6 ms·

What I don't understand is why Amazon and Apple are getting the punishment. They were abiding by the laws of the country they were in, and now getting punishmen

What I don't understand is why Amazon and Apple are getting the punishment. They were abiding by the laws of the country they were in, and now getting punishment. Surely if any party were to be punished it would be the governments of Ireland and Luxembourg which sanctioned these agreements in the first place? It seems that the EU is less interested in law-abiding and more interested in that sweet, sweet U$D. Ex post facto law at its finest.

foepys 9y ago
You clearly only read the headline because it fits your agenda. The article clearly states that the EU is ordering Ireland and Luxembourg to tax Apple and Amazon correctly instead of giving them special tax rates.
- toyg 9y ago
  > You clearly only read the headline because it fits your agenda. Wow, no need for name-calling, dude. Let's keep it civil.
  - ionised 9y ago
    Where is the name calling there?
- kodablah 9y ago
  Did you read the comment you are replying to? Op said "I don't understand is why Amazon and Apple are getting the punishment" and you essentially said "The article clearly states that countries are ordered to enforce the punishment". You are talking past each other. The question is why the companies are being punished and why the states are not, not about the enforcement. What keeps Ireland and Luxembourg from doing this again? If the EU is going to strike down state-mandated tax deals, why not just require the tax deals to have approval from them in the first place?
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    > Did you read the comment you are replying to? [..] The question is why the companies are being punished and why the states are not, not about the enforcement. It isn't a punishment, stop calling it like a punishment. There is no additional fine. The only thing which has to be paid is the due tax plus interest. It is you who has to read. From the article: "Meanwhile, the Commission said it planned to refer Ireland to the European Court of Justice for failing to recover €13bn in back taxes from tech giant Apple." > What keeps Ireland and Luxembourg from doing this again? If the EU is going to strike down state-mandated tax deals, why not just require the tax deals to have approval from them in the first place? Hopefully Ireland or Luxembourg won't let themselves be allowed to avoid taxes anymore. But since neither Apple, nor Amazon, nor Ireland, nor Luxembourg is being fined (again, there is no punishment) I'd speculate that it might still be lucrative. After all, being able to invest > interest.
    - kodablah 9y ago
      > It isn't a punishment, stop calling it like a punishment. I'm sorry, but a selectively enforced law, only applied retroactively with NO attempt to curb the practice proactively is definitely punishment for whomever they arbitrarily choose to apply it to. Were there an attempt to actually punish the offenders (the states making illegal laws), one could believe they are making an attempt at preventing this law breaking. Otherwise, one can't help but see this as one of those laws left on the book to build offenders. > Hopefully [...] Exactly...hopefully. The EU doesn't enforce this evenly, they don't attempt to proactively prevent it, etc. To understand the real reason these enforcements occur, ask yourself why the EU doesn't take preventative action. You'll eventually arrive at the real answer.
      - Fnoord 9y ago
        > I'm sorry, but a selectively enforced law, only applied retroactively with NO attempt to curb the practice proactively is definitely punishment for whomever they arbitrarily choose to apply it to. Were there an attempt to actually punish the offenders (the states making illegal laws), one could believe they are making an attempt at preventing this law breaking. Otherwise, one can't help but see this as one of those laws left on the book to build offenders. Do you think it is easy to prevent? Could you describe how you'd do it, by citing the laws? If you can't, why do you assume it is so easy to prevent? Why do you assume malice? > Exactly...hopefully. The EU doesn't enforce this evenly, they don't attempt to proactively prevent it, etc. To understand the real reason these enforcements occur, ask yourself why the EU doesn't take preventative action. You'll eventually arrive at the real answer. If I see someone breaking the law, and there are no proactive measures in place to prevent the law, then that means that the intend of the lawmaker is illicit? What makes you think the EU can enforce this evenly? The whole structure of double Irish with a Dutch sandwich isn't even available to EU companies to begin with. You gotta start somewhere, if you want to fight it. Same with the war against drugs. Would the drugs baron's defense be: "but the others are frolicking around freely?" Would your response still be when the first action is being taken: "they're not doing enough to prevent?" As for other tax avoidance, yes, the EU and its states are most definitely looking into those. Starbucks is an example I already mentioned elsewhere throughout the thread (hint: Ctrl+F). Here's another example regarding the Dutch railroad company [1]. That's also an Irish construction, btw. [1] https://www.ad.nl/economie/fiscus-onderzoekt-ierse-belastingconstructie-ns~a5f7c220/ https://www.ad.nl/economie/fiscus-onderzoekt-ierse-belasting...
Stranger43 9y ago
Now they weren't just following the laws they were inventing fictional structures where apple for instance kept pretending that its EU profit were in transit to an headquarters where it would be taxable despite the fact that apple did not transfer any of the money from Ireland to any "Headquarters".[https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2016/08/30/apples-tax-defense-seems-flawed/#974ae679fe4a https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2016/08/30/apples-t...] Just because you convince a bunch local politicians to look the other way, your still not a law abiding company when your not paying taxes anywhere as even apple aren't allowed to be that stupid about the realities of tax law.
