4 ms·

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 arti

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...
    - kodablah 9y ago
      > 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? While I cannot cite the specific laws, when a jurisdiction makes rules regarding contractual arrangements like this, and they are continually broken, I would expect they insert themselves into the process sooner rather than later. Why not require all member state tax arrangements that are below a required threshold be submitted to the EU tax regulators for approval? Instead of waiting on the regulators to get around to them anyways? And put leverage on the countries to be punished if they don't follow these rules? What leverage can the EU put on a country to abide by EU law? Why is that leverage not being applied here? I think the analogies with burglary and drug war and what not aren't really helpful. When I say "evenly" I don't mean they have to have the resources to apply to everyone. I just mean sans prejudice. I'll just take a statement saying what their priority order is? If they just come out and say "largest offenders first", I think that's ok. To reiterate a point I made in the above paragraph, what leverage does the EU have to keep member states from flaunting their laws? Why is that leverage not applied to Ireland and Luxembourg in this instance? I am a bit unfamiliar, so I will take any information on what the EU is doing to stop countries from doing this.

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...
  - kodablah 9y ago
    > 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? While I cannot cite the specific laws, when a jurisdiction makes rules regarding contractual arrangements like this, and they are continually broken, I would expect they insert themselves into the process sooner rather than later. Why not require all member state tax arrangements that are below a required threshold be submitted to the EU tax regulators for approval? Instead of waiting on the regulators to get around to them anyways? And put leverage on the countries to be punished if they don't follow these rules? What leverage can the EU put on a country to abide by EU law? Why is that leverage not being applied here? I think the analogies with burglary and drug war and what not aren't really helpful. When I say "evenly" I don't mean they have to have the resources to apply to everyone. I just mean sans prejudice. I'll just take a statement saying what their priority order is? If they just come out and say "largest offenders first", I think that's ok. To reiterate a point I made in the above paragraph, what leverage does the EU have to keep member states from flaunting their laws? Why is that leverage not applied to Ireland and Luxembourg in this instance? I am a bit unfamiliar, so I will take any information on what the EU is doing to stop countries from doing this.