4 ms·

> But better the grind of multilateral negotiation than moves such as the European Commission’s recent attempt to impose retrospective taxes on Apple in Ireland

by ashark 10y ago

> But better the grind of multilateral negotiation than moves such as the European Commission’s recent attempt to impose retrospective taxes on Apple in Ireland. Uh, isn't that "move" enforcement of the results of multilateral negotiation (the EU and its rules)? What exactly will or should happen when parties of these multilateral negotiations and agreements the column champions violate the rules? I'm guessing it'll resemble a "retrospective tax" so closely that it'd be hard to tell the two apart.

aetherson 10y ago
The EU isn't multilateral. Multilateral would be the EU + the US + Japan + China + other smaller economies, or at least the majority of those players.
- klank 10y ago
  In this context the EU is most certainly multilateral. The laws being evaluated were agreed upon by 28 member states.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - aetherson 10y ago
    Nope, sorry. You're wrong. In this context, multilateral means engaging at least a majority of the biggest economies on the planet. The EU solo-ing it is unilateral, just like the US solo-ing it would be unilateral, even if we described US law as agreed upon by 50 member states.
hencq 10y ago
> Uh, isn't that "move" enforcement of the results of multilateral negotiation (the EU and its rules)? Well in that case, shouldn't it actually be Ireland that got fined instead of retroactively taxing Apple?
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Because Apple didn't pay the tax it owed to Ireland, Ireland should pay something? To whom, Apple? What could justify that?
  - detaro 10y ago
    Ireland is the one (accused to be) violating treaties it signed, with the goal of getting an advantage over other signatories, so it is not unlogical that it could be fined in some way for doing so.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    Ireland set the tax rate that Apple complied with. Ireland is accused of providing a state funding to Apple by setting that low rate. (I didn't downvote you).
    - _delirium 10y ago
      This isn't specific to Apple or Ireland (or even taxes) fwiw. Ordering the company to pay back the subsidy is a normal part of the remedy for subsidies found to violate EU anti-subsidy regulations. The intent is to make it ineffective for a country to pay out subsidies, because they will in the end not have the intended effect, as the company won't get to keep the money. If the remedy were a fine levied on the subsidizing state, but without required repayment, illegal subsidies would have their intended effect of actually subsidizing the target firm (they'd just become more expensive, because the fine would become part of the cost of the subsidy). For example, when Real Madrid was found to have been unlawfully subsidized by a local Spanish government earlier this year (they were given €18.4m as compensation for a land transfer that fell through), they were ordered to repay the €18.4m [1]. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36706262 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36706262

by ashark 10y ago

aetherson 10y ago

The EU isn't multilateral. Multilateral would be the EU + the US + Japan + China + other smaller economies, or at least the majority of those players.

klank 10y ago
In this context the EU is most certainly multilateral. The laws being evaluated were agreed upon by 28 member states.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- aetherson 10y ago
  Nope, sorry. You're wrong. In this context, multilateral means engaging at least a majority of the biggest economies on the planet. The EU solo-ing it is unilateral, just like the US solo-ing it would be unilateral, even if we described US law as agreed upon by 50 member states.

hencq 10y ago

> Uh, isn't that "move" enforcement of the results of multilateral negotiation (the EU and its rules)? Well in that case, shouldn't it actually be Ireland that got fined instead of retroactively taxing Apple?

jessaustin 10y ago
Because Apple didn't pay the tax it owed to Ireland, Ireland should pay something? To whom, Apple? What could justify that?
- detaro 10y ago
  Ireland is the one (accused to be) violating treaties it signed, with the goal of getting an advantage over other signatories, so it is not unlogical that it could be fined in some way for doing so.
- DanBC 10y ago
  Ireland set the tax rate that Apple complied with. Ireland is accused of providing a state funding to Apple by setting that low rate. (I didn't downvote you).
  - _delirium 10y ago
    This isn't specific to Apple or Ireland (or even taxes) fwiw. Ordering the company to pay back the subsidy is a normal part of the remedy for subsidies found to violate EU anti-subsidy regulations. The intent is to make it ineffective for a country to pay out subsidies, because they will in the end not have the intended effect, as the company won't get to keep the money. If the remedy were a fine levied on the subsidizing state, but without required repayment, illegal subsidies would have their intended effect of actually subsidizing the target firm (they'd just become more expensive, because the fine would become part of the cost of the subsidy). For example, when Real Madrid was found to have been unlawfully subsidized by a local Spanish government earlier this year (they were given €18.4m as compensation for a land transfer that fell through), they were ordered to repay the €18.4m [1]. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36706262 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36706262