3 ms·

What does "illegal" mean? Why is it in quotes? Did they break the law or not? If they didn't break the law, if they adhered to the deal they negotiated with Ire

What does "illegal" mean? Why is it in quotes? Did they break the law or not? If they didn't break the law, if they adhered to the deal they negotiated with Ireland, isn't this a dangerous precedent? You can just ignore deals because you (EU) said so? Edit: Please downvote me if you must but also post a comment about why I'm wrong. Thanks!

ko27 2y ago
> You can just ignore deals because you (EU) said so? Of course you can, because EU law has precedence over Ireland's deal in this situation.
- linotype 2y ago
  Even if it was legal under the EU at the time? Maybe Ex Post Facto only applies in the US.
  - simongray 2y ago
    It wasn't legal at the time, that's what's just been established by the verdict. Apple (uniquely) having a near zero tax rate is considered illegal state aid to a company. Private companies are supposed to operate on the same terms within each European country.
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    It wasn't.
- jokethrowaway 2y ago
  I guess what comes as a shock is how much control the EU has. At the same time, if bureaucrauts in Ireland were a bit smarter they could have just written in a special exemption for companies with certain specific requirements - which end up being Apple and a few big ones. Apple was also pretty dumb to go to Ireland while Malta, Cyprus and Bulgaria offer pretty low taxes out of the box. I guess they did that to access UK talent / lower language barrier even if the fiscal setup was riskier.
  - kwhitefoot 2y ago
    > they could have just written in a special exemption for companies with certain specific requirements - which end up being Apple That's not how the law works. The courts look at the intent behind the law, the spirit of the law, as well as the text. It might take longer and more argument but would eventually be struck down as well.
  - bluecalm 2y ago
    Or Ireland could just lower the tax for every company making it a level playing field. I am not a fan of EU economic ideas at all but I am happy they are starting to enforce this one. My country (Poland) has done such deals as well. Wanna start a small business? 19% corporate tax, 23% VAT, 19% cap gain tax. Some German car company thinking about opening a factory here? Let's offer 0 tax rate for many years + additional incentives! This really is demoralizing how they set rules for small guys but then give big incumbent companies everything they want.
delusional 2y ago
CNBC likes to use quotes for emphasis. It's supposed to emphasize that the EU court believes the tax treatment from Ireland to be illegal. The EU isn't applying any penalty here, this is owed taxes that apple were not billed by the Irish tax authorities. Once you enter the EU, you forfeit part of your sovereignty. That's what Ireland failed to do here. There is no slippery slope. This is the very foundation of the union.
- droidist2 2y ago
  Is that what you'd call "scare quotes"?
  - delusional 2y ago
    I don't think so. scare quotes would usually imply some sort of ironic detachment or sarcasm. In this case I really would call it emphasis. They're using it as I'd normally use italics or a word I'd follow by a citation. To signify that this is important and that the word is important for the meaning of the article. I do disagree with that typographic choice, but looking at their other articles I think they're consistent in that usage.

ko27 2y ago

> You can just ignore deals because you (EU) said so? Of course you can, because EU law has precedence over Ireland's deal in this situation.

linotype 2y ago
Even if it was legal under the EU at the time? Maybe Ex Post Facto only applies in the US.
- simongray 2y ago
  It wasn't legal at the time, that's what's just been established by the verdict. Apple (uniquely) having a near zero tax rate is considered illegal state aid to a company. Private companies are supposed to operate on the same terms within each European country.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  It wasn't.
jokethrowaway 2y ago
I guess what comes as a shock is how much control the EU has. At the same time, if bureaucrauts in Ireland were a bit smarter they could have just written in a special exemption for companies with certain specific requirements - which end up being Apple and a few big ones. Apple was also pretty dumb to go to Ireland while Malta, Cyprus and Bulgaria offer pretty low taxes out of the box. I guess they did that to access UK talent / lower language barrier even if the fiscal setup was riskier.
- kwhitefoot 2y ago
  > they could have just written in a special exemption for companies with certain specific requirements - which end up being Apple That's not how the law works. The courts look at the intent behind the law, the spirit of the law, as well as the text. It might take longer and more argument but would eventually be struck down as well.
- bluecalm 2y ago
  Or Ireland could just lower the tax for every company making it a level playing field. I am not a fan of EU economic ideas at all but I am happy they are starting to enforce this one. My country (Poland) has done such deals as well. Wanna start a small business? 19% corporate tax, 23% VAT, 19% cap gain tax. Some German car company thinking about opening a factory here? Let's offer 0 tax rate for many years + additional incentives! This really is demoralizing how they set rules for small guys but then give big incumbent companies everything they want.

delusional 2y ago

CNBC likes to use quotes for emphasis. It's supposed to emphasize that the EU court believes the tax treatment from Ireland to be illegal. The EU isn't applying any penalty here, this is owed taxes that apple were not billed by the Irish tax authorities. Once you enter the EU, you forfeit part of your sovereignty. That's what Ireland failed to do here. There is no slippery slope. This is the very foundation of the union.

droidist2 2y ago
Is that what you'd call "scare quotes"?
- delusional 2y ago
  I don't think so. scare quotes would usually imply some sort of ironic detachment or sarcasm. In this case I really would call it emphasis. They're using it as I'd normally use italics or a word I'd follow by a citation. To signify that this is important and that the word is important for the meaning of the article. I do disagree with that typographic choice, but looking at their other articles I think they're consistent in that usage.