Hacker News Reader

Comment by neximo64 | Hacker News Reader

However way you look at it, Ireland is being weaselled into collecting this against its will using a legal route the EU should not have the right to walk on in any fashion.

It was agreed on the EU would not interfere with tax affairs a long time ago, this does exactly that. The exact way it was done is irrelevant, it is the result that is the issue.

In the UK it was said when legislation from the EU was rejected or sent for revision, it would be sent back in another chapter of an irrelevant part of a policy document on another issue. This is what used to anger lawmakers.

The way of getting things done is never through the front door (going at taxes directly), it's always using a backhand trick to get around to managing policy (competition policy), which is quite underhanded.

While it is wonderful that Apple will now be paying taxes, who's to say this power will not be abused by the commission in future?

View on HN

Again, this is not a tax issue, it is a competition issue. Apple is getting an unfair advantage against other companies, while driving a race to the bottom on taxes paid.

It is not just illegal (and IMHO they should be fined on top of the back taxes they're required to pay - Irish government should be fined too), but also immoral. Even worse, Tim Cook's open letter is an insult for Europe's citizens and of extremely poor taste. I've owned several iPhones, Mac laptops and iPads; that ends now.

I'm not buying a single Apple device more and I won't spend a penny in their App Store for the devices I have. If Apple doesn't want to pay the price to sell to me (which is to play fair so we can keep our system running), they can pretty much get out of the EU.

Is is a tax and competition issue. The Irish government has given Apple an advantage using taxes.

Thing is, taxes always give someone an advantage and the agreement with the EU member states is that because taxes can give countries an advantage over one an another and it being a contentious issue, the EU will not intervene in it.

The issue of taxes supersedes the issue of competition.

Again, for the third time, this is not a tax issue.

Low taxes are fine. There are countries with very low tax inside of or in the sphere of influence of the EU (Andorra, Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Luxembourg, The City of London, ...).

If Ireland wants to keep this deal going, they have it easy: Change the tax to be 0.005% instead of more than 12%. That's for everyone, not just for Apple and potentially a few other big companies. This is purely looking after the free market and ending unfair state subsidies, it is not about low taxes. if Ireland has a company tax of 0.005% they'll be competing and they'll also spur fair competition inside the country.

What we have here is Apple corrupting a government to go against their citizens and their neighbours, by effectively lowering their cost to trade in the EU compared to their competition (Android handset manufacturers as an example).

Yes you are exactly right!

You're missing the point on the EU though. It is not for an EU court to decide this, it is for an Irish court to decide this. The EU should be challenging Ireland to do this, not retroactively changing Ireland's taxes.

Either Ireland controls its own tax affairs, and they're equal for everyone (the actual issue) or they don't.

The EC is overstepping its bounds, that is the issue you are oblivious to.

Nope, they're not.

This is the result of an investigation. Now Apple can appeal and it can be taken to an European Court. Where's the overstepping again?

The EU isn't a federation. It's not the United States of Europe. If you're from the US you misunderstand the system.

The EU court and EC has no authority to do what its doing now.

So who judges if Ireland is failing to comply with EU law? Who sanctions it?

If you think this is overstepping, I'm sure you've got reasons like "there's no EU law against it"; but turns out there is EU law against these subsidies. That's why I don't see it as overstepping, as long as the process guarantees the right of the parts to defend themselves in court.

You still misunderstand, Ireland hasn't broken any EU law, simply because the EU has no jurisdiction over Irelands tax policy.

The question of who is to judge whether Ireland 'broke the law' is mute. Ireland is a sovereign state & with international affairs there is no bilateral treaty obligating Ireland's tax affairs to be delegated by a third country or organisation such as the EU.

You're looking at the EU from a very Amerocentric point of view, the EU is not the US, the EU does not have a federal court with jurisdiction over EU countries on tax affairs.

On the question on who judges this, it's Ireland. When a country disagrees with another country its a foreign affairs problem. If China has a trade dispute with the US there is no court that can easily solve it.

The equivalent of what you're saying is China ruling US companies to pony up tax with the American countries having no presence in China. There is the WTO, but this isn't that sort of case either. What do China's courts have to do with the USA you ask? The same as the EU's courts have a say over Ireland's tax policy.

