Apple facing record bill for Irish tax

Sapphire

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The EU bailed Eire out. Even the UK assisted to the tune of £14 billion via the IMF.

Yes, I know about this – but why is the EU only now issuing this order. Haven't Google had a base in Ireland for many years?

Also, unless the issue of tax avoidance is dealt with internationally, among all nations, then companies like Google will simply up sticks and go to a country that has a more 'favourable tax environment' to them, to the economic detriment of countries like Ireland.

stator

Tammykitty wrote: »

If a country wants to grant a company special tax exemptions, it should be allowed.


Apple brought employment to Ireland, the loss of tax revenue was offset by the reduction in welfare payments for those who would be otherwise unemployed.


This has been a method of attracting business for years in lots of countries, including the UK (100% Capital allowance relief for Enterprise zones etc)

Apple only employs 5,000 people in Ireland, which is pathetic. If they've avoided 13 billion euros tax by employing 5,000 that works out at 2.6 million per each employee. If all businesses did that no country would ever collect any corporation tax.

If a country wants to attract businesses by lowering taxes on activity in that country then fair enough but Ireland took it to the extreme, allowing companies to avoid paying tax in any EU state.
The EU common market has regulations to stop this thing from happening. The idea is to encourage trade not tax dodging.

mwpt

steampowered wrote: »

It is really the opposite. You either believe in free markets involving fair competition, or you don't. Apple clearly doesn't.

This was a state aid ruling. This is idea that the government shouldn't be picking winners by giving special subsidies or tax breaks to specific private sector companies, as that distorts competition.

Personally I don't think that closed-door special deals between big companies and governments are a good thing. You just end up squeezing out small businesses who actually pay their taxes.

These are the same rules that (for example) stop France using every trick in the book to block British agricultural exports, as used to be happen.

I'm finding the cognitive dissonance the brexiters must be experiencing highly amusing. Of course their Pavlovian reaction to this will be to rage against the EU (because ... EU), but another part of their brain kinda knows what's up and it doesn't feel comfortable.

Sapphire

stator wrote: »

Apple only employs 5,000 people in Ireland, which is pathetic. If they've avoided 13 billion euros tax by employing 5,000 that works out at 2.6 million per each employee. If all businesses did that no country would ever collect any corporation tax.

If a country wants to attract businesses by lowering taxes on activity in that country then fair enough but Ireland took it to the extreme, allowing companies to avoid paying tax in any EU state.
The EU common market has regulations to stop this thing from happening. The idea is to encourage trade not tax dodging.

But why is the EU issuing this order to Ireland only now, when it must have known this has been happening for years? :cool:

AnotherJoe

steampowered wrote: »

It is really the opposite. You either believe in free markets involving fair competition, or you don't. Apple clearly doesn't.
.

Apple? Or Eire? It was their laws which Apple stood by.
If the EU wanted to interfere it should do it at the stage they are created not years down the line. In this case they should have said its illegal and the fees will be X going forward, not apply it retrospectively.

To add insult to injury have no compunction about not enforcing penalties when it suits them, witness the numerous failures to enforce penalties against countries that have not abided by the various rules on state expenditure.

Kohoutek

Sapphire wrote: »

But why is the EU issuing this order to Ireland only now, when it must have known this has been happening for years? :cool:

"Must have known" based on what exactly?

According to the FT, the EU Commission started its investigation after an investigation by the US Congress.

Thrugelmir

Sapphire wrote: »

Yes, I know about this – but why is the EU only now issuing this order.

Some background for you.

Brussels, 11 June 2014

State aid: Commission investigates transfer pricing arrangements on corporate taxation of Apple (Ireland) Starbucks (Netherlands) and Fiat Finance and Trade (Luxembourg)

The European Commission has opened three in-depth investigations to examine whether decisions by tax authorities in Ireland, The Netherlands and Luxembourg with regard to the corporate income tax to be paid by Apple, Starbucks and Fiat Finance and Trade, respectively, comply with the EU rules on state aid. The opening of an in-depth investigation gives interested third parties, as well as the three Member States concerned, an opportunity to submit comments. It does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

Commission Vice President in charge of competition policy Joaqu!n Almunia said: "In the current context of tight public budgets, it is particularly important that large multinationals pay their fair share of taxes. Under the EU's state aid rules, national authorities cannot take measures allowing certain companies to pay less tax than they should if the tax rules of the Member State were applied in a fair and non-discriminatory way."

Algirdas Šemeta, Commissioner for Taxation, said: "Fair tax competition is essential for the integrity of the Single Market, for the fiscal sustainability of our Member States, and for a level-playing field between our businesses. Our social and economic model relies on it, so we must do all we can to defend it."

The Commission has been investigating under EU state aid rules certain tax practices in several Member States following media reports alleging that some companies have received significant tax reductions by way of "tax rulings" issued by national tax authorities. Tax rulings as such are not problematic: they are comfort letters by tax authorities giving a specific company clarity on how its corporate tax will be calculated or on the use of special tax provisions. However, tax rulings may involve state aid within the meaning of EU rules if they are used to provide selective advantages to a specific company or group of companies.

