Should Ireland appeal the Apple ruling

I am basing it on what looks to me like a tax avoidance scheme, which the Government allowed.

Why should we have to wonder how to keep them on board, we have the lowest rate of corporate tax in the EU, do we not?

They are paying it now I would presume - and if the applicable "law" that was in place at that time, is no longer in place - then to me that the Government are defending this.

Ireland shouldn't be supporting Apple though should it?

It wasn't Ireland who took them to task over their minuscule tax payments, it was the EU.

They will appeal no doubt, but what if they lose, then what?
 
I'm a bit surprised that whether an appeal is made or not is such a hot potato politically: surely it’s in the interests of even those who think we should say thanks very much and get the €19bn to get a definitive answer? Also, since Apple are planning to appeal in any case, it’s something of a moot point. It would be interesting if the government fell (which looks to be quite possible) in trying to have appeal that is going to happen in any case…..
 
I think the Government have to play both sides of this, I do think that they were way to quick coming out stating they would appeal - when they didn't have all their little duckies in a row, they should have discussed first and then made an announcement.
 
Apple boss (Tim Cook) said that Apple and Ireland "need to stand together" on this; as the BBC points out a not too subtle hint to the government.

Cook is feigning moral indignation that anyone could accuse Apple of underhand dealings. The stakes are getting high here. If we do not do Cook's bidding I think there could be an (irrational) negative impact on Apple's and possibly other American MNC's attitude to Ireland. If we do his bidding it will be seen as cynical self serving by our EU partners and strengthen their moral hand in dismantling Ireland's "dumping fiscal" once and for good.

This is no decision to be left to the crazy hitch pitch of a cabinet which we now have.

What if Apple loses the appeal? As I understand it Apple will be able to deduct this tax from its US tax obligations. Hence why Washington has got in on the act in condemning the ruling.
 
That looks about the size of it duke.

Duke of Marmalade said:
As I understand it Apple will be able to deduct this tax from its US tax obligations. Hence why Washington has got in on the act in condemning the ruling.
Click to expand...


Can you expand on that? My understanding is that the money is somewhere, just not taxed and if it has to be taxed somewhere, well why not here - if you see my point?
 
Again my source is Le Monde. Ultimately Ireland's tax advantage is one of deferral of US 35% tax to if and when profits are repatriated to the US. At that stage the US will allow an offset of any tax already paid abroad. So if Apple have to pay this the name of the game would be to repatriate sufficient of their 250bn accumulated offshore profits to just generate US tax equal to the 13bn.

Yes from a pure numbers game far better that Ireland keep the dosh. But this is a hearts and mind game with Tim Cook et al

My take is still that an appeal is very unlikely to succeed except maybe to reduce the amount so we should swallow hard and do as Tim bids us.o_O
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Yes from a pure numbers game far better that Ireland keep the dosh.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's about the dosh though.

Duke of Marmalade said:
My take is still that an appeal is very unlikely to succeed except maybe to reduce the amount so we should swallow hard and do as Tim bids us.o_O
Click to expand...

I think that would be a mistake, because we can't be seen to condone the practice of tax avoidance, I agree that both sides of the fence have to be played, but I don't think we should "siding" with anyone.
 
Wait a second! We can appeal decisions made by the EU Commission?
I thought what they said was gospel, that we had to suck it up regardless, not being allowed to reverse water charges and all that?

In my opinion it simply exposes the lengths to which will be stooped to facilitate big corporations. This isnt goverance.
I have no problem with a 12.5% tax rate, as long as its applied. Otherwise why bother with a tax rate at all.
Better to do away with CT altogether and raise tax rates on CGT. Tax those who benefit most from this, a corporation is nothing more than a legal entity on a piece of paper.
 
Last edited:
Crikey - 4 pages of mostly ill-informed comments

As a tax-expert - and one who hasn't tracked this as well as he should have - can I view anywhere the Revenue's rulings in the two relevant years?

I note the IRNR aspect of the two Apple companies but this doesn't appear to be about the Double Irish - at least that phrase hasn't been bandied about - but elements of what is being discussed certainly bear a lot of relation to the Double Irish; anyone agree? But that's not under attack here, agree?

After all, the Double Irish was only a problem for American companies and only created by American legislation.
 
odyssey06 said:
Worth reading contrary opinion from the previous commissioner:

Https://www.theguardian.com/busines...damentally-unfair-former-ec-competition-chief
Click to expand...
From the same articleon Neeli Kroes
The Dutch former politician, who headed the commission’s competition directorate from 2004 to 2010, now sits on the public policy board of the taxi-hailing business Uber, a technology group headquartered in California.Uber uses subsidiaries in the Netherlands to shield its overseas income from United States taxes.

'Nuff said
 
Setanta12 said:
Crikey - 4 pages of mostly ill-informed comments
Click to expand...

Dan Murray said:
Totally agree. Not just on here - but more broadly also and in particular from some "editors" in RTE.
Click to expand...

Neither of your contributions have even attempted to make us any better informed.

It really isn't in the spirit of AAM to condemn other posters as ill-informed, and then offer nothing of your own.
 
Hi Cremeegg,

Point taken re spirit of AAM (mise dána) but I don't have time to get into the detail tonight and I just wanted to acknowledge Setanta12's point which I totally agree with. Hopefully, tomorrow or the weekend, I'll have time to elaborate more.
 
One can be a tax-expert, in as much as one can be a law-expert - but you wouldn't expect a law-expert to know the A-Z of law from consumer protection legislation to medical-negligence claims.

Which is why I asked some questions .. .. I know enough to know I don't have full details*, and there is a lot of guff being reported as fact here.

I would prefer to have full info and then comment, and was reaching out for better-informed people to assist.

*I do work in the world of international taxation and transfer-pricing as it happens :) I will be reading the entire judgement for work-purposes but was hoping to get the abridged-version here!
 
Setanta according to John Fitzgerald (you know the guy with the beard) this is the Double Irish. Are you sure your CPD is up to date?:rolleyes:

I most certainly am not a tax expert but I would really like an appreciation of what happened here, hopefully you can help - seriously.

I read in full the Commission press release, linked to earlier in this thread, but I can't find anywhere what you call the "entire judgement".

Here's my layman's read of what constitutes a tax ruling. It is where you come up with some fancy scheme, possibly valid on paper but failing the "smell test". So you go to the Revenue and ask for advance clearance. If Revenue say no you say "ah well nice try", if they say yes you say "happy days". If this interpretation is correct then IMHO the judgement is spot on, but I still think we should do as Tim asks.
 
Last edited:
I like the Double Irish, I do have a few simple paras of layman English somewhere explaining it*. It is a problem created as a result of American tax legislation differing from other countries' tax legislation and concerns what determines the tax residence of companies - basically put, if all countries agreed on what constituted tax-residency there wouldn't be a problem. I think the problem also centers around what is known as 'substance' too (this is the whole 'empty office in the other country' debate here - rather strangely, this is an argument used against Ireland most of the time)


Duke of Marmalade said:
If Revenue say no you say "ah well nice try", if they say yes you say "happy days". If this interpretation is correct then IMHO the judgement is spot on
Click to expand...

I disagree totally with this. The Revenue gave their opinion on the basis of their knowledge of Irish tax law at that point in time - if the facts ever differ from those presented, rulings cannot be relied upon. If it fails a 'smell test' but is legal - then it is legal; after all, who decides what smells and what doesn't smell - a supra-national authority 20-30 years later ?


*I read up on it a few years ago when the other tax-experts in my American MNC couldn't explain the group structure at the time. I will pass it along if I an find it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top