Apple Says EU Irish Tax Probe Could Have 'Material' Financial Impact

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Apple Says EU Irish Tax Probe Could Have 'Material' Financial Impact

Translation we might have to pay our fair share.

Apple says the European Commission's investigation into Ireland's tax treatment of multinationals could have a "material" impact if it was determined that Dublin's tax policies represented unfair state aid. Apple said that if the EU's investigations concluded against Ireland, the company could be required to pay past taxes for up to 10 years "reflective of the disallowed state aid."



The EU began a formal investigation against Ireland in June last year for alleged state aid to Apple. Apple said that as of March 28, it was unable to estimate the impact of having to pay these taxes. "The company believes the European Commission's assertions are without merit," Apple said in a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday.
Remember this


Apple avoids taxes with ‘complex web’ of offshore entities, Senate inquiry finds



By Cecilia Kang May 20, 2013
Apple used a “complex web” of offshore entities — with no employees or physical offices — that allowed it to pay little or no taxes on tens of billions it earned overseas, according to a Senate investigation unveiled Monday.
Between 2009 and 2012, the company shielded at least $74 billion in profits from U.S. tax laws by setting up subsidiaries in Ireland under a special arrangement, the report said.


While the practice of using foreign operations to avoid U.S. taxes is legal and common among multinationals, Apple’s scheme was unprecedented in its use of multiple affiliates that had no semblance of a physical presence, Senate staffers said.


The electronics giant’s rootless subsidiaries had just one purpose: to funnel much of the company’s global profits and dodge billions of dollars in U.S. tax obligations, according to the report by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
And who do they cry to, the American taxpayer funded US government, the same government they do their best to avoid paying taxes to,

It seems as long as your organization is run by an openly gay CEO, make overpriced products for all the liberal hipsters out there, openly support the Democrat party and Obama, and your name isn't Koch it's all OK.:whiste:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...-ban-on-iphone-ipads-apple-happy-samsung-not/

http://macdailynews.com/2015/02/16/obama-airs-support-for-apple-watch-and-ipads/#comments
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
It seems as long as your organization is run by an openly gay CEO, make overpriced products for all the liberal hipsters out there, openly support the Democrat party and Obama, and your name isn't Koch it's all OK.:whiste:

Yup. Thats how we do it. First we come for your white women then we come for your jobs then we come for your tax evasion multinationals and benghazi.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,483
6,108
126
The idea of making products that confer social standing because they cost more and make you feel cool to own makes me rather sick. An appeal to that side of human nature, the exploitation of that side of human nature for profit, instead of the utility value of the product for the benefit of everyday life is dark side behavior, in my opinion.

Not saying that Apple stuff doesn't appeal aesthetically or has low functionality, but it does seem to have a cult following and seeks to create one on a regular basis. People are fickle however, and easily go counter cult causing the endless seeking of profit above all else to target self aggrandizement, a road that leads nowhere. That liberals are subject to such herd instincts looks obvious to me, and as a morality based progressive I'm all for Apple paying its taxes.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
The idea of making products that confer social standing because they cost more and make you feel cool to own makes me rather sick.

It's interesting how owning an Android phone is starting to be the same way, just a little different, it's becoming a symbol for sending the message to others you have no desire of paying money to fit in with the cool people's clubs.
 
Last edited:

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
It's interesting how owning an Android phone is starting to be the same way, just a little different, it's becoming a symbol for sending the message to others you have no desire of paying money to fit in with the cool people's clubs.

Yeah, that or you just like shitty phones that don't work.


TROLLLLLLLLOLOLOL
 

touchstone

Senior member
Feb 25, 2015
603
0
0
Apple Says EU Irish Tax Probe Could Have 'Material' Financial Impact

Translation we might have to pay our fair share.

Remember this


And who do they cry to, the American taxpayer funded US government, the same government they do their best to avoid paying taxes to,

It seems as long as your organization is run by an openly gay CEO, make overpriced products for all the liberal hipsters out there, openly support the Democrat party and Obama, and your name isn't Koch it's all OK.:whiste:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieg...-ban-on-iphone-ipads-apple-happy-samsung-not/

http://macdailynews.com/2015/02/16/obama-airs-support-for-apple-watch-and-ipads/#comments

pay little or no taxes on tens of billions it earned overseas


Apple pays its US taxes on money it earns in the US. It is an international business, I see no issues in it keeping the money it earns outside of the US.
 
Dec 10, 2005
24,144
6,956
136
Apple pays its US taxes on money it earns in the US. It is an international business, I see no issues in it keeping the money it earns outside of the US.

No. It's utter fucking bullshit what they and other multinationals pull. Setting up subsidiaries in no/low-tax countries, which then hold the intellectual property. They license this back to themselves, but then they need to pay the subsidiary back, so when sales are made in the US, that money doesn't really count as profit in the US, since it has to pay the expense of licensing their own property from themselves.

They're moving money from the their left pocket to their right to avoid paying US taxes. And for some reason, under current regulations and laws, this scheme seems to be fairly legal, which is utterly preposterous.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
Naw, doesn't matter if your apple of a Koch, their money buys the same "extra" representation. Could be a big deal to apple but isn't really a left/right issue, just the same old "anyone with money wants to keep said money" story.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
Apple pays its US taxes on money it earns in the US. It is an international business, I see no issues in it keeping the money it earns outside of the US.

If it wouldn't be for the press every single dollar they made would be earned outside the US. All they have to do is raise the price their offshore company charges them (do you see what's happening here?) for damn near anything they can make up. Would you like to argue that no iphones are sold in the US? It's absurdly easy to see where the majority of Apple's revenue comes from yet for tax purposes it comes from entirely different nations. Why do you suppose that is?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
It's interesting how owning an Android phone is starting to be the same way, just a little different, it's becoming a symbol for sending the message to others you have no desire of paying money to fit in with the cool people's clubs.

