6 ms·

For sure they are throwing lawyers at it. It's 13bn after all. But the underlying reason for the appeal is the same; the law is not yet clear as to what should

For sure they are throwing lawyers at it. It's 13bn after all. But the underlying reason for the appeal is the same; the law is not yet clear as to what should happen.

izacus 3y ago
Where do you see the lack of clarity? A wish to avoid paying is not lack of clarity.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  The case is between the Irish government and the EU. Ireland made a a tax deal with Apple. Ireland also made a no corporate subsidy deal with the EU. EU wants apple taxed. Ireland says a tax break is not a subsidy, and a subsidy would be if they gave Apple grants, funds, or special loans
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Ireland also made a no corporate subsidy deal with the EU. That seems odd. For example, if the government provides a national healthcare system, this is effectively a subsidy to employers who can then avoid providing a health plan their employees might otherwise demand or otherwise have to pay them more to compensate for their need to pay for their own healthcare. How is this being distinguished from any other form of subsidy? Isn't subsidizing things what governments do with tax money?
    - padjo 3y ago
      Bans on state subsidies are a core principle that enables the EU single market. Otherwise the market could easily be distorted by state aid. However it’s far from simple in practice and is something the member states have been arguing about forever. The rest of the eu has never been happy with irelands tax policy but since taxation is a national competency they can’t do anything about it directly. They can however frame it as state aid and try to attack it that way. Edit to add, information on how state aid works in eu context: https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/what-we-do/eu-internal-market/eu-state-aid-rules/ https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/what-we-do/eu-internal-market/e...
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Bans on state subsidies are a core principle that enables the EU single market. Otherwise the market could easily be distorted by state aid. It seems impossible to avoid this. If one state spends money on something that benefits businesses and another spends it on something else, those businesses will prefer the first one. But this isn't actually that much of a problem because each state has finite resources and its people get to decide how to use them. If one wants to have a UBI (which might increase entrepreneurship and the number of small businesses engaged in taxable activity) and another wants to lower unemployment by attracting large employers with subsidies and a third just wants to have lower taxes, what's the problem? That one might actually work better than another?
- NoboruWataya 3y ago
  Without getting into the nitty gritty of it, it seems pretty obvious that there is a lack of clarity given that the European Commission came to one conclusion, the General Court concluded that the European Commission was incorrect and now an advocate general for the European Court of Justice has concluded that the General Court was incorrect. These are all smart people who have spent a lot of time and effort studying the law in this area. There are a lot of extremely reductionist takes on the case in the media but the actual legal principles in dispute, and their application to the facts, are quite complex.
  - izacus 3y ago
    You keep mixing up "muddying the waters to avoid paying tax" and "lack of clarity" The "lack" you speak of is generated by a megacorporation to avoid paying their part - and you keep attributing it to the wrong party.
    - TrapLord_Rhodo 3y ago
      It's not apple V. EU. It's Ireland Vs. EU. The real crux of the argument is; Does Ireland have the authority to grant Apple it's deal.
    - NoboruWataya 3y ago
      It is the EU institutions who are disagreeing with each other, Apple have nothing to do with it. The General Court of the EU isn't muddying the waters to help Apple avoid paying tax. This is the General Court's judgment by the way: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62016TJ0778 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62...
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Corporations will always attempt to lower their costs. It's like blaming the rain for being wet. It isn't inherently necessary to have a tax system so convoluted that these games are even possible. If you tax wages and companies employ people in your jurisdiction then they have to remit the tax. If you tax sales and people buy things in your jurisdiction then companies have to remit the tax. If you tax property and companies own property in your jurisdiction etc. etc. The problem is governments keep trying to tax companies not based on what happens in their jurisdiction but what happens outside of it, which they can only do sometimes, and that gives the companies an opportunity to find ways to make it one of the times they can't. Just stop doing that and tax the things that actually happen in your jurisdiction.
- tick_tock_tick 3y ago
  Ireland gave Apple a tax deal. The EU is arguing Ireland as part of the EU is not allowed to set it's own tax policy. The lack of clarity is Ireland's claiming it's still a sovereign nation and can set taxes but the EU says no you're not.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    That's not true. EU nations set their own tax policy freely. That's why the EU is claiming it isn't simply a tax issue, but a hidden subsidy. The EU already lost once, but they are trying again
    - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
      If lower tax rates are a "hidden subsidy" then clearly they can't set their own tax policy freely....
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Well clearly there is a lot more to this situation if you want to actually look at it.
hef19898 3y ago
Let's assume the law isn't clear, ans since I am no tax lawyer I actually cannot tell either way, pursueing that clarity at court is exactly what I would expect from Apple and the EU to do. So, the system is working as expected here.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  If the system was well-functioning the tax law would be clear enough that it doesn't take a team of lawyers and courts to know what's permitted. How is anyone supposed to arrange their affairs if the law they're going to be subjected to isn't established until after the fact?
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Laws are never are clear enough, there is always room for interpretation. Laws are not some piece of software that give predctable answers, hence courts and the whole legal system. And it is the latter one atvwork here, as intended.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      This is a rationalization for convoluted legislation. The impossibility of perfection is a poor excuse for mediocrity. Notice that we almost never hear about corporations avoiding payroll taxes or VAT. They avoid this kind of tax in particular because the rules are unusually squishy and incoherent, and every time they find another way to do it, governments respond by making it more complicated or even less coherent instead of addressing the root cause and replacing it with something clearer and simpler.
      - desas 3y ago
        Countries in Europe have been gradually tightening up on corporations avoiding payroll taxes by declaring employees as contractors. In the UK it's known as IR35 working. The EU have recently proposed the platform working directive, aimed straight at this problem.

