Apple ordered to pay Ireland €13bn in unpaid tax

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Who gets to administer the €13bn after Apple pays it and it then gets parked for the duration of the appeal?

I think it's more complicated than that, in that the EU has assessed that as the likely tax, but it's for Ireland to actually levy.

In England you would be unlikely to have to pay until final judgement. If you did it would be held in court subject to court interest rates.

I was told in this case Apple would have to pay, and then the in the event of an appeal the money would have to remain untouched until the appeal was finished with.

Court interest rates, are they good or bad? This is sort of what I was wondering, as that's a lot of money to park for 2-3 years or maybe even longer with interest rates at some shockingly low levels.

Court interest used to be 8%. I've no idea what it is now.

[Digby]

I think it's more complicated than that, in that the EU has assessed that as the likely tax, but it's for Ireland to actually levy.

In England you would be unlikely to have to pay until final judgement. If you did it would be held in court subject to court interest rates.

I was told in this case Apple would have to pay, and then the in the event of an appeal the money would have to remain untouched until the appeal was finished with.

Court interest rates, are they good or bad? This is sort of what I was wondering, as that's a lot of money to park for 2-3 years or maybe even longer with interest rates at some shockingly low levels.

Court interest used to be 8%. I've no idea what it is now.

If it was 8% people would be finding ways of having to hand over money whilst they appealed

[Mellsblue]

So a big multinational, with it's enormous lobbying power should be allowed to "persuade" sovereign governments that they are special snowflakes and will help the poor and impoverished if only they be allowed exceptional tax leniency, not afforded to others. That is a massive pile of shit.

" Its easy to pick on a big multinational"

Bitch pleeze.

So all the tax the multinational would directly pay, albeit at a reduced rate, the employees they would create and the taxes the employees would pay and the jobs their spending would create, and on and on, plus the jobs and taxes created in building, servicing and supplying the premises should be forgone because we should be ideologically opposed to powerful multinationals?

[morepork]

So a big multinational, with it's enormous lobbying power should be allowed to "persuade" sovereign governments that they are special snowflakes and will help the poor and impoverished if only they be allowed exceptional tax leniency, not afforded to others. That is a massive pile of shit.

" Its easy to pick on a big multinational"

Bitch pleeze.

So all the tax the multinational would directly pay, albeit at a reduced rate, the employees they would create and the taxes the employees would pay and the jobs their spending would create, and on and on, plus the jobs and taxes created in building, servicing and supplying the premises should be forgone because we should be ideologically opposed to powerful multinationals?

Can we see actual cost-benefit analyses before assuming that them picking up their ball and running away would actually be a disaster? If there were equitable tax laws (and enforcement thereof) maybe we wouldn't have these entities with the ability to make such dirty little deals with impunity and see some actual benefit to infrastructure.

[Mellsblue]

So a big multinational, with it's enormous lobbying power should be allowed to "persuade" sovereign governments that they are special snowflakes and will help the poor and impoverished if only they be allowed exceptional tax leniency, not afforded to others. That is a massive pile of shit.

" Its easy to pick on a big multinational"

Bitch pleeze.

So all the tax the multinational would directly pay, albeit at a reduced rate, the employees they would create and the taxes the employees would pay and the jobs their spending would create, and on and on, plus the jobs and taxes created in building, servicing and supplying the premises should be forgone because we should be ideologically opposed to powerful multinationals?

Can we see actual cost-benefit analyses before assuming that them picking up their ball and running away would actually be a disaster? If there were equitable tax laws (and enforcement thereof) maybe we wouldn't have these entities with the ability to make such dirty little deals with impunity and see some actual benefit to infrastructure.

I suppose you have to trust your government and civil service to make those cost-benefit decisions for you. That's what they are there for. I'll bet there are hundreds of Apple employees, and employees of those companies supplying them, that couldn't give a damn how much in tax Apple directly pay if it means the have/get to keep their job.

[morepork]

So all the tax the multinational would directly pay, albeit at a reduced rate, the employees they would create and the taxes the employees would pay and the jobs their spending would create, and on and on, plus the jobs and taxes created in building, servicing and supplying the premises should be forgone because we should be ideologically opposed to powerful multinationals?