Fuck, are you trying to say that I gotta move to that windows phone crap now? I didn't get a vote or even a fucking memo, this is some bullshit.
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
Profit is a lie as long as companies can keep making up their own expenses.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
An analogy, if I understand it correctly:

Let's say I own patent A to make a product. The product costs $100 to manufacture, and I sell it for $500. I am located in the US.

I open a subsidiary in Ireland. I sell the intellectual property to my subsidiary in Ireland for $1. My subsidiary then licenses me to manufacture and sell the product, but I have to pay my subsidiary a $400 royalty for each unit I sell.

I manufacture a unit for $100. I sell it for $500. I pay the royalty to my subsidiary of $400. I haven't made a profit in the US. My subsidiary made a $400 profit, but it's located where its profit isn't taxed. All that "creating jobs" stuff for Ireland.


Is that how it works? Or have I got it wrong a bit? Please correct what I misunderstand about this setup.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,252
14,988
136
An analogy, if I understand it correctly:

Let's say I own patent A to make a product. The product costs $100 to manufacture, and I sell it for $500. I am located in the US.

I open a subsidiary in Ireland. I sell the intellectual property to my subsidiary in Ireland for $1. My subsidiary then licenses me to manufacture and sell the product, but I have to pay my subsidiary a $400 royalty for each unit I sell.

I manufacture a unit for $100. I sell it for $500. I pay the royalty to my subsidiary of $400. I haven't made a profit in the US. My subsidiary made a $400 profit, but it's located where its profit isn't taxed. All that "creating jobs" stuff for Ireland.


Is that how it works? Or have I got it wrong a bit? Please correct what I misunderstand about this setup.

You've got it! It's why when apple released a feature update (I think it was mms) they had to release the update a certain way, for tax purposes.
 

Belegost

Golden Member
Feb 20, 2001
1,807
19
81
An analogy, if I understand it correctly:

Let's say I own patent A to make a product. The product costs $100 to manufacture, and I sell it for $500. I am located in the US.

I open a subsidiary in Ireland. I sell the intellectual property to my subsidiary in Ireland for $1. My subsidiary then licenses me to manufacture and sell the product, but I have to pay my subsidiary a $400 royalty for each unit I sell.

I manufacture a unit for $100. I sell it for $500. I pay the royalty to my subsidiary of $400. I haven't made a profit in the US. My subsidiary made a $400 profit, but it's located where its profit isn't taxed. All that "creating jobs" stuff for Ireland.


Is that how it works? Or have I got it wrong a bit? Please correct what I misunderstand about this setup.

At the high level, yea. It requires a little more complication - it really has to be two Irish companies, with one an Irish company that is headquartered somewhere like the Cayman Islands, and the other a subsidiary headquartered in Ireland, and often there is another Dutch company that the money routes through to avoid even the Irish taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
No. It's utter fucking bullshit what they and other multinationals pull. Setting up subsidiaries in no/low-tax countries, which then hold the intellectual property. They license this back to themselves, but then they need to pay the subsidiary back, so when sales are made in the US, that money doesn't really count as profit in the US, since it has to pay the expense of licensing their own property from themselves.

They're moving money from the their left pocket to their right to avoid paying US taxes. And for some reason, under current regulations and laws, this scheme seems to be fairly legal, which is utterly preposterous.

Pretty much this. Apple is gaming the system through deceit. They are not adhering to tax law, they are explicitly working around tax law.

Carl Levin, senatar from Michigan, completely took them to town in congressional hearings a few years back on this point.

Apple makes great products, they shit all over anything/anyone else by exploiting.


Apple’s Web of Tax Shelters Saved It Billions, Panel Finds

WASHINGTON — Even as Apple became the nation’s most profitable technology company, it avoided billions in taxes in the United States and around the world through a web of subsidiaries so complex it spanned continents and went beyond anything most experts had ever seen, Congressional investigators disclosed on Monday.

The investigation is expected to set up a potentially explosive confrontation between a bipartisan group of lawmakers and Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s chief executive, at a public hearing on Tuesday.

Congressional investigators found that some of Apple’s subsidiaries had no employees and were largely run by top officials from the company’s headquarters in Cupertino, Calif. But by officially locating them in places like Ireland, Apple was able to, in effect, make them stateless — exempt from taxes, record-keeping laws and the need for the subsidiaries to even file tax returns anywhere in the world.

“Apple wasn’t satisfied with shifting its profits to a low-tax offshore tax haven,” said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that is holding the public hearing Tuesday into Apple’s use of tax havens. “Apple successfully sought the holy grail of tax avoidance. It has created offshore entities holding tens of billions of dollars while claiming to be tax resident nowhere.”

Thanks to what lawmakers called “gimmicks” and “schemes,” Apple was able to largely sidestep taxes on tens of billions of dollars it earned outside the United States in recent years. Last year, international operations accounted for 61 percent of Apple’s total revenue.

Investigators have not accused Apple of breaking any laws and the company is hardly the only American multinational to face scrutiny for using complex corporate structures and tax havens to sidestep taxes. In recent months, revelations from European authorities about the tax avoidance strategies used by Google, Starbucks and Amazon have all stirred public anger and spurred several European governments, as well as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based research organization for the world’s richest countries, to discuss measures to close the loopholes.

Still, the findings about Apple were remarkable both for the enormous amount of money involved and the audaciousness of the company’s assertion that its subsidiaries are beyond the reach of any taxing authority.

“There is a technical term economists like to use for behavior like this,” said Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and a former staff director at the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. “Unbelievable chutzpah.”
...
 
Last edited: