Is it just me or have SF vanished?

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't try to deflect away from it. I have freely said that I don't understand the detail of it, not being an expert in that field.

So in your opinion is it a cut and dried case - the appeal?

The appeal is nothing to do which which entity was making sales to end customers.

The appeal relates to how Apple structured ASI compared to how all other companies doing a "Double Irish" structured their legal entities.

All other companies had two Irish registered legal entities within their chain fulfilling the same role that Apple tried to do using one Irish registered legal entity.

Most companies used an Irish registered and Irish tax resident operations company to establish an Irish base, and then an Irish registered but not Irish tax resident company to route the vast majority of their profits through.

Apple set up a single Irish legal entity, but split it into two branches.

The "OPs" branch was Irish tax resident, but the "Head Office" branch was not Irish tax resident under Irish law.
Apple obtained a ruling from Revenue agreeing that the Head Office branch was deemed to be Bermudan tax resident under Irish law, meaning that any profits in that part of the business were not taxable in Ireland.

The EU case is that the Revenue ruling that was given to Apple constituted illegal state aid and allowed them set up structures that no other company availed of.
Ireland disputes that because 1) the end result of Apple using 1 Irish legal entity compared to other companies using 2 Irish legal entities is effectively the same, so there's no unfair advantage and 2) any other company could have set up the same structure and obtained a similar ruling from Revenue if they chose to.

I'd tend to side with Ireland on this one, but our common law based legal system is very different to the largely civil code based legal systems of most of continental Europe. Brexit is a blow to our strength in Europe on this, as they are the largest European country with a system similar to ours.
Our concept of companies having multiple branches that can be treated in different ways isn't nearly as common on the continent, and is ultimately a large part of what lead to the original EU ruling.
If Ireland ultimately lose this appeal it's a major blow to our tax sovereignty (because tax residency is supposed to be a national competency), but also a blow to the sovereignty of our legal system.

Sultan_of_Ping

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think anyone has addressed what happens if Ireland drops it's appeal.

Nor what the get-out clauses of the Escrow agreement say.

We have established that the EU is not a party to that agreement, it is between Apple and Ireland.

The EU were advising Ireland on how to spend/disperse the money when it was paid, so I presume they were ok with before it went into Escrow. Open to correction on this too.

Yes, I did.

In response to an earlier post of yours (#1860), I wrote:-

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

Again, you demonstrate you don't know how this works.

First, BNY Mellon are escrow agents not BoA.

Second, "the funds were put in Escrow under the control of our Minister of Finance"? No, this was explained to you earlier the Minister for Finance does not have control of the funds, they are under the supervision of BNYM, as escrow agent and custodian.

The investment and management of the escrow fund is jointly overseen by the Minister and Apple through an investment committee.

Third, there is no "gentleman's agreement." There is a legal deed in place covering all this.

Fourth, our status as appellant is no less and no greater than Apple's so even if we drop our appeal, Apple can continue and the funds stay where they are until the matter is determined.

Fifth, by virtue of the deed covering the escrow, Apple have quite a lot of say as to what happens to the money. They are not only represented on the committee overseeing the investment of it, they are the other party to the escrow deed.

.....and as already has been pointed to you (by me) the Deed of Escrow states "all claims of ownership and access to this money is suspended until the European Courts have concluded the proceedings that the Government and Apple have brought."

that's a disjunctive rather than a conjunctive "and" - this point was also explained to you in post #1910

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think anyone has addressed what happens if Ireland drops it's appeal.

Nor what the get-out clauses of the Escrow agreement say.

We have established that the EU is not a party to that agreement, it is between Apple and Ireland.

Your modus operandi is to clutter up a thread about Sinn Féin with a never ending list of meaningless questions on something that will never happen,to take the heat off the thread title
I know we're in lock down but theres only 4 or 5 people left reading this
So I dont know why you should be concerned
Take a leaf out of my book,put the phone down and enjoy the sunshine
I couldnt care less what's said about the political personalities here tbh,its too niche
But ha carry on,there'll be one or two to set you straight now and again:)

FrancieBrady

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

Yes, I did.

In response to an earlier post of yours (#1860), I wrote:-



.....and as already has been pointed to you (by me) the Deed of Escrow states "all claims of ownership and access to this money is suspended until the European Courts have concluded the proceedings that the Government and Apple have brought."

that's a disjunctive rather than a conjunctive "and" - this point was also explained to you in post #1910

Can you post a link to the Deed? Maybe you have done this and I missed it.

Shefwedfan

Why would anyone want Europe thinking they can tell Ireland how we run our tax system?

What exactly is the benefit to anyone?

Or is it just because FG decided to fight the decision and the narrative is FG=bad?

