For non-EU readers, note that taxation is explicitly not a competency of the EU (i.e. Ireland can set its tax levels to whatever it wants). The only thing in question here is whether it was applying the same taxation rules to all companies, as granting special exceptions to certain companies could be viewed as state aid (which is not allowed). Ireland claimed it wasn't, the current (over-)ruling says otherwise. This case is also specific to tax rules from many years back. AFAIK the rules have subsequently been tightened and the exemption no longer exists.
I think you make it seem like EU doesn't care at all about what member states do in regards to taxation but there's many limitations to what can be done by any member state in order to harmonize and prevent corruption etc. This in practice makes the EU have a lot of say in regards to taxation. Moreover the EU has special rules to limit moving funds to jurisdictions that have taxes that are deemed too low (read tax havens) - this directly implies no member state has agency to lower their own taxes as much.
What’s interesting is that it’s common for governments to give tax incentives to companies that will result in driving more economic value for their region.
Eg Ireland might give a tax incentive if a large Fortune 500 company hires X people in Ireland.
Question: does this ruling prohibit that common practice?
It’s a final ruling. Not a current (over-)ruling as you paint it. This is a decision from the European Court of Justice. No appeal possible. The 13B€ are already in an escrow account and will now be released.
Brilliant of Ireland. They get the Apple (and Google and Microsoft, etc.) business with low tax rates, thus bringing a lot of money into Ireland. Worst case scenario, a decade later some 3rd party they cannot be blamed for gets them billions more.
I agree with your recollection. AFAIK the rules were changed years ago.
Some important context that are in every European media, but apparently not the American ones [1].
Apple said in 2017 that it had an effective tax rate of 21 percent on foreign earnings. The Commission said its effective tax rate on European profits was 1 percent in 2003 and 0.005 percent in 2014.
[Edit] To be fair to CNBC they did cover the tax structure Apple set up some years ago [2].
> Apple, however, said in a statement: "The European Commission is trying to retroactively change the rules and ignore that, as required by international tax law, our income was already subject to taxes in the US."
My understanding is that the U.S.A. double-taxes both corporations operating abroad, as well as it's own expats. If this is true, then it's quite the remark to say _the country you're actually in_ is the one double-taxing you.
The fact that your "income was already subject to taxes in the US" isn't the fault of the hosting country.
Expats aren’t double taxed but you need to file tax returns to offset taxable income that’s already been taxed. There are specific agreements to avoid double taxation but it’s unclear/unlikely the IRS are just going to hand back money Apple already paid (it likely falls outside of what’s required in those international agreements).
Companies, and people, make decisions based on the tax laws of the day eg deciding to work in the UK, Ireland or the US. States shouldn’t be able to simply retroactively change the tax rules and take money already earned and already taxed.
If they can do it to Apple, why not to regular citizens?
It would just be really good if companies stopped avoiding tax. Most countries are already pretty much bankrupt - it's worth thinking about for every debt (US National Debt is $35.35 trillion!!) there is a rich person on the end of it with the loan as an asset earning interest.
If companies avoid tax and rich people avoid tax it means more tax for normal people who work for a living.
This is a very naive way of thinking about debt. Cash has a time value. Cash now is worth more than cash later.
I have a mortgage. This mortgage is worth more than the cash I own. That doesn't mean I'm bankrupt. The mortgage is paid on a fixed schedule over 30 years, and during those 30 years I'll have a home and be able to accrue other assets. If I didn't get a mortgage then I would still be saving for my home.
The same is true with the US balance sheet. It has accrued 35T in debt, but it's used that to fund it's operations. Those operations generate more for the US. As long as the US has enough to pay it's obligations over the next few decades there are no issues
That of course doesn't change the fact that tax loopholes can be problematic
> It would just be really good if companies stopped avoiding tax.
It would be great if everybody just stopped committing crimes, or being rude even when legal, altogether.
But what are our alternatives other than just waiting for everyone to just do this? Also, how will everyone know how to just contact me to just find out when using the law to avoid taxes when you can is just evil, when it's just the smart thing to do, or when avoiding a tax is just justice, hard-fought and well-deserved?
It would also be just great if it were autumn all year, and if alcohol and sugar were just good for you.
>there is a rich person on the end of it with the loan as an asset earning interest.
About half of treasuries are held by the Fed or foreign investors which largely means other governments and foreign companies. Most of the rest are owned by pension funds, banks, local government, insurance companies, etc.
That's not even the same thing. The govt is bankrupt because it keeps printing money to get out of previous debt and other poor choices. The companies are following the rules and taking advantage of loopholes in the system.
