3 ms·

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

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.

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.