4 ms·

> Unlike Ireland Luxembourg also did not hand out tax credits. This seems to be contradicted by the story itself: "Luxembourg gave illegal tax benefits to Ama

by olau 9y ago

> Unlike Ireland Luxembourg also did not hand out tax credits. This seems to be contradicted by the story itself: "Luxembourg gave illegal tax benefits to Amazon. As a result, almost three-quarters of Amazon's profits were not taxed," Ms Vestager added. She said Amazon paid four times less tax than other local companies.

dogma1138 9y ago
You should read the actual source. Amazon paid normal tax rates on trade goods, it paid the lower tax rate on IP derived revenue such as AWS and several other digital services the deal wasn’t any different than what EU companies in Europe get including OVH. The difference is that Amazon like many other US tech companies have substantial revenue from IP and licensing while EU companies still rely on trade goods and services. This isn’t a court ruling like with Apple there is more than a good chance that this will not hold in the high court. Likely even better since Amazon didn’t get direct tax subsidies.
- riffraff 9y ago
  This is the actual source http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-3701_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-3701_en.htm And it says > The tax ruling enabled Amazon to shift the vast majority of its profits from an Amazon group company that is subject to tax in Luxembourg (Amazon EU) to a company which is not subject to tax (Amazon Europe Holding Technologies) [...] the level of the royalty payments, endorsed by the tax ruling, was inflated and did not reflect economic reality. IANAL, but I am not sure why you interpret this as different from Apple's. They both depend on the arbitrariness and non-generality of a company-specific tax ruling.
  - wav-part 9y ago
    Here is Apple's appeal. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62016TN0892&from=EN http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX... > They both depend on the arbitrariness and non-generality of a company-specific tax ruling. Thats an opinion not a fact. The case has yet to begin in court. IMO Apple did not get any special treatment. Basically all you need is a country like Ireland where an onshore incorporated become non-resident if controlled offshore [1]. And Ireland must be not be considered as tax haven [2] by USA [3] otherwise Apple Sales International would be taxed as per USA laws whether Apple USA repatriates or not. [1] This was true until 2015. [2] IIRC Ireland must be considered tax-fair country. Obviously a more strict condition. [3] Now here Ireland enjoy the benefit of single USA-EU tax treaty.
    - riffraff 9y ago
      > Thats an opinion not a fact sure, but it's the opinion of the EU. The same applies in Apple's case, it also is the opinion of the EU, and might be reverted in court. My comment was only about the fact that they are the same thing, there is no major difference between the Apple and Amazon case.
- toyg 9y ago
  Licensing IP is the weapon of choice for modern tax evasion. Estimating costs of goods and services is relatively easy for tax authorities, there are detailed rules and so on; but IP is so vague that it can be easily abused. It's the same story with Starbucks and so on. > there is more than a good chance that this will not hold in the high court. That is very unlikely. The Commission tends not to act directly unless they are absolutely certain that the case is extremely clear and they have ticked all boxes. This is because these actions have, obviously, huge political repercussions; Commissioners, at the end of the day, are politicians who have been entrusted to be somewhat above the fray and to look out for the whole continent, so they usually don't want to be accused of partisanship (there are always exceptions, of course; but the culprits tend to pay a heavy price in the end). The act itself is basically a statement that they have a great deal of proof. You won't find many people who know European legislation better than EU staffers themselves, so when they act on it, it's very unlikely they will lose a legal confrontation.
  - wav-part 9y ago
    EC is not just disagreeing with Apple's legal team but Ireland Govt (IG). Arguably IG is atleast as competent as EC if not more. And then not to mention 3rd parties such USA Treasury. I dont know how EC can justify (in court) violating non-retroactivity traditions/laws.
    - toyg 9y ago
      > Arguably IG is atleast as competent as EC That's why the Commission rarely acts in such a direct manner - they know they are talking to very powerful interests. But again, in most cases, when such procedures are invoked, national governments are eventually found in violation. Nobody enjoys victimizing a member state, they only do it when infractions are so egregious that they cannot be ignored. > violating non-retroactivity traditions/laws. If you don't pay taxes in 2012 and the state sues you in 2014, as long as the statute of limitations allows it, there is no retroactivity. The Commission only started to actively investigate these arrangements recently, but the relevant laws have been on the books (or rather in the treaties) for a very long time. Just because a policeman doesn't arrest you for beating your neighbour doesn't mean you're not breaking the law.