Companies and high net worth individuals will never stop avoiding taxes, and it’s naive to assume otherwise. If anything, tax laws need to account for this reality more aggressively.
While there is lots of tax fraud, I feel it’s probably a drop in the bucket. Countries will have to either cut back on spending or borrow until they collapse under the weight of their own inept budgeting.
Countries aren't bankrupt, they can't really go bankrupt if they use their own currency. Countries are not businesses they don't need to make money to be able to spend.
Tax shouldn't be seen as the countries income but as a tool for redistribution of wealth and to keep trust in the currency as a whole. If you don't have debt you don't have money, every printed dollar goes into the system and can be used in various things not only an asset earning interest
I think this is a cultural problem. Every accountant everywhere works under the implicit assumption that taxes are to be avoided. Imagine if having a large tax contribution was something to be proud of. Perhaps the government needs to advertise more what the money actually gets spent on. Government works on boring stuff like the culverts that are essential to stopping roads flooding. People have no idea of the work that goes into this and just assume roads don't flood. It's like that old thing where you think everyone's job is pointless/easy except your own.
A) These bankrupt countries are exactly why we should think twice about funding their spending habit, with reevaluation only when they address their spending habit
B) These companies are tax compliant, barring when the ECJ rules against them
C) if what you meant was equivalent taxation - no amount of taxation of profits or income would fill these bankrupt countries budget holes
D) the countries tell you exactly how not to pay tax, they incentivize certain transactions and tax the remainder of funds that weren't involved. (The ECJ overruled an entire country, with retroactive logic)
Taxes don't fund government programs. Taxes are a way to mitigate the buying power of private capital when it comes to bidding against government for things. Governments just create money supply for programs. It's not tax money. That's just an old cliche.
I found some rather troubling aspects within the ruling itself:
1. Retroactive application of arm's length principle
The Court's reliance on the arm's length principle, despite acknowledging it's not required by EU law, is problematic. As stated in paragraph 124:
> "Article 107(1) TFEU gives the Commission the right to check whether the level of profit allocated to such branches... corresponds to the level of profit that would have been obtained if that activity had been carried on under market conditions."
This retroactive application of a principle not explicitly required by law at the time of the tax rulings is unfair and creates legal uncertainty for businesses.
2. Burden of proof
The Court's criticism of the General Court's approach to evidence, as noted in paragraph 245, lowers the burden of proof for the Commission in State aid cases:
> "As the Commission stated in recital 441 of the decision at issue, its approach is based on an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, which has been part of Ireland's legal order since its accession in 1973, and not on a failure to have regard to the framework defined at OECD level."
This shift unfairly advantages the Commission in future cases and will lead to increased challenges to legitimate tax arrangements.
But, overall, yes, I get the concerns about legal certainty and applying rules retroactively. They're valid points. But when I weigh everything, I still think this ruling does more good than harm. It's a big step towards fairer taxes and more transparency in how big companies operate.
Yes, it might ruffle some feathers in the short term. But in the long run, it's setting us up for a tax system where everyone plays by the same rules – whether you're a small local business or a tech giant.
There's not much uncertainty for business really. If you're pulling the moves that Apple and other companies pull to "optimize tax", then you are with 100% certainty trying to game the system and violating the spirit of the law.
I find it interesting how in american corpspeak "uncertanty" pretty much always means "our lawyers can't find a way to avoid this law without getting caught" ^^
> Yes, it might ruffle some feathers in the short term. But in the long run, it's setting us up for a tax system where everyone plays by the same rules – whether you're a small local business or a tech giant.
I don't understand the ruling however, something doesn't make sense:
- Apple goes to a country and makes a deal with that country
- They pay the tax in the country and they comply with all the rules at that time in Ireland
- After a few years the EU government says "hey, Ireland that's not a correct deal"
- So they don't punish the Ireland government who didn't comply with EU regulation (as far as I understood) and retroactively charge the tax on Apple, who complied with all the regulation. Doesn't the burden of non-compliance be on the party that broke the EU rules and not the company who complied with all the rules?
Several questions arise:
- Was Apple breaking any rules in those years when they had the deal with the government?
- How can any company be sure that if they comply with current tax laws they won't be back charged in the future?
- Isn't that a bad precedent of "we change the rules now", but will punish you for you past behavior for non-complying with the new rules? (e.g. why don't charge back the increase in taxes for this year for the past 3 years)
These are not related to the ethical/moral or fairness evaluation of the situation. It's unfair to charge different taxes at all, flat taxes should be the norm, not charge more if you earn more. However the legal logic doesn't seem to be there.
