5 ms·

> We clearly need better tax laws to combat this, but I'm glad the commission is trying to fight this to the extent they can within current laws, and I hope the

> We clearly need better tax laws to combat this, but I'm glad the commission is trying to fight this to the extent they can within current laws, and I hope they win the case on appeal. I fully agree with the former, but—to an extent—disagree with the latter. The thing that bothers me about this lawsuit is the fact that it is in essence an after-the-fact tax increase. If they want to reform tax law, then it should be forward facing, not trying to reverse previous established policies. Particularly not for the length of time this covered. Globally, the US, EU, (UK now), Canada, etc, all need to get their ducks in a row and get taxation sorted out in a sane way.

redisman 6y ago
Yes and to shut down Cayman Islands and Cyprus while they're at it. It goes to show how incredibly corrupt the global elites are that they "can't" shut down money laundering by tiny island nations who would roll over in 5 seconds if told to by someone like the US. The truth is they love it because that's where they keep their money.
- 6510 6y ago
  We clearly do all have officials who should be dealing with this. I wonder if they can be persecuted for treason.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    That's going to be difficult to organise in a plutocracy. There are insane sums being spent in organised campaigns to limit the ability of governments to interfere with this ethic of systemic financial capture.
    - 6510 6y ago
      There might be a sweet spot where plutocracy is incompatible with kleptocracy. When you own a government you'd want some level of property maintenance. When you want to enrich yourself with public money you want as much of it as possible. The long vs the short game.
- narag 6y ago
  If you take a closer look at tax havens, you'll find that most of them are UK/US colonies, ex-colonies or de facto colonies.
  - raphaelj 6y ago
    You're totally right. Yet half the world are ex UK colonies so ...
    - tialaramex 6y ago
      The reason it matters, and why the US and UK are complicit (as are Ireland and several other European nations) is that as someone hiding money you need the Rule of Law. Both countries are famous for the Rule of Law, at least in respect of the very wealthy. Imagine a hypothetical country the Amazing Fiefdom of Jim or AFJ for short. AFJ seems like a good tax haven at first glance, they have 0% tax on offshore revenues, companies can be set up there for a modest fee of $100, you don't need to be a citizen or ever visit, they don't ask you to file much paperwork and they reject all law enforcement paperwork queries for the little paperwork they do have. But alas, the ruler of the fiefdom, Jim, just sometimes takes stuff he wants. A billionaire who had hidden $400M and a big stake in Amazon via a company in AFJ one day discovers the company was now mysteriously owned by Jim, no way to dispute it! If that happens with some tiny island that used to be a British colony you can get it unwound, you'll need to pay some expensive lawyers in London to make that happen so it's not an option for the average person on the high street, but if you've got this sort of "need a tax haven" money you can afford those lawyers and get Jim dragged over the coals until he agrees to give back your stuff. This faith in the rule of law is why Russians hide money in England not in Russia. If you hide stolen money in Russia, and one day Putin wants the money, he just takes it and if anybody complains maybe they "commit suicide" by hurling themselves off a tall building entirely unassisted...
throw0101a 6y ago
> If they want to reform tax law, then it should be forward facing, not trying to reverse previous established policies. The EU argument was that Ireland's "previous established policies" were against EU treaty, and so the (alleged) special deal that IE gave Apple should be considered annulled since it was invalid from the day it was signed. > On this basis, the Commission concluded that the tax rulings issued by Ireland endorsed an artificial allocation of Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe's sales profits to their "head offices", where they were not taxed. As a result, the tax rulings enabled Apple to pay substantially less tax than other companies, which is illegal under EU state aid rules. > This decision does not call into question Ireland's general tax system or its corporate tax rate. * https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_16_2923 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_16_... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_State_aid_case_against_Apple_in_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_State_aid_case_agai...
- rplnt 6y ago
  > it was invalid from the day it was signed Shouldn't then Ireland pay it (or act as if it was paid, and paid whatever it would have paid from it to the EU budget).
  - josefx 6y ago
    > or act as if it was paid, and paid whatever it would have paid from it to the EU budget Yeah, lets treat this as a fine and fine them $1 for every million it cost the other EU members. Lessons learned: you can get away with everything if you are just bold enough. By agreements they signed they are supposed to collect the taxes in a fair manner, so requiring them to collect the taxes they didn't seems to be the least they can be required to do. That would also have the side effect of making every company think twice about using an EU country as a tax haven.
    - iguy 6y ago
      Seems like there's a sovereignty issue here. If you negotiate a deal with the highest authority in Ireland, and they sign off on it, are you done? Why do you have to care what other deals they have made with other parties? Or is nothing Ireland does binding, until someone else with real power has counter-signed it?

