[atanasb]

Let's summarise:

1. Apple, like every other big corporation, uses a complex corporate structure in order to reduce taxes legally.

2. Irish government issues preferential rates and also advises Apple on how to do it, directly breaking EU law.

3. Five years later - Apple has to pay for the Ireland's preferential tax rates.

So let me get this straight - according to EU law if I get told today that Irish tax rate is 20% for example, 5 years down the line I can just expect someone to send me a letter stating that actually - I got preferential tax and I should repay another 20% on everything. Not to mention negative PR.

Can someone explain why people are angry at Apple when clearly they were allowed to do it?

It is interesting watching how emotionally invested people get in scorning corporations about legally reducing their taxes. Every small company owner I have talked to has tried a few ways of legally reducing taxes - I can't see why people hate on other people for doing the same thing.

[snovv_crash]

If somebody says they don't mind if you pay them below minimum wage, it doesn't mean that it is legal. At some point in the future a lot of hurt might end up coming your way, and you could be forced to pay them the remainder, even if they say they don't want it because they might lose their job as a result.

Similarly, just because Ireland told Apple that they could get low taxes, doesn't mean that they were legally entitled to do so.

[atanasb]

I don't mean to provoke people to get downvoted to hell - I mean to understand why people are hating on Apple.

Your example is not applicable here since below minimum wages are illegal to begin with.

> Similarly, just because Ireland told Apple that they could get low taxes, doesn't mean that they were legally entitled to do so.

You are talking about the government here - not Apple. My point being - the Irish government was at fault when they broke EU law. Why should Apple be the one to compensate their error?

[snovv_crash]

Ireland agreed to the Treaty of Rome, in which they agreed to not provide state aid to corporations. The EU commission's ruling is that the effective tax rate of ~0% amounts to state aid via a tax break. In order to reverse the state aid, Apple needs to pay Ireland the money that it was illegally allowed to keep. That is why it is Apple's responsibility to pay back the money, because that is the only way to ensure that the incentive of this tax-favouritism is removed.

[easytiger]

> Ireland agreed to the Treaty of Rome, in which they agreed to not provide state aid to corporations.

Ireland do not agree they provided any such exemption. Do you have evidence of a specific Exemption for apple?

[snovv_crash]

"Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market."[1]

1. http://www.hri.org/docs/Rome57/Part3Title05.html#Pt3TitVCha1...

[easytiger]

Again, please provide evidence that a specific deal was done for this specific company, or even group of companies. I have looked and cannot find any such thing.

[d_theorist]

I think Ireland and Apple would argue that Apple was legally entitled to do so because:

1. Irish law (according to their interpretation) says it is ok 2. This interpretation was upheld by an Irish court.

[dalke]

> I get told today that Irish tax rate is 20% for example, 5 years down the line I can just expect someone to send me a letter stating that actually - I got preferential tax and I should repay another 20% on everything.

Were all the other companies also paying 20% when you started, or were they paying 40% then?

Did your accountants and lawyers not notice the preferential treatment? Were they not aware of both Irish and EU laws?

As an individual tax payer, can I get similar treatment where the IRS confirms that my 1040 is correct? If I get bad advice from the IRS which causes me to fill out my 1040 incorrectly, am I not still liable for any owed taxes?

If I am liable, why should Apple not be liable? If I'm not liable, tell me how to get the IRS to review my taxes this way.

[danmaz74]

> if I get told today that Irish tax rate is 20% for example

You got that wrong. They knew that the Irish tax rate was 12.5% for all corporations, but the government at the time offered them a super-extra-deal that - just for them - would bring that to 1%. Apple's lawyers were surely aware that this kind of special deals are very debatable in view of EU antitrust law, but took the deal anyway - at their own risk.

[easytiger]

> government at the time offered them a super-extra-deal that - just for them - would bring that to 1%

What was that deal? The Irish government claim no deal was made

[marktheknife]

It doesn't appear there was one. Apple used a loophole in Irish tax laws that meant Ireland wouldn't tax certain income. It sounds like Ireland apparently acknowledged in a ruling this was a correct reading of the tax laws, which binds Irish tax authorities to not challenge Apple on the issue.

The thing is, if my understanding of the facts is correct, it was a correct reading of the tax law, not some special one done for Apple. So this ruling was not a "deal."

[danmaz74]

There will be an appeal and a sentence. We'll see who is right - in a few years...

[james1071]

What is at issue is that Ireland did not enforce its own tax laws.