>>Yes, it might ruffle some feathers in the short term. But in the long run, it's setting us up for a tax system where everyone plays by the same rules – whether you're a small local business or a tech giant.
Yeah, but that only ever ratchets in one direction. Putting everyone on the same rules won't reduce taxes for anyone.
> This retroactive application of a principle not explicitly required by law at the time of the tax rulings is unfair and creates legal uncertainty for businesses.
I don't see any problem with this. They knew they were gaming the system, and knew they could get in trouble for it. The law is NOT a computer program where all outputs can be fully predicted from the source code - it also takes common sense into account.
We should just pass a law that says gaming the system is illegal, then we won't need to find silly justifications against people who game the system, but silly justifications work too.
An important point that seems to have been missed by most of the comments: the reason Apple lost this case is not because of the profit shifting scheme itself, but rather than they did not set up the scheme correctly:
> ASI's 2014 structure was an adaptation of a Double Irish scheme, an Irish IP–based BEPS tool used by many US multinationals. Apple did not follow the traditional Double Irish structure of using two separate Irish companies. Instead, Apple used two separate "branches" inside one single company, namely ASI.[34] It is this "branch structure" the EU Commission alleged was illegal State aid, as it was not offered to other multinationals in Ireland, which had used the traditional "two separate companies" version of the Double Irish BEPS tool. Under the Double Irish structure, one Irish subsidiary (IRL1) is an Irish registered company selling products to non–US locations from Ireland. The other Irish subsidiary (IRL2) is "registered" in Ireland, but "managed and controlled" from a tax haven such as Bermuda. The Irish tax code considers IRL2 a Bermuda company (used the "managed and controlled" test), but the US tax code considers IRL2 an Irish company (uses the registration test). Neither taxes it. Apple's subsidiary, ASI, behaved like it was IRL2, it was "managed and controlled" via ASI Board meetings in Bermuda, so Irish Revenue did not tax it. But ASI also did all the functions of IRL1, making circa €110.8 billion[6] of profits from non–US sales. The EU Commission contest IRL1's actions made ASI Irish, and the functions of IRL1 over-rode the Bermuda Board meetings in deciding the "managed and controlled" test. The commission had not brought any cases against US multinationals using the standard double two separate companies Irish BEPS tool. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%27s_EU_tax_dispute)
In other words if they had actually set up two separate Irish companies instead of just using two separate branches of a single Irish company, their tax scheme would have been fully legal and not considered state aid. (Since many other companies availed themselves of such a scheme.)
So if such an easily obtainable, and comparatively lucrative (but fully legal) option were available -- and if it's so obvious, one has to presume Apple's people would have been perfectly aware of it -- why didn't they just take that route from the beginning (or if not, at least much earlier in this saga)?
Something tells me there's more to the story here.
What a timeline we live in where the EU is basically telling Apple that they weren’t smart enough with their tax evasion - “see if you did it like other FAANG you could’ve gotten away with it!”
The Google judgment was also released by the CJEU today, but it was a separate judgment. I've found it by going to the CJEU website https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/ (or https://curia.europa.eu/ and then click on "en" for English), where official CJEU press releases about both the Apple and Google judgments were linked on the left under "News".
The issue isn't with Ireland per se, as if Ireland wouldn't do it, then Netherlands, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Bulgaria or someone else will gladly take Apple's 13 billion at the expense of the other members of union.
The right fix would be EU wide legislation to prevent EU member states of fighting against each other on who can screw over the taxpayers by providing the biggest tax breaks in exchange for corporations' bread crumbs in a race to the bottom, as this causes all EU taxpayers to loose and corporations to win, and then we wonder why we have no money for education, healthcare and infrastructure. Well of course we don't if you help big companies avoid paying tax and then your state budget relies only collecting tax from citizens and small business who can't dodge taxes.
From discussions in the past, I was under the impression there was general sense that if Ireland should have legitimately taxed them to this degree. That ultimately the taxes owed should probably be paid out to the countries where the sale occurs. As one country reaping the rewards of the tax for the entire European operation would be bizarre, when that country just has a medium sized support/sales operation (which was what Ireland was originally collecting tax on).
Does this also have the knock on affect that these companies can now write off this tax so their owed US taxes are much less (assuming they ever repatriate these earning - which they have often avoided to avoid paying US tax)?
Anyways, writing the above shows me how much I don't understand about these cases.
