|
|
|
|
|
|
by nix-zarathustra
943 days ago
|
|
|
>Well, they are not sustainable, but Ireland no longer relies on them, so it's a moot point. Not true. Foreign companies are 80% of Irish corporation tax, 25% of Irish labour, 25 of top 50 Irish firms, and 57% of Irish value-add. >For example, the "Double Irish" arrangement, which is the subject of this case, was only in use up to 2014 (and was modelled on and often paired with the "Dutch Sandwich" BEPS arrangement, so you should note that Ireland wasn't the only EU country playing these games). The Double Irish was immediately replaced by the Single Malt and the Irish tax regime has started to add more traditional tools to tax evasion (e.g. QIAIF, L–QIAIF, and ICAV). |
|
|
This isn't a rebuttal. Ireland is absolutely dependent on foreign firms, but no longer dependent on the inflated CT take from BEPS schemes. The majority of the above is now genuine work undertaken in Ireland, not IP tax avoidance schemes.
> The Double Irish was immediately replaced by the Single Malt and the Irish tax regime has started to add more traditional tools to tax evasion (e.g. QIAIF, L–QIAIF, and ICAV).
Yes, agreed (although Ireland is not alone in this, even in the EU). However, that doesn't change the fact that Ireland is no dependent on this tax income.
Given your apparent knowledge of the schemes involved, this should be clear to you?