Can we see actual cost-benefit analyses before assuming that them picking up their ball and running away would actually be a disaster? If there were equitable tax laws (and enforcement thereof) maybe we wouldn't have these entities with the ability to make such dirty little deals with impunity and see some actual benefit to infrastructure.

I suppose you have to trust your government and civil service to make those cost-benefit decisions for you. That's what they are there for. I'll bet there are hundreds of Apple employees, and employees of those companies supplying them, that couldn't give a damn how much in tax Apple directly pay if it means the have/get to keep their job.

What is they say about assumption?

[Digby]

So all the tax the multinational would directly pay, albeit at a reduced rate, the employees they would create and the taxes the employees would pay and the jobs their spending would create, and on and on, plus the jobs and taxes created in building, servicing and supplying the premises should be forgone because we should be ideologically opposed to powerful multinationals?

Can we see actual cost-benefit analyses before assuming that them picking up their ball and running away would actually be a disaster? If there were equitable tax laws (and enforcement thereof) maybe we wouldn't have these entities with the ability to make such dirty little deals with impunity and see some actual benefit to infrastructure.

I suppose you have to trust your government and civil service to make those cost-benefit decisions for you. That's what they are there for. I'll bet there are hundreds of Apple employees, and employees of those companies supplying them, that couldn't give a damn how much in tax Apple directly pay if it means the have/get to keep their job.

How many people would like to be self-employed working for their current employer? You could do away with quite a lot of tax and NI. But those people would still be part of society, and still partaking of a society where others in their position were paying tax, and thus the idea is that as onerous as some people find it that we all pay tax under the same conditions.

I know of dozens of people who'd have avoided redundancies were it not for IR35, and individually they'd all have a case that they should've been allowed to self contract to a previous employer, but as a society we enter into deals to all play by the same rules, and it's unfair on those who do pay if others are shirking.

I can't say I have much sympathy here with Apple. Actually I can't say I have any. Though I'm also not sure this is the right way to clear up how governments could or should look to tax businesses.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I was told in this case Apple would have to pay, and then the in the event of an appeal the money would have to remain untouched until the appeal was finished with.

Court interest rates, are they good or bad? This is sort of what I was wondering, as that's a lot of money to park for 2-3 years or maybe even longer with interest rates at some shockingly low levels.

Court interest used to be 8%. I've no idea what it is now.

If it was 8% people would be finding ways of having to hand over money whilst they appealed

Miss Hexham reckons it's still 8%.

[Digby]

Court interest used to be 8%. I've no idea what it is now.

If it was 8% people would be finding ways of having to hand over money whilst they appealed

Miss Hexham reckons it's still 8%.

Blimey. In this day and age that feels like one of those FCA rulings that provide compensation at a rate only a mythical investor could possibly have attained.

[onlynameleft]

I was told in this case Apple would have to pay, and then the in the event of an appeal the money would have to remain untouched until the appeal was finished with.

Court interest rates, are they good or bad? This is sort of what I was wondering, as that's a lot of money to park for 2-3 years or maybe even longer with interest rates at some shockingly low levels.

Court interest used to be 8%. I've no idea what it is now.

If it was 8% people would be finding ways of having to hand over money whilst they appealed

8% is judgment debt interest, not payable by court but debtor. Funds in Court attract 0.1% in Eng and Wales, no idea about Ireland.

[kk67]

Court interest used to be 8%. I've no idea what it is now.

If it was 8% people would be finding ways of having to hand over money whilst they appealed

8% is judgment debt interest, not payable by court but debtor. Funds in Court attract 0.1% in Eng and Wales, no idea about Ireland.

Good info, Fella.

[onlynameleft]

If it was 8% people would be finding ways of having to hand over money whilst they appealed

8% is judgment debt interest, not payable by court but debtor. Funds in Court attract 0.1% in Eng and Wales, no idea about Ireland.

Good info, Fella.

Thanks although I'm paid to know this stuff to be fair.

[kk67]

8% is judgment debt interest, not payable by court but debtor. Funds in Court attract 0.1% in Eng and Wales, no idea about Ireland.

Good info, Fella.

Thanks although I'm paid to know this stuff to be fair.

Meh,..

