5 ms·

Apple innocently, and unknowingly, buy a stolen and ringed car. A chance check reveals the car to be stolen - Apple lose the car regardless of them believing i

Apple innocently, and unknowingly, buy a stolen and ringed car. A chance check reveals the car to be stolen - Apple lose the car regardless of them believing it legitimate. Apple innocently, and unknowingly[1], accept an illegal tax benefit. Apple lose the benefit of the illegal activity. What's the difference? Caveat Emptor for both. Even if you want to consider them the innocent victim they don't get to keep the benefit of a crime. [1] I'm less convinced it's unknowing here - Apple probably have a surfeit of international taxation experts and lawyers.

gambiting 10y ago
In the first case you mentioned, you can absolutely sue the person who sold you a stolen car for your money back. In this case doesn't it follow that Apple could sue Ireland?
- tribaal 10y ago
  In my humble EU citizen's opinion, they certainly should be allowed to. Once they pay their 14B in taxes.
CPLX 10y ago
> innocently, and unknowingly lol
- sjwright 10y ago
  How was Apple supposed to know that Ireland's tax legislation was going to be retrospectively upturned by the EU? Should Tesla be worried that the United States Federal Government might deem Nevada's special tax deal invalid?
  - tobltobs 10y ago
    Maybe they should have asked the EU? If a deal looks to be good to be true it might not be true. If you buy a stolen car from some shaddy guy for much less then it is actual worth it is also your fault.
    - sjwright 10y ago
      Did you get the okay from Obama and the Supreme Court when you purchased that smartphone from South Korea? I heard maybe they'll decide next year to retrospectively ban all goods from the peninsula. Yes, what you said is that ridiculous.
      - tobltobs 10y ago
        [The following reply doesn't make any sense anymore as the parent did retroactively change his reply.] It depends who do you mean with everyone? In this case the only party which should have been asked would have been the EU, which doesn't sound mad at all in my opinion.
      - CPLX 10y ago
        Your analogy fails as it's an irrelevant reference, we're talking about taxes here, not every possible law that could ever exist. If you want to get an opinion from the US Federal Government on how to account for a transaction for tax purposes there is in fact a procedure for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_letter_ruling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_letter_ruling One in the business of importing phones from another country who has questions about competing taxation and tariff rules has many options for getting guidance on the implications of their accounting. And nothing that happened in this matter was shocking or surprising to Apple. They have elaborate tax avoidance schemes. For example, they didn't like trip and fall and land on a convoluted Double Irish arrangement by accident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
  - corecoder 10y ago
    > Should Tesla be worried that the United States Federal Government might deem Nevada's special tax deal invalid? Hell yes, they better have a plan should that happen.
  - CPLX 10y ago
    This is what lawyers do. Apple has tax lawyers. Want to know how you can tell this didn't happen to Apple innocently and unknowingly? If they were actually innocent and unknowing they'd certainly say so, and make a coherent legal argument to back up that point of view. The post we're all commenting on has some bullshit black and white pictures and stories about shit that happened in Cork Ireland in 1980 and Steve Jobs feelings and whatnot. Q.E.D.
talmand 10y ago
From what I'm reading the comparison seems more like after finding out that a person innocently, and unknowingly, borrowed a stolen car that not only are they losing use of the car, they are being forced to buy the car that they won't keep as well. Losing the benefit, sure. Paying back taxes that don't exist nor asked for? There's a problem in there somewhere.
- cptskippy 10y ago
  they are being forced to buy the car that they won't keep as well. So Apple is being forced to buy Ireland? No. Following your borrowed car analogy, Apple finds a gas card in the glove box on the first day and uses the car every day for 4 years and uses the gas card. When it's discovered that the borrowed car is stolen and the gas card wasn't Ireland's, who has to pay the gas card off?
  - talmand 10y ago
    >> So Apple is being forced to buy Ireland? No. Come on, really?
- notahacker 10y ago
  If you want to know what Apple is accused of actually doing, there are better places to find out than a press release from Tim Cook http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm A better analogy would be finding that someone deliberately and knowingly claim mileage expenses at an absurdly high cost per mile in lieu of a larger annual bonus after discussing tax efficient solutions with HR. Would they face a revised tax bill for past years and be expected to stop overclaiming for future years if an authority with more standing than their employer got involved? Of course. Does Apple's team of tax law specialists have more understanding of the potential for such a scheme to be ruled illegal than the average employee? Of course.

