If you didn't see it, try to watch "The Town that took on the Taxman", shown at the end of Jan. A group of traders in a Welsh village got together and showed how easy it is to set up a "Google-style" tax structure - for themselves. Just found this article which shows what they got up to next. One of the guys in the film is the subject of a petition calling for him to be made boss of HMRC. It has 151,000 signatures...
No argument on the point that hmrc are a shitty bunch of shit cunts - but the reason they use fax is because it's inherently more secure than email.
More secure? Fax is completely insecure, you're sending unencrypted data over an open line, it's not secured in any way.
With email you can at least encrypt the attachment before sending. The better solution would be for them to provide a secured upload page of some sort.
The pstn is far, far more secure than email. I'm not saying it's 'secure' secure, but it's certainly more so than SMTP is. For starters, a fax message is encoded into Base 64 when it's transmitted, meaning casual observers can't just glance at it to see its contents. You'd also have to physically tap the line (not the case with smtp)
Pretty fecked off with the Irish government over this.
Public servants, including a pal who is a nurse, have been paying additional taxes since the Irish economy tanked. Despite improvements, they are still paying an element over and above other private sector workers. Not really something that the likes of a nurse, in this case with a young family, can afford on the wages they earn.
So many bloody chancers have been elected to the Dail over the years and feathered their own nests. They've been getting a rude awakening lately. Hope it continues!
EU tells Apple to pay 13bn in tax back to Ireland.
Irish government lodges appeal against the decision.
The amount equates to the entire annual Irish health service budget, apparently.
Don't know whether to laugh or cry, frankly.
I'm not going to defend this at all, and to be honest I have not researched this. From the top of my head, the reason why the Irish government wants to appeal this decision is because they are happy with the fact that Apple, and hundreds of other companies, currently funnel billions of Euros worth of business through Dublin despite the fact the physical transaction is taking place elsewhere in Europe, and that if they started demanding back taxes from all these companies this golden goose would up sticks and go elsewhere.
A cursory read of the article suggests that Apple only pay an effective 0.05% to 0.005% tax rate on what is effectively an empty head office, yet the Irish government is aware that if Apple, and the other hundreds of companies that are in on this wheeze, decide to up sticks, then they get zero money from them. Of course these companies might already be planning on doing so on the back of this judgement, which is probably why the Irish government are appealing this. There is reason to the madness but cannot say I can support it.
Yes that is what it's all about. It stinks. Just as what Luxembourg has done, stinks. And of course it was Juncker as Luxembourg PM, who set up the stinking practices. That's why I am as contemptuous of Juncker as any Brexiter, and why he personally should not be equated with the EU still less the EC. His time is up.
Only the EC, representing 28 EU countries, has the clout to do this,tho, and the Yanks will kick off big time.
Big corporations expect to pay little or no tax and there are always governments who indulge them in this - I'm sure there are plenty of backhanders flying about. A colossal amount of tax is avoided and there doesn't seem to be any appetite to make these companies pay their share. The usual argument is if you tax us we'll take our jobs elsewhere - what makes me laugh is how 'ethical' these companies pretend to be. The tax loopholes could be closed down but this seems unlikely to happen and we will continue with massive corporations being allowed to avoid paying tax. Tax laws are a complete and utter joke.....
which is why a turnover tax on large corporations based on the value of their turnover in a country seems to me to be an easy way to go. Charge Google say 1% on all amounts invoiced to UK customers, which they can deduct from any CT they pay IN THE UK. I don't care where they stash their profits, it's a simple mechanism based on turnover. Same applies to Apple, Amazon, and the other usual suspects. It's not otherwise recoverable, like VAT. I really don't see an issue with this as a mechanism for extracting some contribution from these corporations. I'm sure someone on here will set me straight though.
Pretty fecked off with the Irish government over this.
Public servants, including a pal who is a nurse, have been paying additional taxes since the Irish economy tanked. Despite improvements, they are still paying an element over and above other private sector workers. Not really something that the likes of a nurse, in this case with a young family, can afford on the wages they earn.
So many bloody chancers have been elected to the Dail over the years and feathered their own nests. They've been getting a rude awakening lately. Hope it continues!
Bang on the money for me Tel.
Not too knowledgeable on the ins and the outs of the paddies and their political system, but I genuinely don't know how the fuck people aren't rioting over the way the world of tax works sometimes.
@bobmunro made a decent point about the tax paid by the wealthy on the EU referendum thread, in relation to someone's point about median/mean wages.
He quite honorably said he's happy to pay his fair share of tax in proportion to what he earns being a 'high earner'. I paid the 40% last year when basic plus commission gets all added up. I genuinely don't know what the amount was, I don't look at the figure on the p60 or whatever it is. Do I think I pay enough tax, I haven't got a clue? Do I think I should be paying more tax than someone like a nurse, absolutely. Do I think I should be paying for childcare benefits even though I don't have children, yes I do.
The problem is there are so many ways you could look at this, both on an individual level about who pays for what and who gets what. The joke is the above article. Both Apple and Ireland should be punished imo, but how do you do that.
And we all know what will happen with this. If it goes to appeal it gets dragged out. There will be a compromise and Apple will probably pay some sort of token figure like Google did with the UK a few months back. And then it will happen again and keep happening.
Governments constantly walking the tightrope of being open for business but having the bollocks to stand up for their people
Pretty fecked off with the Irish government over this.
Public servants, including a pal who is a nurse, have been paying additional taxes since the Irish economy tanked. Despite improvements, they are still paying an element over and above other private sector workers. Not really something that the likes of a nurse, in this case with a young family, can afford on the wages they earn.
So many bloody chancers have been elected to the Dail over the years and feathered their own nests. They've been getting a rude awakening lately. Hope it continues!
Bang on the money for me Tel.
Not too knowledgeable on the ins and the outs of the paddies and their political system, but I genuinely don't know how the fuck people aren't rioting over the way the world of tax works sometimes.
@bobmunro made a decent point about the tax paid by the wealthy on the EU referendum thread, in relation to someone's point about median/mean wages.
He quite honorably said he's happy to pay his fair share of tax in proportion to what he earns being a 'high earner'. I paid the 40% last year when basic plus commission gets all added up. I genuinely don't know what the amount was, I don't look at the figure on the p60 or whatever it is. Do I think I pay enough tax, I haven't got a clue? Do I think I should be paying more tax than someone like a nurse, absolutely. Do I think I should be paying for childcare benefits even though I don't have children, yes I do.
