approved, the Commission said.

The long-term solution would entail the adoption of new rules on a “digital permanent establishment”.

The proposal, once finalised, would need the approval of all EU states.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-to-5-percent-of-gross-revenues-idUSKCN1GA25R
 
Last edited:
Apple, EU Set for September Showdown Over Record Tax Bill
By Stephanie Bodoni | August 16, 2019​


Apple Inc.’s 13 billion-euro ($14.4 billion) battle with the European Union reaches the bloc’s courts next month in a hearing set to throw the spotlight on antitrust commissioner Margrethe Vestager’s crackdown on tax deals doled out to big companies.

The EU’s General Court, its second-highest tribunal, will hear arguments in the challenges by the iPhone maker and Ireland over two days set for Sept. 17-18. The U.S. last year lost a bid to intervene in the case in support of Apple.

The European Commission in August 2016 ordered Ireland to recoup the record sum plus interest, saying the world’s richest company was handed an unfair advantage. The EU decision reverberated across the Atlantic, triggering criticism from the U.S. Treasury that the EU was making itself a "supra-national tax authority" that could threaten global tax reform efforts.

The Irish government said in an email it “profoundly disagrees” with the EU’s decision and “is engaging fully with the process and ensuring the best presentation of the state’s position.” The commission in Brussels declined to comment.

Apple didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Appeals over tax cases have been piling up at the EU’s courts since 2015, when the commission issued its first orders against Luxembourg and the Netherlands to recoup unpaid taxes from a Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV unit and Starbucks Corp. respectively.

The court heard arguments in both cases last year with rulings yet to come. A first ruling in the series of decisions by EU antitrust chief Vestager ended in a setback in February for the EU when Belgium won a bid to overturn an order to recoup about 800 million euros from 35 companies, including Anheuser-Busch InBev NV.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ptember-showdown-with-eu-over-record-tax-bill
 
Last edited:
Apple’s tax agreement with Ireland was lawful, EU court says
By Dave Strausfeld, J.D. | 16 July 2020

GettyImages-1164157748-1160x772.jpg

Apple Inc. does not have to pay €13.1 billion ($14.9 billion) in Irish taxes it purportedly owes, for now anyway, because Ireland did not grant the tech giant prohibited tax breaks, the EU General Court held in a 15 July decision (Ireland v. European Commission, No. T‑778/16 (EU Gen. Ct. 7/15/20).

The decision, which can be appealed to the EU Court of Justice, annuls a ruling by the European Commission. The Commission found in 2016 that Ireland improperly provided state aid to Apple in the form of selective tax breaks by agreeing to the company’s taxpayer-favourable advance pricing agreements (APAs). Under the APAs, Apple paid billions of euros less in Irish corporate taxes than it otherwise would have. The Commission said Ireland must recover the back taxes from Apple, but the court disagreed.

The case against Apple is one of numerous tax-related cases brought against multinationals by the European Commission’s top competition regulator, Margrethe Vestager.

The ruling in Apple’s favour comes at a time when governments worldwide are engaged in a broader discussion about what can be done to prevent tax avoidance by multinational enterprises. In particular, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is seeking to create a global framework that will deter base erosion and profit shifting.

The overturning of the €13.1 billion recovery order is not only a legal victory for Silicon Valley-based Apple but also a vindication of sorts for Ireland, which insisted that the APAs in question complied with EU law. Ireland supported Apple in the case, even though, if a violation were found to have occurred, the technology company would have to pay Ireland billions of euros in back taxes.

Responses to the decision
After the decision was handed down, Vestager issued a statement saying she would carefully study the ruling and reflect on possible next steps, because, as noted above, the case can be appealed to the Court of Justice.

She added that “if Member States give certain multinational companies tax advantages not available to their rivals, this harms fair competition in the EU.” For this reason, “[t]he Commission will continue to look at aggressive tax planning measures under EU State aid rules to assess whether they result in illegal State aid”, Vestager stressed.

Apple spokesperson Josh Rosenstock said after the decision that “[t]his case was not about how much tax we pay, but where we are required to pay it”.

Alleged selective tax breaks
The European Commission’s case against Apple rested on competition law, not a violation of tax rules, per se. The key question was whether Ireland, where Apple’s European operations are based, provided the tech company a tax break that distorted or threatened to distort competition.