I am sorry, but I believe you are misinformed. This is not about taxes (I can't believe I wrote this sentence at least three times already!).

Ireland broke an EU law about about fair competition between companies. They unfairly subsidised Apple in a way not available for other companies. Ireland and all the EU countries agreed to not do that by creating laws against it.

Also, I'm not sure why you think I've got a US-centric view. I'm an EU citizen :-)

I know you have mentioned this, and you do not hear what I'm mentioning. This isn't an EU issue. Apple was given an unfair advantage, which is true. I whole-hearedly agree with you there, I don't think anyone doubts that.

When they gave Apple an advantage, they gave it an advantage over Irish firms too - which is unfair.

It should not be the EU's role to judge this, it should be something done in Irish courts, to make sure everyone else is treated fairly. The EU is doing a job it should not be doing. This is my point, as I hear yours and I agree with it. After all it is a foreign company given an advantage to local Irish businesses - in Ireland. Other Irish businesses suffer.

One day the thing the EU will do will be something very drastic and there will be no recourse.

The thing is, giving Apple an unfair advantage over other firms operating in Ireland is the same as giving Apple an unfair advantage over firms operating in the EU. Damn, there's a law against it, which has been signed by all EU members - that's hardly overstepping.

I guess you would prefer that law didn't exist and I hear you, but whether we like or not, reality is that Ireland broke the law and Apple colluded with them, hence they have to pay back what they owe (and hopefully a fine to not try again).

> The EU court and EC has no authority to do what its doing now.

The EC doesn't have authority in cases of illegal state aid?

Then we should throw away the cases since decades

You could say the same thing about Chinese steel being subsidised by the Chinese state.

A US court cannot change that. It is the same with the EC on tax issues.

A country can offer something better than an another EU country can, without it being interfered with.

It isn't about what was right or wrong, it is who gets to decide that. What is witnessed here is the loss of Ireland's sovereignty.

If there was any reason there was a Brexit and it wasn't to do with racism or bigotry it was for reasons that would prevent such a scenario as the one in Ireland.

> You could say the same thing about Chinese steel being subsidised by the Chinese state.

China doesn't pertain to the EU

> A US court cannot change that. It is the same with the EC on tax issues.

EC authority about state aids has been there for decades

> A US court cannot change that. It is the same with the EC on tax issues.

This is not about tax issues

> A country can offer something better than an another EU country can, without it being interfered with.

Oh, yes, this is legal, but this is not what the case is about

> It isn't about what was right or wrong, it is who gets to decide that.

And in the case of state aids, the one that can decide is the EC

A subsidy is as good as state aid. Is subsidy a form of tax, no.

It is an issue of tax, not even as blurry as a subsidy.

China and the EU pertain the exact same way as Ireland and the EU. The EU has no say over Ireland's tax affairs.

Taxes are not state aids, Any form of say on tax in any way at all needs all member states to agree, - as from the Treaty of Lisbon on Tax Affairs.

It's a shame really that this is brought up, because one of two things will happen

1) It will be said the EU has control over the state of Ireland's tax policy, through the guise of 'state aid'. What fun that'll be

2) The ruling will be overturned and the EC will not be able to easily govern on its rulings. Legislation will be brought about to seek more control over EU member states.

Either way, each spell trouble for the EU. You can see the Brexiteers laughing.

> A subsidy is as good as state aid. Is subsidy a form of tax, no.

Second time, what China does is not EU problem

> It is an issue of tax, not even as blurry as a subsidy.

No, it is not a tax issue., Read the press release.

> China and the EU pertain the exact same way as Ireland and the EU. The EU has no say over Ireland's tax affairs.

The EC has authority over state aids and this ruling has nothing to do with the tax system or tax rates from EU members

> Taxes are not state aids, Any form of say on tax in any way at all needs all member states to agree, - as from the Treaty of Lisbon on Tax Affairs.

This is not a tax affair.

But as it is clear that you have not read the press release, you don't want to read it and you will repeat the same wrong things again and again, have a nice day.

But reality is what it is and this cas is not a damn tax case

It is a tax affair. That is very clear. I don't know how there is another way to see it.

Read about what Ireland gave Apple.

They didn't give them cash, unless I misunderstand that. They gave Apple a tax deal, and the EU has no control over tax affairs of its member states.