The problem is there are so many ways you could look at this, both on an individual level about who pays for what and who gets what. The joke is the above article. Both Apple and Ireland should be punished imo, but how do you do that.
And we all know what will happen with this. If it goes to appeal it gets dragged out. There will be a compromise and Apple will probably pay some sort of token figure like Google did with the UK a few months back. And then it will happen again and keep happening.
Governments constantly walking the tightrope of being open for business but having the bollocks to stand up for their people
Governments act in the interests of big business - there are numerous financial links between politicians and big business. There is no desire to have a 'fair' tax system - tax loopholes are there for a reason and allow large corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid paying tax. The ludicrous posturing of business leaders and politicians is just for show. Nothing will change as long as the wealthy design the tax rules.
Pretty fecked off with the Irish government over this.
Public servants, including a pal who is a nurse, have been paying additional taxes since the Irish economy tanked. Despite improvements, they are still paying an element over and above other private sector workers. Not really something that the likes of a nurse, in this case with a young family, can afford on the wages they earn.
So many bloody chancers have been elected to the Dail over the years and feathered their own nests. They've been getting a rude awakening lately. Hope it continues!
Bang on the money for me Tel.
Not too knowledgeable on the ins and the outs of the paddies and their political system, but I genuinely don't know how the fuck people aren't rioting over the way the world of tax works sometimes.
@bobmunro made a decent point about the tax paid by the wealthy on the EU referendum thread, in relation to someone's point about median/mean wages.
He quite honorably said he's happy to pay his fair share of tax in proportion to what he earns being a 'high earner'. I paid the 40% last year when basic plus commission gets all added up. I genuinely don't know what the amount was, I don't look at the figure on the p60 or whatever it is. Do I think I pay enough tax, I haven't got a clue? Do I think I should be paying more tax than someone like a nurse, absolutely. Do I think I should be paying for childcare benefits even though I don't have children, yes I do.
The problem is there are so many ways you could look at this, both on an individual level about who pays for what and who gets what. The joke is the above article. Both Apple and Ireland should be punished imo, but how do you do that.
And we all know what will happen with this. If it goes to appeal it gets dragged out. There will be a compromise and Apple will probably pay some sort of token figure like Google did with the UK a few months back. And then it will happen again and keep happening.
Governments constantly walking the tightrope of being open for business but having the bollocks to stand up for their people
Governments act in the interests of big business - there are numerous financial links between politicians and big business. There is no desire to have a 'fair' tax system - tax loopholes are there for a reason and allow large corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid paying tax. The ludicrous posturing of business leaders and politicians is just for show. Nothing will change as long as the wealthy design the tax rules.
This. Except it is an EU ruling that has decided this, though probably not in the spirit of the citizen but due to unfair competition between countries. What does an ex-cabinet minister float over the weekend? A new tax to pay for the NHS, not proposals to tighten the existing rules but a new way for us to pay. I think we are as to blame as the media/politicians though as we vote em in.
which is why a turnover tax on large corporations based on the value of their turnover in a country seems to me to be an easy way to go. Charge Google say 1% on all amounts invoiced to UK customers, which they can deduct from any CT they pay IN THE UK. I don't care where they stash their profits, it's a simple mechanism based on turnover. Same applies to Apple, Amazon, and the other usual suspects. It's not otherwise recoverable, like VAT. I really don't see an issue with this as a mechanism for extracting some contribution from these corporations. I'm sure someone on here will set me straight though.
Not a million miles away from where I am on this.
Apple produce goods in China, supply them to consumers worldwide, and invoice from Dublin.
Easy - put a Point of Consumption tax on the product - if it's bought in the UK then a % of the retail price is levied as a duty (non-recoverable). Similarly if it's bought in France then the French government get the duty. Apple then pay CT in the US - the Irish get bugger all because if that were the case then Apple wouldn't bother with Ireland.
My industry pays a POC tax and it works very well.
This issue is an important one but perhaps only one symptom of a bigger disease in our society. There's an excellent documentary on Netflix: Naom Chomsky's "Requiem for the American Dream". It's a compelling and well-argued viewpoint on American society but I believe the points he makes are equally valid in all Western society. Read below and see if you agree.
If you aren't up to watching the programme here's a synopsis from Truth-Out.org
"Chomsky explains how concentrated wealth creates concentrated power, which legislates further concentration of wealth, which then concentrates more power in a vicious cycle. He lists and elaborates on ten principles of the concentration of wealth and power -- principles that the wealthy of the United States have acted intensely on for 40 years or more.
1. Reduce Democracy. Chomsky finds this acted on by the very "founding fathers" of the United States, in the creation of the U.S. Senate, and in James Madison's statement during debate over the U.S. Constitution that the new government would need to protect the wealthy from too much democracy. Chomsky finds the same theme in Aristotle but with Aristotle proposing to reduce inequality, while Madison proposed to reduce democracy. The burst of activism and democracy in the United States in the 1960s scared the protectors of wealth and privilege, and Chomsky admits that he did not anticipate the strength of the backlash through which we have been suffering since.
2. Shape Ideology. The Powell Memo from the corporate right, and the Trilateral Commission's first ever report, called "The Crisis of Democracy," are cited by Chomsky as roadmaps for the backlash. That report referred to an "excess of democracy," the over engagement of young people with civic life, and the view that young people were just not receiving proper "indoctrination." Well, there's a problem that's been fixed, huh?
3. Redesign the Economy. Since the 1970s the United States has been moved toward an ever larger role for financial institutions. By 2007 they "earned" 40% of corporate profits. Deregulation has produced wealth concentration and economic crashes, followed by anti-capitalist bailouts making for more wealth concentration. Offshore production has reduced workers' pay. Alan Greenspan testified to Congress about the benefits of promoting "job insecurity" -- something those Europeans in Michael Moore's film don't know about and might find it hard to appreciate.
4. Shift the Burden. The American Dream in the 1950s and 60s was partly real. Both the rich and the poor got richer. Since then, we've seen the steady advance of what Chomsky calls the plutonomy and the precariat, that is the wealthy few who run the show and get all the new wealth, and the precarious proletariat. Back then, taxes were quite high on corporations, dividends, and wealth. Not anymore.
