6 ms·

> The EU seems to be overstepping its bounds and trying a powergrab, last two times I voted YES on EU referendums we had clear promises that EU will not involve

by Svip 10y ago

> The EU seems to be overstepping its bounds and trying a powergrab, last two times I voted YES on EU referendums we had clear promises that EU will not involve themselves in a members tax policy, i feel I was lied to. The EU sees the beneficial tax rebates for Apple to be an unfair state subsidy under EU competition laws. In the eyes of the EU, this is not about tax policy, this is about competition policy, something the EU very much has an interest in having a say in (sort of the whole purpose of the EU, if you think about it).

neximo64 10y ago
However way you look at it, Ireland is being weaselled into collecting this against its will using a legal route the EU should not have the right to walk on in any fashion. It was agreed on the EU would not interfere with tax affairs a long time ago, this does exactly that. The exact way it was done is irrelevant, it is the result that is the issue. In the UK it was said when legislation from the EU was rejected or sent for revision, it would be sent back in another chapter of an irrelevant part of a policy document on another issue. This is what used to anger lawmakers. The way of getting things done is never through the front door (going at taxes directly), it's always using a backhand trick to get around to managing policy (competition policy), which is quite underhanded. While it is wonderful that Apple will now be paying taxes, who's to say this power will not be abused by the commission in future?
- Svip 10y ago
  But how is that going to work out if Ireland can simply use its tax policy to circumvent EU competition laws? I am sure part of the deal that the EU would stay out of Irish tax policy was that Ireland would not use tax policy to circumvent other EU laws/regulations/treaties.
  - neximo64 10y ago
    The basis of the agreement that the EU would not interfere with tax policy was precisely so that states could compete against each other. This means the basis the commission is using, unfair competitive advantage, goes against the basis of this tax treaty. If Ireland was to circumvent other treaties that is an issue, but on the basis of competition it is most definitely unfair to the Irish state. This isn't the first time the EU has intervened with taxes in Ireland, the other is the water levy. It's getting ridiculous now. Its a country gradually being micromanaged.
    - Svip 10y ago
      > so that states could compete against each other. To a point. One thing is maintaining a low corporate tax (no one in the EU has a problem with Ireland's 12.5% corporate tax), another thing - and entirely distinct - is giving select companies tax rebates for no other reasons other than to encourage those companies to operate in Ireland. That's an unfair state subsidy and that's not cool in the EU. Because the same deal is not offered to other companies.
      - neximo64 10y ago
        If it's unfair, why cannot someone challenge it in an Irish court to get the same treatment, where does this whole EU business come in? Why should the EU have a say in how a country sets its tax affairs? This is contrary to the treaty. This is an Irish issue where it could be challenged in an Irish court, now Ireland is challenging this in an EU court - what?
        Svip 10y ago
        I assume because no one in Ireland was doing it? It's clear Ireland has no interest in taking up the case. And who in Ireland has the time and money to take on both Apple and the Irish state in court?
        neximo64 10y ago
        They could have set a precedent by challenging it in an Irish court, to extend the benefits to all businesses in Ireland. They instead challenged Ireland in an EU court.
  - throwaway1974 10y ago
    removed, no point talking politics on a tech site
    - Oletros 10y ago
      > To turn around now and assert the later is a slap on the cheek and potentially the beginning of a slippery slope to a United States of Europe. They are not doing that. And the ruling explicitly say that they don't have a problem with the Irish tax policy
    - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
      How would Texans feel if th federal government slapped the state government in the wrist because the state government restricted the right to bear arms to only the super rich? How defenceless would the average Joe feel? If you're going to do analogies, first please understand the topic you're talking about.
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  Again, this is not a tax issue, it is a competition issue. Apple is getting an unfair advantage against other companies, while driving a race to the bottom on taxes paid. It is not just illegal (and IMHO they should be fined on top of the back taxes they're required to pay - Irish government should be fined too), but also immoral. Even worse, Tim Cook's open letter is an insult for Europe's citizens and of extremely poor taste. I've owned several iPhones, Mac laptops and iPads; that ends now. I'm not buying a single Apple device more and I won't spend a penny in their App Store for the devices I have. If Apple doesn't want to pay the price to sell to me (which is to play fair so we can keep our system running), they can pretty much get out of the EU.
  - neximo64 10y ago
