Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

EU Commission vs Ireland Apple tax case judgment

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    But not the single market.

    all markets are about protectionism


  • Options
    #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Are you now trying to argue that if an Irish craft distillery sells products through their website to someone in the UK, then they should pay UK corporation tax on the profit from that sale?

    That’s the logical basis that France have been trying to argue in favour of

    The difference of course being that the craft distillery probably doesn’t have shell companies registered in Ireland and the Bahamas with the sole purpose of avoiding paying the vast majority of tax, happily facilitated by a friendly government.

    Ones that can only do so because government s have created loop holes for mega corporations to exploit


  • Options
    #34
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Again - how did the 2014 Finance Act - enacted in late 2014 - help Apple avoid taxes between 2004-2014?

    It didn’t need to, that was the point I was making. There were plenty of schemes already in use. When they closed them though, they had to create a new loophole, which they did in 2014.

    Maybe I should “Put The Green Jersey On”


  • Options
    #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    relax carry on wrote: »
    What tax loophole specifically did the 2014 Finance Act create? And considering our CT tax receipts have increased quite a bit since 2014, could you expand on what exactly the loophole does?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun_economics


  • Options
    #36
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,476 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Aegir wrote: »
    It didn’t need to, that was the point I was making. There were plenty of schemes already in use. When they closed them though, they had to create a new loophole, which they did in 2014.

    Maybe I should “Put The Green Jersey On”

    So you referenced it for a bit of whataboutery when you couldn’t actually refute the point? Gotcha


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,476 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Aegir wrote: »
    The difference of course being that the craft distillery probably doesn’t have shell companies registered in Ireland and the Bahamas with the sole purpose of avoiding paying the vast majority of tax, happily facilitated by a friendly government.

    Ones that can only do so because government s have created loop holes for mega corporations to exploit

    https://twitter.com/seamuscoffey/status/1283375302618615811?s=21


    “The vast majority of tax” being significantly above the 16.8% effective rate they’ve paid over the last 10 years?


  • Options
    #38
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    blackwhite wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/seamuscoffey/status/1283375302618615811?s=21


    “The vast majority of tax” being significantly above the 16.8% effective rate they’ve paid over the last 10 years?

    The whole idea is that money doesn’t appear as profit, so simply showing the parent cash sheet is pretty pointless.


  • Options
    #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    blackwhite wrote: »
    So you referenced it for a bit of whataboutery when you couldn’t actually refute the point? Gotcha

    You didn’t actually have a point to refute.


  • Options
    #40
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Aegir wrote:
    The whole idea is that money doesn’t appear as profit, so simply showing the parent cash sheet is pretty pointless.


    Ah shur I worked for a corporation that apparently didn't make any profit for the last 40 years, while operating here!


  • Options
    #41
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,476 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Aegir wrote: »
    You didn’t actually have a point to refute.

    I guess I’ll remind you of it then (seeing as you quoted it before :rolleyes:)
    blackwhite wrote: »
    The Irish Government weren't "helping" Apple do anything with regard to taxes.

    Apple (guided by their own legal and tax advisors) structured their companies in a particular way, and asked Revenue to give a judgement as to how that structure would be taxed under Irish tax legislation (just as any other company is free to ask).

    Revenue issued a judgement based on Irish law, and then levied Irish taxes in line with that judgement. The same as they will do for any company that requested a judgement on their company tax structures.

    You responded by referencing the 2014 Finance Act

    So please - let’s try again. Explain how the 2014 Finance Act “helped” Apple avoid taxes between 2004 and 2014 (you know - the topic of this thread)

    If all you’re actually interested in is having an ideologically-driven whinge, when maybe try CA?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,476 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Aegir wrote: »
    The whole idea is that money doesn’t appear as profit, so simply showing the parent cash sheet is pretty pointless.

    That’s the consolidated income statement of Apple inc. - if Apple, or any of its subsidiaries, make a profit then it will be included there. The Cash Flow statement is something completely different (and free lesson, there’s no “cash sheet” include in Corporate 10k filings).


    The idea of tax structuring is that the profits are recognised in a low (or no tax, i. The case of Bermuda) jurisdiction - but the profits still end up recognised somewhere within the group, and end up consolidated into the Group Income Statement.

    When you clearly don’t have the slightest clue what you’re posting about, then you might be best to stop making a show of yourself


  • Options
    #43
    relax carry on
    Registered Users Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭relax carry on


    Aegir wrote: »
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun_economics

    Again, could you try to flesh out your assertion made earlier and answer the below yourself rather than posting a Wikipedia link?

