TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
I really can't buy into the paranoia narrative. We have been getting it very easy indeed from the EU and that includes the bail out from our reckless folly.
Anyone can set up any company they like. If Revenue say that the company is not run from Ireland then they cannot avail of our 12.5% tax rate.Odyssey think about it. Not enough that we have the lowest CT rate in the EU, we let Apple set up two Irish companies, one a shell managed in Bermuda or wherever, and the other the trading company. Reducing the tax rate to nearly zero. And for heaven sake cut this "it's the fault of other tax jurisdictions for leaving the loophole".
I presume the City of London, the world’s oldest and biggest tax haven, is keeping its collective heads down. I presume Luxembourg is also keeping schtum.Now that is the Wild West of tax havens. I presume we haven't an ounce of sympathy from any of the other members, large or small. And let me get this straight, in whinging about our tax sovereignty are Noonan and Henda claiming we should still be allowed to facilitate .05% tax rate? none of Brussels' damn business.
France and Germany getting their way on tax harmonisation certainly would be more harmful than anything Tim Cook could do.But sure let's appeal. Tim Cook's wrath would be more harmful to Ireland than that of any EU institution. And I mean that.
But sure let's appeal. Tim Cook's wrath would be more harmful to Ireland than that of any EU institution. And I mean that.
Odyssey think about it. Not enough that we have the lowest CT rate in the EU, we let Apple set up two Irish companies, one a shell managed in Bermuda or wherever, and the other the trading company. Reducing the tax rate to nearly zero. And for heaven sake cut this "it's the fault of other tax jurisdictions for leaving the loophole".
What does that mean though?sophie
I think she means endorsed them as appropriate for tax. Of course Apple are free to allocate all their profits to the coffee machine but Revenue endorsement is about taxable profits and that is within their gift to an extent.
but the real economic activity triggering the 13 billion tax liability happened outside the EU and should be taxed outside the EU.
But where exactly? Apple havent given an answer to that.
And if the Cork plant also represents real economic activity. It cant be dismissed.
Can someone explain to me how these profits can be released in value to Apple shareholders without one or other of those taxes being paid to the proper US authorities?
The profits arent released as dividends to shareholders. They are held on balance by the company boosting its capital reserve and subsequently its share price. If the profits are liable for taxation in the US then fine, Apple just has to declare that. But it chooses not to. Instead it chooses to opt for an elaborate tax avoidance scheme.
A consequence of all this, should Ireland be "forced" to take the filthy lucre from Apple, would be pressure on the US to change its own tax laws and force US companies to repatriate more of their earnings home for tax purposes.
Remember, some of this relates to a period where Ireland was bankrupt, the government bank gaurantee helped gaurantee the bank deposits of Apple. In this time, did Apple approach Revenue or the government to see how perhaps they could contribute something a bit closer to 12.5% CT? I doubt it.
We are being taken for fools once more, how often have we heard about our much vaunted 12.5%, only to discover the effective rate is 2-4% for many corporations?
How did our much vaunted 12.5% CT become obscured by the 'Double Irish' or artificial tax avoidance schemes?
How many times do we have to put on the green jersey to bailout multi billion dollar institutions?
This is not a government of the people. It is an extension of international corporate boardrooms that ply their trade by gutting social services (tax avoidance) for their own profit, and gutting social services for their own salvation (bailouts).
The profits arent released as dividends to shareholders. They are held on balance by the company boosting its capital reserve and subsequently its share price.
If the profits are liable for taxation in the US then fine, Apple just has to declare that. But it chooses not to. Instead it chooses to opt for an elaborate tax avoidance scheme.
I see your point Protocol. Hard to see 6,000 employees in Cork generating 100bn in profits, that would be 16m per employee.
....as it's in the USA where all the work was done to earn the profits.
Hard to see 6,000 employees in Cork generating 100bn in profits, that would be 16m per employee.
That's the whole point of all of this.I see your point Protocol. Hard to see 6,000 employees in Cork generating 100bn in profits, that would be 16m per employee.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?