It really is quite simple.

> using a legal route the EU should not have the right to walk on in any fashion.

By all means, do explain why the EU does not have this right.

> The exact way it was done is irrelevant, it is the result that is the issue.

I hate to repeat myself, but please do explain -- it would most certainly seem that the EU has an interest in tax and competition affairs such as these. Moreover, individual EU member states as well as every company competing against Apple have interests in this. It's pretty silly to say that "the exact way it's done is irrelevant" -- in complex international tax/competition affairs the "exact way" things are done means all the difference.

I'm not familiar with all the tax regulations of the EU, but I have to say that statements such as yours need to be substantiated with sources that support your arguments (and I'd genuinely be interested in seeing those). Otherwise this should just be considered a political statement and/or your opinion on the matter - if that's the case, please clarify that.

The EU does not have this right, as per the treaties creating the EU the EU has no say in a countries tax affairs - at all.

Everyone agreed to that, to stop the EU stiffling competition between states.

There's not much to say, the EU simply does not have the right to interfere with tax affairs, at the treaty level. It's all well and good they have an interest in it, but no actual say.

Can you please substantiate your statements with sources (so as to avoid a situation where this turns into a purely political debate)?

You seem very confident that the EU has no right to do what it's doing. I hope you have reason to be so confident based on actual treaties, law and agreements.

If you do, it should be easy to prove. If you don't, you should be ignored.

Treaty of Lisbon (Relevant webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general-information-tax...)

Basically for tax matters, unanimous approval is required. Except when it involves getting rid of double taxation.

The EU believes the issue in question is a problem of State Aid[0] which originates in the Treaty of Rome and that the state aid is provided through company-specific tax breaks does not make it tax policy rather than state aid.

Basically, according to the commission Ireland's special deal gives Apple unfair advantage over other Common Market businesses, other companies in the same domain don't get to take advantage of a sub-unit corporate tax rate and keep an extra >10% off the top.

In that view, that this is provided through special-purpose tax breaks rather than direct subsidies or whatnot is immaterial and irrelevant.

[0] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120...

It's worth noting that this decision was made by the European Commission, and that this is not merely a tax matter -- the tax discounts seems to just have been the way Ireland has illegally provided state aid.

Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said: "Member States cannot give tax benefits to selected companies – this is illegal under EU state aid rules. The Commission's investigation concluded that Ireland granted illegal tax benefits to Apple, which enabled it to pay substantially less tax than other businesses over many years. In fact, this selective treatment allowed Apple to pay an effective corporate tax rate of 1 per cent on its European profits in 2003 down to 0.005 per cent in 2014."

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm

If Apple paid $400 million in tax in Ireland, and this was an effective tax rate of 0.005%, then that implies that Apple's profit was 8 trillion dollars.

Something doesn't add up.

> Something doesn't add up.

It'd be great if people could be less vague about their opinions, and a lot more specific if they believe the EC is making a mistake - the EU isn't perfect, but please don't discount it on a superficial hunch (which unfortunately seems to happen a lot these days).

From the press release I referenced:

Therefore, only a small percentage of Apple Sales International's profits were taxed in Ireland, and the rest was taxed nowhere. In 2011, for example (according to figures released at US Senate public hearings), Apple Sales International recorded profits of US$ 22 billion (c.a. €16 billion[1]) but under the terms of the tax ruling only around €50 million were considered taxable in Ireland, leaving €15.95 billion of profits untaxed. As a result, Apple Sales International paid less than €10 million of corporate tax in Ireland in 2011 – an effective tax rate of about 0.05% on its overall annual profits. In subsequent years, Apple Sales International's recorded profits continued to increase but the profits considered taxable in Ireland under the terms of the tax ruling did not. Thus this effective tax rate decreased further to only 0.005% in 2014.

So Tim Cook was lying when he said Apple paid $400 million?

He said he did that in 2014, not 2011. Apple might well have paid $400 million in 2014, and that might well be 12.5% of the profit that Ireland says corporation tax is owed on.

But, there are billions of Euros of profit that, according to Ireland, no tax needs to be paid on. Being able to choose not to pay corporation tax on 99%+ of your profits isn't an option available to most companies operating in Ireland.

