"According to one diplomat, the strongest level of opposition came from Ireland, Malta and Cyprus. Luxembourg was said to have raised a series of practical problems about the proposal, arguing it would introduce a lot of complexity into the tax system."
Go figure. Noncompetitive EU countries complaining the loudest.
France has a lower effective rate of tax than Ireland's for companies in the CAC40 - 8%. There's a lot of hypocrisy whirling around about tax. The larger a company is, the lower tax it pays in France owing to various breaks and deals. A bunch of this criticism is just another way of saying France First.
Can't help notice that three of the four are tiny countries. And the fourth, Ireland, is not that big either.
I'm starting to thing that there might also be a geopolitic reason to become a tax heaven, not just an economic one, something along the line "Let's convince Amazon to book profits here, and there let's see who will dare mess with us, given that Amazon will be protected by USA"
For a small nation, it's one of the few outsized competitive advantages they can try to offer (that is, something they can do that can benefit them far beyond the scale of their population).
Ireland's corporate tax rate + joining the European single market, resulted in one of the greatest booms in modern economic history. From $40 to $280 billion in GDP in just 17 years.
Given the extreme nature of the benefits, a small nation is probably crazy not to do it.
Ireland is closing its loopholes. Specifically, if a company is managed outside the country but registered in the country, it was considered non-resident for tax purposes. That changed in 2014, with a grandfathered provision that expires in 2020.
>More would be accomplished by protesting the government that allows certain loopholes.
I'm not so sure about this as I'd question that it's possible for a single government to close loopholes on its own. Arguably yes, governments should be pressured into closing "certain loopholes", but not because this necessarily leads to a better outcome.
>Apple is a public company with an obligation to its shareholders to make money
Not everyone agrees that companies ought to maximise only shareholder value.
> More would be accomplished by protesting the government that allows certain loopholes.
If such a loophole exists, and it's blatantly obvious that you're a dick for using that loophole, yes, that loophole should be fixed. But that doesn't mean you're not a dick for using it in the first place.
To put it in another perspective: If there was a loophole that allowed me to kill someone without facing any consequences, yes, that loophole should be fixed. But that doesn't mean that I'm not a dick for using it.
It’s relatively easy to argue that murder is immoral even if there was a legal loophole. It’s much more difficult to argue that employing legal methods to reduce your tax burden is immoral.
> It’s much more difficult to argue that employing legal methods to reduce your tax burden is immoral.
I mostly don't care, but for the sake of argument, setting up shell corporations and then saying they made this purchase or that deal for tax reasons isn't exactly being honest.
It reminds me of the "characters" Bunbury and Ernest from Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest":
"""
You have invented a very useful younger brother called Ernest, in order that you may be able to come up to town as often as you like. I have invented an invaluable permanent invalid called Bunbury, in order that I may be able to go down into the country whenever I choose. Bunbury is perfectly invaluable. If it wasn't for Bunbury's extraordinary bad health, for instance, I wouldn't be able to dine with you at Willis's to-night, for I have been really engaged to Aunt Augusta for more than a week.
Seems as dead simple to me as to argue about murder. If you're a company that's present in a certain geographic area, you're expected to pay taxes in that area. If you don't pay taxes and you actively work on not paying taxes, you're immoral. Done.
Yes, but the precise amount of taxes you should pay is not some moral principle. If the current tax laws were the “correct” amount, then the government passed a tax cut, are you morally obligated to keep paying the higher amount?
France does tax Apple on its own. They still pay VAT of course as well as on any profits classified as French (e.g. retail). The question is then everything else whose origin isn’t obvious.
The issue is using various IP transfer schemes to make it look like their French division has no profits while the Isle of Man division is earning billions.
Technically speaking, almost all of the value is created in the USA via R&D. I don’t think Apple has any significant amount of R&D creation in France (hopefully a lab or two). Then there is some by order manufacturing in China, along with component acquisition, leaving just retail and distribution for local markets. Now, Apple can and has done some dodgy IP transfers to tax havens, but France wouldn’t have been the wronged party in that, the USA would be.
Value is only created when you sell products, not when you create them (and especially not in R&D which is gamble cost for most companies), otherwise all the startups would be rich. If there would be no value creation in France, Apple would not have any business there.
Ridiculous, how would that even work? Profit is “sales - expenses.” So how would Apple account for the R&D in the states, or does Apple France just want to tax them assuming all the inputs don’t exist?
That’s why Apple USA sells iPhones to Apple France at some price above hardware production costs. It doesn’t make sense any other way. Value isn’t created on sale, it is only realized as money at that point.
Why do you assume no one is? This has been discussed at length during the last French presidential election for example.
See also: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-24/macron-ha....