Is it just me or have SF vanished?

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.

[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.

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?

Shefwedfan

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

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.

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: »

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?

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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?

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: »

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.

Francie, you know as well as I do that morality or ethics do not come into tax law. If it’s legal, it’s legal. End of.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

The Wiki page on the case very helpfully links to the Senate report into Apple's structures - which give the facts of the matter. They even have some diagrams that show the structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_State_aid_case_against_Apple_in_Ireland#/media/File:Apple's_Offshore_Organisational_Structure_(2013_Senate_Report).jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Apple%27s_Offshore_Distribution_Structure_%282013_Senate_Report%29.png

Apple sold all of their products through retail subsidiaries in the individual countries where customers were based.

Those retail companies all purchased the products for sale from Apple Sales International, which was an Irish registered company, but which was not deemed to be Irish tax resident.

Apple's transfer pricing was set so that the in-country retail subsidiaries made a few cents of profit on their sales, whilst the vast majority of profit flowed into the ASI legal entity.

The EU's finding rested on the case that Apple used two different branches (one Irish registered and resident, one Irish registered but Bermudan resident) within the single legal entity of ASI to set up a "Double Irish" structure, instead setting up two separate legal entities (which most others with a "Double Irish" used to use).

There was no finding against the principle of using transfer pricing to funnel the profits through Ireland - it was just that Apple were allowed to use a slightly different legal structure to anyone else.

The EU haven't ruled that any of Apple or Ireland's assertions around control, etc. were "bullsh**" - the judgement is that Apple were allowed to set their legal structures in a different manner to anyone else, and that being allowed to do that constituted illegal state aid.

Yet again, we've the usual suspects pontificating on a topic they know SFA about. Every time one of their false claims get exposed they just move onto the next fabrication.

joeguevara wrote: »

Francie, you know as well as I do that morality or ethics do not come into tax law. If it’s legal, it’s legal. End of.

The EU said it wasn't legal...did you miss that? That is why Apple had to pony up the cash. That is why we abolished the facility.

Pending a win by Apple and Ireland that's the state of play.

blackwhite wrote: »

The Wiki page on the case very helpfully links to the Senate report into Apple's structures - which give the facts of the matter. They even have some diagrams that show the structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_State_aid_case_against_Apple_in_Ireland#/media/File:Apple's_Offshore_Organisational_Structure_(2013_Senate_Report).jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Apple%27s_Offshore_Distribution_Structure_%282013_Senate_Report%29.png

Apple sold all of their products through retail subsidiaries in the individual countries where customers were based.

Those retail companies all purchased the products for sale from Apple Sales International, which was an Irish registered company, but which was not deemed to be Irish tax resident.

Apple's transfer pricing was set so that the in-country retail subsidiaries made a few cents of profit on their sales, whilst the vast majority of profit flowed into the ASI legal entity.

The EU's finding rested on the case that Apple used two different branches (one Irish registered and resident, one Irish registered but Bermudan resident) within the single legal entity of ASI to set up a "Double Irish" structure, instead setting up two separate legal entities (which most others with a "Double Irish" used to use).

There was no finding against the principle of using transfer pricing to funnel the profits through Ireland - it was just that Apple were allowed to use a slightly different legal structure to anyone else.

The EU haven't ruled that any of Apple or Ireland's assertions around control, etc. were "bullsh**" - the judgement is that Apple were allowed to set their legal structures in a different manner to anyone else, and that being allowed to do that constituted illegal state aid.

Yet again, we've the usual suspects pontificating on a topic they know SFA about. Every time one of their false claims get exposed they just move onto the next fabrication.

Didn't for a second claim to be an expert on it.

What 'claims' have I made only quote other sources? RTE, The EU etc?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The EU said it wasn't legal...did you miss that? That is why Apple had to pony up the cash. That is why we abolished the facility.

Pending a win by Apple and Ireland that's the state of play.

Francie, you asked for an opinion on whether the law was played fast and loose. I gave my opinion and backed it up with the reasons why, outlining that the Commission had departed from settled case law. Am I entitled to have an opinion the same as you are entitled?

You haven’t outlined why you have yours other than European Commission said so. Why do you think it was fast and loose with the law? As a Sinn Fein supporter are you advocating that Ireland should not control its own tax law but it should be controlled by the EU?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Effectively Apple are in the exact same place that the good republican Slab was. If you remember Revenue made a judgement against him that he fought through the Courts for several decades, losing at every stage before ending up in jail via the Special Criminal Court.

If I remember correctly, Francie, you proclaimed his innocence all along right up until the minute he was found guilty and even then, you complained about the non-jury court. Guess what? The ECJ where Apple will end up is a non-jury court. Do you not have the same sympathy for Apple that you had for the Slab?

joeguevara wrote: »

Francie, you asked for an opinion on whether the law was played fast and loose. I gave my opinion and backed it up with the reasons why, outlining that the Commission had departed from settled case law. Am I entitled to have an opinion the same as you are entitled?

Absolutely.

You haven’t outlined why you have yours other than European Commission said so. Why do you think it was fast and loose with the law? As a Sinn Fein supporter are you advocating that Ireland should not control its own tax law but it should be controlled by the EU?

I voted for SF, that doesn't for a minute mean I support them or that I'm a member.

This is an area where I disagree with them. I think we should be supporting the EU in it's attempt to bring all corporations into line.
The wealth these corporations are generating for a few that should be coming back into the communities where they ply their trade and make their product is at obscene levels now.
I believe, unlike you that they do have 'moral' obligations over and above the need to make profit.
I am not for a minute...communist or even fully socialist, I am more interested in fair play and balance in everything and corporations don't get to avoid that.