Thing is, tax loopholes are usually due to a confluence of interacting incentives.

For example, governments often want to encourage innovation. That can mean giving tax breaks to income from IP. It can also mean creating a loophole if you structure the company such that profits get directed towards a holder of the IP.

IMO it's ok for governments to use tax policy to encourage some things and discourage others. Not all companies will be able to take advantage of such policies, by their very nature; some companies do less of the desireable things, others more. So I don't see this as a black and white issue.

One thing for sure, it's definitely an encroachment on Ireland's sovereignty with respect to tax. I don't expect the judgement to stand as is on appeal. If it does, the EU will risk further fracture. If the biggest countries in the EU use EU policy to attack smaller countries' tax policies, the club will start looking less appealing by the day.

(Disclaimers: I am Irish, living in London, not a fan of Brexit, etc.)

I think the EC is making a strategic mistake, a policy mistake, and it's a threat to the continued existence of the EU. I don't expect the decision to stay as is on appeal.

It is a common rule in EU however that you can not favor one company over another. This is what is the issue here, not the specific tax rate. The EU isn't saying what tax rate Ireland may tax at simply that they have to treat every company the same.

How do you think the single market would work if say Irish owned companies paid half the tax of spanish owned companies in Ireland?

What about the part where a member state is not legally allowed to provide taxation benefits to only specific parties, that undercut other member states and the member state's other companies? That is what is happening in this case; other countries that do not provide the loophole that Ireland has provided are effectively losing the opportunity to realistically compete. The loophole itself is not obvious and practically exists only to draw big business, leaving smaller companies in a worse situation.

I couldn't find anything specific but this overview [1] does give some background and suggests that the EU is trying to harmonise taxes.

1. https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/o...

This is exactly what Ireland and a bulk part of the EU constituent countries don't want. We're scared of tax harmonisation. Where will the boundary of what makes a uniform trading environment be drawn?

It is worrying that the case will prove that the EU can actually do this, using the EU court to do it (EU law have primacy except with the sections stated such as taxation - using competition to bypass this is disturbing).

No one but Germany wants this political union, the EU was supposed to be a union based on trade, not this.

But how is that going to work out if Ireland can simply use its tax policy to circumvent EU competition laws?

I am sure part of the deal that the EU would stay out of Irish tax policy was that Ireland would not use tax policy to circumvent other EU laws/regulations/treaties.

The basis of the agreement that the EU would not interfere with tax policy was precisely so that states could compete against each other. This means the basis the commission is using, unfair competitive advantage, goes against the basis of this tax treaty. If Ireland was to circumvent other treaties that is an issue, but on the basis of competition it is most definitely unfair to the Irish state.

This isn't the first time the EU has intervened with taxes in Ireland, the other is the water levy. It's getting ridiculous now. Its a country gradually being micromanaged.

> so that states could compete against each other.

To a point.

One thing is maintaining a low corporate tax (no one in the EU has a problem with Ireland's 12.5% corporate tax), another thing - and entirely distinct - is giving select companies tax rebates for no other reasons other than to encourage those companies to operate in Ireland.

That's an unfair state subsidy and that's not cool in the EU. Because the same deal is not offered to other companies.

If it's unfair, why cannot someone challenge it in an Irish court to get the same treatment, where does this whole EU business come in?

Why should the EU have a say in how a country sets its tax affairs? This is contrary to the treaty.

This is an Irish issue where it could be challenged in an Irish court, now Ireland is challenging this in an EU court - what?

I assume because no one in Ireland was doing it? It's clear Ireland has no interest in taking up the case. And who in Ireland has the time and money to take on both Apple and the Irish state in court?

They could have set a precedent by challenging it in an Irish court, to extend the benefits to all businesses in Ireland.

They instead challenged Ireland in an EU court.

removed, no point talking politics on a tech site

> To turn around now and assert the later is a slap on the cheek and potentially the beginning of a slippery slope to a United States of Europe.

They are not doing that. And the ruling explicitly say that they don't have a problem with the Irish tax policy

How would Texans feel if th federal government slapped the state government in the wrist because the state government restricted the right to bear arms to only the super rich? How defenceless would the average Joe feel?

If you're going to do analogies, first please understand the topic you're talking about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com