The European Commission’s 2016 ruling found that Ireland conferred selective state aid upon Apple’s Irish subsidiaries in violation of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). That provision states: “[A]ny aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings … [is] incompatible with the internal market”, with certain exceptions.

Disagreeing with the European Commission, the EU General Court found that the evidence did not show that Ireland provided selective state aid. Ultimately, the Commission failed to prove “that, by issuing the contested tax rulings, the Irish tax authorities granted [the Irish Apple subsidiaries] an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU”, the court said.

https://www.fm-magazine.com/news/2020/jul/apple-tax-agreement-with-ireland-was-lawful.html
 
Last edited:
EU Commission to appeal Apple ruling in Ireland over $14.9 billion tax case
The EU says Ireland gave Apple a deal to pay less taxes, but a court annulled the judgment

acastro_170731_1777_0006_v1.0.jpg

The European Commission is appealing a July court judgment in the ongoing saga of Apple’s taxes in Ireland. Buckle in, this one gets a bit complicated. And it’s likely to drag on for some time.

In July, the General Court of the EU annulled a 2016 ruling by the European Commission. In that ruling, the commission had determined that Ireland gave Apple a “sweetheart deal” that let the iPhone maker pay significantly lower taxes than other businesses. “Member States cannot give tax benefits to selected companies — this is illegal under EU state aid rules,” EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager said in 2016.

The commission ordered Apple to pay €13 billion ($14.9 billion) in back taxes to the Irish government. Ireland and Apple both disputed the decision, with CEO Tim Cook calling the judgment “total political crap.”

But in the July ruling, the judges said that the commission had failed to make its case. “The commission did not succeed in showing to the requisite legal standard that there was an advantage” for Apple, they declared, and “the commission did not prove, in its alternative line of reasoning, that the contested tax rulings were the result of discretion exercised by the Irish tax authorities.”

The commission said Friday it will appeal the court’s July ruling, with Vestager saying in a statement that the court “has made a number of errors of law.”

“The General Court has repeatedly confirmed the principle that, while Member States have competence in determining their taxation laws taxation, they must do so in respect of EU law, including State aid rules,” Vestager said. “If Member States give certain multinational companies tax advantages not available to their rivals, this harms fair competition in the European Union in breach of State aid rules.”

An Apple spokesperson said in a statement emailed to The Verge on Friday that it would review the commission’s appeal when it receives it, adding that the company has always abided by the law in Ireland and other places it operates. “The General Court categorically annulled the Commission’s case in July and the facts have not changed since then,” the spokesperson said. “This case has never been about how much tax we pay, rather where we are required to pay it.”

Irish Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe told The Irish Times Friday that the appeal was “expected,” and that it would likely “take a number of years further before this matter is further determined.”

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/9/25/21456383/eu-commission-appeal-taxes-ireland
 
Last edited:
European Commission accuses EU court of ‘errors’ in Apple case
As part of its appeal of the Apple case, the European Commission is arguing that the European General Court made “several errors of law” over its interpretation of the arm’s-length principle (ALP) in the case.
By Josh White | February 02 2021

European-Commisssion.jpg

The European Commission has claimed that the EU General Court “misinterprets” its August 2016 decision that Apple had been granted illegal state aid in Ireland. The European Commission hopes to overturn the General Court judgment and claw back €13 billion ($15.7 billion) in taxes from the US company.

The General Court ruled against the Commission in July 2020 and found that Apple’s transfer pricing (TP) arrangements in Ireland were not illegal state aid. However, the Commission filed an appeal, dated September 25 2020 and published on the court website on February 1 2021.

Apple and the Irish government are not backing down over these new claims. The US technology company stressed that the facts had not changed since the lower court’s decision.

“After a thorough review of the facts and the Commission’s claims, the General Court was clear in their determination that Apple has always abided by the law in Ireland, as we do everywhere we operate,” said Apple in a statement.

The Apple case is a landmark tax dispute because it concerns TP arrangements that used to be commonplace. The US company used a dual structure to route its European sales through Ireland.

The Irish government said that Ireland has “always been clear that, based on Irish law, the correct amount of Irish tax was charged and that Ireland provided no state aid to Apple”.

“Ireland appealed the Commission decision on that basis and the judgment from the court vindicates this stance,” said an Irish government spokesperson.

