3 ms·
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 l
by 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 agothey 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 agoIf 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.