gambiting 10y ago

In the first case you mentioned, you can absolutely sue the person who sold you a stolen car for your money back. In this case doesn't it follow that Apple could sue Ireland?

tribaal 10y ago
In my humble EU citizen's opinion, they certainly should be allowed to. Once they pay their 14B in taxes.

CPLX 10y ago

> innocently, and unknowingly lol

sjwright 10y ago
How was Apple supposed to know that Ireland's tax legislation was going to be retrospectively upturned by the EU? Should Tesla be worried that the United States Federal Government might deem Nevada's special tax deal invalid?
- tobltobs 10y ago
  Maybe they should have asked the EU? If a deal looks to be good to be true it might not be true. If you buy a stolen car from some shaddy guy for much less then it is actual worth it is also your fault.
  - sjwright 10y ago
    Did you get the okay from Obama and the Supreme Court when you purchased that smartphone from South Korea? I heard maybe they'll decide next year to retrospectively ban all goods from the peninsula. Yes, what you said is that ridiculous.
    - tobltobs 10y ago
      [The following reply doesn't make any sense anymore as the parent did retroactively change his reply.] It depends who do you mean with everyone? In this case the only party which should have been asked would have been the EU, which doesn't sound mad at all in my opinion.
    - CPLX 10y ago
      Your analogy fails as it's an irrelevant reference, we're talking about taxes here, not every possible law that could ever exist. If you want to get an opinion from the US Federal Government on how to account for a transaction for tax purposes there is in fact a procedure for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_letter_ruling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_letter_ruling One in the business of importing phones from another country who has questions about competing taxation and tariff rules has many options for getting guidance on the implications of their accounting. And nothing that happened in this matter was shocking or surprising to Apple. They have elaborate tax avoidance schemes. For example, they didn't like trip and fall and land on a convoluted Double Irish arrangement by accident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
- corecoder 10y ago
  > Should Tesla be worried that the United States Federal Government might deem Nevada's special tax deal invalid? Hell yes, they better have a plan should that happen.
- CPLX 10y ago
  This is what lawyers do. Apple has tax lawyers. Want to know how you can tell this didn't happen to Apple innocently and unknowingly? If they were actually innocent and unknowing they'd certainly say so, and make a coherent legal argument to back up that point of view. The post we're all commenting on has some bullshit black and white pictures and stories about shit that happened in Cork Ireland in 1980 and Steve Jobs feelings and whatnot. Q.E.D.

talmand 10y ago

From what I'm reading the comparison seems more like after finding out that a person innocently, and unknowingly, borrowed a stolen car that not only are they losing use of the car, they are being forced to buy the car that they won't keep as well. Losing the benefit, sure. Paying back taxes that don't exist nor asked for? There's a problem in there somewhere.

cptskippy 10y ago
they are being forced to buy the car that they won't keep as well. So Apple is being forced to buy Ireland? No. Following your borrowed car analogy, Apple finds a gas card in the glove box on the first day and uses the car every day for 4 years and uses the gas card. When it's discovered that the borrowed car is stolen and the gas card wasn't Ireland's, who has to pay the gas card off?
- talmand 10y ago
  >> So Apple is being forced to buy Ireland? No. Come on, really?
notahacker 10y ago
If you want to know what Apple is accused of actually doing, there are better places to find out than a press release from Tim Cook http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm A better analogy would be finding that someone deliberately and knowingly claim mileage expenses at an absurdly high cost per mile in lieu of a larger annual bonus after discussing tax efficient solutions with HR. Would they face a revised tax bill for past years and be expected to stop overclaiming for future years if an authority with more standing than their employer got involved? Of course. Does Apple's team of tax law specialists have more understanding of the potential for such a scheme to be ruled illegal than the average employee? Of course.