    What tax loophole specifically did the 2014 Finance Act create? And considering our CT tax receipts have increased quite a bit since 2014, could you expand on what exactly the loophole does?


  • Options
    #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    blackwhite wrote: »
    That’s the consolidated income statement of Apple inc. - if Apple, or any of its subsidiaries, make a profit then it will be included there. The Cash Flow statement is something completely different (and free lesson, there’s no “cash sheet” include in Corporate 10k filings).


    The idea of tax structuring is that the profits are recognised in a low (or no tax, i. The case of Bermuda) jurisdiction - but the profits still end up recognised somewhere within the group, and end up consolidated into the Group Income Statement.

    When you clearly don’t have the slightest clue what you’re posting about, then you might be best to stop making a show of yourself

    So the Eu, is senate and OECD are all wrong. There is no shielded profits.

    It must be “resting in their bank accounts”.


  • Options
    #45
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,476 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Aegir wrote: »
    So the Eu, is senate and OECD are all wrong. There is no shielded profits.

    It must be “resting in their bank accounts”.


    Ah - the good old Appeal to Authority fallacy when you don’t have the slightest clue what you’re on about.


    You clearly don’t understand the difference between the accounts of an individual legal entity (which is what taxes get assessed on) and the consolidated group accounts that get filed with the SEC and which were quoted in the previous tweet.

    Shielded profits means the profits get shifted to a group company in a low or zero-tax country, instead of being recognised in a higher tax country. The profits still exist, and are still recognised in the accounts of 1) the subsidiary in a low tax country and 2) the consolidated accounts of the parent group.


    As I said - if all you want to do is rant about things you’ve demonstrated you don’t actually understand, then maybe stick to CA?


  • Options
    #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Ah - the good old Appeal to Authority fallacy when you don’t have the slightest clue what you’re on about.


    You clearly don’t understand the difference between the accounts of an individual legal entity (which is what taxes get assessed on) and the consolidated group accounts that get filed with the SEC and which were quoted in the previous tweet.

    Shielded profits means the profits get shifted to a group company in a low or zero-tax country, instead of being recognised in a higher tax country. The profits still exist, and are still recognised in the accounts of 1) the subsidiary in a low tax country and 2) the consolidated accounts of the parent group.


    As I said - if all you want to do is rant about things you’ve demonstrated you don’t actually understand, then maybe stick to CA?

    I’m not ranting. You are simply trying to defend the indefensible, failing miserably and resorting to ad hominem.

    Irish governments, of different parties, created loop holes for multinationals to exploit. When pressured, they closed them and created new ones. The double Irish, Dutch sandwich, Green Jersey, they’re all there.


  • Options
    #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    blackwhite wrote: »
    I guess I’ll remind you of it then (seeing as you quoted it before :rolleyes:)



    You responded by referencing the 2014 Finance Act

    So please - let’s try again. Explain how the 2014 Finance Act “helped” Apple avoid taxes between 2004 and 2014 (you know - the topic of this thread)

    If all you’re actually interested in is having an ideologically-driven whinge, when maybe try CA?

    you seem to have your wires crossed by the way, please see below a link to my post that quotes yours

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114126232&postcount=13


  • Options
    #48
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,476 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Aegir wrote: »
    you seem to have your wires crossed by the way, please see below a link to my post that quotes yours

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114126232&postcount=13

    The thread is about the EU Commissions allegations about Apple between 2004-2014.

    Yet again - how does the 2014 Finance Act imply that the Govt was helping Apple avoid taxes between 2004-2014?



    BTW - have you figured out the difference between consolidated group accounts and standalone company accounts yet? :pac:


  • Options
    #49
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,476 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Aegir wrote: »
    I’m not ranting. You are simply trying to defend the indefensible, failing miserably and resorting to ad hominem.

    Irish governments, of different parties, created loop holes for multinationals to exploit. When pressured, they closed them and created new ones. The double Irish, Dutch sandwich, Green Jersey, they’re all there.

    “Defending the indefensible”?

    Yes indeed - a tax policy which helps bring jobs to Ireland is “indefensible” :rolleyes:
    Stufent Union Marxism 101 right there.

