> Ireland doesn't have the power alone to overturn these kinds of laws
How was apple to know what ireland could and could not do? Why should they have to? Irish government said to apple that the rules are as such. The precedent this sets is that companies should not trust governments' words, instead each company should somehow interpret the laws themselves, each (surely) in their own way. Are we sure we want to set this precedent?
five accountants will produce six results from the same input based on the same laws, all of which the IRS will accept. Laws are not code. They are not unambiguous and noncontradictory.
And forget apple! This means that any company in existence now needs a lawyer who understands the Treaty of Lisbon! Just in case some EU country tells them to do X, they now need to know if said country can actually say so!
I think you underestimate the damage of "we cannot trust the actual government to tell us what we can and cannot do"
> any company in existence now needs a lawyer who understands the Treaty of Lisbon!
Hyperbole makes you look hysteric. The reality is that every other company is doing just fine, paying the tax they owe. The only companies who have to worry are shady ones like Apple (abusing tax-havens since the '80s, with Braeburn etc): it's now established that secret agreements with cosy governments will not be tolerated in the EU, as it should be.
Except this agreement was 30 years old and hasn't been effect for over a decade. Even if you think doing everything else right, how do you know some EU court next year won't find that something you did decades ago where you asked the local regulators for approval and they gave it won't be found to be illegal.
If you think Apple and Google are the only two "shady companies" who work with the governments of the countries they operate in to optimize their taxes, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Do you really believe Apple-Ireland is the only cosy tax-based incentive that any EU member state has offered to any international company to invest and operate locally in the past 30 years?
What's next? All the member states that offered attractive VAT rates when the regime was different years ago and doing so was advantageous retrospectively get reset to some baseline rate around the bloc's average and every company that ever paid VAT at lower rates in those member states gets a bill?
> Do you really believe Apple-Ireland is the only cosy tax-based incentive that any EU member state has offered to any international company
Cases are prosecuted if someone (either competitors or the Commission) thinks they're worth the trouble. Apple and Google were clearly worth it, simply because of the massive amounts of money involved - nobody cares if an ice-cream stall is foregone 100 euros. If you know of other worthy cases, feel free to take them up with the courts.
You're mischaracterizing the issue, by the way. The problem is the way one specific company was treated, which was not in line with the practices the Irish had cleared with the EU. Other companies were not treated like that and were just fine.
> retrospectively get reset to some baseline rate around the bloc's average and every company that ever paid VAT at lower rates in those member states gets a bill
That would be an extremely popular measure, politically, but there is currently no indication that the Commission or the ECJ will ever ask for that, and it has nothing to do with this judgement.
I don't see what you think is mischaracterised here. Lots of companies have received individual favourable tax treatments within the EU in ways that would not fly today. Several member states have historically established competitive tax environments at the likely expense of their fellow members too. As I said before it is unrealistic to argue as if Apple and Ireland is the only such case.
And I doubt that retrospective VAT change would still be very popular after trading with the EU became completely toxic - which is not an unrealistic outcome from such a hostile act. Businesses already avoid EU customers because of the existing environment. Retrospective demands for more money would be much worse.
Dude, seriously? You’re acting like Apple was clueless here. This entire controversy is about Ireland and Apple colluding for over a decade to avoid paying corporate taxes anywhere else in the EU. Nobody involved was ignorant of the potential illegality, rather that was deliberately the point.
Laws are also often intentionally written in such a way to be both hard to understand and ambiguous. Such rarely exercised laws are really only made manifest once tested by a court of law.
It's basically impossible to protect yourself via the word of law. Because when the rubber hits the road the judge can interpret whatever they want. Unless there is precedent even the best lawyers are just guessing.
That argument is quite a stretch when the EU tends to pass relatively ambiguous legislation and leave interpretation relatively open compared to for example the legal framework in the US, when it was not some random law firm but literally the relevant national government that gave Apple the OK, and when that situation was widely known and apparently accepted for about 30 years before the EU intervened.
I think the EU will pay a high price for actions like this. It is retrospectively moving the goalposts decades after the fact and trying to shift billions in funds when ironically neither the company paying the taxes nor the member state government apparently compelled now to collect them want that situation. You can't play games like that and remain a credible environment for investment and growth.
This particular action is specific to Ireland but by the nature of the EU its willingness and ability to take such an action in one member state taints all other member states as well. And without constitutional change to the EU itself there will never now be anything that any member state can ever do to remove that stain. Businesses now can't trust that any incentives they are offered to invest and grow in any EU member state won't get reversed further down the line no matter what any government of any member state says. It's hard to overstate how devastating that reality could become to member states trying to attract investment and grow their economies.
The other thing that worries me here is the EU's seeming willingness to both not intervene quickly and not provide ways for companies to know for sure that they're on the right side of EU laws until they do or don't get sued.
Creating an ambiguous business environment is unfortunately a recurring pattern with the EU.
A few years ago we had some fierce debates on HN about EU measures like the GDPR. Some claimed the regulations were excellent and compliance was easy if you weren't doing anything wrong. Some were more cautious and thought the length and frequent ambiguity of the regulations meant it couldn't be that simple. The strident defenders of the GDPR as lightweight regulation that should cause no significant costs or problems for honest businesses might like to read Mario Draghi's assessment of it from his report this week.
