5 ms·

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. Irela

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...
  - kodablah 9y ago
    My use of "many" was to explain why "many" see it as punishment. Of course it doesn't make it so, just trying to frame the argument as how it looks from the outside and why people think that. We're going to have to disagree on some of the merits around innocence. You say these big ones aren't, and I agree, but I don't appreciate selective enforcement and as a small business owner I put myself in the shoes of someone having a tax arrangement with a country only to be surprised I have more to pay (again, the "surprise" obviously doesn't apply to big companies, but I don't think the law should see big vs small). Selective enforcement is a real thing, and to brush it off as tu quoque, whataboutism, etc misunderstands the reason it is brought up. It's not a "oh, well him too" argument. It's a "why not apply evenly if you can" argument. I agree with you, that "I hope they'll get the appropriate amount of tax due from those as well". Until then, it's not unreasonable to ask if their enforcement choice follows a profile. In general, I was really hoping you or another would address why the EU doesn't take preventative action. And in your answer, include why they may purposefully choose to let this practice continue with their lack of illegal-country-tax-reducer punishments and their lack of proactivity when these deals are being made (i.e. like requiring certain deals to submit for EU approval if they are going to be retroactively judged anyways).
    - Fnoord 9y ago
      > In general, I was really hoping you or another would address why the EU doesn't take preventative action. And in your answer, include why they may purposefully choose to let this practice continue with their lack of illegal-country-tax-reducer punishments and their lack of proactivity when these deals are being made Just because something is happening, doesn't mean it is justified. The wheels of justice grind slowly. Take for example the recent shooting. Do you want me to reply to that: "why didn't you prevent it?" The answer to that question is painfully obvious when applying Hanlon's razor: "you tried to, but you couldn't". (It is going too slow for me as well, btw.) > (i.e. like requiring certain deals to submit for EU approval if they are going to be retroactively judged anyways). That is a great suggestion. I will contact a member of the EU parliament about it. I'm afraid I will get a technical answer explaining why that isn't possible, but we'll see. EDIT: I've actually written my entire e-mail to a member of the EP but I've decided to not sent it. I've been thinking more about it, and I do not like the condescending, unrealistic tone of "if they are going to be retroactively judged anyways". Law (including common law) and government, all the time, work like that. A lower authority such as Ireland or The Netherlands decides something, and then the EC or EP decides that is not legal, then what happens is they'll be reprimanded (similar to supreme court ruling X while lower court ruled Y). Sometimes with fines, sometimes without. So I prefer the question being "like requiring certain deals to submit for EU approval" not because of "if they are going to be retroactively judged anyways" but to provide legal structure beforehand. However, it assumes that the multinationals we're discussing are somehow victims here. They're not. They know exactly what they were doing, it just failed for them. EDIT: As for what you wrote here: > Selective enforcement is a real thing, and to brush it off as tu quoque, whataboutism, etc misunderstands the reason it is brought up. It's not a "oh, well him too" argument. It's a "why not apply evenly if you can" argument. I agree with you, that "I hope they'll get the appropriate amount of tax due from those as well". Until then, it's not unreasonable to ask if their enforcement choice follows a profile. It doesn't seem you agree with me, you seem to assume malice from the EU. You seem to think its profiling. You seem tho assume it is easy, cheap, and quick to investigate all this accurately. The proof is in the pudding. It has taken the EU 3 years to get to this point, with 2 companies. The EU still didn't get its money from Ireland, nor did Ireland even bother to get its money from Apple. You know when your argument would be sound? If preventive frisking on Amsterdam train station or specific zones in Amsterdam would be done to for example black people more so than white people, and statistics would prove that this happens, then it'd be fair to say gelijke monniken, gelijke kappen ("what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"). Why? Because -unlike in your example- it is very easy for the Dutch police to execute that. All they have to do, is do more preventive frisking to white people, or do less preventive frisking to black people.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > Happens all the time, cities choose tax rates for themselves, states for themselves, and feds for themselves. You might want to re-read gps comment again, because you seem to be mangling their analogy: >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. Gp's point is that cities don't get to override federal taxes - if they attempt it and you're dumb enough to listen to them, the IRS will definitely collect what they owe. The same goes for individual countries in the EU - they don't get to override EU law. > The IRS isn't going to come and tell me to pay my city more in property taxes because I got an unfair abatement. Your critique falls apart because there is no US federal law that says cities can't unfairly advantage companies inside their borders. In contrast - there are EU laws make this form of state subsidies illegal.
  - kodablah 9y ago
    > Gp's point is that cities don't get to override federal taxes - if they attempt it and you're dumb enough to listen to them, the IRS will definitely collect what they owe. And my point is that they will also sanction, admonish, or worse the one overriding those laws regularly. If push came to shove, the IRS would toss an official in jail if they were constantly encouraging/helping people skirt the law. > Your critique falls apart because there is no US federal law that says cities can't unfairly advantage companies inside their borders Yup, it does fall apart, but more because the analogy was flawed to begin with.