The Irish government created its low tax model in the 1980s to secure foreign direct investment. Over the past 40 years, Ireland has welcomed companies such as Apple, Google and Facebook to its shores. Yet the low-tax jurisdiction has been pressured into dismantling the double Irish structure.

Nevertheless, the European Commission is not going to end its state aid crackdown. The Commission wants to reform corporate tax regimes across the EU and implement a digital tax policy. These issues will define EU fiscal policy for years to come.

Three points of contention
The dispute is over whether the arm’s-length principle was applied correctly and the role of the head offices in Apple’s network of subsidiaries. The Commission has laid out its reasons as to why the General Court is wrong in three key points:

  1. The General Court “misinterprets” the EC decision by concluding that the was state aid case came down to the lack of employees and physical presence in Apple’s head office;
  2. The court’s decision “violates” the separate entity approach and the ALP by “invoking functions performed by Apple Inc” to reject the allocation of intellectual property (IP) to the Irish branches; and
  3. The court decision “violates” the separate entity approach and the ALP by finding that the actions of company directors constitute functions performed by their head offices.
The Commission also argued that the court’s findings did not rely “solely” on the fact that the head offices of Apple Sales International (ASI) and Apple Operations Europe (AOE) had no employees or physical presence. This ignores the role of those offices in the US group and particularly whether they performed functions that justified the allocation of Apple’s intellectual property (IP).

“The General Court’s failure to properly consider the structure and content of the decision and the explanations in the Commission’s written submissions on the functions performed by the head offices and the Irish branches is a breach of procedure,” said the Commission in its filing.

Furthermore, the European Commission reiterated that the functions performed by Apple Inc are “irrelevant” to the allocation of profits within ASI and AOE. The Commission argued that the court’s decision was “a breach of procedure” on this issue.

The Commission also claimed that the General Court’s view of the functions played by ASI and AOE directors relied on “inadmissible evidence”. As such, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will have to decide whether the General Court’s judgment was made in “error”. If the CJEU agrees with the Commission’s arguments, Apple will pay the price.

https://www.internationaltaxreview....sion-accuses-eu-court-of-errors-in-apple-case
 
It's a messy situation. Apple are in Ireland since 1984 and many of the tax arrangements pre-date the legislation that the EU are trying to get the clawback from.

When Ireland gave Apple (among others) the sweetheart deal to try to kick-start our economy nobody had any idea just how big they were going to get.

I think people in Ireland realise Apple need to pay a proper amount of tax somewhere, it's only right. But people are scared about the effect on the economy though. Angelas Ashes style poverty is only one generation away in this country.

Seeing the Irish government whoring for a corporation is galling but they are playing a bigger game than just Apple.
 
It's a messy situation. Apple are in Ireland since 1984 and many of the tax arrangements pre-date the legislation that the EU are trying to get the clawback from.

When Ireland gave Apple (among others) the sweetheart deal to try to kick-start our economy nobody had any idea just how big they were going to get.

I think people in Ireland realise Apple need to pay a proper amount of tax somewhere, it's only right. But people are scared about the effect on the economy though. Angelas Ashes style poverty is only one generation away in this country.

Seeing the Irish government whoring for a corporation is galling but they are playing a bigger game than just Apple.
I agree. It’s messy and has agreements that predate the EU. Apple should pay but man the EU has a lot of tangled webs
 
I'm in favor of an OECD minimum global corporate tax rate. The ball is in Europe's court now.

EU backs U.S. call for global minimum corporate tax, but rate to be decided
By Jan Strupczewski | April 6, 2021​

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Commission backed on Tuesday a call from U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen for a global minimum corporate tax, but said its rate should be decided in talks in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Yellen said on Monday she was working with G20 countries to agree on a global corporate minimum tax rate to end a "thirty-year race to the bottom on corporate tax rates".

The U.S. plan envisages a 21% minimum corporate tax rate, coupled with eliminating exemptions on income from countries that do not enact a minimum tax to discourage the shifting of jobs and profits overseas.

"We remain committed to ensuring that all businesses, including digital ones, pay their fair share of tax, where it is rightfully due," European Commission spokesman Dan Ferrie told a news briefing when asked about the U.S. proposal.

The OECD has long been working on two-pillar global taxation scheme, originally meant mainly for digital giants like Google, Amazon, Facebook or Apple, to tax companies where they make profits even if they do not have a physical presence there.