[Vengeful Glutton]

Apple don't employ a lot of people in Ireland (about 5,000 - mostly in the service sector). Ireland is - and MorePork alluded to it, but understated it - a tax haven. If they got up and left, unemployment figures wouldn't shoot up.......unless everyone else, Faeces book, Intel et al decided to jump ship. Even then though the number of jobs lost directly wouldn't be enormous: 20,000? What would happen is, there'd be a domino effect, on other sectors that benefit from Apple's presence in the auld country.

Apple (and various other MNCs) create employment indirectly. So, for example, Apple have applied for planning permission to build a shiny new Data Center in Galway. An Bord Pleanala appear to be making life difficult for them however:

http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/conte ... ullarticle

A political feint to make it look as if the Irish government are playing hard ball with the big bad MNC? Perhaps.

Anyhoo, the indirect employment generated when this thing goes ahead will be substantial. I'm not sure what the output is, but DCs are getting bigger and bigger (I heard that Amazon are looking to build co-location centers up to about 16 Gigawatts!). So that means a lot of new infrastructure, particularly an expansion of the Micker lecky grid.

Ireland relies heavily on FDI. In terms of GDP, indigenous companies produce the square root of feck all (in the good old days it was soldiers for HMG).

[Mellsblue]

Yep, that's pretty much what I was trying to get at. Apple's presence in and importance to Ireland goes far beyond how much corporation tax they pay.

[Digby]

Yep, that's pretty much what I was trying to get at. Apple's presence in and importance to Ireland goes far beyond how much corporation tax they pay.

Ah yes, the we're so important to you we shouldn't have to pay tax argument. Though we will avail ourselves of the society and infrastructure that others, lesser mortals, have paid for and frankly you should be grateful of for that.

It might just be me but I find that thinking worryingly selfish, albeit not surprisingly selfish. Not enough I'd want to vote for a Corbyn, but still, it's troubling. Although in this case it's troubling even whilst most of the money Ireland is now being told to tax isn't really money that should be Ireland's to tax, and that's making the story rather more complicated.

[jared_7]

Yep, that's pretty much what I was trying to get at. Apple's presence in and importance to Ireland goes far beyond how much corporation tax they pay.

But Ireland has the lowest corporate taxes in Europe, already. Where are they going to pack up and go to if they want to continue to have a presence in their second largest market in the world? The 12.5% is much, much lower than in the US also where they have most of their operations.

My guess is, with $200b in the bank, Apple won't move anywhere. They are just scaremongering because they know a bunch of people unable to think for themselves will fall for their sob story.

[Mellsblue]

I'm not taking a view on Apple - though I bet everyone on this board would minimise their tax if given the opportunity - but rather the Irish govt. If they feel a neglible tax rate is worth it for all the benefits Apple would bring to the country then that is up to them. And, yes, Ireland does have the lowest corporation tax rate but there are other considerations to moving to other countries beyond a tax rate.

I'll state again, though, that allowing them to book overseas profits through Ireland to the detriment of the country in which the sales are made is wholly wrong.

[jared_7]

I'm not taking a view on Apple - though I bet everyone on this board would minimise their tax if given the opportunity - but rather the Irish govt. If they feel a neglible tax rate is worth it for all the benefits Apple would bring to the country then that is up to them. And, yes, Ireland does have the lowest corporation tax rate but there are other considerations to moving to other countries beyond a tax rate.

Where has the EU, or anyone here for that matter, said Ireland can't have a negligible tax rate? No one has told them they have to lift their 12.5%.

I'll state again, though, that allowing them to book overseas profits through Ireland to the detriment of the country in which the sales are made is wholly wrong.

Which is the whole point?!

[Mellsblue]

Yep, that's pretty much what I was trying to get at. Apple's presence in and importance to Ireland goes far beyond how much corporation tax they pay.

They are just scaremongering because they know a bunch of people unable to think for themselves will fall for their sob story.

You're probably on the wrong side of the debate on this one to be someone who (patronisingly) thinks for themself. According to the latest YouGov poll the vast majority of people want a crackdown and most of the media coverage paints this sort of thing in a negative light.

[Mellsblue]

I'm not taking a view on Apple - though I bet everyone on this board would minimise their tax if given the opportunity - but rather the Irish govt. If they feel a neglible tax rate is worth it for all the benefits Apple would bring to the country then that is up to them. And, yes, Ireland does have the lowest corporation tax rate but there are other considerations to moving to other countries beyond a tax rate.