According to Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), state aid which affects trade between Member States and threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings is in principle incompatible with the EU Single Market. Selective tax advantages may amount to state aid. The Commission does not call into question the general tax regimes of the three Member States concerned.

Tax rulings are used in particular to confirm transfer pricing arrangements. Transfer pricing refers to the prices charged for commercial transactions between various parts of the same group of companies, in particular prices set for goods sold or services provided by one subsidiary of a corporate group to another subsidiary of the same group. Transfer pricing influences the allocation of taxable profit between subsidiaries of a group located in different countries.

If tax authorities, when accepting the calculation of the taxable basis proposed by a company, insist on a remuneration of a subsidiary or a branch on market terms, reflecting normal conditions of competition, this would exclude the presence of state aid. However, if the calculation is not based on remuneration on market terms, it could imply a more favourable treatment of the company compared to the treatment other taxpayers would normally receive under the Member States' tax rules. This may constitute state aid.

The Commission will examine if the three transfer pricing arrangements validated in the following tax rulings involve state aid to the benefit of the beneficiary companies:

the individual rulings issued by the Irish tax authorities on the calculation of the taxable profit allocated to the Irish branches of Apple Sales International and of Apple Operations Europe;

the individual ruling issued by the Dutch tax authorities on the calculation of the taxable basis in the Netherlands for manufacturing activities of Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA BV;

the individual ruling issued by the Luxembourgish tax authorities on the calculation of the taxable basis in Luxembourg for the financing activities of Fiat Finance and Trade.

The Commission has reviewed the calculations used to set the taxable basis in those rulings and, based on a preliminary analysis, has concerns that they could underestimate the taxable profit and thereby grant an advantage to the respective companies by allowing them to pay less tax. The Commission notes that the three rulings concern only arrangements about the taxable basis; they do not relate to the applicable tax rate itself.

In parallel to these three formal investigations, the Commission will continue its wider inquiry into tax rulings, which covers more Member States.

Luxembourg, contrary to The Netherlands and Ireland, only provided the Commission with a limited sample of the information requested (see IP/14/309), which included the ruling for Fiat Finance and Trade, but not the complete information demanded by the Commission. The Commission has therefore initiated infringement proceedings against Luxembourg by issuing letters of formal notice.

Background

The Commission is looking at the compliance with EU state aid rules of certain tax practices in some Member States in the context of aggressive tax planning by multinationals, with a view to ensure a level playing field. A number of multinational companies are using tax planning strategies to reduce their global tax burden, by taking advantage of the technicalities of tax systems, and substantially reducing their tax liabilities. This aggressive tax planning practice erodes the tax bases of Member States, which are already financially constrained.

Regarding tax rulings specifically, the preliminary enquiries have shown that the quality and the consistency of the scrutiny by the tax authorities differ substantively across Member States. In particular, the Commission notes that The Netherlands seem to generally proceed with a thorough assessment based on comprehensive information required from the tax payer. The Commission therefore does not expect to encounter systematic irregularities in tax rulings. However, at this stage the Commission has concerns that the tax ruling for Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA BV is providing that company with a selective advantage, because there are doubts whether it is in line with a market-based assessment of transfer pricing.

In the case of Ireland, the authorities have been fully cooperative in providing comprehensive replies in response to Commission's requests. The Commission notes that although the transfer pricing rules have been tightened over the years, the tax administration had a significant degree of discretion in the past. The Commission has concerns that such discretion has been used in the case of Apple to grant a selective advantage to that company, reducing its tax burden below the level it should pay based on a correct application of the tax rules. The Commission notes however that the number of tax rulings issued in Ireland relating to transfer pricing arrangements is limited.

The opening of formal investigations allows Member States' authorities to further explain their practices and the Commission to gather further information from interested parties.

The non-confidential versions of the decisions will be made available under the case numbers SA.38373, SA.38374 and SA.38375 in the State Aid Register on the competition website once any confidentiality issues have been resolved. New publications of state aid decisions on the internet and in the Official Journal are listed in the State Aid Weekly e-News.

System

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Some background for you.

After ploughing through all that stuff, doesn't it make one glad to be getting shot of an interfering organisation that can waste its time and our money on such things?
I'd much rather companies like Apple, Amazon, Starbucks, Google, etc make billions providing useful services that people want.
That's how I judge it - what's the final outcome, and is it serving some purpose?

theEnd

What's the feeling on Apple's future?

They make some great products, but the iPhone7 (their flagship product?) looks very unexciting. People who would normally jump on this upgrade seem to be more reluctant (partly because the older phones are still fine). If there was a big decline in take-up, this could indicate the same on a lot of their other products and would lead to a big fall in future expectations.

Thrugelmir

Majority of companies are cyclical in nature. IBM once ruled the world with the PC.