7 ms·

This part of your comment is factually not true: "The kerfluffle over Apple's Irish tax bill is because the EU competitiveness committee has ruled that Ireland

by omonra 10y ago

This part of your comment is factually not true: "The kerfluffle over Apple's Irish tax bill is because the EU competitiveness committee has ruled that Ireland's low taxes are equivalent to an unfair subsidy. But the key point is that it is Ireland's rate, which is why Ireland is also fighting the EU ruling. If they can't have lower-than-average business tax rates, they might have a harder-than-average time attracting businesses." Ireland made a deal with Apple, whereby Apple effectively paid NO tax (vs the standard Irish rate of 12.5 or 13%). THAT is the problem - that Apple scored a preferential one-off deal that is not available to most other business operating in Ireland.

snowwrestler 10y ago
> THAT is the problem - that Apple scored a preferential one-off deal that is not available to most other business operating in Ireland. Apple and Ireland both seem to disagree with this. It's a major point of contention in the case. Anyway, even if Ireland did give Apple a special rate, that would still arguably be "Ireland's rate." I just wanted to illustrate the difference between the EU, where the component nations are the highest taxing authorities and can compete on tax rates (now in question, to some extent), vs. the U.S, where the federal government is the single highest taxing authority. Edit to add: In the EU, multinationals have leverage because they can choose their tax regime. In the U.S. multinationals have little leverage over the federal government. This explains why Apple would expect to have a lower tax rate in the EU than the U.S.
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  Please, stop guessing and stick to the facts. The EC ruled that Ireland's government favoured a company over others (I.e. Unfairly subsidised Apple over the competition), hence why Apple has to give back those subsidies. This is not a tax issue. The EC and the EU in general are cool with Ireland's taxes. Hell, Ireland could effectively lower the company tax to 1% and that'll be perfectly fine.

by omonra 10y ago

snowwrestler 10y ago

> THAT is the problem - that Apple scored a preferential one-off deal that is not available to most other business operating in Ireland. Apple and Ireland both seem to disagree with this. It's a major point of contention in the case. Anyway, even if Ireland did give Apple a special rate, that would still arguably be "Ireland's rate." I just wanted to illustrate the difference between the EU, where the component nations are the highest taxing authorities and can compete on tax rates (now in question, to some extent), vs. the U.S, where the federal government is the single highest taxing authority. Edit to add: In the EU, multinationals have leverage because they can choose their tax regime. In the U.S. multinationals have little leverage over the federal government. This explains why Apple would expect to have a lower tax rate in the EU than the U.S.

NetStrikeForce 10y ago
Please, stop guessing and stick to the facts. The EC ruled that Ireland's government favoured a company over others (I.e. Unfairly subsidised Apple over the competition), hence why Apple has to give back those subsidies. This is not a tax issue. The EC and the EU in general are cool with Ireland's taxes. Hell, Ireland could effectively lower the company tax to 1% and that'll be perfectly fine.