The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The Government and Apple filed separate appeals last year against the commission's decision that the Revenue Commissioners afforded Apple an unfair advantage in two "rulings", in 1991 and 2007, by allowing the group channel most of the income from European sales through "head office" divisions of two Apple subsidiaries in Ireland, which were non-resident for tax purposes.
It's more than six months since it missed an original EU deadline to collect the funds.
Brussels has already referred Ireland to the European Court of Justice for failing to collect the money more than a year after the technology giant was ordered to pay up. ...Last month, EC Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager announced the commission would take court-enforcement action against Ireland over failure to collect the tax money, which is under appeal by both Ireland and Apple.
The issue under appeal IS a matter of states rights though. States have not delegated sovereignty over taxation matters to the EU and the Commission has made its ruling under "state aid" to private companies rules claiming that Apple got a special sweetheart deal. The Irish government counter-claim is that the rules under which Apple managed to avoid tax were available and applicable to all companies and that the EU Commission is encroaching on it's sovereign right to write it's own tax laws.
Technically, I think the Irish Government may be right but that does not mean the tax laws weren't crazy, as written, and shouldn't be reformed. The Irish Government has since closed the loophole under which Apple avoided the tax, and the 13 Billion relates to historic earnings only. I will be more convinced of the Irish governments case if it demonstrates that other companies availed of the same loop-hole. I also agree with the EU trying to reduce tax competition/arbitrage between member states, but it doesn't really have the power to do so effectively as yet. Index of Frank's Diaries
What is, however, totally out of bounds and a very bad precedent, is the notion that the state is liable for consequential damages arising from reimbursement of disputed tax payments in the absence of obvious bad faith on the part of the tax authority. Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
These papers front predictably different positions on EU VAT imposition. Does the Commission not have a valid case in seeking to reform digital taxation? Ireland to fight proposed EU digital tax on internet giants Ireland must rewire its strategy in light of EU tech tax threat Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Trump likes to complain about "unfair" competition against US businesses whereas the reality is than many US corporates have had more or less a free ride throughout the rest of the world. If he really does start a serious trade war I could see US multi-nationals being by far the biggest losers. - but that's another story.
From an Irish perspective, the EU getting more actively involved in corporate taxation is nothing less than a national disaster - some say a greater risk than Brexit - because Ireland's economic success has been largely predicated on attracting almost every major tech country to set up their EU and sometimes their EMEA headquarters here. This has created many high quality jobs here and not inconsiderable corporate tax revenues even if they are only a v. small % of total corporate earnings throughout much of the rest of the world.
It is easy to criticise such "tax competition" and it certainly has a very damaging effect on EU tax revenues as a whole. But it is also probably the only basis on which smaller, peripheral EU countries can compete with the big central economies for direct foreign investment. Otherwise you would have expected these companies to have set up their EU headquarters in Germany/France/Benelux/UK instead.
So until and unless the EU comes up with Keynesian redistributive policies and regional policies which overcome the structural disadvantages which smaller peripheral economies face, it seems understandable that Ireland and smaller peripheral economies should make common cause against such a big country power grab disguised as EU common sense. Given that current neo-liberal economic orthodoxies frown on government interventions on the scale required to rebalance the EU (and EZ especially), to provide an even playing field for peripheral countries, I can understand why national corporate taxation policies have evolved to fulfil that role instead.
It would probably be a lot more economically efficient to have one EU wide common taxation system with much of the revenue used to rebalance economic development between the regions. But that would be politically impossible because it would be portrayed as German taxpayers subsidising feckless Greeks. So we have what we have, and from the Irish government's point of view, it is working very well, even if it is recognised that it probably can't go on for much longer, and the more players join the game, the less successful the strategy will be. Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 21 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 56 comments
by Oui - Aug 18 8 comments
by Oui - Sep 9
by Oui - Sep 8
by Oui - Sep 81 comment
by Oui - Sep 7
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 41 comment
by Oui - Sep 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 319 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 114 comments
by Oui - Sep 189 comments
by Oui - Sep 11 comment
by gmoke - Aug 29
by Oui - Aug 2818 comments
by Oui - Aug 271 comment
by Oui - Aug 262 comments