4 ms·

In the UK they did exactly this: http://www.lawandtax-news.com/asp/UK_Court_Allows_HMRC_To_Impose_Retrospective_Penalties_____41478.html http://www.lawandtax-ne

by robmcm 10y ago

In the UK they did exactly this: http://www.lawandtax-news.com/asp/UK_Court_Allows_HMRC_To_Impose_Retrospective_Penalties_____41478.html http://www.lawandtax-news.com/asp/UK_Court_Allows_HMRC_To_Im... If you evade tax, you know full well what you are doing, even if it's technically legal you should expect to be retrospectively taxed, especially if you are exploiting the system to such an extreme.

pluma 10y ago
The entire argument against "retroactive" corrections sounds a lot like "you can't punish us because we've been doing this for a really long time and getting away with it until now".
- qaq 10y ago
  the entire argument is that you can not apply laws retroactively.
  - prof_hobart 10y ago
    My reading of the ruling is that the EU are saying that it's always been illegal under EU law, but that the Irish government had pretended that it wasn't. What it looks like they are trying to do is apply a legally compliant level of taxes retroactively, not laws.
  - baq 10y ago
    which is not the case here.
  - moomin 10y ago
    We should apply this to murder as well. (Yeah, I know you're saying it was legal under Irish law, but the whole point is that some Irish laws take precedence over others. In this case, their treaty obligations to the EU, codified in their laws, take precedence. If this wasn't the case there wouldn't even be a court case, much less a judgement.)
  - pedrocr 10y ago
    That's a broken argument since what they are stating is that a higher law was broken. It's also not always the case that laws do not apply retroactively: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
  - andrepd 10y ago
    But you can, because the tax breaks we unlawful this whole time! That is the entire point. If I break into a warehouse and steal a TV every day for years can I just argue "ok I'll stop but you can't punish me because you can't apply the law retroactively"?
  - themihai 10y ago
    It's not retroactive! The law was not passed today! It was there from the beginning. It's just that Apple didn't care until today when they were told to pay. So suddenly they don't want to pay what they own because the 'didn't know' so they call this "retroactive" even if it's very much not retroactive at all.
  - pluma 10y ago
    So you're saying, if I rob you today and you don't get around to reporting the crime until next year, I should walk free? There are actually limits to how far back the dodged taxes can be collected. That's why it's only $13bn. That's what has been due since 2003. This entire thing actually goes back since the 1990s. Also, we're not even talking about criminal charges or fines here. Apple isn't being sued or facing any punishment. The EC has merely ruled that Apple didn't pay all the taxes it legally owed Ireland and Ireland didn't have the authority to allow them not to pay the taxes in the first place. This is akin to a janitor charged with collecting rent for the landlord telling you for years that it's okay for you to pay pennies to live in your mansion until the landlord finds out about it and now demands you pay the $$$ you owe him because the janitor was never legally in a position to make that kind of deal and you're actually a highly paid expert in rental contracts and were fully aware of the deal having no legal basis to begin with. This decision can't have been a surprise to Apple. Seeing this kind of thing coming is what they pay very expensive legal experts for. They knew EU law overruled the Irish laws that supposedly allowed this deal in the first place. They're only crying foul because they were caught.
  - DashRattlesnake 10y ago
    > the entire argument is that you can not apply laws retroactively. That only applies to new laws.
marcoperaza 10y ago
How very sad, another erosion of fundamental common law principles in the UK. In the last couple of decades, the UK has abolished the right to remain silent, the right to a public trial by jury, the protection against double jeopardy, the writ of habeas corpus, and the lack of ex post facto laws. Freedom of speech has become very qualified as well, with bans on various forms of "hate speech", and the freedom of assembly has also been seriously curtailed.
- andrepd 10y ago
  You forgot "the end is nigh". And sources, you forgot those too.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    The Wikipedia article on civil liberties in the UK is a good starting point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties_in_the_United_Kingdom#21st_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties_in_the_United_... Selections: Criminal Justice Act 2003, abrogated double jeopardy in cases with "new and compelling evidence". Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, created an offence of inciting religious hatred, an advanced notification scheme for protests up to 1 kilometre from Parliament. Terrorism Act 2006, following the bombings in London on the 7th of July, this legislation allows for people suspected of terrorist offences to be detained without charge for up to 28 days. Here's someone's blog post listing things that would be legal in the US but not in the UK, citing the specific laws or constitutional provisions in each that make it so. https://prestonbyrne.com/2016/01/06/the-american-english-civil-liberties-comparison-table/ https://prestonbyrne.com/2016/01/06/the-american-english-civ...
- al452 10y ago
  "In the UK"??? Check your geography.
sqldba 10y ago
LOL. There's no "even if it's technically legal". It's legal or it's not. The police aren't going to let you go from something because you were only "technically breaking the law."
- onion2k 10y ago
  It's possible to for something to be technically legal according to the letter of the law, but still be breaking the spirit of the law and consequently considered illegal by some. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law
- kalleboo 10y ago
  I see you're a fan of Ethereum! Oh wait, actually even the people who wrote a system for unchangeable, code-backed legal documents don't believe in the letter of the law.
hota_mazi 10y ago
They didn't evade taxes, they avoided them. There's a big difference. The latter is legal, the former is not. Apple did not do anything wrong from what I can see: they were given a good deal, they took it. It turns out that deal was illegal so they have to pay some money to rectify the error. Doesn't seem very fair but governments are pretty unforgiving when it comes to taxes overall.

