6 ms·
It's absurd that Ireland needs to be forced to accept money that the richest company in the world owe it.
by drooopy 3y ago
It's absurd that Ireland needs to be forced to accept money that the richest company in the world owe it.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoWhy? Sure, Ireland would get a one-off tax boost, but then all the firms that had structured their business this way would no longer have a reason to invest in Ireland at all.
- qnpnp 3y agoThis is an antitrust case, not a tax case. The whole point is that other firms did not benefit from the same rules.
- astaunton 3y agoThe governments stance is that any company could have applied the same tax rules if they wished, so it was not state aid. As a side note, the "irish double sandwich" rules have changed since this
- qnpnp 3y agoSure, and in that case no issue. But that is the government stance, not the EU stance.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoThere is no "EU" stance. The disagreement is between the European Commission and the Irish government. The deciding authority here will be the European Court of Justice, after appeal from the decision of the General Court - which favored Ireland.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- joris_w 3y agoThere is no investment.
- londons_explore 3y agoHave you seen Dublin property prices? Apple et al have 'made' billions of euros for the citizens of dublin in property value increases alone.
- hostyle 3y agoMost landlords (and property owners) in Dublin are not citizens but rather foreign investors and vulture funds.
- Supernaut 3y agoCitation?
- johndunne 3y agoAs a Dubliner, I can tell you that very few are feeling positive effects of these ‘billions of euros.’ The EU ruling is more about a tax evasion loop hole that sees vast billions of euros passing through it, then investment of billions in any part of the economy.
- johndunne 3y agoI'm Irish and the ruling relates to the double-irish tax break specifically, it's about marketing for this tax evasion tactic. It's a hot topic in Ireland; Ireland looks like one of the richest countries on Earth (by GDP) but most Irish aren't feeling this. It's the huge amounts of money flowing through this double-irish loophole that creates the false GDP number. The loophole should end and paying the tax means closing the loophole. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
- istor 3y agoI'm also Irish and you need to think of this more than just the GDP number. Tens of thousands of Irish people are working in the tech and pharma sector which is directly related to the tax status that companies have here. It's convenient for a company to have its "tax HQ" as well as a large physical presence in the country. It is allowing us to build our own sovereign wealth fund. The Ireland of today is hugely better off than it was in the 80s and early 90s, and a good deal of that progress has been smart "marketing", as you call it, bringing in investment. Without this, the economy of Ireland would be closer to Greece or Portugal today.
- NoboruWataya 3y agoI would also add that Ireland's corporation tax receipts, particularly from MNCs, are very significant, so the benefits aren't imaginary in any sense. The government has largely squandered those benefits but that's a different matter.
- johndunne 3y agoFair points, and I agree. However, I believe that the double-irish loophole is more of a 'value add' for the big companies already here, to lessen their tax load in other countries via 'convenient' accounting. The EU ruling is more about this tax evasive nature/use of the loophole than the investment in Ireland and it's economy & jobs. Edit: The EU ruling actually targets a specific use of this loophole by Apple, which alleges amounts to state aid, hence the anti-trust comments. (Gotta love the HN community for delving into the details)
- petesergeant 3y agoHonestly at this point, they're probably not going to up sticks. Well-educated Anglophone workforce, lots of existing employees and infrastructure, excellent rule-of-law, lots of extant US-Irish good will, unlikely to elect popularist strongmen any time soon ... where else to go?
- hurril 3y agoIt's weirder that they are not able to decide for themselves what goes on in Ireland.
- marticode 3y agoNot any weirder than Montana having to abide by SCOTUS decisions.
- sgjohnson 3y agoMontana is not a sovereign state. Ireland is.
- piva00 3y agoIt's a sovereign state in a common market union, so it has to follow the common market rules.
- clarionbell 3y agoSovereignty isn't binary, at least in practice. Think about tribal governments in US. Are they truly sovereign?
- sgjohnson 3y agoNo, they haven’t and they aren’t.
- _jal 3y agoFirst of all, Montana enjoys 10th Amendment dual-sovereignty, just like every other US state. But second, you seem to be asserting that the other involved sovereigns have no right to hold Ireland to the commitments it agreed to when it signed treaties. How is that supposed to work? Are treaties now just lies of convenience?
- sgjohnson 3y ago> the other involved sovereigns The European Union isn’t sovereign. It likes to pretend it is, but it isn’t. > Are treaties now just lies of convenience? They’ve just about always been just lies of convenience. Think Molotv-Ribbentrop pact. Or the START treaty. Or the Iranian nuclear deal. Or the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, which is dead as of yesterday, because NATO suspended it too.
- doikor 3y agoIt is part of the "deal" for companies in Ireland to get access to the rest of the EU. This access is the reason why Apple etc shuffle their profits through Ireland in the first place. The "it" in this case is that every company should be treated the same. So basically no sweetheart deals allowed. And now there is a fight in the courts if there is/was a special deal in place for Apple or not.
- NoboruWataya 3y agoIreland is being forced to tear up its own taxation rules, by countries who have an interest in making the Irish economy less competitive.
- qnpnp 3y agoNo. This isn't a tax case, and EU has no authority on direct tax matters. The point is not that Ireland should change its tax rules. This is an antitrust case. The point is that Ireland gave Apple preferential terms compared to its own tax rules.
- NoboruWataya 3y agoThat is the allegation, which Ireland disputes and the General Court dismissed. I'm well aware that the EU has no authority on direct tax matters, which is exactly why Ireland feels aggrieved, as the Commission is effectively using state aid law as a vehicle to circumvent the limitations on the EU's powers.
- blibble 3y ago> I'm well aware that the EU has no authority on direct tax matters, which is exactly why Ireland feels aggrieved, as the Commission is effectively using state aid law as a vehicle to circumvent the limitations on the EU's powers. as someone who generally dislikes the EU... this one seems fair? giving Apple a custom tax rate to encourage Apple to set up in Ireland seems exactly what state aid rules were designed to stop
- astaunton 3y agoThe original ruling was that Ireland did not give state aid to Apple, that any multinational could have applied the same rules. This was not accepted by the Commission, they asked for a higher court to rule. After several years it has now been suggested that the higher court puts aside its judgement and that it goes back to the lower court, because apparently (according to the Advocate General) the lower court did not take into account several factors and had errors in its judgement (relating to Intellectual property rights, where tax should be paid e.g. in the country of sales or in the country of registration). Which seems to make it once again an issue on tax and not on sweetheart deals.