by olau 9y ago

dogma1138 9y ago

You should read the actual source. Amazon paid normal tax rates on trade goods, it paid the lower tax rate on IP derived revenue such as AWS and several other digital services the deal wasn’t any different than what EU companies in Europe get including OVH. The difference is that Amazon like many other US tech companies have substantial revenue from IP and licensing while EU companies still rely on trade goods and services. This isn’t a court ruling like with Apple there is more than a good chance that this will not hold in the high court. Likely even better since Amazon didn’t get direct tax subsidies.

riffraff 9y ago
This is the actual source http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-3701_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-3701_en.htm And it says > The tax ruling enabled Amazon to shift the vast majority of its profits from an Amazon group company that is subject to tax in Luxembourg (Amazon EU) to a company which is not subject to tax (Amazon Europe Holding Technologies) [...] the level of the royalty payments, endorsed by the tax ruling, was inflated and did not reflect economic reality. IANAL, but I am not sure why you interpret this as different from Apple's. They both depend on the arbitrariness and non-generality of a company-specific tax ruling.
- wav-part 9y ago
  Here is Apple's appeal. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62016TN0892&from=EN http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX... > They both depend on the arbitrariness and non-generality of a company-specific tax ruling. Thats an opinion not a fact. The case has yet to begin in court. IMO Apple did not get any special treatment. Basically all you need is a country like Ireland where an onshore incorporated become non-resident if controlled offshore [1]. And Ireland must be not be considered as tax haven [2] by USA [3] otherwise Apple Sales International would be taxed as per USA laws whether Apple USA repatriates or not. [1] This was true until 2015. [2] IIRC Ireland must be considered tax-fair country. Obviously a more strict condition. [3] Now here Ireland enjoy the benefit of single USA-EU tax treaty.
  - riffraff 9y ago
    > Thats an opinion not a fact sure, but it's the opinion of the EU. The same applies in Apple's case, it also is the opinion of the EU, and might be reverted in court. My comment was only about the fact that they are the same thing, there is no major difference between the Apple and Amazon case.
toyg 9y ago
Licensing IP is the weapon of choice for modern tax evasion. Estimating costs of goods and services is relatively easy for tax authorities, there are detailed rules and so on; but IP is so vague that it can be easily abused. It's the same story with Starbucks and so on. > there is more than a good chance that this will not hold in the high court. That is very unlikely. The Commission tends not to act directly unless they are absolutely certain that the case is extremely clear and they have ticked all boxes. This is because these actions have, obviously, huge political repercussions; Commissioners, at the end of the day, are politicians who have been entrusted to be somewhat above the fray and to look out for the whole continent, so they usually don't want to be accused of partisanship (there are always exceptions, of course; but the culprits tend to pay a heavy price in the end). The act itself is basically a statement that they have a great deal of proof. You won't find many people who know European legislation better than EU staffers themselves, so when they act on it, it's very unlikely they will lose a legal confrontation.
- wav-part 9y ago
  EC is not just disagreeing with Apple's legal team but Ireland Govt (IG). Arguably IG is atleast as competent as EC if not more. And then not to mention 3rd parties such USA Treasury. I dont know how EC can justify (in court) violating non-retroactivity traditions/laws.
  - toyg 9y ago
    > Arguably IG is atleast as competent as EC That's why the Commission rarely acts in such a direct manner - they know they are talking to very powerful interests. But again, in most cases, when such procedures are invoked, national governments are eventually found in violation. Nobody enjoys victimizing a member state, they only do it when infractions are so egregious that they cannot be ignored. > violating non-retroactivity traditions/laws. If you don't pay taxes in 2012 and the state sues you in 2014, as long as the statute of limitations allows it, there is no retroactivity. The Commission only started to actively investigate these arrangements recently, but the relevant laws have been on the books (or rather in the treaties) for a very long time. Just because a policeman doesn't arrest you for beating your neighbour doesn't mean you're not breaking the law.