    The US claims that it has the right to levy taxes on all international subsidiaries of US companies - regardless of where they earn their profits and regardless of where the subsidiaries are actually registered. Irish intellectual property tax structures, combined with the Irish-US double taxation treaties give a way to defer the US taxing non-US profits.

    I’ve already posted what Apples actual Global tax rate comes to - almost 17%. Yet all you could do is lie and pretend that profits were being “hidden” because you don’t understand what a consolidated set of accounts are


  • Options
    #50
    paul71
    Registered Users Posts: 3,108 ✭✭✭paul71


    24 years as a qualified accountant here, may I ask what a "Cash Sheet" is?


  • Options
    #51
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    paul71 wrote: »
    24 years as a qualified accountant here, may I ask what a "Cash Sheet" is?

    Big deal. I gave it the wrong name.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    blackwhite wrote: »
    “Defending the indefensible”?

    Yes indeed - a tax policy which helps bring jobs to Ireland is “indefensible” :rolleyes:
    Stufent Union Marxism 101 right there.

    The US claims that it has the right to levy taxes on all international subsidiaries of US companies - regardless of where they earn their profits and regardless of where the subsidiaries are actually registered. Irish intellectual property tax structures, combined with the Irish-US double taxation treaties give a way to defer the US taxing non-US profits.

    I’ve already posted what Apples actual Global tax rate comes to - almost 17%. Yet all you could do is lie and pretend that profits were being “hidden” because you don’t understand what a consolidated set of accounts are

    You may wish to take a look at how this “protecting Irish jobs” is viewed by other Eu countries

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/europe-has-lost-apple-battle-but-the-war-is-far-from-over-1.4305485


  • Options
    #53
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,476 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Aegir wrote: »
    You may wish to take a look at how this “protecting Irish jobs” is viewed by other Eu countries

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/europe-has-lost-apple-battle-but-the-war-is-far-from-over-1.4305485

    Other EU countries want to force an increase in our 12.5% rate. Doesn’t automatically make them right, and doesn’t automatically give them any right to so.

    Other EU countries want to have the right to levy taxes based on where the end customer is located - not where the selling company is based. Taxes have never been levied that way before, so if they want to change a fundamental aspect of our corporate income taxes work then they’ll need to win a consensus to allow them to make those changes.

    Of course - none of which relates to you claiming that the 2014 Finance Act helped Apple avoid taxes between 2004-2014

    Keep on shifting the goalposts when you get caught spoofing on the previous point :pac:


  • Options
    #54
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Other EU countries want to force an increase in our 12.5% rate. Doesn’t automatically make them right, and doesn’t automatically give them any right to so.

    Other EU countries want to have the right to levy taxes based on where the end customer is located - not where the selling company is based. Taxes have never been levied that way before, so if they want to change a fundamental aspect of our corporate income taxes work then they’ll need to win a consensus to allow them to make those changes.

    Of course - none of which relates to you claiming that the 2014 Finance Act helped Apple avoid taxes between 2004-2014

    Keep on shifting the goalposts when you get caught spoofing on the previous point :pac:


    That tax is called VAT.


  • Options
    #55
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,476 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    That tax is called VAT.

    I was referring to levying corporate income taxes.

    VAT - strictly speaking - is paid by the end customers, not the selling company. The company collects VAT on behalf of the local tax authorities.


  • Options
    #56
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    blackwhite wrote: »
    I was referring to levying corporate income taxes.

    VAT - strictly speaking - is paid by the end customers, not the selling company. The company collects VAT on behalf of the local tax authorities.

    Yes of course. But VAT is levied by the local tax regime and is open to (limited) adjustment. The Commission have some powers over it.

    How do you tax companies on their profits at the end purchaser level if they have complex structure?

    For example, VW or Mercedes sell cars in Ireland - one through an owned distributor, and the other through a separate, Irish owned, distributor. The distributor sells to a dealer who sell onto the end user. So how do you work out where the corporate profits are made?

    Some car companies distribute the cars through UK subsidiaries - more complexity. Do the costs of the UK company get passed onto the Irish company? Do they even show separate accounts for the Irish offshoot? Tesco do not.

    Ireland would be mad not to veto such a move. We would be handing a major economic competitive advantage away for what?


  • Options
    #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Other EU countries want to force an increase in our 12.5% rate. Doesn’t automatically make them right, and doesn’t automatically give them any right to so.

