4 ms·
For years Cook and others have been taking the stance that they are just following the laws and if people want them to pay more tax then they should get the law
by zmmmmm 10y ago
For years Cook and others have been taking the stance that they are just following the laws and if people want them to pay more tax then they should get the law changed, and then Apple will happily comply. Now we see the hypocrisy: when faced with actual law saying they should pay tax do they actually happily agree to pay the tax? No, they turn around and say that they object to the law and argue the law is invalid. So what we have here is not a good corporate citizen just happily paying what taxes it is due. What we have is just like any corporation: an entity that will cynically seek to avoid and minimize its tax using any argument available and they have absolutely no interest in paying their "fair share" or contributing back to society under any tax system. So we have to just remember this next time they say "Well if you want more tax, change the law" because that is a completely insincere lie on their part.
- Angostura 10y agoI think there is a difference between saying 'we comply with the law' and being happy when someone retrospectively changes the law and then demands n years payments under the new rules.
- jbmorgado 10y agoNobody changed the law retrospectively. The EU law always existed and Apple obviously knew about it. If Apple asked for the state of Texas for a tax cut in the state of New York and then got fined for not paying their taxes you wouldn't call name it "retrospectively".
- walkingolof 10y agoNothing is changed retrospectively, in the EU you cant give one company a tax break. Ireland knew this, but went ahead and did it anyway, Apple knew this too, and took a chance.
- d_theorist 10y agoIt appears that this is the crux of the disagreement. Does the loophole that Apple used constitute "giving one company a tax break"? There seem to be reasonable arguments on both sides.
- walkingolof 10y agoYes, simplest way to validate this is to go to Ireland and try the same thing, I pretty sure you will end up paying 12.5% tax no matter what.
- marktheknife 10y agoYou would now that they've changed their law. You would not have even a few years back. Apple's structures are a correct reading of international tax rules. The rules should be changed; Apple should not be punished for following the law.
- james1071 10y agoYes-that is exactly what this case is about.
- sharemywin 10y agoI sure you would see ads form them against any kind of law lake that too.