
Europe fires warning shot against U.S. tech companies with new tax ruling - ghosh
http://venturebeat.com/2016/01/11/europe-fires-warning-shot-against-u-s-tech-companies-with-new-tax-ruling/
======
stefanix
So dumb to make this about US vs EU when this is about closing tax loopholes
for multinationals.

~~~
ptha
The majority of the tax to be recovered are actually related to European and
not US companies: "While declining to name the companies who benefitted from
the tax scheme, Commissioner Vestager said that €500 million of the total tax
bill of €700 million related to European companies, a development that may
appease critics of the European Commission who have accused Brussels of
unfairly targeting US multinationals."

[http://www.irishtimes.com/business/vestager-denies-delay-
in-...](http://www.irishtimes.com/business/vestager-denies-delay-in-probing-
ireland-s-apple-tax-deal-1.2492451)

------
jernfrost
This is how it has to be. This short sighted race to the bottom will not
benefit anybody in the long run.

I have no sympathy for big multinationals which make a bucket load of money
but still shopping around the world to get even less taxes.

It is really just a variation of big multinationals going to corrupt 3rd world
countries and getting an unreasonable sweet deal from a dictator. When the
dictator is thrown out and a democratic government gets in charge, the
multinationals cry that their previous deal is renegaded.

The point is that any multinational has to take into consideration what it is
reasonable to expect. If a deal is too sweet to be expected to last you don't
get into it and start crying about it being revoked later.

------
golergka
So, (1) companies adhered to Belgium laws, (2) Belgium laws were found to be
violating international agreements and (3) _companies_ are supposed to pay for
it?

What the fuck? Why doesn't Belgium pay for its violation itself? Why someone
who was adhering to the law would need to pay because the law was found to be
wrong?

I must have misunderstood this somehow, because this is just too idiotic
otherwise.

~~~
lagadu
Belgium already paid for it, in the form of the tax aid they gave the
companies. It just turns out that it was illegal and said tax breaks, which
Belgium already paid for, need to be returned.

~~~
golergka
> Belgium already paid for it, in the form of the tax aid they gave the
> companies.

I think we must clarify things and what "it" is

(1) Giving tax break is what Belgium wanted to do. Belgium offered aid,
companies took it.

(2) The fact that said tax breaks (or aid) were illegal is the violation of
the law that someone is supposed to pay for.

Belgium paid for (1), of course, that was it's intention. But it does _not_
pay for (2): it actually gets it's money back because of (2), if I understand
correctly. Or this money goes back directly to EU, this is not important;
anyway, Belgium is not losing money because of (2), companies are.

So, companies are paying for performing action that was completely legal in
the law of the country they were operating in. Companies are paying for
Belgium lawmaker's mistake.

~~~
mattmanser
Apart from tremon's excellent point elsewhere that you've noted, don't forget
this sort of thing already happens all the time.

If a region (say a state or a county in a state or a town in a county in a
state) helps a company out and that turns out to be wrong, passing legislation
it wasn't allowed to, why would you expect the company to also get off the
hook? That would seem to provide an even greater incentive to perform
corruption because once it's done, as the company you're immune from the
consequences.

Especially big multi-nationals with lots of lawyers who _knew_ the possibility
that this exact thing would happen. They went in to this deal knowing full
well the EU might turn around and say the deal violated the company aid
treaties.

~~~
golergka
> get off the hook?

Get of the hook — for what?

You automatically assume corruption, I can see why. But still, (1) getting tax
breaks or government help and (2) using illegal methods to get said tax breaks
and government help are two different things. If you want to punish someone
for getting government help, then you're using correlation of 1 and 2, but
correlation does not always imply causation. And more importantly, in case of
law people generally try to determine that someone _certainly_ did something
wrong instead of relying on the notion that he did it with high probability.

So, if you can prove that the company engineered it through illegal means —
feel free to do that. But don't forget that there are quite a lot of
completely legal and ethically clean methods in lobbying. Quite often, all
that company has to do to influence policy is to meet with the official and
present their reasonable point of view on the issue, without any gifts, bribes
or campaign contributions.

------
userulluipeste
So let's suppose I am a company that saw a green field to extend to - a
country which gets out of its way to entice me to come and develop there. Now
I am in their yard, keeping my part of the bargain, the moment in which they
draw out their claws and looking hungry at me say "you know what, forget what
we've told you, it wasn't good anyway, so let's make a new deal".

~~~
snarfy
I think it's fitting. When they move their business out of country to avoid
taxes they can't expect the same legal protections. I'm going to laugh when
these businesses move to China and the government seizes them for national
interests. By avoiding taxes they are starving the dog that protects them.

~~~
userulluipeste
A company extends itself into different countries for a lot of different
reasons, not only for avoiding taxes. Besides the mentioned tax cuts, the move
into Belgium could have been also because they needed a foothold somewhere in
European Union anyway, and also it could have been for some level of expertise
that was harder to achieve otherwise, and possibly a lot more. It's about the
whole package.

China has a policy of allowing external players into its playground only in
partnership with a local company over which the government has absolute power
and control. That is a bitter pill to swallow, but some choose to take it any
way! China can arbitrarily change its rules (which are bad enough as they are)
at any time (usually into something worse), I'll give you that. But it doesn't
make it feel better with going through the current Belgian/EU debacle!

------
igl
Meh. What about Holland and Luxemburg?

~~~
tremon
what about them?

~~~
mattmanser
He's referring to the double-Irish arrangement, a similarly dodgy tax scheme
used by multinationals:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement)

------
Oletros
The title is totally click bait

~~~
to3m
The picture is awesome too.