5. Attack Solidarity. To go after Social Security and public education, Chomsky says, you have to drive the normal emotion of caring about others out of people's heads. The U.S. of the 1950s was able to make college essentially free with the G.I. Bill and other public funding. Now a much wealthier United States is full of "serious" experts who claim that such a thing is impossible (and who must strictly avoid watching Michael Moore).
6. Run the Regulators. The 1970s saw enormous growth in lobbying. It is now routine for the interests being regulated to control the regulators, which makes things much easier on the regulated.
7. Engineer Elections. Thus we've seen the creation of corporate personhood, the equation of money with speech, and the lifting of all limits under Citizens United.
8. Keep the Rabble in Line. Here Chomsky focuses on attacks on organized labor, including the Taft Hartley Act, but one could imagine further expansions on the theme.
9. Manufacture Consent. Obsessive consumers are not born, they're molded by advertising. The goal of directing people to superficial consumption as a means of keeping people in their place was explicit and has been reached. In a market economy, Chomsky says, informative advertisements would result in rational decisions. But actual advertisements provide no information and promote irrational choices. Here Chomsky is talking about, not just ads for automobiles and soap, but also election campaigns for candidates.
10. Marginalize the Population. This seems as much a result as a tactic, but it certainly has been achieved. What the public wants does not typically impact what the U.S. government does.
Unless the trends described above are reversed, Chomsky says, things are going to get very ugly.
Then the film shows us a clip of Chomsky saying the same thing decades earlier when he was still shown on U.S. television. He's been marginalized along with the rest of us.
I imagine every friendly critic of this film has a #11 to add, and that they are all different. In fact, I can think of lots of things to add, but I insist on mentioning one of them. It's the same one missing from Bernie Sanders' home movie starring Iowa and New Hampshire. Its the thing missing from all U.S. discourse but showing up in Michael Moore's movie as a great difference between the United States and Europe.
11. Dump Massive Funding into Militarism. Why should this be included? Well, militarism is the biggest public program in the United States. It's over half of federal discretionary spending. If you're going to claim that lobbyists are concentrating wealth through their influence on the government, why not notice the single budget item that eats up over half the budget? It does indeed concentrate wealth and also power. It's a vast pot of unaccountable funding for cronies. And it generates public interest in fighting foreign enemies rather than enemies hanging out on Wall Street. It does militarize the police for free, however, just in case Wall Street generates any disgruntled customers.
Chomsky does, of course, oppose militarism. As far as I know he's consistently opposed it for many years. We see B-roll of him in the movie with anti-war books in his office. And discussion of point #1 above mentions the peace movement of the 1960s. How the single biggest thing that the wealthy and powerful do in their effort to expand their power over the whole globe didn't make the top-10 list I don't know.
The film concludes with a call to build mass movements for change. The United States still has a very free society, Chomsky advises. A lot can be done, he tells us, if people will only choose to do it."
My apologies if this is too much off-topic but I don't see the corporate tax issue getting fixed if the above is in any way true.
In addition, American corporations are taxed Federally and at the State level on their worldwide income, putting any UK/EU tax increase on a collision course with our biggest ally and military protector.
I'm sure if there's enough of a protest movement they'll do something but I'm equally sure anything they do will be more window dressing, not meaningful in the sense we'd all want but enough to shut people up..........just look at the "solutions" we've seen over the past few years the financial crisis, Greek crisis, Euro crisis, immigration crisis etc...etc..
Now that I'm thoroughly depressed I'm off to the pub!
If I am a builder with my own company by law I have to pay tax at source, in advance regardless of my offset expenses. If I am a senior manger in an organisation I can invoice my employer and transfer the funds offshore where I can manipulate figures to ensure I pay no tax. Ironically, the 2nd person has a contract of employment with exit payments, while the 1st can be jettisoned fairly easily.
Anybody with a contract of employment should be obliged to pay tax at full rate and claim back any offsets.
Interesting how strong the approval is for this Apple ruling, both on here and in the wider UK. Even the Sun is in favour. However the apologists are out there, saying things like
- the "deal" dates back to 1991, before Apple was so big - it creates uncertainty among other companies - it rides roughshod over national tax regimes
To which I politely say bollocks to all three, and the main reason is the Fairy Tale. I have mentioned the Fairy Tales before in this thread, in the cases of Google and Facebook who spin the Fairy Tales of huge advertising deals "concluded" in Ireland because that's where the invoice comes from, despite all concerned in the deal being UK based and concerned mainly with the UK markets.
In this case the Fairy Tale was the Apple "Head Office" which basically does not exist. This is the heart of it. Why did the Irish tax office swallow this preposterous fairy tale? The test is, if some SME tried similar fairy tales, would the tax office swallow it? In most cases the answer is obviously no, they would be all over the hapless SME like a rash and the owner taken to court. The real issue in this and other cases is that the tax offices are not doing their jobs. They are turning a blind eye to big corporations while bullying the little guys in a desperate attempt to meet their revenue targets. The EC carefully avoided directly criticising the Irish tax authorities, doubtless to try and avoid the third criticism above, but it is a shocking inditement of those tax authorities, and good for the EC that they have done this. And as for the uncertainty among other companies: If you want to be certain, then don't spin fairy tales that you know damn well wouldn't be believed if a small company tried it on. Got that, Google, Facebook, Amazon? Good.
Interesting how strong the approval is for this Apple ruling, both on here and in the wider UK. Even the Sun is in favour. However the apologists are out there, saying things like
- the "deal" dates back to 1991, before Apple was so big - it creates uncertainty among other companies - it rides roughshod over national tax regimes
To which I politely say bollocks to all three, and the main reason is the Fairy Tale. I have mentioned the Fairy Tales before in this thread, in the cases of Google and Facebook who spin the Fairy Tales of huge advertising deals "concluded" in Ireland because that's where the invoice comes from, despite all concerned in the deal being UK based and concerned mainly with the UK markets.