For sure they are throwing lawyers at it. It's 13bn after all. But the underlying reason for the appeal is the same; the law is not yet clear as to what should happen.

izacus 3y ago

Where do you see the lack of clarity? A wish to avoid paying is not lack of clarity.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
The case is between the Irish government and the EU. Ireland made a a tax deal with Apple. Ireland also made a no corporate subsidy deal with the EU. EU wants apple taxed. Ireland says a tax break is not a subsidy, and a subsidy would be if they gave Apple grants, funds, or special loans
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Ireland also made a no corporate subsidy deal with the EU. That seems odd. For example, if the government provides a national healthcare system, this is effectively a subsidy to employers who can then avoid providing a health plan their employees might otherwise demand or otherwise have to pay them more to compensate for their need to pay for their own healthcare. How is this being distinguished from any other form of subsidy? Isn't subsidizing things what governments do with tax money?
  - padjo 3y ago
    Bans on state subsidies are a core principle that enables the EU single market. Otherwise the market could easily be distorted by state aid. However it’s far from simple in practice and is something the member states have been arguing about forever. The rest of the eu has never been happy with irelands tax policy but since taxation is a national competency they can’t do anything about it directly. They can however frame it as state aid and try to attack it that way. Edit to add, information on how state aid works in eu context: https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/what-we-do/eu-internal-market/eu-state-aid-rules/ https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/what-we-do/eu-internal-market/e...
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > Bans on state subsidies are a core principle that enables the EU single market. Otherwise the market could easily be distorted by state aid. It seems impossible to avoid this. If one state spends money on something that benefits businesses and another spends it on something else, those businesses will prefer the first one. But this isn't actually that much of a problem because each state has finite resources and its people get to decide how to use them. If one wants to have a UBI (which might increase entrepreneurship and the number of small businesses engaged in taxable activity) and another wants to lower unemployment by attracting large employers with subsidies and a third just wants to have lower taxes, what's the problem? That one might actually work better than another?
NoboruWataya 3y ago
Without getting into the nitty gritty of it, it seems pretty obvious that there is a lack of clarity given that the European Commission came to one conclusion, the General Court concluded that the European Commission was incorrect and now an advocate general for the European Court of Justice has concluded that the General Court was incorrect. These are all smart people who have spent a lot of time and effort studying the law in this area. There are a lot of extremely reductionist takes on the case in the media but the actual legal principles in dispute, and their application to the facts, are quite complex.
- izacus 3y ago
  You keep mixing up "muddying the waters to avoid paying tax" and "lack of clarity" The "lack" you speak of is generated by a megacorporation to avoid paying their part - and you keep attributing it to the wrong party.
  - TrapLord_Rhodo 3y ago
    It's not apple V. EU. It's Ireland Vs. EU. The real crux of the argument is; Does Ireland have the authority to grant Apple it's deal.
  - NoboruWataya 3y ago
    It is the EU institutions who are disagreeing with each other, Apple have nothing to do with it. The General Court of the EU isn't muddying the waters to help Apple avoid paying tax. This is the General Court's judgment by the way: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62016TJ0778 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62...
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Corporations will always attempt to lower their costs. It's like blaming the rain for being wet. It isn't inherently necessary to have a tax system so convoluted that these games are even possible. If you tax wages and companies employ people in your jurisdiction then they have to remit the tax. If you tax sales and people buy things in your jurisdiction then companies have to remit the tax. If you tax property and companies own property in your jurisdiction etc. etc. The problem is governments keep trying to tax companies not based on what happens in their jurisdiction but what happens outside of it, which they can only do sometimes, and that gives the companies an opportunity to find ways to make it one of the times they can't. Just stop doing that and tax the things that actually happen in your jurisdiction.
tick_tock_tick 3y ago
Ireland gave Apple a tax deal. The EU is arguing Ireland as part of the EU is not allowed to set it's own tax policy. The lack of clarity is Ireland's claiming it's still a sovereign nation and can set taxes but the EU says no you're not.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  That's not true. EU nations set their own tax policy freely. That's why the EU is claiming it isn't simply a tax issue, but a hidden subsidy. The EU already lost once, but they are trying again
  - tick_tock_tick 3y ago
    If lower tax rates are a "hidden subsidy" then clearly they can't set their own tax policy freely....
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      Well clearly there is a lot more to this situation if you want to actually look at it.

hef19898 3y ago

Let's assume the law isn't clear, ans since I am no tax lawyer I actually cannot tell either way, pursueing that clarity at court is exactly what I would expect from Apple and the EU to do. So, the system is working as expected here.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
If the system was well-functioning the tax law would be clear enough that it doesn't take a team of lawyers and courts to know what's permitted. How is anyone supposed to arrange their affairs if the law they're going to be subjected to isn't established until after the fact?
- hef19898 3y ago
  Laws are never are clear enough, there is always room for interpretation. Laws are not some piece of software that give predctable answers, hence courts and the whole legal system. And it is the latter one atvwork here, as intended.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    This is a rationalization for convoluted legislation. The impossibility of perfection is a poor excuse for mediocrity. Notice that we almost never hear about corporations avoiding payroll taxes or VAT. They avoid this kind of tax in particular because the rules are unusually squishy and incoherent, and every time they find another way to do it, governments respond by making it more complicated or even less coherent instead of addressing the root cause and replacing it with something clearer and simpler.
    - desas 3y ago
      Countries in Europe have been gradually tightening up on corporations avoiding payroll taxes by declaring employees as contractors. In the UK it's known as IR35 working. The EU have recently proposed the platform working directive, aimed straight at this problem.