redisman 6y ago

Yes and to shut down Cayman Islands and Cyprus while they're at it. It goes to show how incredibly corrupt the global elites are that they "can't" shut down money laundering by tiny island nations who would roll over in 5 seconds if told to by someone like the US. The truth is they love it because that's where they keep their money.

6510 6y ago
We clearly do all have officials who should be dealing with this. I wonder if they can be persecuted for treason.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  That's going to be difficult to organise in a plutocracy. There are insane sums being spent in organised campaigns to limit the ability of governments to interfere with this ethic of systemic financial capture.
  - 6510 6y ago
    There might be a sweet spot where plutocracy is incompatible with kleptocracy. When you own a government you'd want some level of property maintenance. When you want to enrich yourself with public money you want as much of it as possible. The long vs the short game.
narag 6y ago
If you take a closer look at tax havens, you'll find that most of them are UK/US colonies, ex-colonies or de facto colonies.
- raphaelj 6y ago
  You're totally right. Yet half the world are ex UK colonies so ...
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    The reason it matters, and why the US and UK are complicit (as are Ireland and several other European nations) is that as someone hiding money you need the Rule of Law. Both countries are famous for the Rule of Law, at least in respect of the very wealthy. Imagine a hypothetical country the Amazing Fiefdom of Jim or AFJ for short. AFJ seems like a good tax haven at first glance, they have 0% tax on offshore revenues, companies can be set up there for a modest fee of $100, you don't need to be a citizen or ever visit, they don't ask you to file much paperwork and they reject all law enforcement paperwork queries for the little paperwork they do have. But alas, the ruler of the fiefdom, Jim, just sometimes takes stuff he wants. A billionaire who had hidden $400M and a big stake in Amazon via a company in AFJ one day discovers the company was now mysteriously owned by Jim, no way to dispute it! If that happens with some tiny island that used to be a British colony you can get it unwound, you'll need to pay some expensive lawyers in London to make that happen so it's not an option for the average person on the high street, but if you've got this sort of "need a tax haven" money you can afford those lawyers and get Jim dragged over the coals until he agrees to give back your stuff. This faith in the rule of law is why Russians hide money in England not in Russia. If you hide stolen money in Russia, and one day Putin wants the money, he just takes it and if anybody complains maybe they "commit suicide" by hurling themselves off a tall building entirely unassisted...

throw0101a 6y ago

> If they want to reform tax law, then it should be forward facing, not trying to reverse previous established policies. The EU argument was that Ireland's "previous established policies" were against EU treaty, and so the (alleged) special deal that IE gave Apple should be considered annulled since it was invalid from the day it was signed. > On this basis, the Commission concluded that the tax rulings issued by Ireland endorsed an artificial allocation of Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe's sales profits to their "head offices", where they were not taxed. As a result, the tax rulings enabled Apple to pay substantially less tax than other companies, which is illegal under EU state aid rules. > This decision does not call into question Ireland's general tax system or its corporate tax rate. * https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_16_2923 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_16_... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_State_aid_case_against_Apple_in_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_State_aid_case_agai...

rplnt 6y ago
> it was invalid from the day it was signed Shouldn't then Ireland pay it (or act as if it was paid, and paid whatever it would have paid from it to the EU budget).
- josefx 6y ago
  > or act as if it was paid, and paid whatever it would have paid from it to the EU budget Yeah, lets treat this as a fine and fine them $1 for every million it cost the other EU members. Lessons learned: you can get away with everything if you are just bold enough. By agreements they signed they are supposed to collect the taxes in a fair manner, so requiring them to collect the taxes they didn't seems to be the least they can be required to do. That would also have the side effect of making every company think twice about using an EU country as a tax haven.
  - iguy 6y ago
    Seems like there's a sovereignty issue here. If you negotiate a deal with the highest authority in Ireland, and they sign off on it, are you done? Why do you have to care what other deals they have made with other parties? Or is nothing Ireland does binding, until someone else with real power has counter-signed it?