Is it just me or have SF vanished?

joeguevara wrote: »

Do you think that is the issue of the 13 billion. The profits of the phone sold in China switched to the Irish subsidiary because of the royalty of the intellectual property. They weren’t booking the sale in Ireland but the profits came there. But that is not the issue at all.

Ordinarily, those profits would be taxed in Ireland at the relatively low rate of 12.5 percent but — thanks to an agreement between Apple and Ireland — the vast majority of profits in Ireland were attributed to a “head office” not located in any country and therefore not subject to taxes in Ireland or anywhere.

“Apple and Ireland will say that the head office legitimately earned these profits — it’s not just an accounting maneuver — that the head office is really doing things that justify attributing most of the profits to it.

It is not that sales are booked in Ireland. It is that the royalties are paid to a head office not located in any country. It is not a breach of the Law and we have sovereignty over our Tax affairs.

Can you show me where they are playing fast and loose with the Law?

And the EU said after examining it that those claims were bull**** basically.

Ok, you won't agree on 'fast and loose' even though we shut down the facility that allowed it.

How about morally? Are corporations behaving responsibly and morally, in the way an indigenous business will pay it's dues?

Apple has over 200 billion in cash available to it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2019/0915/1075817-apple-tax-appeal-explained/

Do you think that is the issue of the 13 billion. The profits of the phone sold in China switched to the Irish subsidiary because of the royalty of the intellectual property. They weren’t booking the sale in Ireland but the profits came there. But that is not the issue at all.

Ordinarily, those profits would be taxed in Ireland at the relatively low rate of 12.5 percent but — thanks to an agreement between Apple and Ireland — the vast majority of profits in Ireland were attributed to a “head office” not located in any country and therefore not subject to taxes in Ireland or anywhere.

“Apple and Ireland will say that the head office legitimately earned these profits — it’s not just an accounting maneuver — that the head office is really doing things that justify attributing most of the profits to it.

It is not that sales are booked in Ireland. It is that the royalties are paid to a head office not located in any country. It is not a breach of the Law and we have sovereignty over our Tax affairs.

Can you show me where they are playing fast and loose with the Law?

Mango Joe

Ah....I found the Shinners!!!

According to the below news article they're demanding that the Dail sits, thus bringing all our politicians together for an orgy of cross-infection.

What a pack of ignorant Morons.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/we-are-risking-public-health-by-being-here-simon-harris-uneasy-about-dail-sitting-amid-covid-19-991752.html

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2019/0915/1075817-apple-tax-appeal-explained/

joeguevara wrote: »

It doesn’t record it as a sale in Ireland though. The Irish entities own all the intellectual property rights. If a phone is sold in China, it he Chinese sale must pay a royalty to the Irish entity for the intellectual property. It is not illegal and vastly different than what you have outlined as happened.

The vast majority of profits were attributed to a “head office” not located in any country and therefore not subject to taxes in Ireland or anywhere. Now this is the crux of the matter but based on most tax lawyers completely legal due to double taxation agreements. The EU appear to be interpreting the law in a new approach which breaches actual case law and would have ramifications on any tax incentive scheme.

All of the above is legal and certainly not playing fast and loose.

The commission ruled that the tax treatment here in effect enabled Apple to avoid paying tax on nearly all the profits it generated from product sales across the EU Single Market, because all sales were booked in Ireland rather in the territories where they were actually sold.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hmm...I just think anyone...recording every Apple product sold in Europe, Middle East, Africa and India as a 'sale made in Ireland' for tax reasons is 'playing fast and loose' tbh.

Might be just me though (but I doubt it)

It doesn’t record it as a sale in Ireland though. The Irish entities own all the intellectual property rights. If a phone is sold in China, it he Chinese sale must pay a royalty to the Irish entity for the intellectual property. It is not illegal and vastly different than what you have outlined as happened.

The vast majority of profits were attributed to a “head office” not located in any country and therefore not subject to taxes in Ireland or anywhere. Now this is the crux of the matter but based on most tax lawyers completely legal due to double taxation agreements. The EU appear to be interpreting the law in a new approach which breaches actual case law and would have ramifications on any tax incentive scheme.

All of the above is legal and certainly not playing fast and loose.

joeguevara wrote: »

Do you mean Irish tax Law? In my opinion no. The Commission relied heavily on two leading European Court judgments relevant to State aid and tax planning matters, C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission and C-106/09 Commission v Gibraltar (particularly the former), to state that we were in breach of EU Law. These are not analogous with the Apple Case the Commission’s approach is a new approach and departs from prior EU case law.

Apple have complied with Irish Law and aren’t playing fast and loose.

Do you think they are and if so why?