gggdvnkhmbgjvbn 9y ago
Sounds fine to me. I dont have much sympathy for the financial plight of apple and amazon.
plandis 9y ago
You're correct. It's a shake down of American companies. The US Treasury released a paper detailing how Apple at least was abiding by all laws and not really doing anything out of the ordinary. I suspect Amazon is in a similar place. Basically, best case Europe can't be bother to have well written laws and punish the companies arbitrairly. Worst case, this is an attack on US business by foreign governments.
- whostolemyhat 9y ago
  It's a shake-down of companies which have tried to avoid paying taxes.
- ionised 9y ago
  Those poor poor, US businesses. How they suffer! > Basically, best case Europe can't be bother to have well written laws and punish the companies arbitrairly. Worst case, this is an attack on US business by foreign governments. This is a blatant dismissal of actual issues because its easier to blame the big bad foreign governments than it is to look at the shitty (and illegal) behaviour of Irish tax authorities and American companies devising shitty tax deals because they believe they are above the law. These tax arrangements were not legal, they never were. The rules need to be enforced and they will be. This is not a punishment, it's a correction. Crying about 'shakedowns' is pointless dishonest. Address the actual issues.
smnrchrds 9y ago
Amazon and Apple are not being punished, i.e. they are not fined or sanctioned. They are simply asked to pay the taxes they were legally required to pay. Ireland gave them a tax deal it did not have the authority to give. So the deal is void and the taxes must be paid. Imagine a mayor in a US city giving a company a deal whereby they don't pay state and federal taxes and only pay a low municipal tax. Do you think IRS would accept this justification from the company and forgives all the taxes they failed to pay?
- kodablah 9y ago
  > Imagine a mayor in a US city giving a company a deal Happens all the time, cities choose tax rates for themselves, states for themselves, and feds for themselves. The IRS isn't going to come and tell me to pay my city more in property taxes because I got an unfair abatement. It's seen as punishment by many because when a country tells you what you are required to pay their country, a rational person reads that and sees someone reasonably following the rule. It's not understood by many that a country cannot tax what it wants and that there is a higher power. It's also not understood by many that this higher power is only reactionary and only reacting to the companies and not to the countries. To use your analogy (flawed, but we'll stick with it), imagine if there were only a dozen or so cities and the mayors kept giving these tax deals on their own city's taxes. Why would the IRS just allow this to keep happening and then only selectively go after certain offenders? If they are in such power over tax regulation, why not require all tax deals go through them since they are the final judge anyways? Why not do anything to crack down on the practice? What stops these regions from offering tax breaks the next time? Heck if I were a company, I'd rather pay later too.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    "Many" is an argumentum ad populum (popularity fallacy). It is entirely irrelevant what "many" think or feel, it does not justify that it is a punishment. Technically and factually it simply isn't a punishment. There is no fine. If it were a punishment, there'd be a fine. > It's seen as punishment by many because when a country tells you what you are required to pay their country, a rational person reads that and sees someone reasonably following the rule. Quit playing innocent. We all know exactly that they're trying to avoid taxation. The constructions are well known by now, no need for a facade. It can be easily proven as well, because we can see that e.g. Apple is selling an X amount of iPhones in for example Germany, yet the amount of income tax doesn't resemble that. Not in Germany, nor in Ireland. > To use your analogy (flawed, but we'll stick with it), imagine if there were only a dozen or so cities and the mayors kept giving these tax deals on their own city's taxes. Why would the IRS just allow this to keep happening and then only selectively go after certain offenders? Right, so when a burglar gets caught, his defense would be: "but your honor, these other burglars are still freely running around." That's a fallacy, obviously, called tu quoque ("me too"). There's also a plausible reason why they're not going after the other companies: 1) They actually are going after other companies as well. Here's a list [1] 2) the list is big and it takes a lot of research, time, and therefore money to investigate. So they go after the big fish first 3) European companies don't follow this construction. Yes, they do follow another one, and I hope they'll get the appropriate amount of tax due from those as well. The fact those companies might be avoiding tax for now doesn't justify that other's get away with it. That'd be, as explained, tu quoque. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement#Companies_using_the_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement#Compa...
Fnoord 9y ago
Because only American companies are following the construction [1], only American companies are going to get the "punishment" (it isn't a punishment, btw). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement#Companies_using_the_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement#Compa...
vilmosi 9y ago
>>> It seems that the EU is less interested in law-abiding and more interested in that sweet, sweet U$D. I don't see how it's fair to take advantage of free access to the EU market and not follow EU law. It wasn't law abiding and the EU doesn't see a cent of that money, the tax payers do.