by robmcm 10y ago

pluma 10y ago

The entire argument against "retroactive" corrections sounds a lot like "you can't punish us because we've been doing this for a really long time and getting away with it until now".

qaq 10y ago
the entire argument is that you can not apply laws retroactively.
- prof_hobart 10y ago
  My reading of the ruling is that the EU are saying that it's always been illegal under EU law, but that the Irish government had pretended that it wasn't. What it looks like they are trying to do is apply a legally compliant level of taxes retroactively, not laws.
- baq 10y ago
  which is not the case here.
- moomin 10y ago
  We should apply this to murder as well. (Yeah, I know you're saying it was legal under Irish law, but the whole point is that some Irish laws take precedence over others. In this case, their treaty obligations to the EU, codified in their laws, take precedence. If this wasn't the case there wouldn't even be a court case, much less a judgement.)
- pedrocr 10y ago
  That's a broken argument since what they are stating is that a higher law was broken. It's also not always the case that laws do not apply retroactively: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
- andrepd 10y ago
  But you can, because the tax breaks we unlawful this whole time! That is the entire point. If I break into a warehouse and steal a TV every day for years can I just argue "ok I'll stop but you can't punish me because you can't apply the law retroactively"?
- themihai 10y ago
  It's not retroactive! The law was not passed today! It was there from the beginning. It's just that Apple didn't care until today when they were told to pay. So suddenly they don't want to pay what they own because the 'didn't know' so they call this "retroactive" even if it's very much not retroactive at all.
- pluma 10y ago
  So you're saying, if I rob you today and you don't get around to reporting the crime until next year, I should walk free? There are actually limits to how far back the dodged taxes can be collected. That's why it's only $13bn. That's what has been due since 2003. This entire thing actually goes back since the 1990s. Also, we're not even talking about criminal charges or fines here. Apple isn't being sued or facing any punishment. The EC has merely ruled that Apple didn't pay all the taxes it legally owed Ireland and Ireland didn't have the authority to allow them not to pay the taxes in the first place. This is akin to a janitor charged with collecting rent for the landlord telling you for years that it's okay for you to pay pennies to live in your mansion until the landlord finds out about it and now demands you pay the $$$ you owe him because the janitor was never legally in a position to make that kind of deal and you're actually a highly paid expert in rental contracts and were fully aware of the deal having no legal basis to begin with. This decision can't have been a surprise to Apple. Seeing this kind of thing coming is what they pay very expensive legal experts for. They knew EU law overruled the Irish laws that supposedly allowed this deal in the first place. They're only crying foul because they were caught.
- DashRattlesnake 10y ago
  > the entire argument is that you can not apply laws retroactively. That only applies to new laws.

marcoperaza 10y ago

How very sad, another erosion of fundamental common law principles in the UK. In the last couple of decades, the UK has abolished the right to remain silent, the right to a public trial by jury, the protection against double jeopardy, the writ of habeas corpus, and the lack of ex post facto laws. Freedom of speech has become very qualified as well, with bans on various forms of "hate speech", and the freedom of assembly has also been seriously curtailed.

andrepd 10y ago
You forgot "the end is nigh". And sources, you forgot those too.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  The Wikipedia article on civil liberties in the UK is a good starting point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties_in_the_United_Kingdom#21st_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties_in_the_United_... Selections: Criminal Justice Act 2003, abrogated double jeopardy in cases with "new and compelling evidence". Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, created an offence of inciting religious hatred, an advanced notification scheme for protests up to 1 kilometre from Parliament. Terrorism Act 2006, following the bombings in London on the 7th of July, this legislation allows for people suspected of terrorist offences to be detained without charge for up to 28 days. Here's someone's blog post listing things that would be legal in the US but not in the UK, citing the specific laws or constitutional provisions in each that make it so. https://prestonbyrne.com/2016/01/06/the-american-english-civil-liberties-comparison-table/ https://prestonbyrne.com/2016/01/06/the-american-english-civ...
al452 10y ago
"In the UK"??? Check your geography.

sqldba 10y ago

LOL. There's no "even if it's technically legal". It's legal or it's not. The police aren't going to let you go from something because you were only "technically breaking the law."

onion2k 10y ago
It's possible to for something to be technically legal according to the letter of the law, but still be breaking the spirit of the law and consequently considered illegal by some. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law
kalleboo 10y ago
I see you're a fan of Ethereum! Oh wait, actually even the people who wrote a system for unchangeable, code-backed legal documents don't believe in the letter of the law.

hota_mazi 10y ago

They didn't evade taxes, they avoided them. There's a big difference. The latter is legal, the former is not. Apple did not do anything wrong from what I can see: they were given a good deal, they took it. It turns out that deal was illegal so they have to pay some money to rectify the error. Doesn't seem very fair but governments are pretty unforgiving when it comes to taxes overall.