16 ms·

Good. Read how Tim Cook publicly considers Nobel economist Joeseph Stiglitz as a one who do not know what he (Stiglitz) is talking about. Eye opening. Excerpts

by rdslw 10y ago

Good. Read how Tim Cook publicly considers Nobel economist Joeseph Stiglitz as a one who do not know what he (Stiglitz) is talking about. Eye opening. Excerpts from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/wp/2016/08/13/2016/08/13/tim-cook-the-interview-running-apple-is-sort-of-a-lonely-job/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/wp/2016/08/13/2016... Q: What do you say in response to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz’s comments on Bloomberg [television], where he called Apple’s profit reporting in Ireland a “fraud”? Tim Cooks answer: I didn’t hear it. But if anybody said that, they don’t know what they’re talking about. [...] Apple evaded taxes and consider it right :(

georgespencer 10y ago
> Read how Tim Cook publicly considers Nobel economist Joeseph Stiglitz as a one who do not know what he (Stiglitz) is talking about. Eye opening. TC's answer was about repatriating money, not about tax reporting in Ireland. I'm not sure why he chose to answer that question, but the reporter let him get away with answering a totally different question.
Angostura 10y ago
Who committed the "fraud"? Apple, the Irish government, or both?
- Shivetya 10y ago
  The fraud is that there are many who feel no company should be able to shop around for a better tax deal and no country should be allowed to give them. This isn't about fairness but instead so that other countries don't have to correct their spending issues and can inflict the same pain on their contemporaries. Even in the US there are politicians who want to have all states implement similar taxation rules or penalize those who move one state to live in another. The absurdity of taxation rules never ceases to amaze me, let alone the punitive actions of politicians who go after people and groups who don't adhere to their rules. Worse, the EU tends to think of beneficial tax polices to people and corporations as subsidies where in the US the government calls it a tax expenditure. People need to wake up. Taxation view points are closely paralleled to privacy issues. Politicians and many left leaning groups think that all money belongs to government as do most rights. The same goes for privacy rules, in that many think you should have protection only from other individuals and private groups by government does not have to grant the same and in fact can decide how much you should keep.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    > The fraud is that there are many who feel no company should be able to shop around for a better tax deal and no country should be allowed to give them. That is most definitely not fraud. Fraud involves deliberate deception for unlawful gain, none of which are involved in tax shopping.
  - Angostura 10y ago
    > The fraud is that there are many who feel no company should be able to shop around for a better tax deal and no country should be allowed to give them. I don't think 'fraud' means what you think it does.
- kagamine 10y ago
  http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm is the link to the EU press release that answers your question. Irish govt. tax deal is in violation of EU tax law and the EU recommend that the Irish govt. seek recompense to the tune of €13bn plus interest.
  - Angostura 10y ago
    So, the Irish Government's tax deal with Apple violates EU law. I think that's clear. It's not at all clear as to which party if any was committing fraud.
    - kagamine 10y ago
      The fraud part is still only an accusation so far untried by law, but the EU report mentions that: > The two tax rulings issued by Ireland concerned the internal allocation of these profits within Apple Sales International (rather than the wider set-up of Apple's sales operations in Europe). Specifically, they endorsed a split of the profits for tax purposes in Ireland: Under the agreed method, most profits were internally allocated away from Ireland to a "head office" within Apple Sales International. This "head office" was not based in any country and did not have any employees or own premises. Its activities consisted solely of occasional board meetings. Only a fraction of the profits of Apple Sales International were allocated to its Irish branch and subject to tax in Ireland. The remaining vast majority of profits were allocated to the "head office", where they remained untaxed. ... Inforgraphic from same link, notice the text to the left in the red box. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/infographics/2016_07_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/infographics/20...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
fulldecent 10y ago
I am an Apple shareholder. I pay my taxes on capital gains and dividends from AAPL. That's enough tax. Everyone else can STFU TYVM.
fulldecent 10y ago
Krugman is another example of a f* idiot who won a nobel prize.
eru 10y ago
Apple paid taxes according to Irish laws. Is it Apple's problem that Irish law disagrees with EC agreements? (Seems to be Ireland's problem.) If people want companies to pay certain taxes, they should vote for politicians that pass laws that require companies to pay those taxes.. In any case, we should be taxing land value. That's harder to avoid: you can't hide land.
- antr 10y ago
  Just from reading the article: "the Commission says both companies should have been taxed by Ireland on the basis of their worldwide income." "These profits allocated to the 'head offices' were not subject to tax in any country under specific provisions of the Irish tax law, which are no longer in force." It seems it is not an Irish problem, but more a European one, and it appears that there are some technicalities that allow the EU to request Apple to pay taxes. Let's not forget that regardless of Apple complying with local tax authorities, these laws may be against EU treaties... "[the Treaty] generally prohibits State aid unless it is justified by reasons of general economic development"1 Let's see how this pans out. 1: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.html http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en....
- flexie 10y ago
  Yes, it is Apple's problem and no, Apple is not a victim in this thing. The EU treaty is Irish law as well and lawyers from all over the union (myself included) have been looking on at this blatant violation of EU rules for years wondering how long multinational companies would be able to keep the schemes alive. The Irish people have voted for politicians who adopted the EU treaty which bans subsidies to large corporations. The Irish people benefits when subsidies to French, British or German corporations are curbed. Under EU law, Apple has been obliged to pay ordinary Irish taxes all along. The whole arrangement has clearly been illegal and it is hardly a surprise to Apple and its army of lawyers and accountants that sooner or later justice would catch up. Competitors that cannot secure such individual tax agreements are hurt by this. I sincerely hope that other multinationals with similar schemes will be next. Apple will likely bring this ruling before the European Court of Justice but it is very unlikely that they will succeed in changing the outcome. From a legal point of view this is a very simple matter and it is an embarrassment to the whole EU system that it took so long to do something about it and that other multinationals still enjoy tax subsidies in Ireland (and likely elsewhere in the union).
threeseed 10y ago
This is NOT a fraud and any characterisation of it being so is ridiculous and wrong. Apple followed the law. End of story. The issue is that the EU found that the law was illegal under state aid rules.
- pfortuny 10y ago
  Well the problem is that the EU has a legal structure and if you want to do business in IE then you have to abide by EU's rules. So it is AAPL's lawyers' fault, in the end. Hence, AAPL's. This is another issue why I am strongly against the EU. You can find out that a country is behaving illegally when WRITING ITS OWN LAWS... So you cannot even be sure to be abiding by the law if you obey a country's laws.
  - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
    > This is another issue why I am strongly against the EU. You can find out that a country is behaving illegally when WRITING ITS OWN LAWS... That's true whenever you have international treaties. The WTO has plenty of clauses that go very close to disallowing this type of stuff in slightly different contexts. Same applies to the states within the US. They are bound by federal law in many ways.
  - ch4ck 10y ago
    This is false. EU rules have to be transposed into members states' national law to be binding. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_by_governance_tool/transposition/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_b...
    - germanier 10y ago
      1) This rule is part of the treaty in which Ireland joined the EU - which was the very first thing added to Irish law. 2) That treaty (which is part of Irish law) allows for certain kind of EU laws (called "regulations") to be directly binding without the Irish lawmakers needing to do something actively. Your link covers another kind of EU laws (called "directives") which in fact have to be transposed before becoming directly enforcecable. However that treaty (which, remember, is part of Irish law) forces the Irish lawmakers to actually transpose them. If they fail they open the country up for litigiation which makes directives indirectly binding.