foepys 9y ago

You clearly only read the headline because it fits your agenda. The article clearly states that the EU is ordering Ireland and Luxembourg to tax Apple and Amazon correctly instead of giving them special tax rates.

toyg 9y ago
> You clearly only read the headline because it fits your agenda. Wow, no need for name-calling, dude. Let's keep it civil.
- ionised 9y ago
  Where is the name calling there?
kodablah 9y ago
Did you read the comment you are replying to? Op said "I don't understand is why Amazon and Apple are getting the punishment" and you essentially said "The article clearly states that countries are ordered to enforce the punishment". You are talking past each other. The question is why the companies are being punished and why the states are not, not about the enforcement. What keeps Ireland and Luxembourg from doing this again? If the EU is going to strike down state-mandated tax deals, why not just require the tax deals to have approval from them in the first place?
- Fnoord 9y ago
  > Did you read the comment you are replying to? [..] The question is why the companies are being punished and why the states are not, not about the enforcement. It isn't a punishment, stop calling it like a punishment. There is no additional fine. The only thing which has to be paid is the due tax plus interest. It is you who has to read. From the article: "Meanwhile, the Commission said it planned to refer Ireland to the European Court of Justice for failing to recover €13bn in back taxes from tech giant Apple." > What keeps Ireland and Luxembourg from doing this again? If the EU is going to strike down state-mandated tax deals, why not just require the tax deals to have approval from them in the first place? Hopefully Ireland or Luxembourg won't let themselves be allowed to avoid taxes anymore. But since neither Apple, nor Amazon, nor Ireland, nor Luxembourg is being fined (again, there is no punishment) I'd speculate that it might still be lucrative. After all, being able to invest > interest.
  - kodablah 9y ago
    > It isn't a punishment, stop calling it like a punishment. I'm sorry, but a selectively enforced law, only applied retroactively with NO attempt to curb the practice proactively is definitely punishment for whomever they arbitrarily choose to apply it to. Were there an attempt to actually punish the offenders (the states making illegal laws), one could believe they are making an attempt at preventing this law breaking. Otherwise, one can't help but see this as one of those laws left on the book to build offenders. > Hopefully [...] Exactly...hopefully. The EU doesn't enforce this evenly, they don't attempt to proactively prevent it, etc. To understand the real reason these enforcements occur, ask yourself why the EU doesn't take preventative action. You'll eventually arrive at the real answer.
    - Fnoord 9y ago
      > I'm sorry, but a selectively enforced law, only applied retroactively with NO attempt to curb the practice proactively is definitely punishment for whomever they arbitrarily choose to apply it to. Were there an attempt to actually punish the offenders (the states making illegal laws), one could believe they are making an attempt at preventing this law breaking. Otherwise, one can't help but see this as one of those laws left on the book to build offenders. Do you think it is easy to prevent? Could you describe how you'd do it, by citing the laws? If you can't, why do you assume it is so easy to prevent? Why do you assume malice? > Exactly...hopefully. The EU doesn't enforce this evenly, they don't attempt to proactively prevent it, etc. To understand the real reason these enforcements occur, ask yourself why the EU doesn't take preventative action. You'll eventually arrive at the real answer. If I see someone breaking the law, and there are no proactive measures in place to prevent the law, then that means that the intend of the lawmaker is illicit? What makes you think the EU can enforce this evenly? The whole structure of double Irish with a Dutch sandwich isn't even available to EU companies to begin with. You gotta start somewhere, if you want to fight it. Same with the war against drugs. Would the drugs baron's defense be: "but the others are frolicking around freely?" Would your response still be when the first action is being taken: "they're not doing enough to prevent?" As for other tax avoidance, yes, the EU and its states are most definitely looking into those. Starbucks is an example I already mentioned elsewhere throughout the thread (hint: Ctrl+F). Here's another example regarding the Dutch railroad company [1]. That's also an Irish construction, btw. [1] https://www.ad.nl/economie/fiscus-onderzoekt-ierse-belastingconstructie-ns~a5f7c220/ https://www.ad.nl/economie/fiscus-onderzoekt-ierse-belasting...