In this case the Fairy Tale was the Apple "Head Office" which basically does not exist. This is the heart of it. Why did the Irish tax office swallow this preposterous fairy tale? The test is, if some SME tried similar fairy tales, would the tax office swallow it? In most cases the answer is obviously no, they would be all over the hapless SME like a rash and the owner taken to court. The real issue in this and other cases is that the tax offices are not doing their jobs. They are turning a blind eye to big corporations while bullying the little guys in a desperate attempt to meet their revenue targets. The EC carefully avoided directly criticising the Irish tax authorities, doubtless to try and avoid the third criticism above, but it is a shocking inditement of those tax authorities, and good for the EC that they have done this. And as for the uncertainty among other companies: If you want to be certain, then don't spin fairy tales that you know damn well wouldn't be believed if a small company tried it on. Got that, Google, Facebook, Amazon? Good.
Fairytale? Apple directly employs around 4,000 in Cork with very many other jobs reliant on Apple. It has also recently revealed plans for a new $850m data centre in Cork employing a further 1,000.
Countries around the world do deals with major corporations - jobs and investment in exchange for favourable tax treatment. The deal with the Irish government goes back to 1991 and Apple have been in Ireland since 1980.
Do you believe the British government haven't done favourable tax deals with the likes of Nissan and Toyoya? Of course they have.
Is it right? That depends on how much you value jobs and inward investment. There will always be countries prepared to accommodate the likes of Apple. Should Apple pay more tax? Yes - but not necessarily in Ireland - as previously mentioned a point of consumption tax would be better.
Interesting how strong the approval is for this Apple ruling, both on here and in the wider UK. Even the Sun is in favour. However the apologists are out there, saying things like
- the "deal" dates back to 1991, before Apple was so big - it creates uncertainty among other companies - it rides roughshod over national tax regimes
To which I politely say bollocks to all three, and the main reason is the Fairy Tale. I have mentioned the Fairy Tales before in this thread, in the cases of Google and Facebook who spin the Fairy Tales of huge advertising deals "concluded" in Ireland because that's where the invoice comes from, despite all concerned in the deal being UK based and concerned mainly with the UK markets.
In this case the Fairy Tale was the Apple "Head Office" which basically does not exist. This is the heart of it. Why did the Irish tax office swallow this preposterous fairy tale? The test is, if some SME tried similar fairy tales, would the tax office swallow it? In most cases the answer is obviously no, they would be all over the hapless SME like a rash and the owner taken to court. The real issue in this and other cases is that the tax offices are not doing their jobs. They are turning a blind eye to big corporations while bullying the little guys in a desperate attempt to meet their revenue targets. The EC carefully avoided directly criticising the Irish tax authorities, doubtless to try and avoid the third criticism above, but it is a shocking inditement of those tax authorities, and good for the EC that they have done this. And as for the uncertainty among other companies: If you want to be certain, then don't spin fairy tales that you know damn well wouldn't be believed if a small company tried it on. Got that, Google, Facebook, Amazon? Good.
Somewhat ironic, too, that the US Govt. seems to be riding to Apple's aid. Suggesting it is unfair that big US corporations are being picked on. Now, what happened to BP following the Deepwater oil well fiasco? A bill of $54bn wasn't it? And what happened to Halliburton? The US company that admitted illegally destroying evidence? $200,000 fine for that. BP also got banned from, US Govt contracts. Did Halliburton, who did the shoddy work?
Would the US have picked on a domestic car manufacturer the way they have VW?
The EU should tell the US to swivel on it. But not in such a polite way.
Interesting how strong the approval is for this Apple ruling, both on here and in the wider UK. Even the Sun is in favour. However the apologists are out there, saying things like
- the "deal" dates back to 1991, before Apple was so big - it creates uncertainty among other companies - it rides roughshod over national tax regimes
To which I politely say bollocks to all three, and the main reason is the Fairy Tale. I have mentioned the Fairy Tales before in this thread, in the cases of Google and Facebook who spin the Fairy Tales of huge advertising deals "concluded" in Ireland because that's where the invoice comes from, despite all concerned in the deal being UK based and concerned mainly with the UK markets.
In this case the Fairy Tale was the Apple "Head Office" which basically does not exist. This is the heart of it. Why did the Irish tax office swallow this preposterous fairy tale? The test is, if some SME tried similar fairy tales, would the tax office swallow it? In most cases the answer is obviously no, they would be all over the hapless SME like a rash and the owner taken to court. The real issue in this and other cases is that the tax offices are not doing their jobs. They are turning a blind eye to big corporations while bullying the little guys in a desperate attempt to meet their revenue targets. The EC carefully avoided directly criticising the Irish tax authorities, doubtless to try and avoid the third criticism above, but it is a shocking inditement of those tax authorities, and good for the EC that they have done this. And as for the uncertainty among other companies: If you want to be certain, then don't spin fairy tales that you know damn well wouldn't be believed if a small company tried it on. Got that, Google, Facebook, Amazon? Good.
Fairytale? Apple directly employs around 4,000 in Cork with very many other jobs reliant on Apple. It has also recently revealed plans for a new $850m data centre in Cork employing a further 1,000.
Countries around the world do deals with major corporations - jobs and investment in exchange for favourable tax treatment. The deal with the Irish government goes back to 1991 and Apple have been in Ireland since 1980.
Do you believe the British government haven't done favourable tax deals with the likes of Nissan and Toyoya? Of course they have.
Is it right? That depends on how much you value jobs and inward investment. There will always be countries prepared to accommodate the likes of Apple. Should Apple pay more tax? Yes - but not necessarily in Ireland - as previously mentioned a point of consumption tax would be better.
Bob, the "Head Office" is not in Ireland. Check the infographic above , or:
The commission said Ireland’s tax arrangements with Apple between 1991 and 2015 had allowed the US company to attribute sales to a “head office” that only existed on paper and could not have generated such profits.
That is the Fairy Tale.
Similarly HMRC have not done a specific deal with Google and Facebook whereby they are allowed to book UK sales in Ireland simply because a computer generates an invoice there. It is a fairytale that HMRC has chosen to buy, despite everyone in the advertising industry knowing that it is a laughable fiction.
The EC has revealed this fiction in Apple's case but does not feel able to directly crtiticise national tacx regimes for their ludicrous ineptitude in nodding it through, for obvious political reasons.
Interesting how strong the approval is for this Apple ruling, both on here and in the wider UK. Even the Sun is in favour. However the apologists are out there, saying things like
- the "deal" dates back to 1991, before Apple was so big - it creates uncertainty among other companies - it rides roughshod over national tax regimes
To which I politely say bollocks to all three, and the main reason is the Fairy Tale. I have mentioned the Fairy Tales before in this thread, in the cases of Google and Facebook who spin the Fairy Tales of huge advertising deals "concluded" in Ireland because that's where the invoice comes from, despite all concerned in the deal being UK based and concerned mainly with the UK markets.
