4 ms·

And what if a country passes a law saying that industry sector X is taxed less than industry sector Y, or companies over or under a certain size are taxed less?

And what if a country passes a law saying that industry sector X is taxed less than industry sector Y, or companies over or under a certain size are taxed less? These things are quite common. Wouldn't that also be "state aid"? Well, maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't, depending how the Commission feels that day.

deong 10y ago
There's certainly an element of truth there, but it's a bit of a smoke screen. The fact that there are grey areas doesn't detract from the concept that a dividing line can be devised and enforced. We do it all the time. Age of consent laws, tax brackets, and a million other particular cases all involve us saying that we're drawing a line that's arbitrary near the boundary but profoundly meaningful if one takes a step or two back from the fine details. So I see nothing wrong with saying, "Apple paying 0.005% obviously constitutes 'state aid', and we'll work out the complicated instances if we need to".
fauigerzigerk 10y ago
No, that would would not be special treatment or illegal state aid, because it is based on objective criteria. A specific company either is or is not in a particular industry. A specific company has a particular size or it doesn't. It's not negotiable on a case by case bases depending on what a specific company offers in return. But of course there can always be disputes and differences in opinion, so ultimately a court will decide whose interpretation of the law is correct, just as it would be done on the national level.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  OK, so all Ireland has to do is pass a law that says "Whoever the Finance Ministry decrees doesn't have to pay income tax, is exempt". That's an entirely objective criteria: a company is either exempted or it's not. Now don't tell me this is different because the Ministry's decisions might not be "objective". Such is the case for all political decisions, including varying tax rates across different industries.
  - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
    A law like that would effectively be the abolition of the rule of law itself. No self respecting constitution would allow it. It would be incompatible with most international treaties and a violation of human rights. Laws are by definition different from ruling by decree on a case by case basis. If a government had the right to pass laws such as the one you suggest without limits, it would effectively expempt itself from complying with any law at all. All other laws would simply cease to exist. It could for instance decide to give tax breaks to relatives of ministers or to anyone who bribes the prime minister or apply different tax rates depending on color of skin or slap punitive taxes on opposition media to destroy them. If a majority in a country were to give its government such powers, say in a constitutional referendum, it would mean that democracy has been abolished. Democracy is impossible without the rule of law, without minority rights, without human rights, without balance of power.

deong 10y ago

There's certainly an element of truth there, but it's a bit of a smoke screen. The fact that there are grey areas doesn't detract from the concept that a dividing line can be devised and enforced. We do it all the time. Age of consent laws, tax brackets, and a million other particular cases all involve us saying that we're drawing a line that's arbitrary near the boundary but profoundly meaningful if one takes a step or two back from the fine details. So I see nothing wrong with saying, "Apple paying 0.005% obviously constitutes 'state aid', and we'll work out the complicated instances if we need to".

fauigerzigerk 10y ago

No, that would would not be special treatment or illegal state aid, because it is based on objective criteria. A specific company either is or is not in a particular industry. A specific company has a particular size or it doesn't. It's not negotiable on a case by case bases depending on what a specific company offers in return. But of course there can always be disputes and differences in opinion, so ultimately a court will decide whose interpretation of the law is correct, just as it would be done on the national level.

zigzigzag 10y ago
OK, so all Ireland has to do is pass a law that says "Whoever the Finance Ministry decrees doesn't have to pay income tax, is exempt". That's an entirely objective criteria: a company is either exempted or it's not. Now don't tell me this is different because the Ministry's decisions might not be "objective". Such is the case for all political decisions, including varying tax rates across different industries.
- fauigerzigerk 10y ago
  A law like that would effectively be the abolition of the rule of law itself. No self respecting constitution would allow it. It would be incompatible with most international treaties and a violation of human rights. Laws are by definition different from ruling by decree on a case by case basis. If a government had the right to pass laws such as the one you suggest without limits, it would effectively expempt itself from complying with any law at all. All other laws would simply cease to exist. It could for instance decide to give tax breaks to relatives of ministers or to anyone who bribes the prime minister or apply different tax rates depending on color of skin or slap punitive taxes on opposition media to destroy them. If a majority in a country were to give its government such powers, say in a constitutional referendum, it would mean that democracy has been abolished. Democracy is impossible without the rule of law, without minority rights, without human rights, without balance of power.