[Deleted User]

blanch152 wrote: »

Effectively Apple are in the exact same place that the good republican Slab was. If you remember Revenue made a judgement against him that he fought through the Courts for several decades, losing at every stage before ending up in jail via the Special Criminal Court.

If I remember correctly, Francie, you proclaimed his innocence all along right up until the minute he was found guilty and even then, you complained about the non-jury court. Guess what? The ECJ where Apple will end up is a non-jury court. Do you not have the same sympathy for Apple that you had for the Slab?

Jesus

Ive heard it all now....equating apple to the chief of staff of the provos

Rows Grower

blanch152 wrote: »

Effectively Apple are in the exact same place that the good republican Slab was. If you remember Revenue made a judgement against him that he fought through the Courts for several decades, losing at every stage before ending up in jail via the Special Criminal Court.

If I remember correctly, Francie, you proclaimed his innocence all along right up until the minute he was found guilty and even then, you complained about the non-jury court. Guess what? The ECJ where Apple will end up is a non-jury court. Do you not have the same sympathy for Apple that you had for the Slab?

What has Slab Murphy got to do with Sinn Fein?

Shur for all we know he might be a member of Fine Gael.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Didn't for a second claim to be an expert on it.

What 'claims' have I made only quote other sources? RTE, The EU etc?

Well we can start with this one

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All we need to do to release that money is drop our objection as a state to taking it.

Then it is legal to take it.

A definitive statement of fact - that of course if demonstrably not true
And the second someone points out the above is untrue, because Apple are also appealing, you switch to arguing something else.

Next up we try

FrancieBrady wrote: »

recording every Apple product sold in Europe, Middle East, Africa and India as a 'sale made in Ireland' for tax reasons

and of course the second that this is shown to be another falsehood, and that Apple actually have subsidiaries in all of the countries they sell in, but charge royalties from Ireland, you pivot onto something else.

And then finally - claiming that the Apple case was the reason that the Double Irish was abolished.

The Double Irish shut-down was announced in Nov 2014, during the 2015 Budget speech. It came because of EU pressures regarding the tax treatment of royalty payments to countries without a tax treaty in place - with the threat that the EU would introduce new rules that would prevent it anyway - not that it was illegal at the time.
The Apple judgement was announced on 29 August 2016 :rolleyes:

blanch152 wrote: »

Effectively Apple are in the exact same place that the good republican Slab was. If you remember Revenue made a judgement against him that he fought through the Courts for several decades, losing at every stage before ending up in jail via the Special Criminal Court.

If I remember correctly, Francie, you proclaimed his innocence all along right up until the minute he was found guilty and even then, you complained about the non-jury court. Guess what? The ECJ where Apple will end up is a non-jury court. Do you not have the same sympathy for Apple that you had for the Slab?

I didn't...stop telling lies please. Again. And I never expressed an opinion on Slab sympathetic or otherwise.
I agree with what Adams had to say about his conviction.

GerryAdams wrote:

“everyone has a duty to pay the taxes for which they are liable”.

Shefwedfan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The EU said it wasn't legal...did you miss that? That is why Apple had to pony up the cash. That is why we abolished the facility.

Pending a win by Apple and Ireland that's the state of play.

Throwing the toys pout of the pram again I see

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Absolutely.

I voted for SF, that doesn't for a minute mean I support them or that I'm a member.

This is an area where I disagree with them. I think we should be supporting the EU in it's attempt to bring all corporations into line.
The wealth these corporations are generating for a few that should be coming back into the communities where they ply their trade and make their product is at obscene levels now.
I believe, unlike you that they do have 'moral' obligations over and above the need to make profit.
I am not for a minute...communist or even fully socialist, I am more interested in fair play and balance in everything and corporations don't get to avoid that.

Fair enough. I have to admit, that I disagree with a good lot of what you say in this thread but you do have a reasoned argument (most of the time), you don’t call people bots, you don’t mindlessly quote something and disappear. So fair play and kudos with regards to what your company is doing in this crazy times.

I have read extensively on the Apple Case and read the case law, I think the commission did misinterpret our Tax Law. But tax is such a grey area and no one really knows what the outcome will be.

I am not political at all and not a fan of FG FF or SF.

blackwhite wrote: »

Well we can start with this one

A definitive statement of fact - that of course if demonstrably not true
And the second someone points out the above is untrue, because Apple are also appealing, you switch to arguing something else.

I don't think this is true...Apple have no hold over the money. They have paid it. It is in escrow because Ireland has appealed and the Minister for Finance is the holder of the account. Apple's appeal does not bar the release of the escrow money. Once we drop the appeal there is nothing legally stopping the money coming out of Escrow.
Apple can still continue pursuing their appeal.

Next up we try

and of course the second that this is shown to be another falsehood, and that Apple actually have subsidiaries in all of the countries they sell in, but charge royalties from Ireland, you pivot onto something else.

I linked to an RTE report backing what I said. All I see are people 'telling' me that is wrong. They haven't backed it up with a source. So once again..back it up or it's just your word against somebody else's.

And then finally - claiming that the Apple case was the reason that the Double Irish was abolished.

The Double Irish shut-down was announced in Nov 2014, during the 2015 Budget speech. It came because of EU pressures regarding the tax treatment of royalty payments to countries without a tax treaty in place - with the threat that the EU would introduce new rules that would prevent it anyway - not that it was illegal at the time.
The Apple judgement was announced on 29 August 2016 :rolleyes:

Fair enough on that. Mea cupla.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Not at all......if the Commission feel that any company or Member State is potentially operating not in compliance with the law they should go after them.....I'd even say they're dutybound to do so - we all want a level playing field.

Their job is to investigate, put the matter before the relevant court and let it be adjudicated - that's the law and that's the system.

People suggesting we just bypass all that and go straight to grabbing the money are ones advocating law breaking.