In this case the Fairy Tale was the Apple "Head Office" which basically does not exist. This is the heart of it. Why did the Irish tax office swallow this preposterous fairy tale? The test is, if some SME tried similar fairy tales, would the tax office swallow it? In most cases the answer is obviously no, they would be all over the hapless SME like a rash and the owner taken to court. The real issue in this and other cases is that the tax offices are not doing their jobs. They are turning a blind eye to big corporations while bullying the little guys in a desperate attempt to meet their revenue targets. The EC carefully avoided directly criticising the Irish tax authorities, doubtless to try and avoid the third criticism above, but it is a shocking inditement of those tax authorities, and good for the EC that they have done this. And as for the uncertainty among other companies: If you want to be certain, then don't spin fairy tales that you know damn well wouldn't be believed if a small company tried it on. Got that, Google, Facebook, Amazon? Good.
Fairytale? Apple directly employs around 4,000 in Cork with very many other jobs reliant on Apple. It has also recently revealed plans for a new $850m data centre in Cork employing a further 1,000.
Countries around the world do deals with major corporations - jobs and investment in exchange for favourable tax treatment. The deal with the Irish government goes back to 1991 and Apple have been in Ireland since 1980.
Do you believe the British government haven't done favourable tax deals with the likes of Nissan and Toyoya? Of course they have.
Is it right? That depends on how much you value jobs and inward investment. There will always be countries prepared to accommodate the likes of Apple. Should Apple pay more tax? Yes - but not necessarily in Ireland - as previously mentioned a point of consumption tax would be better.
Bob, the "Head Office" is not in Ireland. Check the infographic above , or:
The commission said Ireland’s tax arrangements with Apple between 1991 and 2015 had allowed the US company to attribute sales to a “head office” that only existed on paper and could not have generated such profits.
That is the Fairy Tale.
Similarly HMRC have not done a specific deal with Google and Facebook whereby they are allowed to book UK sales in Ireland simply because a computer generates an invoice there. It is a fairytale that HMRC has chosen to buy, despite everyone in the advertising industry knowing that it is a laughable fiction.
The EC has revealed this fiction in Apple's case but does not feel able to directly crtiticise national tacx regimes for their ludicrous ineptitude in nodding it through, for obvious political reasons.
It's clearly not the Head Office of Apple Inc - that's Cupertino, CA - the office in Cork is however the Head Office of Apple Distribution International - a company incorporated in Ireland.
As I've said previously - the tax should be at the point of consumption, not where the transaction is accounted. In my industry the transaction used to be where the server was located - that changed to PoC tax and that's a good thing.
Interesting how strong the approval is for this Apple ruling, both on here and in the wider UK. Even the Sun is in favour. However the apologists are out there, saying things like
- the "deal" dates back to 1991, before Apple was so big - it creates uncertainty among other companies - it rides roughshod over national tax regimes
To which I politely say bollocks to all three, and the main reason is the Fairy Tale. I have mentioned the Fairy Tales before in this thread, in the cases of Google and Facebook who spin the Fairy Tales of huge advertising deals "concluded" in Ireland because that's where the invoice comes from, despite all concerned in the deal being UK based and concerned mainly with the UK markets.
In this case the Fairy Tale was the Apple "Head Office" which basically does not exist. This is the heart of it. Why did the Irish tax office swallow this preposterous fairy tale? The test is, if some SME tried similar fairy tales, would the tax office swallow it? In most cases the answer is obviously no, they would be all over the hapless SME like a rash and the owner taken to court. The real issue in this and other cases is that the tax offices are not doing their jobs. They are turning a blind eye to big corporations while bullying the little guys in a desperate attempt to meet their revenue targets. The EC carefully avoided directly criticising the Irish tax authorities, doubtless to try and avoid the third criticism above, but it is a shocking inditement of those tax authorities, and good for the EC that they have done this. And as for the uncertainty among other companies: If you want to be certain, then don't spin fairy tales that you know damn well wouldn't be believed if a small company tried it on. Got that, Google, Facebook, Amazon? Good.
Fairytale? Apple directly employs around 4,000 in Cork with very many other jobs reliant on Apple. It has also recently revealed plans for a new $850m data centre in Cork employing a further 1,000.
Countries around the world do deals with major corporations - jobs and investment in exchange for favourable tax treatment. The deal with the Irish government goes back to 1991 and Apple have been in Ireland since 1980.
Do you believe the British government haven't done favourable tax deals with the likes of Nissan and Toyoya? Of course they have.
Is it right? That depends on how much you value jobs and inward investment. There will always be countries prepared to accommodate the likes of Apple. Should Apple pay more tax? Yes - but not necessarily in Ireland - as previously mentioned a point of consumption tax would be better.
Bob, the "Head Office" is not in Ireland. Check the infographic above , or:
The commission said Ireland’s tax arrangements with Apple between 1991 and 2015 had allowed the US company to attribute sales to a “head office” that only existed on paper and could not have generated such profits.
That is the Fairy Tale.
Similarly HMRC have not done a specific deal with Google and Facebook whereby they are allowed to book UK sales in Ireland simply because a computer generates an invoice there. It is a fairytale that HMRC has chosen to buy, despite everyone in the advertising industry knowing that it is a laughable fiction.
The EC has revealed this fiction in Apple's case but does not feel able to directly crtiticise national tacx regimes for their ludicrous ineptitude in nodding it through, for obvious political reasons.
It's clearly not the Head Office of Apple Inc - that's Cupertino, CA - the office in Cork is however the Head Office of Apple Distribution International - a company incorporated in Ireland.
As I've said previously - the tax should be at the point of consumption, not where the transaction is accounted. In my industry the transaction used to be where the server was located - that changed to PoC tax and that's a good thing.
Two tax rulings handed in 1991 and 2007 allowed Apple to attribute profits made by two Irish-incorporated companies, Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe, to a "head office" that the commission said did not exist.
The head office declared by Apple had "no office, no premises, no real activity" but allowed the company to pay less than 1 percent of tax on its profits generated not only in Ireland but in all the EU single market.
