Originally shared by Winston Close n n

[G+_George Kozi]

Originally shared by Winston Close

[G+_Harry Maciolek]

If a nation provides a legal method for a corporation to avoid taxes, then that corporation can hardly be blamed for using it.

[G+_Joe Morrison]

And of course that hinges on the word "legal". Th EU commisioner determined that the extra tax breaks the apple received were not a legal way to avoid taxes. Once the litigation is finished we will see where the answer lies.

[G+_Rock Westfahl]

Yes, I suspect that Apple, like many multinationals mangled the law fairly comprehensively in this case. They make vast amounts f money and pay nearly nothing in tax. They should not be surprised when they are resented.

[G+_Siglotel Siglotel]

I will critize Apple´s for the way they tread people in Asia. Not because Apple use the law for his own benefits.

[G+_Jonathan Lockhart]

Tim Cook addressed this kind of issue when he was brought before the US congress. If the politicians put a law in place to help a corporation(s) then Apple, or any other company, is probably obligated to take advantage of it. The big question is, was it legal. I personally don't think it's terrible ethical, but that needs to be addressed with all our politicians world wide.

[G+_William L. DeRieux IV]

Unfortunately the law/legislation is often very dry and very logical (sometimes illogical) -- none of which must be socially acceptable or ethical to be legal.

 

In the eyes of the law...just because something is deemed unethical/under-handed does not mean it should also be illegal.

 

Purely whether that is right or wrong is not something the law makers are concerned with -- again when laws are made they are very dry, logical, and often to have nothing to do with rhyme or reason.

 

However, if enough people speak up -- it is means to have the law changed.

 

A good example of this is the DNC (not illegal but unethical):

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/qa-telemarketers-sellers-about-dnc-provisions-tsr#callsandorgs

 

4. What types of calls are not covered by the National Do Not Call Registry?

The do not call provisions do not cover calls from political organizations, charities, telephone surveyors, or companies with which a consumer has an existing business relationship.

 

-- the problem here is that these organization or exuded and companies will abuse this clause (and take it to it's breaking point -- without violating the law, in most cases).

[G+_Dave Trautman]

As someone who is incorporated I can tell you there are a ton of benefits available to my corporation which are not available to the everyday person. The ethics of offering some organizations a tax advantage because they produce wealth for others is a minor concern. The major concern of this story is two-fold.

 

The first is that Apple followed the tax rules in Ireland. Ireland created (essentially) a tax haven for corporations back in the late 80s to attract business and get themselves out of an economic death spiral. And it worked.

 

The second is that the EU commission (and this is not a court of law we're referring to but a political commission with legal powers) is effectively telling Ireland they have no right to determine what tax they want to collect. The benefits which Ireland has enjoyed are (apparently) an affront to all those other EU states by some poorly structured logic.

 

The government of Ireland is taking this to a higher authority and Apple Inc is on board to help out. The EU essentially would make it impossible for any company to know at any given time whether the rules will be changed. The commission is attempting to rewrite Irish Tax law some 30 years later. If all countries did this, then there would be no where to have a stable economy. Retroactively collecting tax deemed to be too low is the kind of thing which was popular in the dictatorships of central Africa in the 1980s. Once a company became profitable the president would decree a tax increase. It hollowed out any chance of Africa moving forward until those tyrants were removed.

 

The proposed re-claim by the EU commission only dates back 13years. This explains the number. But it's based on the idea that they know what's best for the Irish people.

 

Unless you're been to some of these countries it's likely you have little idea what their history is. It seems the EU would have preferred Ireland sink and become destitute than take the risk they did to improve their own situation by in the 80s.

[G+_George Kozi]

The EU has something legitimate to say about this. Apple may have taken advantage of a local thing in Ireland, but from there, it gained access and did business all over the the Continent, in the entire Common Market. What the EU is attempting to clarify is whether the Irish scheme was compliant to the common internal rules of that market. When you are a member of the EU, you have an obligation to do so.

 

This doesn't seem strange to me at all. If the Internal Revenue Service decides that I paid too little taxes some years ago, because the local taxman interpreted the rules a bit funky, they will send me a bill... Even if I supported the economy by spending the money I didn't pay in tax.

[G+_Randy Hudson]

Ummm, no. Not relevant.

 

What Apple is being billed for is corporate taxes. This tax has nothing to do with services such a police, fire or maintaining the highway infrastructure. There are separate, additional taxes for those services which Apple cannot avoid.

 

Someone undoubtedly is paying the property tax on those brick and mortar Apple Stores.

 

When Apple pays their utility bill to run the lights and Apple products on display in their store they are undoubtedly paying taxes to support that infrastructure.

 

When Apple products are delivered the trucking company doing the delivery is paying for the highway via the vehicle registration taxes and fuel taxes. It's not Apple's responsibility to pay again for highway usage that has already been paid for by the trucking company. Same applied if the shipment is by train, plane or ship.

 

Corporate taxes are just a government's way of lining their treasury's coffers and have zero to do with paying said corporation's fair share for the services and infrastructure they use to conduct business.

[G+_Dave Trautman]

George Kozi This is not a question of interpretation - or the Irish would not be appealing the decision. The Irish Government specifically planned to have lower taxes for corporations to attract them. It may be that this is in contravention of some EU rule. It may be true how Ireland circumvented some aspect of their agreement to be in the EU. But it is not the same thing as Apple "not" paying tax. They paid tax to Ireland for doing business in Ireland (as well as continental Europe).

 

Here in Canada we have a similar thing. If you set up a company with Canada in the name, then you are taxed according to the rules of Canada. But if you are an operation in the US without a Canadian subsidiary, then you pay a different (and usually higher) tax or tariff on your goods brought here for sale.

 

Apple (and IBM, Microsoft, McDonalds, and Sears... etc) has Apple Canada Ltd and they do business here with products they make elsewhere. Apple Canada pays less tax than if they were just Apple USA doing business in Canada. There would be no point for each country to be able to tax other companies from other countries. It's a bit insane to think I would want to do business in Brazil if they taxed me, and the Canada taxed me again for what I sold in Brazil. But that would be the case if I did not incorporate in Brazil. That choice allows me to keep money in Brazil and not be taxed by Canada.

 

Ireland has a similar scheme. But since the US congress decided they want a piece of the pie Apple had baked in Europe then Apple just leaves the money overseas until the US government wakes up and smells the burning pie. (very stretched metaphor there)

 

Apple would not have a leg to stand on if Ireland agreed with the EU ruling. But they don't agree. They will be fighting it. So, why is this about Apple and not about Ireland? Ireland has about 200 companies doing business there who are simply using them for the lower tax because the rest of Europe was costing too much in the 1980s.

 

The commission feels it is not fair for member countries in the EU would compete against themselves to make attractive offers to companies. That's a good idea. But this is not just come interpretation of the tax law which was mistaken. This is the way Ireland intended it to be. Ireland did not have some special tax just for Apple. Which the commission seems to have missed (if I'm reading the details properly). They had a special tax for everybody who brought in a corporation.

 

I do feel it is time for the levy to be adjusted for the new realities. That's a process Ireland has to go through on its own.

 

But this is definitely not the same as someone just interpreting the tax law a certain way and then finding out later they were wrong about it. Ireland set out a specific advantage for their country. No one was fidgeting with the numbers.

[G+_Randy Hudson]

Dave Trautman In that case it is Ireland that the EU should be going after, for failing to collect the appropriate amount of tax from these corporations. It was Ireland after all who established this tax haven, not Apple, etc.

 

If I were Ireland I might think it was time to consider following in the footsteps of Britain about now.