Hmm...I just think anyone...recording every Apple product sold in Europe, Middle East, Africa and India as a 'sale made in Ireland' for tax reasons is 'playing fast and loose' tbh.

Might be just me though (but I doubt it)

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

No, not at all.

I think there may be a problem with the law, and there may well be ethical considerations that some people feel that they are not honouring - but as someone who works in RA I definitely don't think my sector at least plays fast and loose with the law......or if this is us playing fast and loose, I'd hate to see strict compliance :D:D

So the EU is wrong to go after Starbucks, Chrysler, Amazon, Apple and others?

I wasn't asking about 'your sector' specifically as i haven't the foggiest what your sector is.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Eh?

Do you think these corporations are playing fast and loose with the law Sultan?

No, coulda shoulda, mighta...just your opinion...Yes or no?

Do you mean Irish tax Law? In my opinion no. The Commission relied heavily on two leading European Court judgments relevant to State aid and tax planning matters, C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission and C-106/09 Commission v Gibraltar (particularly the former), to state that we were in breach of EU Law. These are not analogous with the Apple Case the Commission’s approach is a new approach and departs from prior EU case law.

Apple have complied with Irish Law and aren’t playing fast and loose.

Do you think they are and if so why?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Eh?

Do you think these corporations are playing fast and loose with the law Sultan?

No, coulda shoulda, mighta...just your opinion...Yes or no?

No, not at all.

I think there may be a problem with the law, and there may well be ethical considerations that some people feel that they are not honouring - but as someone who works in RA I definitely don't think my sector at least plays fast and loose with the law......or if this is us playing fast and loose, I'd hate to see strict compliance

:D:D

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would you ever...just for once, stop the sensationalist scaremongering morte.

Nothing sensationalist about it - take our place at the moment.

Nothing is moving on site - unless something is at risk of exploding there's no contractors allowed on. Maintenance etc is still going on but upgrade projects, and a fairly major re-configuration job have all been postponed indefinitely. People like me are working remotely

The 600+ jobs are still there. And because of a changed shift pattern and the generosity of the company any one working on shift is doing very well with over-time and bonuses. But there's about another 600 contractors who were due to be on site over the next 6 to 18 months that won't be - now maybe they've found work elsewhere, or they are doing something else but I doubt it.

And that's a good proxy for what an SF-led government will visit on us - no investment, no upgrades and a gradual winding down of production.

I don't know how many jobs we support locally, not just in our supply chain but it might be reasonable to assume it's as many again as are employed here - so any loss of activity reveberates and not just throug the supply and support chains, but also out into the community - we sponsor a number of local sports clubs and our CSR programme does a bit here and there - if the site goes or gets downgraded the ramifications will be felt very far and very wide.

When Dell went, 2000 jobs went with them, but it was estimated there nearly 7000 additional local jobs went as well. In payroll alone, Dell's departure cost the local economy €117m in disposable income.

Shefwedfan

Well that was some loop, Francie back onto the corportations!!!

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

I laughed when I read this - there speaks someone who doesn't have to deal with the HPRA :D:D

Eh?

Do you think these corporations are playing fast and loose with the law Sultan?

No, coulda shoulda, mighta...just your opinion...Yes or no?

[Deleted User]

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

I laughed when I read this - there speaks someone who doesn't have to deal with the HPRA :D:D

To be fair he is talking about taxation.

Mortelaro wrote: »

Is the sinn Féin strategy to make 100's of 1000's of direct and indirect jobs redundant so as unemployed people they will vote for them?
Venezuela here we come then
Order me a sugarcane juice at the bar there I'm driving
Use the government chits

Would you ever...just for once, stop the sensationalist scaremongering morte.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not getting into a long winded argument on it.

It's clear to me and anyone with a eye/brain in their head that these corporations are behaving like a law onto themselves.

Getting them to pay more of a fair share and something approaching what they should do is not a huge ask.

Like everything, there is a balance to be struck.

I laughed when I read this - there speaks someone who doesn't have to deal with the HPRA

:D:D

Not getting into a long winded argument on it.

It's clear to me and anyone with a eye/brain in their head that these corporations are behaving like a law onto themselves.

Getting them to pay more of a fair share and something approaching what they should do is not a huge ask.

Like everything, there is a balance to be struck.

tikkahunter

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/dup-councillor-same-sex-marriage-and-abortion-to-blame-for-coronavirus/02/04/ Just to lighten the mood here is something we can all agree on is bull**** ðŸ˜‚

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Strangely enough, if they're not paying enough taxes, you are!

What do you mean by this.

tikkahunter

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

I honestly don't think that any MNCs would up and leave but they would simply stop investing, throwing us into a prolonged death spiral. Down the line, that leaves plants vulnerable to being shuttered - unmodernised plants become more and more inefficient and eventually get closed down and razed.