by rdslw 10y ago

georgespencer 10y ago

> Read how Tim Cook publicly considers Nobel economist Joeseph Stiglitz as a one who do not know what he (Stiglitz) is talking about. Eye opening. TC's answer was about repatriating money, not about tax reporting in Ireland. I'm not sure why he chose to answer that question, but the reporter let him get away with answering a totally different question.

Angostura 10y ago

Who committed the "fraud"? Apple, the Irish government, or both?

Shivetya 10y ago
The fraud is that there are many who feel no company should be able to shop around for a better tax deal and no country should be allowed to give them. This isn't about fairness but instead so that other countries don't have to correct their spending issues and can inflict the same pain on their contemporaries. Even in the US there are politicians who want to have all states implement similar taxation rules or penalize those who move one state to live in another. The absurdity of taxation rules never ceases to amaze me, let alone the punitive actions of politicians who go after people and groups who don't adhere to their rules. Worse, the EU tends to think of beneficial tax polices to people and corporations as subsidies where in the US the government calls it a tax expenditure. People need to wake up. Taxation view points are closely paralleled to privacy issues. Politicians and many left leaning groups think that all money belongs to government as do most rights. The same goes for privacy rules, in that many think you should have protection only from other individuals and private groups by government does not have to grant the same and in fact can decide how much you should keep.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  > The fraud is that there are many who feel no company should be able to shop around for a better tax deal and no country should be allowed to give them. That is most definitely not fraud. Fraud involves deliberate deception for unlawful gain, none of which are involved in tax shopping.
- Angostura 10y ago
  > The fraud is that there are many who feel no company should be able to shop around for a better tax deal and no country should be allowed to give them. I don't think 'fraud' means what you think it does.
kagamine 10y ago
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm is the link to the EU press release that answers your question. Irish govt. tax deal is in violation of EU tax law and the EU recommend that the Irish govt. seek recompense to the tune of €13bn plus interest.
- Angostura 10y ago
  So, the Irish Government's tax deal with Apple violates EU law. I think that's clear. It's not at all clear as to which party if any was committing fraud.
  - kagamine 10y ago
    The fraud part is still only an accusation so far untried by law, but the EU report mentions that: > The two tax rulings issued by Ireland concerned the internal allocation of these profits within Apple Sales International (rather than the wider set-up of Apple's sales operations in Europe). Specifically, they endorsed a split of the profits for tax purposes in Ireland: Under the agreed method, most profits were internally allocated away from Ireland to a "head office" within Apple Sales International. This "head office" was not based in any country and did not have any employees or own premises. Its activities consisted solely of occasional board meetings. Only a fraction of the profits of Apple Sales International were allocated to its Irish branch and subject to tax in Ireland. The remaining vast majority of profits were allocated to the "head office", where they remained untaxed. ... Inforgraphic from same link, notice the text to the left in the red box. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/infographics/2016_07_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/infographics/20...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