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

Your modus operandi is to clutter up a thread about Sinn Féin with a never ending list of meaningless questions on something that will never happen,to take the heat off the thread title
I know we're in lock down but theres only 4 or 5 people left reading this
So I dont know why you should be concerned
Take a leaf out of my book,put the phone down and enjoy the sunshine
I couldnt care less what's said about the political personalities here tbh,its too niche
But ha carry on,there'll be one or two to set you straight now and again:)

'Clutter up'? Have you seen some of the rants and bile posted on this thread?

I find this subject interesting, if it doesn't interest you, you have a scroll wheel like everyone else.
Why are you trying to censor or debar conversation/discussion? If somebody on the dreaded Shinner side was doing that, you's be all over it like a rash.

'Nothing to say...say nothing', would be my advice.

FrancieBrady

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Why would anyone want Europe thinking they can tell Ireland how we run our tax system?

What exactly is the benefit to anyone?

Or is it just because FG decided to fight the decision and the narrative is FG=bad?

FF backed this in the Dáil too, which allowed Noonan to proceed.

Shefwedfan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FF backed this in the Dáil too, which allowed Noonan to proceed.

Yes I know, I agree with the government

What I don’t know is why SF think it’s bad? What will ireland gain from losing more control to Europe?

Runaways

Runaways wrote: »

My brother, two cousins and two mates all self employed and applied and told they weren’t eligible. I can give you their numbers maybe you can advise them what they did wrong on the form perhaps?

What form did they fill in?

Sultan_of_Ping

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you post a link to the Deed? Maybe you have done this and I missed it.

You asked earlier for sources - I directed you to them - DoF, C&AG, the Official Report from Dáil Éireann.

The details of the Deed have not been published, but I guess it is entirely possible that the DoF, C&AG and various ministers have all been conspiring to mislead everyone, so I'm guessing you'll play in the gray area, so have at it.

FrancieBrady

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

You asked earlier for sources - I directed you to them - DoF, C&AG, the Official Report from Dáil Éireann.

The details of the Deed have not been published, but I guess it is entirely possible that the DoF, C&AG and various ministers have all been conspiring to mislead everyone, so I'm guessing you'll play in the gray area, so have at it.

Hold on a minute here. I have said I agree with the EU position on this.
The EU has found that Ireland conspired to grant illegal tax benefits to a corporation.

Too right I am wondering what is in that deed.
You don't know either, so you don't know what is involved in getting out of it or what facility is contained in it for either side to end the agreement.

I think, at this time, we should know.

Sultan_of_Ping

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hold on a minute here. I have said I agree with the EU position on this.
The EU has found that Ireland conspired to grant illegal tax benefits to a corporation.

Too right I am wondering what is in that deed.
You don't know either, so you don't know what is involved in getting out of it or what facility is contained in it for either side to end the agreement.

I think, at this time, we should know.

Now, they didn't - I guess we can add conspiracy to escrow and pharmaceuticals as topics that are outwith your expertise.

I suppose we could also add the NTMA to the list of fibbers.....I mean what would they know.....




It's not really that unusual to not publish a legal document - but doubtless the ill-educated will make great hay from the fact this particular one remains outside the public domain.

FrancieBrady

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

Now, they didn't - I guess we can add conspiracy to escrow and pharmaceuticals as topics that are outwith your expertise.

I suppose we could also add the NTMA to the list of fibbers.....I mean what would they know.....




It's not really that unusual to not publish a legal document - but doubtless the ill-educated will make great hay from the fact this particular one remains outside the public domain.

Sorry, that post is a little unclear.

Are you saying they didn't find that Ireland gave illegal tax benefits to Apple?

Are the EU fibbing in their pressers again?

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_16_2923

Runaways

Ballso wrote: »

Yeah, the likes of you. People who offer nothing but endless mouthy empty-headed criticism at everyone who don't fit squarely into your simplistic political agenda. Your stupid assumptions on this point nicely illustrate your inability to actually engage with facts instead of wailing about how terrible everything is. You are the Sinn Fein archetype

I don’t even vote Sinn Fein but it’s apparent you lot are rattled am threatened and rightly panicking that anyone who disagrees with you suddenly can reply and your parties time with it’s grip on the wheel is come to an end. I didn’t do that. Your inability to open your mind to accepting a different point of view might need some retooling in the coming months and years.
And all of this said without any of the invective yourself and Fg people here can’t seem to make a point without including

In fact it’s cookie cutter reading some of the posts from you all.

Shef thinks we’re all in the pub singing Rah songs ffs

‘Everyone who disagrees with me is a shinner on the dole in the pub singing Rah songs’


Find a new method of discussion lads. Cos this one is transparent and threadbare for being so overused in this thread and boards as a whole.

Sultan_of_Ping

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, that post is a little unclear.

Are you saying they didn't find that Ireland gave illegal tax benefits to Apple?

Are the EU fibbing in their pressers again?

