Should Ireland appeal the Apple ruling

Status
Not open for further replies.
setanta thanks for that clarification. I think in the domestic context where we have anti avoidance laws the smell test is very important, and the slightest whiff makes you look for Revenue's blessing. Though I accept that at the international level the legal position is paramount.
Reading the Telegraph, they see this as vindictive politics by Brussels and see it as endorsing their Brexit stance. It does rather seem like a back door approach to getting Ireland into line.

I sense that you agree with an appeal and further that you think we will succeed.
 
Tony Connelly of RTE's analysis is compulsory reading; how on earth did he come so well informed. I note that the entire judgement is not yet available because of confidentiality issues, so setanta those rulings not in public domain yet.

But I have a very basic question, why is the VAT concession not regarded as State aid to the hospitality sector.
 
I do agree with an appeal. Wholeheartedly agree.

I do not know the legal mechanisms here for a successful appeal. What is the level of proof required to win, 'balance of probabilities' versus 'reasonable doubt' etc etc. I think it will come down to a squaring of articles in the Treaty of Rome (or Lisbon, or ..) against other articles and the more important, fundamental article winning on balance.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Tony Connelly of RTE's analysis is compulsory reading; how on earth did he come so well informed.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just that he's a smart guy and a talented journalist. What would you do if you had his job? You would prepare and inform yourself on future anticipated developments (within your patch) and develop and nurture contacts with relevant subject matter experts (as in old-fashioned networking). And this decision, we know, was anticipated. All this in addition to an already developed understanding of the general workings of the double Irish and associated concepts, EU precedents, etc. (......presumably a matter of regular discussion in the milieu he operates in). Even still, magnum opus....

This state of readiness is in dramatic contrast to the abysmal state of preparedness of the Irish government. Fionnan Sheehan was justifiably scathing in this regard on the Sean O'Rourke program - on Wednesday, I think.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
But I have a very basic question, why is the VAT concession not regarded as State aid to the hospitality sector.
Click to expand...

My tuppence worth on this. The VAT concession applies to all businesses in the hospitality sector. Therefore no one hotel or restaurant is at an advantage over anothers competitor.
Whereas Apple, it is claimed received a tax advantage over its competitors, say Microsoft.

Here is an apparent tax expert attacking the Apple view. (Not sure if copying and posting this link is allowed?)

https://www.fastcompany.com/3063340/a-tax-expert-rips-tim-cooks-eu-letter-apart-point-by-point
 
Ok, I read the weekend papers (Sunday Times and Sunday Business Post) - not a lot in either, truth be told. The grandstanding triumphalism 'we told you so!' attitude by the Post really took me by surprise though.

So, it would seem that the Apple execs paraded a primitive value-chain in front of the Irish revenue and showed the Revenue how they (Apple) attributed their profits to their profit-centres (note: not companies). Revenue agreed with that - and agreed the tax payable amount - an amount which had no bearing in reality, but which must have seemed like Christmas to the Revenue. So I'm not surprised they agreed. (And it appears the profit-centres, where the value-add was added, were in IRNR companies outside the Irish tax authority's reach anyway under law)

They couldn't have known - and indeed no-one forecast the explosive growth of Apple over the coming years.



I have seen a favourable tax-ruling for an Irish company from the Irish Revenue ; I advised a well-known not-for-profit company (not a charity) who had a corporation tax rate of 16% at a time when the rate was in the 30's falling to the 20s. When the rate fell below 16% to 12.5%, we wrote to the Revenue asking could we revert to the normal usual rate then in force of 12.5%; the Revenue said no. We were stick at the 16% rate. Tax rulings normally work for you - but they can work against you.
 
TheBigShort said:
My tuppence worth on this. The VAT concession applies to all businesses in the hospitality sector. Therefore no one hotel or restaurant is at an advantage over anothers competitor.
Whereas Apple, it is claimed received a tax advantage over its competitors, say Microsoft.

Here is an apparent tax expert attacking the Apple view. (Not sure if copying and posting this link is allowed?)

https://www.fastcompany.com/3063340/a-tax-expert-rips-tim-cooks-eu-letter-apart-point-by-point
Click to expand...
From your link;
"To get the other side of the argument I went to Matt Gardner, the director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (the research umbrella for [broken link removed]). The CTJ is nonpartisan and nonprofit, and it's funded by some of the same foundations that fund NPR."
Citizens for Tax Justice doesn't sound very non-partisan. They could be on one side or the other but they sound political and therefore partisan.
 
Purple said:
Citizens for Tax Justice doesn't sound very non-partisan. They could be on one side or the other but they sound political and therefore partisan.
Click to expand...

Laughing out loud. Very, very loud – don’t exactly know why……it’s not that funny!! Anyway, thank you Purple!