fulldecent 10y ago

I am an Apple shareholder. I pay my taxes on capital gains and dividends from AAPL. That's enough tax. Everyone else can STFU TYVM.

fulldecent 10y ago

Krugman is another example of a f* idiot who won a nobel prize.

eru 10y ago

Apple paid taxes according to Irish laws. Is it Apple's problem that Irish law disagrees with EC agreements? (Seems to be Ireland's problem.) If people want companies to pay certain taxes, they should vote for politicians that pass laws that require companies to pay those taxes.. In any case, we should be taxing land value. That's harder to avoid: you can't hide land.

antr 10y ago
Just from reading the article: "the Commission says both companies should have been taxed by Ireland on the basis of their worldwide income." "These profits allocated to the 'head offices' were not subject to tax in any country under specific provisions of the Irish tax law, which are no longer in force." It seems it is not an Irish problem, but more a European one, and it appears that there are some technicalities that allow the EU to request Apple to pay taxes. Let's not forget that regardless of Apple complying with local tax authorities, these laws may be against EU treaties... "[the Treaty] generally prohibits State aid unless it is justified by reasons of general economic development"1 Let's see how this pans out. 1: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.html http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en....
flexie 10y ago
Yes, it is Apple's problem and no, Apple is not a victim in this thing. The EU treaty is Irish law as well and lawyers from all over the union (myself included) have been looking on at this blatant violation of EU rules for years wondering how long multinational companies would be able to keep the schemes alive. The Irish people have voted for politicians who adopted the EU treaty which bans subsidies to large corporations. The Irish people benefits when subsidies to French, British or German corporations are curbed. Under EU law, Apple has been obliged to pay ordinary Irish taxes all along. The whole arrangement has clearly been illegal and it is hardly a surprise to Apple and its army of lawyers and accountants that sooner or later justice would catch up. Competitors that cannot secure such individual tax agreements are hurt by this. I sincerely hope that other multinationals with similar schemes will be next. Apple will likely bring this ruling before the European Court of Justice but it is very unlikely that they will succeed in changing the outcome. From a legal point of view this is a very simple matter and it is an embarrassment to the whole EU system that it took so long to do something about it and that other multinationals still enjoy tax subsidies in Ireland (and likely elsewhere in the union).

threeseed 10y ago

This is NOT a fraud and any characterisation of it being so is ridiculous and wrong. Apple followed the law. End of story. The issue is that the EU found that the law was illegal under state aid rules.

pfortuny 10y ago
Well the problem is that the EU has a legal structure and if you want to do business in IE then you have to abide by EU's rules. So it is AAPL's lawyers' fault, in the end. Hence, AAPL's. This is another issue why I am strongly against the EU. You can find out that a country is behaving illegally when WRITING ITS OWN LAWS... So you cannot even be sure to be abiding by the law if you obey a country's laws.
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  > This is another issue why I am strongly against the EU. You can find out that a country is behaving illegally when WRITING ITS OWN LAWS... That's true whenever you have international treaties. The WTO has plenty of clauses that go very close to disallowing this type of stuff in slightly different contexts. Same applies to the states within the US. They are bound by federal law in many ways.
- ch4ck 10y ago
  This is false. EU rules have to be transposed into members states' national law to be binding. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_by_governance_tool/transposition/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_b...
  - germanier 10y ago
    1) This rule is part of the treaty in which Ireland joined the EU - which was the very first thing added to Irish law. 2) That treaty (which is part of Irish law) allows for certain kind of EU laws (called "regulations") to be directly binding without the Irish lawmakers needing to do something actively. Your link covers another kind of EU laws (called "directives") which in fact have to be transposed before becoming directly enforcecable. However that treaty (which, remember, is part of Irish law) forces the Irish lawmakers to actually transpose them. If they fail they open the country up for litigiation which makes directives indirectly binding.