Plus once we rule ourselves out as a viable option for FDI it'll take a generation to get it back, even if we change tack back to supporting our MNCs in a couple of years

Hewlet Packard is a prime example of this .Once the shareholders are not getting bang for their buck your a goner .

Mortelaro wrote: »

Is the sinn Féin strategy to make 100's of 1000's of direct and indirect jobs redundant so as unemployed people they will vote for them?
Venezuela here we come then
Order me a sugarcane juice at the bar there I'm driving
Use the government chits

It's SF's way of reducing your tax bill - if you're not earning you're not paying taxes. In Shinnernomic logic that's a win

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Apologies if this offends you, but I am with Vesthager on this. If she wins in her quest to have all corporations pay their fecking dues...then we all as Europeans benefit.

.

Is the sinn Féin strategy to make 100's of 1000's of direct and indirect jobs redundant so as unemployed people they will vote for them?
Venezuela here we come then
Order me a sugarcane juice at the bar there I'm driving
Use the government chits

joeguevara wrote: »

We do not want E.U. harmonisation of tax if it undermines our ability to attract companies. Employment from them is huge. Development of education is Immemse. If we were the same as every E.U. country then we would lose all that.

If we don’t back Apple then it will apply to every International company we have. They could up and leave. We would lose employment and everything else. So, we as a country are getting benefit from backing Apple.

I honestly don't think that any MNCs would up and leave but they would simply stop investing, throwing us into a prolonged death spiral. Down the line, that leaves plants vulnerable to being shuttered - unmodernised plants become more and more inefficient and eventually get closed down and razed.

Plus once we rule ourselves out as a viable option for FDI it'll take a generation to get it back, even if we change tack back to supporting our MNCs in a couple of years

Wanderer78

joeguevara wrote:

We do not want E.U. harmonisation of tax if it undermines our ability to attract companies. Employment from them is huge. Development of education is Immemse. If we were the same as every E.U. country then we would lose all that.

Strangely enough, if they're not paying enough taxes, you are!

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So why aren't we backing the EU?

Fear, is why we are backing the EU.

Or somebody is getting benefit from backing Apple.

We do not want E.U. harmonisation of tax if it undermines our ability to attract companies. Employment from them is huge. Development of education is Immemse. If we were the same as every E.U. country then we would lose all that.

If we don’t back Apple then it will apply to every International company we have. They could up and leave. We would lose employment and everything else. So, we as a country are getting benefit from backing Apple.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So why aren't we backing the EU?

Fear, is why we are backing the EU.

Or somebody is getting benefit from backing Apple.

Sorry, not closely following the thread. I was referring to how our tax structures benefits inward investment and the dangers of going rogue not specifically the Apple money.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Apologies if this offends you, but I am with Vesthager on this. If she wins in her quest to have all corporations pay their fecking dues...then we all as Europeans benefit.

These companies(Amazon, Apple, Chrysler, Starbucks etc etc) are pulling a fast one(I would say a 'criminal one') and not paying anything near what they should be and the serfs are scrambling around on the ground in fear looking for their hats to grovel into ..do you agree with that?
Short termism here will hurt us in the long term.

We won't benefit - how will we benefit if FDI gravitates towards the centre of the EU?

I take it you are a business-person from an earlier post, so if we lose the ability to compete on tax, what will our bases for competition be? We are, at the end of the day, a small island on the periphery - with a very small market - what earthly reason is there for anyone to invest here, aside from tax?

There are no fiscal transfers, so taxes not paid here but paid in France or Germany won't turn up here - likewise there's no mechanism for subsidising or equalising salaries across the EU - is there?

And while they may not pay their due in corporation taxes, a lot of their money finds their way into the state's coffers through income tax, prsi, VAT, business rates, LPT etc etc

Do you really think we'll continue to have sustained tax revenues if there is a flight of FDI?

Penfailed

The previous 10 or so pages on this thread are mental! SF state that pharma companies need to step up to the plate.
Cue the haters saying, "Who do they think they are? This isn't possible! They don't have a clue! Imagine if SF were in power!"
A couple of posters tried to defend SF and were verbally lynched by the hordes asking about stuff that SF didn't even comment on or about.
Pharma come out and say that they will be ramping up their operations to try to help in the fight against the virus. People who defended SF say, "Ha! Told you so!"
The hordes say, "No! That's not what we meant! We meant 'x, y and z'..."
It's laughable...but not really funny. People on both sides of this argument need to take a step back and take stock. Are you really achieving anything? Are you moving the argument forward? Are you going to change anyone's mind? Some people think SF can do no wrong. Some people think SF can not and will never do any right. I happen to think the reality is somewhere in between.