Shefwedfan wrote: » No America already doing this.... UK already talking about it 8k jobs? I am talking about all american companies, Apple/Dell/Intel/IBM/HP etc etc. How many jobs is that? Everyone in EU to austrity? what are you talking about? If the EU can undercut us and do the exact same they would. They can't. We have an advantage and some people want to hand this advantage back....talk about shooting yourself in the foot
joeguevara wrote: » I didn’t move the goalposts. It was stated that the system only provided 8k jobs, I showed otherwise.
What proactive measures would you suggest? Tax them, let them mov, lose everything...or do you have something to suggest?
Deleted User wrote: » Is it not incredibily short-sighted to build our econmy around what is essentially a tax-evasion scheme??
Deleted User wrote: » Like what happens if america introduces laws to encourage repatriation,or another eurozone country undercutz us?
Deleted User wrote: » And its increasingly likely even before covid crisis the eu was getting ready to clamp.down on this,quite why we should facititate a company to pay 0.05% tax on its eu revenue,while effectively damning everyone in the eu to.austrity for only 8K jobs here??
FrancieBrady wrote: » And have a mercenary attitude to paying their dues and a suspect attitude to proper community responsibility. Apple have ferreted away 200 billion in cash alone not to mention other assets. Is that proper in the world we live in? What is the point of that exactly? Have some responsibility to the places that allow you make that kind of profit is all that is being asked.
Deleted User wrote: » We are specifically talking about apple,but way to.move goalposts But you do highlight a fundamental flaw of over reliance on assisting tax evasion,. Will we even get 15 more years out of current situation???, or will we wait until whole thing comes crashing down and everyone whinge about it,instead of taking proactive measures now
tikkahunter wrote: » It’s like trump signing off on a order for General Motors to stop making cars and start making ventilators - that’s fine looks like he is calling the shots but in reality how long is it going to be before a company that’s makes cars will be able to successfully make a ventilator then start production on it - the pandemic will be long gone again that happens.
joeguevara wrote: » You do know that FDI companies employ 200k people in Ireland. They promote education, world class laboratories, world class training and probably multiples of ancillary employment. CSO sets it out here. https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-fdi/foreigndirectinvestmentinireland2017/ae/
Sultan_of_Ping wrote: » Well unless you're on the ECJ bench or an A-G there, then your thoughts and opinions are pretty much irrelevant.
Deleted User wrote: » Is it not incredibily short-sighted to build our econmy around what is essentially a tax-evasion scheme?? Like what happens if america introduces laws to encourage repatriation,or another eurozone country undercutz us? And its increasingly likely even before covid crisis the eu was getting ready to clamp.down on this,quite why we should facititate a company to pay 0.05% tax on its eu revenue,while effectively damning everyone in the eu to.austrity for only 8K jobs here??
Shefwedfan wrote: » Let the big American companies away with it, means f**k all difference to Ireland and it keeps the nation employed Added advantage is that it pi**es off the rest of Europe I said it before and will say it again, the people that complain about the American corporation are the people who can’t get a job in them :-) Do I give a cr*p if Apple or whoever push every penny they make in Europe via a Ireland office so they have to pay less tax? No I don’t...what I care about is the thousand of jobs they provide and all the rest of these companies... I hope the government and Apple win, then f**k the begrudges, at home and abroad!!!
[Deleted User] wrote: » Jesus Ive heard it all now....equating apple to the chief of staff of the provos
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)
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
GerryAdams wrote: “everyone has a duty to pay the taxes for which they are liable”.
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?
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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » recording every Apple product sold in Europe, Middle East, Africa and India as a 'sale made in Ireland' for tax reasons
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?
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?
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?
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.
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).jpghttps://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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)
