3 ms·

Is this really that simple? Is the EC actually trying to apply a retroactive law?

by sudhirj 10y ago

jmfayard 10y ago
Treaty of Rome and its state aid rules => 1957 Ireland accession to the EU => 1973 I don't think http://curia.europa.eu/ http://curia.europa.eu/ will be very impressed by those arguments
snovv_crash 10y ago
No, they're saying it has been illegal all along, even if Ireland pretended otherwise.
louhike 10y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know the European law is prioritary before its nations'laws (except constitution). Apple took advantage of Irish law. What is retroactive here is the payment of taxes, not the law.
kbart 10y ago
"Is the EC actually trying to apply a retroactive law?" No. The whole agreement between Apple and Ireland was deemed illegal by EC[1], so now they must pay avoided taxes. You can't demand keeping stolen goods after being caught stealing. 1. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm
Someone 10y ago
In a sense: yes. Apple made a deal with Ireland as to their taxation; the EU ruled it illegal, and judged that both parties must act like the agreement was never there. That means Apple is due taxes to Ireland. In a sense, Ireland is the guilty party. They entered the EU; that means they agreed with its rules. Later they made an agreement with Apple that is now ruled illegal in the EU. Yet, they will profit (in the short term) if this ruling will stand. Note that Apple's only published issue is with the retroactive part. Open question is whether Apple handled in good faith making that deal. I do not rule out judges would rule they did, because there are zillions of such deals, and because the EU doesn't mention anything about fining Apple (they 'just' have to pay the taxes they are due, with interest)
- themihai 10y ago
  I doubt the deal was in good faith. They have an army of lawyers so most likely they knew about this it but took the risk.
  - Someone 10y ago
    I don't think that implies not being in good faith. Bad faith would be if they knew the EU would rule this illegal, but still continued with this. You pay your army of lawyers avoid that. You want to walk extremely close to the edge, but not drop from it.
    - themihai 10y ago
      The fact is that it was illegal. It didn't need a rule to decide its legality. I can only speculate that they didn't expect to be forced to pay all the tax back. Perhaps they expected a kind of warning given the local government was on their side. There were/are others doing this (i.e. Microsoft,Google etc) so they decided to stick with the herd.

Is this really that simple? Is the EC actually trying to apply a retroactive law?

by sudhirj 10y ago

Is this really that simple? Is the EC actually trying to apply a retroactive law?

Treaty of Rome and its state aid rules => 1957 Ireland accession to the EU => 1973 I don't think http://curia.europa.eu/ http://curia.europa.eu/ will be very impressed by those arguments

snovv_crash 10y ago

No, they're saying it has been illegal all along, even if Ireland pretended otherwise.

louhike 10y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know the European law is prioritary before its nations'laws (except constitution). Apple took advantage of Irish law. What is retroactive here is the payment of taxes, not the law.

kbart 10y ago

"Is the EC actually trying to apply a retroactive law?" No. The whole agreement between Apple and Ireland was deemed illegal by EC[1], so now they must pay avoided taxes. You can't demand keeping stolen goods after being caught stealing. 1. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm

Someone 10y ago

In a sense: yes. Apple made a deal with Ireland as to their taxation; the EU ruled it illegal, and judged that both parties must act like the agreement was never there. That means Apple is due taxes to Ireland. In a sense, Ireland is the guilty party. They entered the EU; that means they agreed with its rules. Later they made an agreement with Apple that is now ruled illegal in the EU. Yet, they will profit (in the short term) if this ruling will stand. Note that Apple's only published issue is with the retroactive part. Open question is whether Apple handled in good faith making that deal. I do not rule out judges would rule they did, because there are zillions of such deals, and because the EU doesn't mention anything about fining Apple (they 'just' have to pay the taxes they are due, with interest)

themihai 10y ago
I doubt the deal was in good faith. They have an army of lawyers so most likely they knew about this it but took the risk.
- Someone 10y ago
  I don't think that implies not being in good faith. Bad faith would be if they knew the EU would rule this illegal, but still continued with this. You pay your army of lawyers avoid that. You want to walk extremely close to the edge, but not drop from it.
  - themihai 10y ago
    The fact is that it was illegal. It didn't need a rule to decide its legality. I can only speculate that they didn't expect to be forced to pay all the tax back. Perhaps they expected a kind of warning given the local government was on their side. There were/are others doing this (i.e. Microsoft,Google etc) so they decided to stick with the herd.