6 ms·

> they were given explicit assurances by the EU that the EU would never interfere with their corporation tax policies They were given assurance that the EU wou

> they were given explicit assurances by the EU that the EU would never interfere with their corporation tax policies They were given assurance that the EU would not interfere with their low corporation tax rate > that assurance turned out to be worthless, as here they are, telling the Irish how to tax corporations Their interference here is not to do with Ireland's application of its tax laws or rates, but rather to do with favourable treatment of one company over others. Ireland's tax rate is 12.5% - charging Apple 0.005% instead of the already low 12.5% gives Apple a market advantage over any competitors paying 12.5%. The specific violation is in Article 107 here[1], which is more concerned with competition law than tax law. And was not excepted in Lisbon. [1] https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/legal/pdf/c_32620121026en.pdf https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/legal/pdf/c_32620121026en.pdf

peoplewindow 9y ago
No, it just isn't right. The EU's figure of 0.05% isn't even properly calculated. But even if it was, Ireland can set whatever tax rates it likes by area or by individual company. By treaty the EU just doesn't have jurisdiction over it at all. Now, I know the article in question here. 107 is a classic example of badly drafted law, like most EU law is, but even so let's read it shall we? http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-and-comments/part-3-union-policies-and-internal-actions/title-vii-common-rules-on-competition-taxation-and-approximation-of-laws/chapter-1-rules-on-competition/section-2-aids-granted-by-states/375-article-107.html http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on... "Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market" Key word: AID. Key word: THROUGH STATE RESOURCES. Ireland is not giving Apple "aid" under any dictionary definition of the term. Taxation at any level is not "aid" because "aid" means giving someone something, not taking it away. Tax would never be described in this way by anyone who didn't have a political agenda. Also note: through state resources (i.e. state budget). Obviously irrelevant in the case where the budget is getting larger as a consequence of this "aid". That said, note the huge get-out clauses too: aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest ... is explicitly allowed. This paragraph is essentially meaningless: Ireland could claim that - if they accept for a moment the idea that tax and aid are the same thing - it is to facilitate the development of the tech industry in Ireland, and that such "aid" does not affect trading conditions because Apple products are available all over Europe. But then the Commission can claim that anything that disadvantages higher tax countries is "contrary to the common interests" and around we go again. Basically, EU law is garbage. The treaties are extremely imprecise and whatever they say is irrelevant because the Commission and courts will simply re-interpret it to suit whatever their current political objective is.

peoplewindow 9y ago

No, it just isn't right. The EU's figure of 0.05% isn't even properly calculated. But even if it was, Ireland can set whatever tax rates it likes by area or by individual company. By treaty the EU just doesn't have jurisdiction over it at all. Now, I know the article in question here. 107 is a classic example of badly drafted law, like most EU law is, but even so let's read it shall we? http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-and-comments/part-3-union-policies-and-internal-actions/title-vii-common-rules-on-competition-taxation-and-approximation-of-laws/chapter-1-rules-on-competition/section-2-aids-granted-by-states/375-article-107.html http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on... "Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market" Key word: AID. Key word: THROUGH STATE RESOURCES. Ireland is not giving Apple "aid" under any dictionary definition of the term. Taxation at any level is not "aid" because "aid" means giving someone something, not taking it away. Tax would never be described in this way by anyone who didn't have a political agenda. Also note: through state resources (i.e. state budget). Obviously irrelevant in the case where the budget is getting larger as a consequence of this "aid". That said, note the huge get-out clauses too: aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest ... is explicitly allowed. This paragraph is essentially meaningless: Ireland could claim that - if they accept for a moment the idea that tax and aid are the same thing - it is to facilitate the development of the tech industry in Ireland, and that such "aid" does not affect trading conditions because Apple products are available all over Europe. But then the Commission can claim that anything that disadvantages higher tax countries is "contrary to the common interests" and around we go again. Basically, EU law is garbage. The treaties are extremely imprecise and whatever they say is irrelevant because the Commission and courts will simply re-interpret it to suit whatever their current political objective is.