5 ms·

They paid taxes according to the laws of a sovereign nation. Seems like a done deal to me. Europe should get their affairs in order. If Ireland shouldn't hav

by LanceH 3y ago

They paid taxes according to the laws of a sovereign nation. Seems like a done deal to me. Europe should get their affairs in order. If Ireland shouldn't have done that, that's not Apple. It really seems like a case of "the law should have been", which seems to work in Europe.

lokar 3y ago
In regards to taxation and regulation of services sold into the EU common market Ireland is not fully sovereign. They have their act together, this is the legal process playing out.
- Kamq 3y ago
  Aren't they still sovereign? They just might be sanction/fined by peers or kicked out of the union if they don't comply? It's not like someone's going to declare war on Ireland and conquer them to force compliance the way a citizen breaking the law might be conquered by a police force.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    The winning move for a single round of the Prisoner's Dilemma is to defect. The winning move for the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma is tit-for-tat. Enforcement mechanisms lead actors to behave more cooperatively, and everyone knows everyone is better off if everyone is cooperating.
    - Kamq 3y ago
      That doesn't make anyone in the game not sovereign
      - ben_w 3y ago
        The enforcement mechanism is a voluntary de jure loss of sovereignty, even though the de facto sovereignty to leave the enforcement mechanism remains.
        Kamq 3y ago
        Ok, that makes more sense
collaborative 3y ago
Europe is fine the way it is. Nations should be sovereign and common economic policy should be policed via fines such as this one. Hopefully this way corpos will learn that tax dodging in Europe is counter productive Trying to fix this via fiscal union leads to more brexits
izacus 3y ago
The fact that they're being in this mess absolutely means that they did not pay taxes according to the laws. Did you miss what the article says?
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  it just means a tax authority disagrees with someone rich enough to see what a court thinks public servants don’t know their laws better than private lawyers do, one of the beauties of using lawyers is that the public servants don’t know which legal rationale you are using and have no way to find out except in the court. this is often a deterrent for them to bother, because they know they can be wrong or completely blindsided by a mixture of laws they never considered. in this case, it wasn't a deterrent and we will find out. but just because a tax authority disagrees doesnt mean the defendant was not compliant according to the law. it means the calculators are different and everyone has to figure out why.
- objclxt 3y ago
  > Did you miss what the article says? Yes, I read it, including the bit that said the Irish government told Apple their tax affairs were legal. Apple paid taxes according to the laws that Ireland had at the time. The issue is not that Apple did not pay taxes according to the law, it’s that the laws themselves were incompatible with Ireland’s other obligations.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Ireland being in the EU, and Apple doing business across the EU, means that Irelands opinion might not be the last or valid one.
  - closewith 3y ago
    > Apple paid taxes according to the laws that Ireland had at the time. The TFEU/Lisbon Treaty is law in Ireland and the allegation is that the deal between Apple and the Government was in breach of Article 107, which regulates State Aid. The ultimate arbiter of whether the deal was lawful is the CJEU. Until decided there, it is uncertain whether Apple acted lawfully. > The issue is not that Apple did not pay taxes according to the law, it’s that the laws themselves were incompatible with Ireland’s other obligations. This just fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between member states and the EU. The EU Treaties and subsequent Regulations (although not Directives, which must be transposed into law nationally) are actually laws across the bloc. Not foreign treaties, not state obligations, but actual laws. Furthermore they take precedence over national laws and can be enforced by the bloc at a judicial level. In addition, whether the Government of the day gave assurances of lawfulness or not, all large enterprises know that only the courts can actually decide whether a deal is lawful or not. This is the same in most democracies, including the US.
vkou 3y ago
They paid taxes according to their twisted interpretation of the laws. A number of governments seem to disagree with that interpretation.

by LanceH 3y ago

lokar 3y ago

In regards to taxation and regulation of services sold into the EU common market Ireland is not fully sovereign. They have their act together, this is the legal process playing out.

Kamq 3y ago
Aren't they still sovereign? They just might be sanction/fined by peers or kicked out of the union if they don't comply? It's not like someone's going to declare war on Ireland and conquer them to force compliance the way a citizen breaking the law might be conquered by a police force.
- ben_w 3y ago
  The winning move for a single round of the Prisoner's Dilemma is to defect. The winning move for the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma is tit-for-tat. Enforcement mechanisms lead actors to behave more cooperatively, and everyone knows everyone is better off if everyone is cooperating.
  - Kamq 3y ago
    That doesn't make anyone in the game not sovereign
    - ben_w 3y ago
      The enforcement mechanism is a voluntary de jure loss of sovereignty, even though the de facto sovereignty to leave the enforcement mechanism remains.
      - Kamq 3y ago
        Ok, that makes more sense

collaborative 3y ago

Europe is fine the way it is. Nations should be sovereign and common economic policy should be policed via fines such as this one. Hopefully this way corpos will learn that tax dodging in Europe is counter productive Trying to fix this via fiscal union leads to more brexits

izacus 3y ago

The fact that they're being in this mess absolutely means that they did not pay taxes according to the laws. Did you miss what the article says?

yieldcrv 3y ago
it just means a tax authority disagrees with someone rich enough to see what a court thinks public servants don’t know their laws better than private lawyers do, one of the beauties of using lawyers is that the public servants don’t know which legal rationale you are using and have no way to find out except in the court. this is often a deterrent for them to bother, because they know they can be wrong or completely blindsided by a mixture of laws they never considered. in this case, it wasn't a deterrent and we will find out. but just because a tax authority disagrees doesnt mean the defendant was not compliant according to the law. it means the calculators are different and everyone has to figure out why.
objclxt 3y ago
> Did you miss what the article says? Yes, I read it, including the bit that said the Irish government told Apple their tax affairs were legal. Apple paid taxes according to the laws that Ireland had at the time. The issue is not that Apple did not pay taxes according to the law, it’s that the laws themselves were incompatible with Ireland’s other obligations.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Ireland being in the EU, and Apple doing business across the EU, means that Irelands opinion might not be the last or valid one.
- closewith 3y ago
  > Apple paid taxes according to the laws that Ireland had at the time. The TFEU/Lisbon Treaty is law in Ireland and the allegation is that the deal between Apple and the Government was in breach of Article 107, which regulates State Aid. The ultimate arbiter of whether the deal was lawful is the CJEU. Until decided there, it is uncertain whether Apple acted lawfully. > The issue is not that Apple did not pay taxes according to the law, it’s that the laws themselves were incompatible with Ireland’s other obligations. This just fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between member states and the EU. The EU Treaties and subsequent Regulations (although not Directives, which must be transposed into law nationally) are actually laws across the bloc. Not foreign treaties, not state obligations, but actual laws. Furthermore they take precedence over national laws and can be enforced by the bloc at a judicial level. In addition, whether the Government of the day gave assurances of lawfulness or not, all large enterprises know that only the courts can actually decide whether a deal is lawful or not. This is the same in most democracies, including the US.

vkou 3y ago

They paid taxes according to their twisted interpretation of the laws. A number of governments seem to disagree with that interpretation.