"Apple set up their sales operations in Europe in such a way that customers were contractually buying products from Apple Sales International in Ireland rather than from the shops that physically sold the products to customers. In this way Apple recorded all sales, and the profits stemming from these sales, directly in Ireland," the commission explained.
The commission said that the scheme amounted to illegal state aid and that Apple should now pay taxes it was allowed to avoid.
It will be up to Irish authorities, according to a formula designed by the commission, to decide the exact amount Apple will have to pay. But the EU executive said it could reach up to €13 billion plus interest.
In what way is that arrangement anything other than a fairy tale, Bob? And if you ran an SME do you think you would get away with it?
Interesting how strong the approval is for this Apple ruling, both on here and in the wider UK. Even the Sun is in favour. However the apologists are out there, saying things like
- the "deal" dates back to 1991, before Apple was so big - it creates uncertainty among other companies - it rides roughshod over national tax regimes
To which I politely say bollocks to all three, and the main reason is the Fairy Tale. I have mentioned the Fairy Tales before in this thread, in the cases of Google and Facebook who spin the Fairy Tales of huge advertising deals "concluded" in Ireland because that's where the invoice comes from, despite all concerned in the deal being UK based and concerned mainly with the UK markets.
In this case the Fairy Tale was the Apple "Head Office" which basically does not exist. This is the heart of it. Why did the Irish tax office swallow this preposterous fairy tale? The test is, if some SME tried similar fairy tales, would the tax office swallow it? In most cases the answer is obviously no, they would be all over the hapless SME like a rash and the owner taken to court. The real issue in this and other cases is that the tax offices are not doing their jobs. They are turning a blind eye to big corporations while bullying the little guys in a desperate attempt to meet their revenue targets. The EC carefully avoided directly criticising the Irish tax authorities, doubtless to try and avoid the third criticism above, but it is a shocking inditement of those tax authorities, and good for the EC that they have done this. And as for the uncertainty among other companies: If you want to be certain, then don't spin fairy tales that you know damn well wouldn't be believed if a small company tried it on. Got that, Google, Facebook, Amazon? Good.
Fairytale? Apple directly employs around 4,000 in Cork with very many other jobs reliant on Apple. It has also recently revealed plans for a new $850m data centre in Cork employing a further 1,000.
Countries around the world do deals with major corporations - jobs and investment in exchange for favourable tax treatment. The deal with the Irish government goes back to 1991 and Apple have been in Ireland since 1980.
Do you believe the British government haven't done favourable tax deals with the likes of Nissan and Toyoya? Of course they have.
Is it right? That depends on how much you value jobs and inward investment. There will always be countries prepared to accommodate the likes of Apple. Should Apple pay more tax? Yes - but not necessarily in Ireland - as previously mentioned a point of consumption tax would be better.
Bob, the "Head Office" is not in Ireland. Check the infographic above , or:
The commission said Ireland’s tax arrangements with Apple between 1991 and 2015 had allowed the US company to attribute sales to a “head office” that only existed on paper and could not have generated such profits.
That is the Fairy Tale.
Similarly HMRC have not done a specific deal with Google and Facebook whereby they are allowed to book UK sales in Ireland simply because a computer generates an invoice there. It is a fairytale that HMRC has chosen to buy, despite everyone in the advertising industry knowing that it is a laughable fiction.
The EC has revealed this fiction in Apple's case but does not feel able to directly crtiticise national tacx regimes for their ludicrous ineptitude in nodding it through, for obvious political reasons.
It's clearly not the Head Office of Apple Inc - that's Cupertino, CA - the office in Cork is however the Head Office of Apple Distribution International - a company incorporated in Ireland.
As I've said previously - the tax should be at the point of consumption, not where the transaction is accounted. In my industry the transaction used to be where the server was located - that changed to PoC tax and that's a good thing.
Two tax rulings handed in 1991 and 2007 allowed Apple to attribute profits made by two Irish-incorporated companies, Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe, to a "head office" that the commission said did not exist.
The head office declared by Apple had "no office, no premises, no real activity" but allowed the company to pay less than 1 percent of tax on its profits generated not only in Ireland but in all the EU single market.
"Apple set up their sales operations in Europe in such a way that customers were contractually buying products from Apple Sales International in Ireland rather than from the shops that physically sold the products to customers. In this way Apple recorded all sales, and the profits stemming from these sales, directly in Ireland," the commission explained.
The commission said that the scheme amounted to illegal state aid and that Apple should now pay taxes it was allowed to avoid.
It will be up to Irish authorities, according to a formula designed by the commission, to decide the exact amount Apple will have to pay. But the EU executive said it could reach up to €13 billion plus interest.
In what way is that arrangement anything other than a fairy tale, Bob? And if you ran an SME do you think you would get away with it?
Richard, Apple are the largest company on the planet - selling to pretty much every country on the planet. A typical SME manufactures and sells or provides a service based in a country to consumers in that country. Apples (pardon the pun!) and oranges.
Large corporations employ tax advisers and General Counsel, and engage the services of large accountancy and corporate law firms. This isn't a fairy tale - it's how multi-nationals structure their organisations - and twas ever thus. My Company is globally the largest in its sector and we do exactly the same thing.
Apple have done nothing wrong here - they haven't broken any national or international tax laws. Ireland have been deemed (subject to appeal) to have provided state aid against the EU Commission rules.
Comments
When are we expecting Old Bill to smash their doors down and nick the whole executive team then?
Meanwhile the best we can do is shame the bastards.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/aug/30/reports-to-offer-latest-clues-on-brex--business-live
EU tells Apple to pay 13bn in tax back to Ireland.
Irish government lodges appeal against the decision.
The amount equates to the entire annual Irish health service budget, apparently.
Don't know whether to laugh or cry, frankly.
Public servants, including a pal who is a nurse, have been paying additional taxes since the Irish economy tanked. Despite improvements, they are still paying an element over and above other private sector workers. Not really something that the likes of a nurse, in this case with a young family, can afford on the wages they earn.
So many bloody chancers have been elected to the Dail over the years and feathered their own nests. They've been getting a rude awakening lately. Hope it continues!