    Other EU countries want to have the right to levy taxes based on where the end customer is located - not where the selling company is based. Taxes have never been levied that way before, so if they want to change a fundamental aspect of our corporate income taxes work then they’ll need to win a consensus to allow them to make those changes.

    Of course - none of which relates to you claiming that the 2014 Finance Act helped Apple avoid taxes between 2004-2014

    Keep on shifting the goalposts when you get caught spoofing on the previous point :pac:

    That’s almost poetic. I never made that claim did I? I used it as example of government action to enable these schemes, which you claim they do not do. You are just deflecting and trying to defend the indefensible.

    It isn’t about the 12.5%. It’s about the various loop holes and allowances, the latest one nicely assess here. https://emmaclancy.com/2018/06/21/the-green-jersey-is-ireland-helping-apple-pay-less-than-1-tax-in-the-eu/


  • Options
    #58
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,476 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Aegir wrote: »
    That’s almost poetic. I never made that claim did I? I used it as example of government action to enable these schemes, which you claim they do not do. You are just deflecting and trying to defend the indefensible.

    It isn’t about the 12.5%. It’s about the various loop holes and allowances, the latest one nicely assess here. https://emmaclancy.com/2018/06/21/the-green-jersey-is-ireland-helping-apple-pay-less-than-1-tax-in-the-eu/

    “Defending the indefensible” :rolleyes:

    Stick to the soundbites if you can’t argue a point I guess

    Aegir wrote: »
    My understanding is that they were helping Apple to avoid paying tax and this wasn’t in doubt. The argument was that it was not offered to all companies and was therefore akin to state aid.

    Here’s your original quote. When called out on the lie about “helping” your response was to reference the 2014 Finance Act.

    So either you think that the 2014 Finance Act was helping Apple between 2004-2014, or you were just throwing in a healthy dose of whataboutery

    We get it - you don’t like ireland using our tax regime to bring jobs into the country. Unfortunately for you and for the rest who would prefer we had remained an economic backwater, the EU Courts don’t agree with you


  • Options
    #59
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,915 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Some car companies distribute the cars through UK subsidiaries - more complexity. Do the costs of the UK company get passed onto the Irish company? Do they even show separate accounts for the Irish offshoot? Tesco do not.

    Tesco probably do pay corporation tax in Ireland. They may not have a separate legal entity operating in Ireland but they will have an Irish branch and the profits of the Irish branch are taxable in Ireland in principle in line with the Irish UK tax treaty.

    This is something to remember tax is complex and ever changing(each new budget changes different laws relating to tax) and you also have to consider how in interacts with different inter country tax treaties and EU law. It's a complicated area which the media has a tenancy to do a horrible job of explaining. An example of that is a few years ago the indo ran a headline along the lines of "the EU band transfer pricing" which is ridiculous. Transfer pricing issues occur even within group companies based in the same jurisdiction. Tax may not even be the dominant factor around how a company manages it's transfer pricing. Internal politics around renumeration and internal targets can play just as big a role if not more depending on the situation.

    What all this means there is massive potential for unintended consequences and certain commentators instead of trying to understand the complexity just call corruption, fraud, state aid(in the case of the EU commission) etc.


  • Options
    #60
    paul71
    Registered Users Posts: 3,108 ✭✭✭paul71


    [PHP][/PHP]
    Aegir wrote: »
    Big deal. I gave it the wrong name.


    Is an apple an orange? Yes it is a very big deal because no-one can discern what you are trying to say.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Here’s your original quote. When called out on the lie about “helping” your response was to reference the 2014 Finance Act.

    So either you think that the 2014 Finance Act was helping Apple between 2004-2014, or you were just throwing in a healthy dose of whataboutery

    We get it - you don’t like Ireland using our tax regime to bring jobs into the country. Unfortunately for you and for the rest who would prefer we had remained an economic backwater, the EU Courts don’t agree with you

    I don't particularly like any country that knowingly colludes with mulitnationals with the sole intention of helping them avoid paying taxes. Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are three very obvious culprits in this.

    I understand why it was done originally, Ireland needed to attract foreign investment, but it has now reached a point where the Mulitnationals say jump and the Irish government asks not only how high, but for how long as well.

    You know this, but are going to great lengths to deny it actually happened, to the extent you make Bertie sound credible.

    Double Irish, Single Malt or the latest, made possible by the 2015 finance act, CAIA.

    to try and deny that the Government or Revenue were involved in helping set up these structures is farcical, hence my example of the 2014 finance act.


Advertisement