The second pillar of the OECD scheme is to establish a global minimum tax rate, which could apply to all companies, not only digital ones, so that governments do not compete with each other offering lower taxes to attract large multinational firms.

"We welcome the strong support from all G20 Finance Ministers for an agreement on both OECD pillars by July 2021," Ferrie said.

"We hope that the announcements of Secretary Yellen regarding the US position, withdrawing the safe harbour regime proposal and calling for a minimum corporate taxation, will spur a new momentum towards agreement on a consensus-based global solution this summer," he said.

Asked if the EU would support the 21% rate mentioned by the U.S., Ferrie declined any comment on figures. "We are working towards a solution in the framework of the OECD," he said.

An agreement among European countries might not be easy because corporate tax rates in the 27-nation bloc vary widely from 9% in Hungary and 12.5% in Ireland to 32% in France or 31.5% in Portugal.

The EU's attempts to unify even what companies are taxed on, rather than setting a common tax rate, have been stalled since 2011 because taxation is a jealously guarded prerogative of national parliaments and often forms a key part of a country's economic model.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2BT1YG
 

Apple suffers setback in fight against EU order to pay £11bn tax bill in Ireland

By Lisa O'Carroll , Brussels correspondent | Nov 9th, 2023

5184.jpg


Apple has suffered a setback in its battle against an order to pay an alleged €13bn (£11.3bn) tax bill in Ireland, after one of the top advisers to the European court of justice (ECJ) said a ruling in the tech company’s favour should be set side.

It is the latest twist in a near 10-year saga over allegations that Apple received favourable tax status in Ireland which resulted in a €13bn benefit, in which the tech company sided with the Irish government in battling an order to pay up issued by Europe’s competition watchdog.

Ireland’s finance minister, Michael McGrath, said he noted the opinion of the ECJ’s advocate general, but that the country remained confident it did not breach any EU laws.

“It has always been, and remains, Ireland’s position that the correct amount of Irish tax was paid and that Ireland provided no state aid to Apple.

“We now await the judgment of the court of justice of the European Union on this matter,” he said.

The case against Apple dates back to 2014, when the then-competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager launched an investigation into two tax rulings in Ireland that she suspected had artificially lowered the tax due since 1991.

It found that in 2003 the company had been allowed an “effective corporate tax rate” of just 1% on its European profits and just 0.005% in 2014.

Two years later the European Commission concluded that the benefits between 1991 and 2014 amounted to illegal state aid and ordered Ireland to recover the money.

Apple and Dublin immediately challenged that decision.

Three years ago the general court of the European Union annulled the European Commission’s decision on the grounds that it had not shown the tax advantage was derived from tax rulings.

On Thursday, the ECJ’s advocate general, Giovanni Pitruzzella, sided with the commission, saying the court’s judges should set aside the general court ruling and refer the case back to the lower tribunal.

“The judgment of the general court on ‘tax rulings’ adopted by Ireland in relation to Apple should be set aside,” Pitruzzella said in a non-binding opinion.

He said the general court had committed “a series of errors in law” when it ruled that Brussels “had not shown to the requisite legal standard” that the profit Apple had made on sales of its products outside the US had to be attributed to their Irish branches.

“It is therefore necessary for the general court to carry out a new assessment,” said the ECJ in a statement.

While proceedings drag on, Apple had to hand over the full amount, which Ireland has been holding in an escrow account.

 
Last edited:
'It found that in 2003 the company had been allowed an “effective corporate tax rate” of just 1% on its European profits and just 0.005% in 2014.'

I wish I could get away with paying 1% corporation tax!

These tax loopholes that allow the incredibly wealthy to avoid tax, individuals and corporations need closing for the good of everyone else.
 
Last edited:
I think this is retaliation for the record fine of VW. This is turning ugly behind the scenes and they are getting ready to go after Facebook. Ireland is in real trouble over this news.
Ireland isn't in any trouble.
Hujapple definitely IS.
They are registered in Ireland cos lower tax % than in U.K.
The same about other yanks and british companies. Welcome to relocate to U.K....

Yanks even installed computers factory and repair center, later assumed that in China and EE will be cheaper than in Ireland....

Big trouble are for yanks not Ireland and apple is pro chinesse POS...
 
Back
Top