Even if this sounds like a huge fine, this is effectively meaningless, even if they end up paying it. 13 billion, for a company with market cap of more than 3 trillion is around 0.4% of their cap.
Until these fines become meaningful, companies will just continue breaking the law and asking for forgiveness later, as the changes to their market cap can offset this fine in hours.
Fascinating, how does that work? Can anybody explain in simpler terms how that was legal to begin with?
> Both companies were incorporated in Ireland but not tax resident in Ireland. Those tax rulings approved the methods used by ASI and AOE to determine their chargeable profits in Ireland in relation to the trading activity of their respective Irish branches.
Not because I particularly dilike Apple or big US tech firms (I have a whole bunch of Apple stuff right here), but because Ireland has been able to undermine the tax regime of the whole EU, by giving these sweetheart tax deals to big firms, who can then run their entire EU business from there.
This gives an unfair tax advantage to the multinationals over homegrown EU companies, skewing the market.
Is it Apple's 'fault'? That's not really the interesting question here, IMHO.
So Ireland double-dipped here by luring the tech companies, and now it gets the foregone tax anyway. Does feel a bit like the EU should get the cash, not the state that was responsible for it
It seems the zeitgeist has changed. When I first started using HN 5+ years ago, whenever you'd see a similar new, Americans and jump in and claim that this is just the lazy Europeans extorting the poor American companies. The reaction is very different these days.
Why is it Apple that has to pay for what Ireland did wrong? Genuinely curious here, it's not like Ireland is some random dude on the internet selling stolen goods and Apple should've known better.
[+] [-] anonymousDan|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] vasco|1 year ago|reply
Here's some example limitations: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/tackling-...
I focused on direct taxation, but in indirect taxation I think there's even more examples.
[+] [-] tiffanyh|1 year ago|reply
Eg Ireland might give a tax incentive if a large Fortune 500 company hires X people in Ireland.
Question: does this ruling prohibit that common practice?
[+] [-] jwildeboer|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] HWR_14|1 year ago|reply
I agree with your recollection. AFAIK the rules were changed years ago.
[+] [-] mytailorisrich|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] kasperni|1 year ago|reply
Apple said in 2017 that it had an effective tax rate of 21 percent on foreign earnings. The Commission said its effective tax rate on European profits was 1 percent in 2003 and 0.005 percent in 2014.
[Edit] To be fair to CNBC they did cover the tax structure Apple set up some years ago [2].
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-scores-surprise-w...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/30/how-apples-irish-subsidiarie...
[+] [-] ghusto|1 year ago|reply
My understanding is that the U.S.A. double-taxes both corporations operating abroad, as well as it's own expats. If this is true, then it's quite the remark to say _the country you're actually in_ is the one double-taxing you.
The fact that your "income was already subject to taxes in the US" isn't the fault of the hosting country.
[+] [-] hayd|1 year ago|reply
Companies, and people, make decisions based on the tax laws of the day eg deciding to work in the UK, Ireland or the US. States shouldn’t be able to simply retroactively change the tax rules and take money already earned and already taxed.
If they can do it to Apple, why not to regular citizens?
[+] [-] andy_ppp|1 year ago|reply
If companies avoid tax and rich people avoid tax it means more tax for normal people who work for a living.
[+] [-] dgrin91|1 year ago|reply
I have a mortgage. This mortgage is worth more than the cash I own. That doesn't mean I'm bankrupt. The mortgage is paid on a fixed schedule over 30 years, and during those 30 years I'll have a home and be able to accrue other assets. If I didn't get a mortgage then I would still be saving for my home.
The same is true with the US balance sheet. It has accrued 35T in debt, but it's used that to fund it's operations. Those operations generate more for the US. As long as the US has enough to pay it's obligations over the next few decades there are no issues
That of course doesn't change the fact that tax loopholes can be problematic
[+] [-] pessimizer|1 year ago|reply
It would be great if everybody just stopped committing crimes, or being rude even when legal, altogether.
But what are our alternatives other than just waiting for everyone to just do this? Also, how will everyone know how to just contact me to just find out when using the law to avoid taxes when you can is just evil, when it's just the smart thing to do, or when avoiding a tax is just justice, hard-fought and well-deserved?
It would also be just great if it were autumn all year, and if alcohol and sugar were just good for you.
[+] [-] dantheman|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] simonh|1 year ago|reply
About half of treasuries are held by the Fed or foreign investors which largely means other governments and foreign companies. Most of the rest are owned by pension funds, banks, local government, insurance companies, etc.