A cursory read of the article suggests that Apple only pay an effective 0.05% to 0.005% tax rate on what is effectively an empty head office, yet the Irish government is aware that if Apple, and the other hundreds of companies that are in on this wheeze, decide to up sticks, then they get zero money from them. Of course these companies might already be planning on doing so on the back of this judgement, which is probably why the Irish government are appealing this. There is reason to the madness but cannot say I can support it.
Yes that is what it's all about. It stinks. Just as what Luxembourg has done, stinks. And of course it was Juncker as Luxembourg PM, who set up the stinking practices. That's why I am as contemptuous of Juncker as any Brexiter, and why he personally should not be equated with the EU still less the EC. His time is up.
Only the EC, representing 28 EU countries, has the clout to do this,tho, and the Yanks will kick off big time.
A colossal amount of tax is avoided and there doesn't seem to be any appetite to make these companies pay their share. The usual argument is if you tax us we'll take our jobs elsewhere - what makes me laugh is how 'ethical' these companies pretend to be.
The tax loopholes could be closed down but this seems unlikely to happen and we will continue with massive corporations being allowed to avoid paying tax.
Tax laws are a complete and utter joke.....
Charge Google say 1% on all amounts invoiced to UK customers, which they can deduct from any CT they pay IN THE UK. I don't care where they stash their profits, it's a simple mechanism based on turnover. Same applies to Apple, Amazon, and the other usual suspects.
It's not otherwise recoverable, like VAT. I really don't see an issue with this as a mechanism for extracting some contribution from these corporations.
I'm sure someone on here will set me straight though.
Not too knowledgeable on the ins and the outs of the paddies and their political system, but I genuinely don't know how the fuck people aren't rioting over the way the world of tax works sometimes.
@bobmunro made a decent point about the tax paid by the wealthy on the EU referendum thread, in relation to someone's point about median/mean wages.
He quite honorably said he's happy to pay his fair share of tax in proportion to what he earns being a 'high earner'. I paid the 40% last year when basic plus commission gets all added up. I genuinely don't know what the amount was, I don't look at the figure on the p60 or whatever it is. Do I think I pay enough tax, I haven't got a clue? Do I think I should be paying more tax than someone like a nurse, absolutely. Do I think I should be paying for childcare benefits even though I don't have children, yes I do.
The problem is there are so many ways you could look at this, both on an individual level about who pays for what and who gets what. The joke is the above article. Both Apple and Ireland should be punished imo, but how do you do that.
And we all know what will happen with this. If it goes to appeal it gets dragged out. There will be a compromise and Apple will probably pay some sort of token figure like Google did with the UK a few months back. And then it will happen again and keep happening.
Governments constantly walking the tightrope of being open for business but having the bollocks to stand up for their people
The ludicrous posturing of business leaders and politicians is just for show. Nothing will change as long as the wealthy design the tax rules.
Apple produce goods in China, supply them to consumers worldwide, and invoice from Dublin.
Easy - put a Point of Consumption tax on the product - if it's bought in the UK then a % of the retail price is levied as a duty (non-recoverable). Similarly if it's bought in France then the French government get the duty. Apple then pay CT in the US - the Irish get bugger all because if that were the case then Apple wouldn't bother with Ireland.
My industry pays a POC tax and it works very well.
Any way this could be used to look into the Olympic Stadium stitch up?
If you aren't up to watching the programme here's a synopsis from Truth-Out.org
"Chomsky explains how concentrated wealth creates concentrated power, which legislates further concentration of wealth, which then concentrates more power in a vicious cycle. He lists and elaborates on ten principles of the concentration of wealth and power -- principles that the wealthy of the United States have acted intensely on for 40 years or more.
1. Reduce Democracy. Chomsky finds this acted on by the very "founding fathers" of the United States, in the creation of the U.S. Senate, and in James Madison's statement during debate over the U.S. Constitution that the new government would need to protect the wealthy from too much democracy. Chomsky finds the same theme in Aristotle but with Aristotle proposing to reduce inequality, while Madison proposed to reduce democracy. The burst of activism and democracy in the United States in the 1960s scared the protectors of wealth and privilege, and Chomsky admits that he did not anticipate the strength of the backlash through which we have been suffering since.
2. Shape Ideology. The Powell Memo from the corporate right, and the Trilateral Commission's first ever report, called "The Crisis of Democracy," are cited by Chomsky as roadmaps for the backlash. That report referred to an "excess of democracy," the over engagement of young people with civic life, and the view that young people were just not receiving proper "indoctrination." Well, there's a problem that's been fixed, huh?
3. Redesign the Economy. Since the 1970s the United States has been moved toward an ever larger role for financial institutions. By 2007 they "earned" 40% of corporate profits. Deregulation has produced wealth concentration and economic crashes, followed by anti-capitalist bailouts making for more wealth concentration. Offshore production has reduced workers' pay. Alan Greenspan testified to Congress about the benefits of promoting "job insecurity" -- something those Europeans in Michael Moore's film don't know about and might find it hard to appreciate.
4. Shift the Burden. The American Dream in the 1950s and 60s was partly real. Both the rich and the poor got richer. Since then, we've seen the steady advance of what Chomsky calls the plutonomy and the precariat, that is the wealthy few who run the show and get all the new wealth, and the precarious proletariat. Back then, taxes were quite high on corporations, dividends, and wealth. Not anymore.
5. Attack Solidarity. To go after Social Security and public education, Chomsky says, you have to drive the normal emotion of caring about others out of people's heads. The U.S. of the 1950s was able to make college essentially free with the G.I. Bill and other public funding. Now a much wealthier United States is full of "serious" experts who claim that such a thing is impossible (and who must strictly avoid watching Michael Moore).
6. Run the Regulators. The 1970s saw enormous growth in lobbying. It is now routine for the interests being regulated to control the regulators, which makes things much easier on the regulated.
7. Engineer Elections. Thus we've seen the creation of corporate personhood, the equation of money with speech, and the lifting of all limits under Citizens United.
8. Keep the Rabble in Line. Here Chomsky focuses on attacks on organized labor, including the Taft Hartley Act, but one could imagine further expansions on the theme.
9. Manufacture Consent. Obsessive consumers are not born, they're molded by advertising. The goal of directing people to superficial consumption as a means of keeping people in their place was explicit and has been reached. In a market economy, Chomsky says, informative advertisements would result in rational decisions. But actual advertisements provide no information and promote irrational choices. Here Chomsky is talking about, not just ads for automobiles and soap, but also election campaigns for candidates.