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_16_2923

No, it's not really unclear. I understand it perfectly, and plenty of other people understand it perfectly, and I'm sorry I can't make it any clearer - if you choose to be Jesuitical in your interpretations then, sorry (again), you're beyond any further help I could possibly offer.

But despair not - Google is your friend. Pick out the terms that you are struggling with and take it from there.

I think the only advice I can offer you at this point is to start with the source material and work forward from there - start with EURLEX, everything you need, including the original decision is there (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1585915075802&uri=CELEX:32017D1283) - and anything that you need further elaboration on can be explored through Google.

Best of luck

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

If Ireland ultimately lose this appeal it's a major blow to our tax sovereignty (because tax residency is supposed to be a national competency), but also a blow to the sovereignty of our legal system.

That is an opinion though, not an absolute.

Why would it be a blow to the 'sovereignty of our legal system'?

We have been before the European courts before as a country and won and lost.

FrancieBrady

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

No, it's not really unclear. I understand it perfectly, and plenty of other people understand it perfectly, and I'm sorry I can't make it any clearer - if you choose to be Jesuitical in your interpretations then, sorry (again), you're beyond any further help I could possibly offer.

But despair not - Google is your friend. Pick out the terms that you are struggling with and take it from there.

I think the only advice I can offer you at this point is to start with the source material and work forward from there - start with EURLEX, everything you need, including the original decision is there (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1585915075802&uri=CELEX:32017D1283) - and anything that you need further elaboration on can be explored through Google.

Best of luck

I asked you a specific question...if you could answer it, before you start speaking for 'everyone'?

franciebrady wrote:

Are you saying they didn't find that Ireland gave illegal tax benefits to Apple?

Sultan_of_Ping

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I asked you a specific question...if you could answer it, before you start speaking for 'everyone'?

yeah, I think it's pretty clear from what I posted up from numerous sources what the position is.

If you want to argue that it's not - it's up to you. You can take any interpretation you want - just as you are choosing to interpet my use of "everyone" in a literal rather than an emblematical sense.

There are plenty of online resources to help you. At this point it might be worth engaging with them. It really is beyond me to help further.

Shefwedfan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is an opinion though, not an absolute.

Why would it be a blow to the 'sovereignty of our legal system'?

We have been before the European courts before as a country and won and lost.

If Europe win they will decide they can go after all the companies and Ireland corporate tax

It might surprise you but majority of Europe are jealous at Ireland and the amount of multinational companies we have

FrancieBrady

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

yeah, I think it's pretty clear from what I posted up from numerous sources what the position is.

If you want to argue that it's not - it's up to you. You can take any interpretation you want - just as you are choosing to interpet my use of "everyone" in a literal rather than an emblematical sense.

There are plenty of online resources to help you. At this point it might be worth engaging with them. It really is beyond me to help further.

You couldn't just give a straight answer to the question? Says it all really.

You just close off areas you don't want to go into. Fair enough. Says a lot.

FrancieBrady

Shefwedfan wrote: »

It’s not an opinion

If Europe win they will decide they can go after all the companies and Ireland corporate tax

It might surprise you but majority of Europe are jealous at Ireland and the amount of multinational companies we have

The EU (us) did go after quite a few companies that operate in Ireland. Amazon, Google, Starbucks etc. And they 'went after' Apple.

Why would losing this specific case stop them doing it in future if we allow what we allowed Apple to do?

Sultan_of_Ping

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You couldn't just give a straight answer to the question? Says it all really.

You just close off areas you don't want to go into. Fair enough. Says a lot.

Not at all - you've plenty of areas there to go into - I've given you leads to DoF, NTMA, C&AG, EURLEX etc, etc

I'm not sure why you are so fixed on one answer from one peripatetic poster (me ) but, hey, whatever, dude.

It'll all play out in the courts - but from my knowledge of tax law (which is so thin, it's positively transparent), the published outline of the argument we're advancing in the case looks persuasive - it's up to the judges now.

Shefwedfan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The EU (us) did go after quite a few companies that operate in Ireland. Amazon, Google, Starbucks etc. And they 'went after' Apple.

Why would losing this specific case stop them doing it in future if we allow what we allowed Apple to do?

Precedent.....


If they lose one case they wont bother with the rest......if they win then they will go after all of them....

Please grow up with capital and now the bold text.

FrancieBrady

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Precedent.....


If they lose one case they wont bother with the rest......if they win then they will go after all of them....

Please grow up with capital and now the bold text.

You do know they have gone after other corporations and plan to go after more?

*Capitals and bold, italics and underline are facilities given here to add emphasis and clarity to what you are posting.
If you insist on not taking the time to work out what various uses mean, then that is YOUR problem.
If you have a problem, take it up with a mod and see if they think I am misusing those functions or if i am being 'juvenile'.