    Is is a tax and competition issue. The Irish government has given Apple an advantage using taxes. Thing is, taxes always give someone an advantage and the agreement with the EU member states is that because taxes can give countries an advantage over one an another and it being a contentious issue, the EU will not intervene in it. The issue of taxes supersedes the issue of competition.
    - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
      Again, for the third time, this is not a tax issue. Low taxes are fine. There are countries with very low tax inside of or in the sphere of influence of the EU (Andorra, Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Luxembourg, The City of London, ...). If Ireland wants to keep this deal going, they have it easy: Change the tax to be 0.005% instead of more than 12%. That's for everyone, not just for Apple and potentially a few other big companies. This is purely looking after the free market and ending unfair state subsidies, it is not about low taxes. if Ireland has a company tax of 0.005% they'll be competing and they'll also spur fair competition inside the country. What we have here is Apple corrupting a government to go against their citizens and their neighbours, by effectively lowering their cost to trade in the EU compared to their competition (Android handset manufacturers as an example).
      - 10y ago
- runesoerensen 10y ago
  > using a legal route the EU should not have the right to walk on in any fashion. By all means, do explain why the EU does not have this right. > The exact way it was done is irrelevant, it is the result that is the issue. I hate to repeat myself, but please do explain -- it would most certainly seem that the EU has an interest in tax and competition affairs such as these. Moreover, individual EU member states as well as every company competing against Apple have interests in this. It's pretty silly to say that "the exact way it's done is irrelevant" -- in complex international tax/competition affairs the "exact way" things are done means all the difference. I'm not familiar with all the tax regulations of the EU, but I have to say that statements such as yours need to be substantiated with sources that support your arguments (and I'd genuinely be interested in seeing those). Otherwise this should just be considered a political statement and/or your opinion on the matter - if that's the case, please clarify that.
  - neximo64 10y ago
    The EU does not have this right, as per the treaties creating the EU the EU has no say in a countries tax affairs - at all. Everyone agreed to that, to stop the EU stiffling competition between states. There's not much to say, the EU simply does not have the right to interfere with tax affairs, at the treaty level. It's all well and good they have an interest in it, but no actual say.
    - runesoerensen 10y ago
      Can you please substantiate your statements with sources (so as to avoid a situation where this turns into a purely political debate)? You seem very confident that the EU has no right to do what it's doing. I hope you have reason to be so confident based on actual treaties, law and agreements. If you do, it should be easy to prove. If you don't, you should be ignored.
      - neximo64 10y ago
        Treaty of Lisbon (Relevant webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general-information-taxation/eu-tax-policy-strategy/lisbon-treaty-tax-legislation-eu_en http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general-information-tax...) Basically for tax matters, unanimous approval is required. Except when it involves getting rid of double taxation.
throwaway1974 10y ago
I have heard that argument being made and like I said as a small business owner here it does piss me off that likes of Apple get preferential treatment from the taxman (but not surprised). But if that is the case then the matter should be handled via courts, Revenue and the Gardai(police). Who made the EU Commission the judge, jury and executioner? You have to remember the EU is not the US, it is a much looser union where member states apparently meant to have most of the power, so in this case it seems there is somesort of powergrab and I do not like it I voted for Europe in each and every referendum but I do feel like i was lied to when it comes to all the assurances made about states being able to make their own tax policy. This Apple thing could open a pandoras box and could be a slide towards a more federal Europe, something that myself and I assume alot of people here and across europe do not want.
- Svip 10y ago
  > Who made the EU Commission the judge, jury and executioner? I don't think this is a fair assessment of the case. The EU Commission have accused Apple and Ireland of unfair competition. They now have time to appeal that decision, after which it will be put before the EU high court, a court that is entirely distinct from the Commission. Think of the EU Commission more as a police investigation, one which one has the opportunity to appeal through the judicial system. Hell, I am not even sure the Commission counts as any of judge, jury and executioner.
  - throwaway1974 10y ago
    removed, no point talking politics on a tech site
    - jsnell 10y ago
      But this case has nothing to with tax harmonization. It's about illegal state subsidies given to a specific company, with a tax ruling just being a vehicle for the subsidy.
      - 10y ago