Stranger43 9y ago

Now they weren't just following the laws they were inventing fictional structures where apple for instance kept pretending that its EU profit were in transit to an headquarters where it would be taxable despite the fact that apple did not transfer any of the money from Ireland to any "Headquarters".[https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2016/08/30/apples-tax-defense-seems-flawed/#974ae679fe4a https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2016/08/30/apples-t...] Just because you convince a bunch local politicians to look the other way, your still not a law abiding company when your not paying taxes anywhere as even apple aren't allowed to be that stupid about the realities of tax law.

gggdvnkhmbgjvbn 9y ago

Sounds fine to me. I dont have much sympathy for the financial plight of apple and amazon.

plandis 9y ago

You're correct. It's a shake down of American companies. The US Treasury released a paper detailing how Apple at least was abiding by all laws and not really doing anything out of the ordinary. I suspect Amazon is in a similar place. Basically, best case Europe can't be bother to have well written laws and punish the companies arbitrairly. Worst case, this is an attack on US business by foreign governments.

whostolemyhat 9y ago
It's a shake-down of companies which have tried to avoid paying taxes.
ionised 9y ago
Those poor poor, US businesses. How they suffer! > Basically, best case Europe can't be bother to have well written laws and punish the companies arbitrairly. Worst case, this is an attack on US business by foreign governments. This is a blatant dismissal of actual issues because its easier to blame the big bad foreign governments than it is to look at the shitty (and illegal) behaviour of Irish tax authorities and American companies devising shitty tax deals because they believe they are above the law. These tax arrangements were not legal, they never were. The rules need to be enforced and they will be. This is not a punishment, it's a correction. Crying about 'shakedowns' is pointless dishonest. Address the actual issues.

smnrchrds 9y ago

Amazon and Apple are not being punished, i.e. they are not fined or sanctioned. They are simply asked to pay the taxes they were legally required to pay. Ireland gave them a tax deal it did not have the authority to give. So the deal is void and the taxes must be paid. Imagine a mayor in a US city giving a company a deal whereby they don't pay state and federal taxes and only pay a low municipal tax. Do you think IRS would accept this justification from the company and forgives all the taxes they failed to pay?

kodablah 9y ago
> Imagine a mayor in a US city giving a company a deal Happens all the time, cities choose tax rates for themselves, states for themselves, and feds for themselves. The IRS isn't going to come and tell me to pay my city more in property taxes because I got an unfair abatement. It's seen as punishment by many because when a country tells you what you are required to pay their country, a rational person reads that and sees someone reasonably following the rule. It's not understood by many that a country cannot tax what it wants and that there is a higher power. It's also not understood by many that this higher power is only reactionary and only reacting to the companies and not to the countries. To use your analogy (flawed, but we'll stick with it), imagine if there were only a dozen or so cities and the mayors kept giving these tax deals on their own city's taxes. Why would the IRS just allow this to keep happening and then only selectively go after certain offenders? If they are in such power over tax regulation, why not require all tax deals go through them since they are the final judge anyways? Why not do anything to crack down on the practice? What stops these regions from offering tax breaks the next time? Heck if I were a company, I'd rather pay later too.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  "Many" is an argumentum ad populum (popularity fallacy). It is entirely irrelevant what "many" think or feel, it does not justify that it is a punishment. Technically and factually it simply isn't a punishment. There is no fine. If it were a punishment, there'd be a fine. > It's seen as punishment by many because when a country tells you what you are required to pay their country, a rational person reads that and sees someone reasonably following the rule. Quit playing innocent. We all know exactly that they're trying to avoid taxation. The constructions are well known by now, no need for a facade. It can be easily proven as well, because we can see that e.g. Apple is selling an X amount of iPhones in for example Germany, yet the amount of income tax doesn't resemble that. Not in Germany, nor in Ireland. > To use your analogy (flawed, but we'll stick with it), imagine if there were only a dozen or so cities and the mayors kept giving these tax deals on their own city's taxes. Why would the IRS just allow this to keep happening and then only selectively go after certain offenders? Right, so when a burglar gets caught, his defense would be: "but your honor, these other burglars are still freely running around." That's a fallacy, obviously, called tu quoque ("me too"). There's also a plausible reason why they're not going after the other companies: 1) They actually are going after other companies as well. Here's a list [1] 2) the list is big and it takes a lot of research, time, and therefore money to investigate. So they go after the big fish first 3) European companies don't follow this construction. Yes, they do follow another one, and I hope they'll get the appropriate amount of tax due from those as well. The fact those companies might be avoiding tax for now doesn't justify that other's get away with it. That'd be, as explained, tu quoque. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement#Companies_using_the_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement#Compa...

Fnoord 9y ago

Because only American companies are following the construction [1], only American companies are going to get the "punishment" (it isn't a punishment, btw). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement#Companies_using_the_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement#Compa...

vilmosi 9y ago

>>> It seems that the EU is less interested in law-abiding and more interested in that sweet, sweet U$D. I don't see how it's fair to take advantage of free access to the EU market and not follow EU law. It wasn't law abiding and the EU doesn't see a cent of that money, the tax payers do.