Where has the EU, or anyone here for that matter, said Ireland can't have a negligible tax rate? No one has told them they have to lift their 12.5%.

I'll state again, though, that allowing them to book overseas profits through Ireland to the detriment of the country in which the sales are made is wholly wrong.

Which is the whole point?!

As far as I'm aware, and I haven't had time to read in as much depth as I'd like, the Irish are being very lenient as to whether tax is applied on domestic earnings, intellectual property etc etc, as well.

[jared_7]

Yep, that's pretty much what I was trying to get at. Apple's presence in and importance to Ireland goes far beyond how much corporation tax they pay.

They are just scaremongering because they know a bunch of people unable to think for themselves will fall for their sob story.

You're probably on the wrong side of the debate on this one to be someone who (patronisingly) thinks for themself. According to the latest YouGov poll the vast majority of people want a crackdown and most of the media coverage paints this sort of thing in a negative light.

Europe is Apple's second largest market. Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe. Where are they going to go?

[Digby]

I'm not taking a view on Apple - though I bet everyone on this board would minimise their tax if given the opportunity - but rather the Irish govt. If they feel a neglible tax rate is worth it for all the benefits Apple would bring to the country then that is up to them. And, yes, Ireland does have the lowest corporation tax rate but there are other considerations to moving to other countries beyond a tax rate.

I'll state again, though, that allowing them to book overseas profits through Ireland to the detriment of the country in which the sales are made is wholly wrong.

I wouldn't take the view I'd want to minimise my tax, I'm more of the school of thought that taxes of the price of a civilised society, and it's ultimately in my interest that a lot of services are delivered by society.

The Irish government isn't free to offer them that deal is the EU claim which may or may not prove valid, my issue with it would be Ireland just providing that deal for a select few, including in this instance where there's clearly no need for any state aid/subsidy to deliver a successful business. And were Ireland free to offer those rates to any business then they should be available to all businesses, I utterly fail to see why some people should pay and others not.

If Ireland is free to set those rates, and can run with a corporation rate of say 0.5% then good luck to them. I would agree we need much more progress on where profits are declared.

[Mellsblue]

They are just scaremongering because they know a bunch of people unable to think for themselves will fall for their sob story.

You're probably on the wrong side of the debate on this one to be someone who (patronisingly) thinks for themself. According to the latest YouGov poll the vast majority of people want a crackdown and most of the media coverage paints this sort of thing in a negative light.

Europe is Apple's second largest market. Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe. Where are they going to go?

Like I said, it's not solely about corporation tax. They may feel that being in the UK with a higher tax rate but with better infrastructure, more graduates and closer to other leading tech businesses might be worth the extra tax payments were Ireland not quite so generous.

Ireland have such a low tax rate, and a lenient way of interpreting what that tax can be levied on, because they need it to attract businesses. They haven't just pulled a number out of a hat, it's that low because other countries are more attractive propositions for a myriad of other reasons.

[Mellsblue]

I'm not taking a view on Apple - though I bet everyone on this board would minimise their tax if given the opportunity - but rather the Irish govt. If they feel a neglible tax rate is worth it for all the benefits Apple would bring to the country then that is up to them. And, yes, Ireland does have the lowest corporation tax rate but there are other considerations to moving to other countries beyond a tax rate.

I'll state again, though, that allowing them to book overseas profits through Ireland to the detriment of the country in which the sales are made is wholly wrong.

I wouldn't take the view I'd want to minimise my tax, I'm more of the school of thought that taxes of the price of a civilised society, and it's ultimately in my interest that a lot of services are delivered by society.

The Irish government isn't free to offer them that deal is the EU claim which may or may not prove valid, my issue with it would be Ireland just providing that deal for a select few, including in this instance where there's clearly no need for any state aid/subsidy to deliver a successful business. And were Ireland free to offer those rates to any business then they should be available to all businesses, I utterly fail to see why some people should pay and others not.

If Ireland is free to set those rates, and can run with a corporation rate of say 0.5% then good luck to them. I would agree we need much more progress on where profits are declared.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on a blanket tax rate regardless of ancillary benefits to the economy. I can see why a struggling sme or start-up would be hacked off but at the same time I wonder how many sme's and startups are there due, directly or indirectly, to Apple's presence in the country.