And much the same with Apple and the DMA most recently. Do I think Apple is being a bad actor re: the DMA? Yes. But it does also seem like the EU is doing a lot of "Well, just release your product and we'll tell you after you ship it if we're going to fine you for billions of dollars". You see this with things like the upcoming iPhone Display Mirroring features that aren't coming to the EU where Apple has said they're not shipping them in the EU because they think it would violate the DMA, and the regulators have just blasted Apple for withholding features but explicitly not said whether the feature is compliant.
Having companies afraid of massive penalties if they mess up is fine and good, but only works if the conduct you're trying to disincentivize is one you're ok with them not doing at all.
See also certain popular and state of the art models in AI, which are not available in the EU because of similar fears. Sometimes it's like the EU and its defenders think the EU is too big for businesses to walk away no matter how hostile the environment becomes. This is unrealistic.
> That argument is quite a stretch when the EU tends to pass relatively ambiguous legislation and leave interpretation relatively open compared to for example the legal framework in the US, when it was not some random law firm but literally the relevant national government that gave Apple the OK, and when that situation was widely known and apparently accepted for about 30 years before the EU intervened.
That is because the EU is not responsible for the member-states’ national laws, so they leave some room for different implementations. It’s on purpose.
In the case of Apple’s situation, it’s completely different. What is relevant is Irish law, which is clear and unambiguous. What was misleading was the behaviour of the Irish government.
> I think the EU will pay a high price for actions like this. It is retrospectively moving the goalposts decades after the fact and trying to shift billions in funds when ironically neither the company paying the taxes nor the member state government apparently compelled now to collect them want that situation.
They are not moving the goalposts. It’s more analogous to the IRS saying that there was an error in someone’s tax filings some years ago and that they need to pay the back taxes. Again, there is no fine here. The amount Apple has to pay is what they should have paid according to Irish law at the time.
That is because the EU is not responsible for the member-states’ national laws, so they leave some room for different implementations. It’s on purpose.
That's not quite how it works. The EU makes binding legislation in three different forms. Regulations - such as the GDPR - apply directly in all member states. Directives are the indirect ones that establish a principle but require member states to implement their own laws to give direct effect to that principle. Finally there are decisions, which are binding on a specific party such as a company or member state.
But the decision in this particular case wasn't (directly) any of those things. It was a ruling by the ECJ in a case brought by the Commission.
What is relevant is Irish law, which is clear and unambiguous. What was misleading was the behaviour of the Irish government.
But this is the problem. Tax systems are always complicated and open to interpretation in numerous ways. Large businesses are always required to make judgements about what they need to do to be in compliance with all of the relevant rules and always take advice from experts on these matters. What this action by the EU means is that businesses - including properly run businesses that have no intent to cheat anyone of anything - can no longer trust that following advice even from what should be the most authoritative sources they can ask will be sufficient.
They are not moving the goalposts.
The arrangements this legal saga has been about ran from the early 1990s for more than 20 years.
The EU started the legal action in 2016 when those arrangements had already ceased anyway and has spent about 8 years chasing it through the various courts and processes to reach this point.
If the IRS went after someone's tax filings from a year or two ago because they hadn't paid the correct tax that would be one thing. This is more like the IRS going after someone's tax filings from 30 years ago after allowing the arrangements to continue unchallenged with its full knowledge for a further 20 years and knowing that the the individual had already paid tax to another tax authority during that period instead because they weren't paying it to the IRS.
Except it's not really like that either because in this case it looks like it was the equivalent of the IRS that gave its blessing to the arrangements in the first place. So it's more analogous to some hypothetical higher authority coming along over 20 years after the fact and declaring that there was an error in someone's taxes that had been reported according to an agreement with the federal government and accepted by the IRS.
The IRS isn't comparable to this case because there's 2 entities at play, the Irish tax authority and the EU's.
I'm not too familiar with how exactly it works in the US so excuse the probably poor example, but this is more like Texas deciding that they want to attract businesses by saying they'd lower taxes a bunch. They say to the IRS "Hey, we're going to be lowering all corporate taxes to 15% across the board, is this good with you?". The IRS says sure, not knowing that what Texas is actually doing is making sweetheart deals with companies like Apple to have them pay a tax rate that is basically 0 (0.005% as is the case with Apple in Ireland).
This tax-free opportunity is only provided to a single company. The lying here is relevant, because Texas explicitly told the IRS they'd be charging every business at 15%, only to then make a special deal with Apple that's unfair to all other businesses and Apple's competitors.
A decade later (more like 2 in this case), the IRS investigates and sees there's been a discrepancy between what Texas said they'd be doing (taxing them at 15% like they said they'd charge every business) and what they're actually doing. So, the IRS says that's not allowed, and that Apple now owes Texas that unpaid tax income whether Texas wants to take it or not.
Texas doesn't want it because it makes them look like they're double dipping. Apple doesn't want it for obvious reasons.
> Ireland doesn't have the power alone to overturn these kinds of laws
How was apple to know what ireland could and could not do? Why should they have to? Irish government said to apple that the rules are as such. The precedent this sets is that companies should not trust governments' words, instead each company should somehow interpret the laws themselves, each (surely) in their own way. Are we sure we want to set this precedent?