Ireland joins Apple in fight over EU tax decision

Written by

Ireland’s cabinet agreed on Friday to join Apple in appealing against a multi-billion-euro back tax demand that the European Commission has imposed on the iPhone maker, despite misgivings among independents who back the fragile coalition.

The EU clearly overstepped here.



28 thoughts on “Ireland joins Apple in fight over EU tax decision”

  1. I don’t think it’s clear. The EU has lawyers as good as those working for Ireland and Apple. They wouldn’t do this without careful examination of the legalities. Their argument about this being an unfair subsidy favoring Apple doesn’t sound like a clear case of overstepping.

  3. This is a very interesting situation. I disagree strongly with the EU. But ths needs to be seen a very deep philosophical difference between how the British (and by descent the America) sense of the rule of law and the ROLE of law works, and how the rest of Europe tends to view the role of law.

    They see the purpose of law and of government differently. The British outlook (from which the American outlook derives) is that there should be no punishment without a law expressly prescribing it. The Europeans have a different view, which is that laws are simply a convenience by which governments do what they consider to be the right (or necessary or more often expedient) thing. And so they replace the British outlook with one of their own: no “crime” must remain without punishment, whether the law explicitly provides for it or not.

    It’s something the EU has done time and time again, and that’s exactly what you’re seeing here. There isn’t any law against a certain practice. But the EU doesn’t like it. And so you’ll be punished. It makes for a very capricious and oppressive system, ripe for abuse. (This is an attitude any legislator can have of course. Be alarmed when you see it, because it leads to the abuses of socialism seen in the 20th century. )

    F. A. Hayek described this process very well in “The Road to Serfdom”:

    Another illustration of an infringement of the Rule of Law by legislation is the case of the bill of attainder, familiar in the history of England. The form which the Rule of Law takes in criminal law is usually expressed by the Latin tag nulla poena sine lege—no punishment without a law expressly prescribing it. The essence of this rule is that the law must have existed as a general rule before the individual case arose to which it is to be applied. Nobody would argue that, when in a famous case in Henry VIII’s reign Parliament resolved with respect to the Bishop of Rochester’s cook that “the said Richard Rose shall be boiled to death without having the advantage of his clergy,” this act was performed under the Rule of Law. But while the Rule of Law had become an essential part of criminal procedure in all liberal countries, it cannot be preserved in totalitarian regimes. There, as E. B. Ashton has well expressed it, the liberal maxim is replaced by the principles nullum crimen sire poena—no “crime” must remain without punishment, whether the law explicitly provides for it or not. “The rights of the state do not end with punishing law breakers. The community is entitled to whatever may seem necessary to the protection of its interests—of which observance of the law, as it stands, is only one of the more elementary requirements.” See E. B. Ashton, The Fascist: His State and His Mind, op. cit., p. 127. What is an infringement of “the interests of the community” is, of course, decided by the authorities.

    — F. A. Hayek. “The Road to Serfdom.”

  4. The EU has a history of doing things that aren’t in accord with established law, because they decided it was the correct thing to do anyway.

  5. I also don’t see why this is so clear, that Apple is right by paying virtually no taxes at all for their european sales for so many years.

  6. No. Just no.

    If there are ethical problems here, they’re on the part of Ireland. A corporation is all but required to pay the minimum amount of tax they can, and Ireland is quite clear that this was that amount.

  7. “Unfair subsidy” is the working phrase here. Unfair how? In what sense? The Irish government is supposed to be a sovereign body and presumably has certain rights to design their economy as they think most beneficial. The EU steps in an invokes “fairness”, which is a nebulous we-don’t-like-it thing that kind of stinks of caprice. If they intend to change a law, that’s one thing (it’s a violation of Ireland’s sovereignty, but that’ll be fixed soon, once Brexit happens). But they should not be able to retroactively make changes. It’s hilarious to invoke one type of unfairness while committing one of your own. (EU’s, not yours personally). (I’m not yelling at you. I’m just making a case against this ruling. Also Cook’s point about how strange this is: a company being told it owes money to a country that doesn’t think it owes money. It’s kind of ridiculous. Is Ireland’s tax situation unfair? Maybe. But that’s neither here nor there. The point is that their democratically elected people should be allowed to make their own taxes — not the mostly non-elected EU officials, who are not democratically accountable to anybody. Let different countries tweak their economic system in an attempt to compete with others. If they make mistakes, they’ll have to change. If they find something that’s great, other countries will copy)

  8. I think the biggest issue here is the retroactive changing of the law. Ireland is part of the EU and if the EU has ruled that their law needs to change, then Ireland needs to make the changes (or whatever) to comply with the new regulations.

    However, for all the international companies with operations in Ireland (not just Apple) that followed the old law, even if it allowed them to pay less taxes, I think that going back 25 years and retroactively trying to change the law in the past is stepping over the line.

  9. Not only corporations try to pay as little required by law. I don’t know any of my friends who purposefully pay as much tax as possible simply because it’s the right and moral thing to do. WE usually sit around during tax time bitching and moaning and talking about what bits of law we can use to pay as little as possible (and some of us even cheat a little,hoping we’ll slide under the radar). Why does everyone seem to expect corporations to be different from us?

  14. Most would consider the treaty of Rome to be founding of the European Union that was long before Apple existed back in 1957.

    Ireland joined the European Union on January 1st 1973 along with the UK and Denmark. Which is a whole 3 years before Apple was even founded.

  15. The EU wasn’t founded until the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, 2 years after Apple and Ireland made their tax deal in 1991.

    You’re thinking of the ECC.

  18. Yes the Irish is sovereign, however, they also agreed to trade pacts, which have rules and enforcement mechanisms baked into it. Which is why the US government can get hit by a suit by Brazilians over cotton subsidies or the EU for Airbus subsidies. Saying “Ireland is a sovereign nation” is meaningless pablum, not an argument.

  19. “The EU clearly overstepped here.”

    Based on what? Because you like Apple and this is bad for them? I don’t think you understand the intricacies of international trade law or EU competition laws (I know I don’t). The sovereignty argument alone doesn’t fly because joining the EU also means Ireland has to follow an assortment of rules related to trade.

    Have enough humility to know what you know and know what you don’t know.

  20. You don’t know that. You are just saying it without any legal knowledge. The EU is within its rights to challenge what it views of unfair subsidy.

  21. Your statement suggests you don’t understand how this works. This decision is absolutely in accordance with established law of the EU, which gives them the right to impose this back tax. The law also allows Apple and Ireland to appeal. No one has overstepped here. Even if the appeal goes the way of Apple, it is not an indication of overstepping. No more than the Justice Dept bringing charges against someone even if they are eventually found guilty.

  22. You guys have stop stating what is legal or illegal. This is always subjective to interpretation. Geez, stop pretending you understand this when clearly you don’t.

  24. Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj252d:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !mj252d:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash252ShopCloudGetPay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj252d:….,….

  28. There are many political groups who have great lawyers that they require to pursue single-minded agendas. Regardless of whether those lawyers are giving good advice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *