[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.