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...
- kodablah 9y ago
  My use of "many" was to explain why "many" see it as punishment. Of course it doesn't make it so, just trying to frame the argument as how it looks from the outside and why people think that. We're going to have to disagree on some of the merits around innocence. You say these big ones aren't, and I agree, but I don't appreciate selective enforcement and as a small business owner I put myself in the shoes of someone having a tax arrangement with a country only to be surprised I have more to pay (again, the "surprise" obviously doesn't apply to big companies, but I don't think the law should see big vs small). Selective enforcement is a real thing, and to brush it off as tu quoque, whataboutism, etc misunderstands the reason it is brought up. It's not a "oh, well him too" argument. It's a "why not apply evenly if you can" argument. I agree with you, that "I hope they'll get the appropriate amount of tax due from those as well". Until then, it's not unreasonable to ask if their enforcement choice follows a profile. In general, I was really hoping you or another would address why the EU doesn't take preventative action. And in your answer, include why they may purposefully choose to let this practice continue with their lack of illegal-country-tax-reducer punishments and their lack of proactivity when these deals are being made (i.e. like requiring certain deals to submit for EU approval if they are going to be retroactively judged anyways).
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    > In general, I was really hoping you or another would address why the EU doesn't take preventative action. And in your answer, include why they may purposefully choose to let this practice continue with their lack of illegal-country-tax-reducer punishments and their lack of proactivity when these deals are being made Just because something is happening, doesn't mean it is justified. The wheels of justice grind slowly. Take for example the recent shooting. Do you want me to reply to that: "why didn't you prevent it?" The answer to that question is painfully obvious when applying Hanlon's razor: "you tried to, but you couldn't". (It is going too slow for me as well, btw.) > (i.e. like requiring certain deals to submit for EU approval if they are going to be retroactively judged anyways). That is a great suggestion. I will contact a member of the EU parliament about it. I'm afraid I will get a technical answer explaining why that isn't possible, but we'll see. EDIT: I've actually written my entire e-mail to a member of the EP but I've decided to not sent it. I've been thinking more about it, and I do not like the condescending, unrealistic tone of "if they are going to be retroactively judged anyways". Law (including common law) and government, all the time, work like that. A lower authority such as Ireland or The Netherlands decides something, and then the EC or EP decides that is not legal, then what happens is they'll be reprimanded (similar to supreme court ruling X while lower court ruled Y). Sometimes with fines, sometimes without. So I prefer the question being "like requiring certain deals to submit for EU approval" not because of "if they are going to be retroactively judged anyways" but to provide legal structure beforehand. However, it assumes that the multinationals we're discussing are somehow victims here. They're not. They know exactly what they were doing, it just failed for them. EDIT: As for what you wrote here: > Selective enforcement is a real thing, and to brush it off as tu quoque, whataboutism, etc misunderstands the reason it is brought up. It's not a "oh, well him too" argument. It's a "why not apply evenly if you can" argument. I agree with you, that "I hope they'll get the appropriate amount of tax due from those as well". Until then, it's not unreasonable to ask if their enforcement choice follows a profile. It doesn't seem you agree with me, you seem to assume malice from the EU. You seem to think its profiling. You seem tho assume it is easy, cheap, and quick to investigate all this accurately. The proof is in the pudding. It has taken the EU 3 years to get to this point, with 2 companies. The EU still didn't get its money from Ireland, nor did Ireland even bother to get its money from Apple. You know when your argument would be sound? If preventive frisking on Amsterdam train station or specific zones in Amsterdam would be done to for example black people more so than white people, and statistics would prove that this happens, then it'd be fair to say gelijke monniken, gelijke kappen ("what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"). Why? Because -unlike in your example- it is very easy for the Dutch police to execute that. All they have to do, is do more preventive frisking to white people, or do less preventive frisking to black people.
sangnoir 9y ago
> Happens all the time, cities choose tax rates for themselves, states for themselves, and feds for themselves. You might want to re-read gps comment again, because you seem to be mangling their analogy: >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. Gp's point is that cities don't get to override federal taxes - if they attempt it and you're dumb enough to listen to them, the IRS will definitely collect what they owe. The same goes for individual countries in the EU - they don't get to override EU law. > The IRS isn't going to come and tell me to pay my city more in property taxes because I got an unfair abatement. Your critique falls apart because there is no US federal law that says cities can't unfairly advantage companies inside their borders. In contrast - there are EU laws make this form of state subsidies illegal.
- kodablah 9y ago
  > Gp's point is that cities don't get to override federal taxes - if they attempt it and you're dumb enough to listen to them, the IRS will definitely collect what they owe. And my point is that they will also sanction, admonish, or worse the one overriding those laws regularly. If push came to shove, the IRS would toss an official in jail if they were constantly encouraging/helping people skirt the law. > Your critique falls apart because there is no US federal law that says cities can't unfairly advantage companies inside their borders Yup, it does fall apart, but more because the analogy was flawed to begin with.