by Svip 10y ago

neximo64 10y ago

However way you look at it, Ireland is being weaselled into collecting this against its will using a legal route the EU should not have the right to walk on in any fashion. It was agreed on the EU would not interfere with tax affairs a long time ago, this does exactly that. The exact way it was done is irrelevant, it is the result that is the issue. In the UK it was said when legislation from the EU was rejected or sent for revision, it would be sent back in another chapter of an irrelevant part of a policy document on another issue. This is what used to anger lawmakers. The way of getting things done is never through the front door (going at taxes directly), it's always using a backhand trick to get around to managing policy (competition policy), which is quite underhanded. While it is wonderful that Apple will now be paying taxes, who's to say this power will not be abused by the commission in future?

Svip 10y ago
But how is that going to work out if Ireland can simply use its tax policy to circumvent EU competition laws? I am sure part of the deal that the EU would stay out of Irish tax policy was that Ireland would not use tax policy to circumvent other EU laws/regulations/treaties.
- neximo64 10y ago
  The basis of the agreement that the EU would not interfere with tax policy was precisely so that states could compete against each other. This means the basis the commission is using, unfair competitive advantage, goes against the basis of this tax treaty. If Ireland was to circumvent other treaties that is an issue, but on the basis of competition it is most definitely unfair to the Irish state. This isn't the first time the EU has intervened with taxes in Ireland, the other is the water levy. It's getting ridiculous now. Its a country gradually being micromanaged.
  - Svip 10y ago
    > so that states could compete against each other. To a point. One thing is maintaining a low corporate tax (no one in the EU has a problem with Ireland's 12.5% corporate tax), another thing - and entirely distinct - is giving select companies tax rebates for no other reasons other than to encourage those companies to operate in Ireland. That's an unfair state subsidy and that's not cool in the EU. Because the same deal is not offered to other companies.
    - neximo64 10y ago
      If it's unfair, why cannot someone challenge it in an Irish court to get the same treatment, where does this whole EU business come in? Why should the EU have a say in how a country sets its tax affairs? This is contrary to the treaty. This is an Irish issue where it could be challenged in an Irish court, now Ireland is challenging this in an EU court - what?
      - Svip 10y ago
        I assume because no one in Ireland was doing it? It's clear Ireland has no interest in taking up the case. And who in Ireland has the time and money to take on both Apple and the Irish state in court?
        neximo64 10y ago
        They could have set a precedent by challenging it in an Irish court, to extend the benefits to all businesses in Ireland. They instead challenged Ireland in an EU court.
- throwaway1974 10y ago
  removed, no point talking politics on a tech site
  - Oletros 10y ago
    > To turn around now and assert the later is a slap on the cheek and potentially the beginning of a slippery slope to a United States of Europe. They are not doing that. And the ruling explicitly say that they don't have a problem with the Irish tax policy
  - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
    How would Texans feel if th federal government slapped the state government in the wrist because the state government restricted the right to bear arms to only the super rich? How defenceless would the average Joe feel? If you're going to do analogies, first please understand the topic you're talking about.
NetStrikeForce 10y ago
Again, this is not a tax issue, it is a competition issue. Apple is getting an unfair advantage against other companies, while driving a race to the bottom on taxes paid. It is not just illegal (and IMHO they should be fined on top of the back taxes they're required to pay - Irish government should be fined too), but also immoral. Even worse, Tim Cook's open letter is an insult for Europe's citizens and of extremely poor taste. I've owned several iPhones, Mac laptops and iPads; that ends now. I'm not buying a single Apple device more and I won't spend a penny in their App Store for the devices I have. If Apple doesn't want to pay the price to sell to me (which is to play fair so we can keep our system running), they can pretty much get out of the EU.
- neximo64 10y ago
  Is is a tax and competition issue. The Irish government has given Apple an advantage using taxes. Thing is, taxes always give someone an advantage and the agreement with the EU member states is that because taxes can give countries an advantage over one an another and it being a contentious issue, the EU will not intervene in it. The issue of taxes supersedes the issue of competition.
  - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
    Again, for the third time, this is not a tax issue. Low taxes are fine. There are countries with very low tax inside of or in the sphere of influence of the EU (Andorra, Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Luxembourg, The City of London, ...). If Ireland wants to keep this deal going, they have it easy: Change the tax to be 0.005% instead of more than 12%. That's for everyone, not just for Apple and potentially a few other big companies. This is purely looking after the free market and ending unfair state subsidies, it is not about low taxes. if Ireland has a company tax of 0.005% they'll be competing and they'll also spur fair competition inside the country. What we have here is Apple corrupting a government to go against their citizens and their neighbours, by effectively lowering their cost to trade in the EU compared to their competition (Android handset manufacturers as an example).
    - 10y ago
runesoerensen 10y ago
> using a legal route the EU should not have the right to walk on in any fashion. By all means, do explain why the EU does not have this right. > The exact way it was done is irrelevant, it is the result that is the issue. I hate to repeat myself, but please do explain -- it would most certainly seem that the EU has an interest in tax and competition affairs such as these. Moreover, individual EU member states as well as every company competing against Apple have interests in this. It's pretty silly to say that "the exact way it's done is irrelevant" -- in complex international tax/competition affairs the "exact way" things are done means all the difference. I'm not familiar with all the tax regulations of the EU, but I have to say that statements such as yours need to be substantiated with sources that support your arguments (and I'd genuinely be interested in seeing those). Otherwise this should just be considered a political statement and/or your opinion on the matter - if that's the case, please clarify that.
- neximo64 10y ago
  The EU does not have this right, as per the treaties creating the EU the EU has no say in a countries tax affairs - at all. Everyone agreed to that, to stop the EU stiffling competition between states. There's not much to say, the EU simply does not have the right to interfere with tax affairs, at the treaty level. It's all well and good they have an interest in it, but no actual say.
  - runesoerensen 10y ago
    Can you please substantiate your statements with sources (so as to avoid a situation where this turns into a purely political debate)? You seem very confident that the EU has no right to do what it's doing. I hope you have reason to be so confident based on actual treaties, law and agreements. If you do, it should be easy to prove. If you don't, you should be ignored.
    - neximo64 10y ago
      Treaty of Lisbon (Relevant webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general-information-taxation/eu-tax-policy-strategy/lisbon-treaty-tax-legislation-eu_en http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general-information-tax...) Basically for tax matters, unanimous approval is required. Except when it involves getting rid of double taxation.