10. Marginalize the Population. This seems as much a result as a tactic, but it certainly has been achieved. What the public wants does not typically impact what the U.S. government does.
Unless the trends described above are reversed, Chomsky says, things are going to get very ugly.
Then the film shows us a clip of Chomsky saying the same thing decades earlier when he was still shown on U.S. television. He's been marginalized along with the rest of us.
I imagine every friendly critic of this film has a #11 to add, and that they are all different. In fact, I can think of lots of things to add, but I insist on mentioning one of them. It's the same one missing from Bernie Sanders' home movie starring Iowa and New Hampshire. Its the thing missing from all U.S. discourse but showing up in Michael Moore's movie as a great difference between the United States and Europe.
11. Dump Massive Funding into Militarism. Why should this be included? Well, militarism is the biggest public program in the United States. It's over half of federal discretionary spending. If you're going to claim that lobbyists are concentrating wealth through their influence on the government, why not notice the single budget item that eats up over half the budget? It does indeed concentrate wealth and also power. It's a vast pot of unaccountable funding for cronies. And it generates public interest in fighting foreign enemies rather than enemies hanging out on Wall Street. It does militarize the police for free, however, just in case Wall Street generates any disgruntled customers.
Chomsky does, of course, oppose militarism. As far as I know he's consistently opposed it for many years. We see B-roll of him in the movie with anti-war books in his office. And discussion of point #1 above mentions the peace movement of the 1960s. How the single biggest thing that the wealthy and powerful do in their effort to expand their power over the whole globe didn't make the top-10 list I don't know.
The film concludes with a call to build mass movements for change. The United States still has a very free society, Chomsky advises. A lot can be done, he tells us, if people will only choose to do it."
My apologies if this is too much off-topic
In addition, American corporations are taxed Federally and at the State level on their worldwide income, putting any UK/EU tax increase on a collision course with our biggest ally and military protector.
I'm sure if there's enough of a protest movement they'll do something but I'm equally sure anything they do will be more window dressing, not meaningful in the sense we'd all want but enough to shut people up..........just look at the "solutions" we've seen over the past few years the financial crisis, Greek crisis, Euro crisis, immigration crisis etc...etc..
Now that I'm thoroughly depressed I'm off to the pub!
Anybody with a contract of employment should be obliged to pay tax at full rate and claim back any offsets.
- the "deal" dates back to 1991, before Apple was so big
- it creates uncertainty among other companies
- it rides roughshod over national tax regimes
To which I politely say bollocks to all three, and the main reason is the Fairy Tale. I have mentioned the Fairy Tales before in this thread, in the cases of Google and Facebook who spin the Fairy Tales of huge advertising deals "concluded" in Ireland because that's where the invoice comes from, despite all concerned in the deal being UK based and concerned mainly with the UK markets.
In this case the Fairy Tale was the Apple "Head Office" which basically does not exist. This is the heart of it. Why did the Irish tax office swallow this preposterous fairy tale? The test is, if some SME tried similar fairy tales, would the tax office swallow it? In most cases the answer is obviously no, they would be all over the hapless SME like a rash and the owner taken to court. The real issue in this and other cases is that the tax offices are not doing their jobs. They are turning a blind eye to big corporations while bullying the little guys in a desperate attempt to meet their revenue targets. The EC carefully avoided directly criticising the Irish tax authorities, doubtless to try and avoid the third criticism above, but it is a shocking inditement of those tax authorities, and good for the EC that they have done this. And as for the uncertainty among other companies: If you want to be certain, then don't spin fairy tales that you know damn well wouldn't be believed if a small company tried it on. Got that, Google, Facebook, Amazon? Good.
Countries around the world do deals with major corporations - jobs and investment in exchange for favourable tax treatment. The deal with the Irish government goes back to 1991 and Apple have been in Ireland since 1980.
Do you believe the British government haven't done favourable tax deals with the likes of Nissan and Toyoya? Of course they have.
Is it right? That depends on how much you value jobs and inward investment. There will always be countries prepared to accommodate the likes of Apple. Should Apple pay more tax? Yes - but not necessarily in Ireland - as previously mentioned a point of consumption tax would be better.
Would the US have picked on a domestic car manufacturer the way they have VW?
The EU should tell the US to swivel on it. But not in such a polite way.
The commission said Ireland’s tax arrangements with Apple between 1991 and 2015 had allowed the US company to attribute sales to a “head office” that only existed on paper and could not have generated such profits.
That is the Fairy Tale.
Similarly HMRC have not done a specific deal with Google and Facebook whereby they are allowed to book UK sales in Ireland simply because a computer generates an invoice there. It is a fairytale that HMRC has chosen to buy, despite everyone in the advertising industry knowing that it is a laughable fiction.
The EC has revealed this fiction in Apple's case but does not feel able to directly crtiticise national tacx regimes for their ludicrous ineptitude in nodding it through, for obvious political reasons.
As I've said previously - the tax should be at the point of consumption, not where the transaction is accounted. In my industry the transaction used to be where the server was located - that changed to PoC tax and that's a good thing.
The head office declared by Apple had "no office, no premises, no real activity" but allowed the company to pay less than 1 percent of tax on its profits generated not only in Ireland but in all the EU single market.
"Apple set up their sales operations in Europe in such a way that customers were contractually buying products from Apple Sales International in Ireland rather than from the shops that physically sold the products to customers. In this way Apple recorded all sales, and the profits stemming from these sales, directly in Ireland," the commission explained.
The commission said that the scheme amounted to illegal state aid and that Apple should now pay taxes it was allowed to avoid.
It will be up to Irish authorities, according to a formula designed by the commission, to decide the exact amount Apple will have to pay. But the EU executive said it could reach up to €13 billion plus interest.
In what way is that arrangement anything other than a fairy tale, Bob? And if you ran an SME do you think you would get away with it?
Large corporations employ tax advisers and General Counsel, and engage the services of large accountancy and corporate law firms. This isn't a fairy tale - it's how multi-nationals structure their organisations - and twas ever thus. My Company is globally the largest in its sector and we do exactly the same thing.
Apple have done nothing wrong here - they haven't broken any national or international tax laws. Ireland have been deemed (subject to appeal) to have provided state aid against the EU Commission rules.
J'accuse Ireland, not Apple.
This one is gonna run and run today