[+] [-] darkstar_16|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Iulioh|1 year ago|reply
If you don't your competition will.
We just need more spine in the country's legislation to close ANY loophole, because this wasn't illegal tax evasion, it was legal tax ellusion.
The point is that EU judged this unfair by Ireland and that effectively it stole revenue from other European counties to favor jobs in ireland.
Basically saying "you (country) can't have a lower tax rate than X" in our economic union.
Smaller countries with few industries would benefit disproportionately from bigger companies moving here the HQ.
[+] [-] cainxinth|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] EasyMark|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] arez|1 year ago|reply
Tax shouldn't be seen as the countries income but as a tool for redistribution of wealth and to keep trust in the currency as a whole. If you don't have debt you don't have money, every printed dollar goes into the system and can be used in various things not only an asset earning interest
[+] [-] globular-toast|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] fransje26|1 year ago|reply
Which is exactly what is happening, with the gap between rich and poor increasing in the western economies.
[+] [-] yieldcrv|1 year ago|reply
A) These bankrupt countries are exactly why we should think twice about funding their spending habit, with reevaluation only when they address their spending habit
B) These companies are tax compliant, barring when the ECJ rules against them
C) if what you meant was equivalent taxation - no amount of taxation of profits or income would fill these bankrupt countries budget holes
D) the countries tell you exactly how not to pay tax, they incentivize certain transactions and tax the remainder of funds that weren't involved. (The ECJ overruled an entire country, with retroactive logic)
[+] [-] superkuh|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] gzer0|1 year ago|reply
1. Retroactive application of arm's length principle
The Court's reliance on the arm's length principle, despite acknowledging it's not required by EU law, is problematic. As stated in paragraph 124:
This retroactive application of a principle not explicitly required by law at the time of the tax rulings is unfair and creates legal uncertainty for businesses.2. Burden of proof
The Court's criticism of the General Court's approach to evidence, as noted in paragraph 245, lowers the burden of proof for the Commission in State aid cases:
This shift unfairly advantages the Commission in future cases and will lead to increased challenges to legitimate tax arrangements.But, overall, yes, I get the concerns about legal certainty and applying rules retroactively. They're valid points. But when I weigh everything, I still think this ruling does more good than harm. It's a big step towards fairer taxes and more transparency in how big companies operate.
Yes, it might ruffle some feathers in the short term. But in the long run, it's setting us up for a tax system where everyone plays by the same rules – whether you're a small local business or a tech giant.
[+] [-] skummetmaelk|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] izacus|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] bjornsing|1 year ago|reply
That would be a truly wonderful thing to behold.
[+] [-] freefaler|1 year ago|reply
- Apple goes to a country and makes a deal with that country
- They pay the tax in the country and they comply with all the rules at that time in Ireland
- After a few years the EU government says "hey, Ireland that's not a correct deal"
- So they don't punish the Ireland government who didn't comply with EU regulation (as far as I understood) and retroactively charge the tax on Apple, who complied with all the regulation. Doesn't the burden of non-compliance be on the party that broke the EU rules and not the company who complied with all the rules?
Several questions arise:
- Was Apple breaking any rules in those years when they had the deal with the government?
- How can any company be sure that if they comply with current tax laws they won't be back charged in the future?
- Isn't that a bad precedent of "we change the rules now", but will punish you for you past behavior for non-complying with the new rules? (e.g. why don't charge back the increase in taxes for this year for the past 3 years)
These are not related to the ethical/moral or fairness evaluation of the situation. It's unfair to charge different taxes at all, flat taxes should be the norm, not charge more if you earn more. However the legal logic doesn't seem to be there.
Can you help me understand the situation?
[+] [-] gadders|1 year ago|reply
Yeah, but that only ever ratchets in one direction. Putting everyone on the same rules won't reduce taxes for anyone.
[+] [-] bjornsing|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] immibis|1 year ago|reply
I don't see any problem with this. They knew they were gaming the system, and knew they could get in trouble for it. The law is NOT a computer program where all outputs can be fully predicted from the source code - it also takes common sense into account.
We should just pass a law that says gaming the system is illegal, then we won't need to find silly justifications against people who game the system, but silly justifications work too.
[+] [-] vitus|1 year ago|reply
Docket: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-48/22%20P
Ruling: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...
And other news reports confirming the same:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-court-upholds-googles-...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw3e1pn741o
CNN also has links to both (summaries of the) rulings: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/tech/europe-ruling-apple-tax-...