I read a lot about this stuff over the weekend but couldn't finish this particular article. (It wasn't the only one I couldn't finish....as Sentanta12 rightly opined, the SBP was generally very hard work......although, I'll stick my neck out and say that McDowell's article was, at least, very intelligent, possibly brilliant.)

Anyway, you can understand why Tim Cook said what he said and……..you know that Cook knows that you're thinking "well, he would say that wouldn't he?" and that’s all ok.

Simili modo, when Ruth Coppinger came on the news and set out all the things that we could spend the moolah on - coz it’s ours - you kinda thought well she would say that wouldn't she? Indeed, it would be hard to imagine her going.......
my understanding is that the Irish authorities have broadly received the tax due in respect of profits attributable to Ireland so that the appropriate thing to now do is to agree an equitable basis to distribute the €13/€19 billion amongst the other countries which gave rise to these taxable amounts!!

So, not knowing the honourable Matt Gardner and his eminent institution from Adam, the “anchoring” effect of the purported impartiality (as set out in the introduction) lasted a few paragraphs until reason was restored and my short-lived engagement with his thoughts terminated. I just hate being duped. As I write, I’m not even sure whether what he said was partly valid or not – just can’t remember and I have no intention of re-visiting it. What I am certain of is that this is, in absolute no way, an impartial article.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is deep and, as Dan O'B says, without the actual ruling hard to make a call.
It is not your ordinary Double Irish which every Tom, D & H could have a piece off. DI is about transfer pricing between two Irish companies, one taxed in Ireland and one (not) taxed in Bermuda, say. The Commissioner is very anxious to stress this is not about transfer pricing, it is about internal profit allocation involving no internal transactions. She stressed that the Irish endorsed the Apple allocation and method suggesting that it needed their endorsement. My sense is that they have the bases well covered and we won't win the appeal. That is of course a reasonable result as we get our dosh and yet are seen to have fought the good fight. Others argue that making this appeal is doing us serious damage with our EU partners and ultimately spells the end of our 12.5% tax rate.
bigshort your leftie hero makes some laudable points I'm sure but on the key issue of selectivity he is off the wall. Your own example of Microsoft could surely afford the same expertise as Apple.
 
Last edited:
I had to laugh at Phil Hogan and Katherine Zappone "nearly" leaving their jobs, but not actually leaving their jobs over the Apple issue.
I see that I may be expected to pay a large property tax increase in a few years time. I would prefer if the Government took the money and let the small guy, be it business or individual, off the tax hook for a while.
 
SlugBreath said:
I had to laugh at Phil Hogan and Katherine Zappone "nearly" leaving their jobs, but not actually leaving their jobs over the Apple issue.
Click to expand...

Me too. I can hear it now. "I was this close to leaving, honestly, no really, swear to God like. I was really so close*"


* then I thought about me pension
 
Fair play, Gordon
Dan Murray said:
....as Sentanta12 rightly opined, the SBP was generally very hard work......although, I'll stick my neck out and say that McDowell's article was, at least, very intelligent, possibly brilliant.
Click to expand...

I just couldn't find a non-pay-for-view link!

I'm not sure how I feel about McDowell more generally - sometimes irritating, sometimes brilliant, invariably very interesting.
 
A disappointing McWilliamsesque anti EU rant from McD. His "clever" barrister riposte to Ms V would be dismissed at ease by the most junior counsel. Let's imagine we had an open and shut case of State aid - let's say a letter telling Apple "this one's for you, don't tell anybody". Naturally the payment due would be reduced to the extent other jurisdictions had countered the measure. To argue, as McD does, that ergo it is the other countries' fault is nonsense.
This is first and last about whether Apple got selective treatment, McD would have been better occupied addressing his legal brain to that point.
 
Purple said:
They could be on one side or the other but they sound political and therefore partisan.
Click to expand...

Dan Murray said:
What I am certain of is that this is, in absolute no way, an impartial article.
Click to expand...

The clue was in my post when I referenced Tim Cooks view being "attacked".

Nevertheless, it adds to the debate, who is right, who is wrong?
If we are to take solely the non-partisan approach, then we should ignore Gardner and Cook, and the Irish government and the Dail opposition.
In the end we are left with one view, the EU Commission.
 
Revenue would have no say in how a company arranges its business affairs. Therefore, I should be interested to know how the commissioner concluded that the Irish revenue "endorsed" a company's business decision.
 
TheBigShort said:
If we are to take solely the non-partisan approach, then we should ignore Gardner and Cook, and the Irish government and the Dail opposition.
In the end we are left with one view, the EU Commission.
Click to expand...
Is it your opinion that the Commission is non-partisan?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top