throwaway1974 10y ago

I have heard that argument being made and like I said as a small business owner here it does piss me off that likes of Apple get preferential treatment from the taxman (but not surprised). But if that is the case then the matter should be handled via courts, Revenue and the Gardai(police). Who made the EU Commission the judge, jury and executioner? You have to remember the EU is not the US, it is a much looser union where member states apparently meant to have most of the power, so in this case it seems there is somesort of powergrab and I do not like it I voted for Europe in each and every referendum but I do feel like i was lied to when it comes to all the assurances made about states being able to make their own tax policy. This Apple thing could open a pandoras box and could be a slide towards a more federal Europe, something that myself and I assume alot of people here and across europe do not want.

Svip 10y ago
> Who made the EU Commission the judge, jury and executioner? I don't think this is a fair assessment of the case. The EU Commission have accused Apple and Ireland of unfair competition. They now have time to appeal that decision, after which it will be put before the EU high court, a court that is entirely distinct from the Commission. Think of the EU Commission more as a police investigation, one which one has the opportunity to appeal through the judicial system. Hell, I am not even sure the Commission counts as any of judge, jury and executioner.
- throwaway1974 10y ago
  removed, no point talking politics on a tech site
  - jsnell 10y ago
    But this case has nothing to with tax harmonization. It's about illegal state subsidies given to a specific company, with a tax ruling just being a vehicle for the subsidy.
    - 10y ago