[+] [-] nodamage|1 year ago|reply
> ASI's 2014 structure was an adaptation of a Double Irish scheme, an Irish IP–based BEPS tool used by many US multinationals. Apple did not follow the traditional Double Irish structure of using two separate Irish companies. Instead, Apple used two separate "branches" inside one single company, namely ASI.[34] It is this "branch structure" the EU Commission alleged was illegal State aid, as it was not offered to other multinationals in Ireland, which had used the traditional "two separate companies" version of the Double Irish BEPS tool. Under the Double Irish structure, one Irish subsidiary (IRL1) is an Irish registered company selling products to non–US locations from Ireland. The other Irish subsidiary (IRL2) is "registered" in Ireland, but "managed and controlled" from a tax haven such as Bermuda. The Irish tax code considers IRL2 a Bermuda company (used the "managed and controlled" test), but the US tax code considers IRL2 an Irish company (uses the registration test). Neither taxes it. Apple's subsidiary, ASI, behaved like it was IRL2, it was "managed and controlled" via ASI Board meetings in Bermuda, so Irish Revenue did not tax it. But ASI also did all the functions of IRL1, making circa €110.8 billion[6] of profits from non–US sales. The EU Commission contest IRL1's actions made ASI Irish, and the functions of IRL1 over-rode the Bermuda Board meetings in deciding the "managed and controlled" test. The commission had not brought any cases against US multinationals using the standard double two separate companies Irish BEPS tool. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%27s_EU_tax_dispute)
In other words if they had actually set up two separate Irish companies instead of just using two separate branches of a single Irish company, their tax scheme would have been fully legal and not considered state aid. (Since many other companies availed themselves of such a scheme.)
[+] [-] aguaviva|1 year ago|reply
Something tells me there's more to the story here.
[+] [-] yunohn|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jkaplowitz|1 year ago|reply
Here's the CJEU press release about the Google judgment: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...
Inside that PDF press release, there is a link to to the case docket, including the final judgment and an abstract of the judgment: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-48/22%20P
And here's the full judgment linked in the above docket: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...
The full judgment is available in English and French; the abstract is available in French but not English.
I should also note that there were actually four CJEU judgments released today, not two. But the other two were unrelated to tech.
[+] [-] InsomniacL|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Rinzler89|1 year ago|reply
The right fix would be EU wide legislation to prevent EU member states of fighting against each other on who can screw over the taxpayers by providing the biggest tax breaks in exchange for corporations' bread crumbs in a race to the bottom, as this causes all EU taxpayers to loose and corporations to win, and then we wonder why we have no money for education, healthcare and infrastructure. Well of course we don't if you help big companies avoid paying tax and then your state budget relies only collecting tax from citizens and small business who can't dodge taxes.
[+] [-] piltdownman|1 year ago|reply
The notion of Ireland somehow getting a '13 billion payday' due to malfeasance or illegality is fantastical beyond belief.
[+] [-] aswerty|1 year ago|reply
Does this also have the knock on affect that these companies can now write off this tax so their owed US taxes are much less (assuming they ever repatriate these earning - which they have often avoided to avoid paying US tax)?
Anyways, writing the above shows me how much I don't understand about these cases.
[+] [-] elAhmo|1 year ago|reply
Until these fines become meaningful, companies will just continue breaking the law and asking for forgiveness later, as the changes to their market cap can offset this fine in hours.
[+] [-] seydor|1 year ago|reply
Ιf that is true it should be easy to prove. Letting them pay peanuts is an insult to the whole of EU by the Irish government
[+] [-] ThePowerOfFuet|1 year ago|reply
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...
[+] [-] mrks_hy|1 year ago|reply
Full ruling: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...
Fascinating, how does that work? Can anybody explain in simpler terms how that was legal to begin with?
> Both companies were incorporated in Ireland but not tax resident in Ireland. Those tax rulings approved the methods used by ASI and AOE to determine their chargeable profits in Ireland in relation to the trading activity of their respective Irish branches.
[+] [-] Nursie|1 year ago|reply
Not because I particularly dilike Apple or big US tech firms (I have a whole bunch of Apple stuff right here), but because Ireland has been able to undermine the tax regime of the whole EU, by giving these sweetheart tax deals to big firms, who can then run their entire EU business from there.
This gives an unfair tax advantage to the multinationals over homegrown EU companies, skewing the market.
Is it Apple's 'fault'? That's not really the interesting question here, IMHO.
[+] [-] chrismcb|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] petesergeant|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] bdjsiqoocwk|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] fsflover|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] techpression|1 year ago|reply