Runaways

Runaways wrote: »

My brother, two cousins and two mates all self employed and applied and told they weren’t eligible. I can give you their numbers maybe you can advise them what they did wrong on the form perhaps?

There are obviously reasons that we’re not aware of. If they’re still doing any work, then they’re not eligible. They could also apply for Jobseeker’s Allowance.

Shefwedfan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You do know they have gone after other corporations and plan to go after more?

*Capitals and bold, italics and underline are facilities given here to add emphasis and clarity to what you are posting.
If you insist on not taking the time to work out what various uses mean, then that is YOUR problem.
If you have a problem, take it up with a mod and see if they think I am misusing those functions or if i am being 'juvenile'.

Precedent


Google it

FrancieBrady

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Precedent


Google it

They won't be going after the other corporations because they were using the 'Double Irish' scheme so your 'precedent' argument is void.

They will be going after corporations who are evading/avoiding paying taxes due.

They have done it with Amazon, Google Chrysler and Starbucks...Apple is just another one.
The appeal isn't a test case.

Runaways

I’m dyin sick sorry for being arsey.

Runaways

aido79 wrote: »

I don't really know what campaign you're talking about to be honest. Can you elaborate?

I was referring to your rant where you said this "he doesn’t even realize he’s admitting people aren’t being paid enough never mind the minimum wage bracket."

What do you think the minimum wage under a SF government woul be for someone who only works 20 hours a week?

You’re somehow Unaware of Leo’s ‘welfare cheats cheat us all’ campaign?
The one he promised would save the state €500 million a year, which turned out to be a lie shock horror. He can’t help himself. Goes off script and suddenly has to reveal who he is. We’re better than You and a massive dose of disdain for anyone that isn’t him. The arrogance and entitlement aside, he just cannot help himself. The people currently keeping the country going: retail staff, student nurses, drivers, carers, hospital cleaners and caterers, are all low income WORKERS and he's still having a go.


Absolutely Shameful.

But I’m sure his cultist devotees here will rush to his defence presently.

And you all wonder why FG are the least popular party in the country. They’ve lost our trust and it’s pretty much all his fault.

Runaways

FAO aido79

Welfare Cheats Cheat Us All

Published: 18 April 2017
From: Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection
Minister for Social Protection Leo Varadkar has launched a hard-hitting publicity campaign designed to raise awareness of social welfare fraud and encourage members of the public to identify potential cheats.

Speaking at the launch, Minister Varadkar said: “The vast majority of people receiving payments from the Department of Social Protection are fully entitled to those payments and are compliant with the conditions. However, we take fraud very seriously and have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that people receive what they are entitled to. Nothing upsets people more than someone else cheating the system at their expense. That’s why we are launching a new campaign to encourage members of the public to report suspected or known cases of welfare fraud.

“Members of the public play a vital role as whistleblowers. Last year some 20,800 allegations of alleged social welfare fraud were dealt with by the Department. These are investigated and where warranted, payments are reduced or stopped and, in some cases, claimants are prosecuted. Overall, a range of anti-fraud and control measures in the Department of Social Protection saved taxpayers over €500 million last year.”

The hard-hitting publicity campaign promotes the Department’s online and telephone fraud-reporting services. It’s designed to encourage debate about social welfare fraud and challenge the perceptions of those who see it as a victimless crime. It kicks off in the next few days with online, print, and broadcast advertisements and a national poster campaign.

The majority of public reports in 2016 concerned Jobseekers Schemes, Supplementary Welfare Allowance and One Parent Family Payments. The most common reports allege issues such as working while claiming, cohabiting with a partner who is making a financial contribution, or claiming while living abroad. The Department estimates that approximately one in three reports results in a payment being reduced or stopped.

Last year, the Department’s Prosecution Service considered some 300 cases of which 194 were referred to the Chief State Solicitor’s Office for proceedings to issue. A further 160 cases were referred for prosecution to the DPP by the Department’s Special Investigations Unit.

Minister Varadkar continued: “The Department of Social Protection has the single biggest budget of any Government Department, spending €19 billion every year. Last year, 1.4 million people received a weekly social welfare payment. Even with a budget of this size, there are still many positive changes I would like to make but have been unable to do so due to budgetary constraints. That’s why savings are so important. And that’s why the public has a vital role in ensuring that we only target resources at those who most need them.”

Confidential reports can be made using:

a confidential facility on-line on the Department’s website www.welfare.ie/cheats where concerns can be reported
the dedicated telephone facility 01 673 45 45 staffed by trained personnel
reports by letter are also welcomed and encouraged (Fraud Reports, Central Control Division, DSP, Shannon Lodge, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim)
Reports can also be made to any of the Department’s offices nationwide.


https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/218fcc-welfare-cheats-cheat-us-all/?referrer=https://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/Pages/pr180417.aspx