Apple to Pay 318 Million Euros in Italy to Settle Corporate Tax Probe

[zin]

Americans? Here are some British references to enlighten your darkness:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/08/britain-is-now-a-socialist-utopia/
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/29/socialism-for-the-rich
https://ricochet.com/archives/britain-is-a-socialist-country/

It doesn't matter what some opinion pieces say, especially the conservative blog post (the Guardian one is an opinion piece pointing out the perceived unfairness between the rich and the poor when it comes to socialising their losses). Britain is nowhere near socialism. It's market has been mostly a free-market system since Thatcher. The State, and/or workers, has very little ownership of the means of production for most industries.

Socialism does not mean "anything the government does", as you seem to think.

 

[VulchR]

Completely different scenarios. Keeping money overseas is 100% legal (like you taking deductions). The situation in Italy was 100% illegal with some high level Italian Apple managers trying to cheat on the taxes. If you read the article, you would see that the criminal investigation against these managers is ongoing. In southern Europe (Italy, Turkey, etc.), tax evasion is a national pastime and these managers probably thought they could get away with it.

The point is that Ireland is a tax haven. It is a tax haven for the US part of Apple and it is a tax haven for the EU part of Apple. And your point about tax avoidance and tax evasion rather aligns with what I was saying: we've allowed too much tax avoidance, so that now corporate management not only fail to see tax avoidance is immoral, they see it as their duty. In the long run this means a decaying physical and social infrastructure, as will as high public debt.

 

[Mums]

It doesn't matter what some opinion pieces say, especially the conservative blog post (the Guardian one is an opinion piece pointing out the perceived unfairness between the rich and the poor when it comes to socialising their losses). Britain is nowhere near socialism. It's market has been mostly a free-market system since Thatcher. The State, and/or workers, has very little ownership of the means of production for most industries.

Socialism does not mean "anything the government does", as you seem to think.

Your view is limited. You do not see that the Bank of England has OWNED the UK since 1694. You do not see that Cromwell ended England. You do not see that socialism, communism, even Marxism are all B'nai Brith tools. This is not a theory. You believe the show they put on for you: that Thatcher had anything more than a puppet's helping of power. That she was anything more than a token woman politician who let it go to her head. The Queen herself has to ask permission to enter the City of London. You live in a fantasy world which you call "Reality". But it has been constructed to hoodwink you and people like you.

 

[samiwas]

The 'political crap' he was referring to is not bringing the overseas money back to the US. Nothing to do with the case in Italy.

You don't know that. They very well could be pulling the same schemes to avoid paying what they owe here.

I love how so many people in this thread act as if they have inside knowledge on Apple's books, claiming that they know they are being completely legal.

 

[zin]

Your view is limited. You do not see that the Bank of England has OWNED the UK since 1694. You do not see that Cromwell ended England. You do not see that socialism, communism, even Marxism are all B'nai Brith tools. This is not a theory. You believe the show they put on for you: that Thatcher had anything more than a puppet's helping of power. That she was anything more than a token woman politician who let it go to her head. The Queen herself has to ask permission to enter the City of London. You live in a fantasy world which you call "Reality". But it has been constructed to hoodwink you and people like you.

Actually the Bank of England has been wholly owned by the UK Government since 1949 (or thereabouts), when it was nationalised. It only gained operational independence in something like 1997. Prior to that politicians were free to mess about with the Bank's monetary powers as they wished, and frequently did so for short-term political benefits.

I don't see the global central banking conspiracy or the socialism and communism because it doesn't exist. I see great unfairness and rigging of certain industries, but no giant communist dictatorship on the horizon.

The matter concerning the Queen and "asking for permission" to enter the City is false, I'm afraid. It stems from an ancient, symbolic custom when the City had huge walls and a single entrance called Temple Bar. The Queen would extend as a courtesy to the Lord Mayor a request to enter. But the Mayor cannot bar the Queen from entering.

Views like this are, as you have beautifully proven, usually accompanied by accusations of ignorance directed towards those who do not believe in these conspiracies, akin to being patronising. It somehow makes the conspiracists feel like the giant conspiracy really is there, and everybody else is just too "limited" to see it.

Interesting discussion but very little to do with Apple paying taxes to the Italian Government, I've just realised.

 

[Mums]

Actually the Bank of England has been wholly owned by the UK Government since 1949 (or thereabouts), when it was nationalised. It only gained operational independence in something like 1997. Prior to that politicians were free to mess about with the Bank's monetary powers as they wished, and frequently did so for short-term political benefits.

I don't see the global central banking conspiracy or the socialism and communism because it doesn't exist. I see great unfairness and rigging of certain industries, but no giant communist dictatorship on the horizon.

The matter concerning the Queen and "asking for permission" to enter the City is false, I'm afraid. It stems from an ancient, symbolic custom when the City had huge walls and a single entrance called Temple Bar. The Queen would extend as a courtesy to the Lord Mayor a request to enter. But the Mayor cannot bar the Queen from entering.

Views like this are, as you have beautifully proven, usually accompanied by accusations of ignorance directed towards those who do not believe in these conspiracies, akin to being patronising. It somehow makes the conspiracists feel like the giant conspiracy really is there, and everybody else is just too "limited" to see it.

Interesting discussion but very little to do with Apple paying taxes to the Italian Government, I've just realised.

Rather extensive reply. Hollow, superficial information. Damage control?

 

[zin]

Rather extensive reply. Hollow, superficial information. Damage control?

Hollow, superficial information that contradicts your original post.

Where did you get the information? Don't be shy. I'm guessing either InfoWars or an obscure blog, similar to the ones that think the United States is a corporation or that there's no gold at Fort Knox.

 

[ptb42]

What Apple did is not legal, hence the fines, back taxes, etc.

The fact that the Italian tax authorities settled for about a third of the corporate taxes they claim Apple didn't pay should be a clue of who had the weakest case. But, Italian tax authorities could drag this out as long as they wanted, and find a judge that would rule in their favor. Apple made a "business decision" to settle the dispute at a significant discount.

If you have ever dealt with a tax agency, you would understand that "legal" is an opinion, not a matter of law. Tax law is rarely black-and-white, especially for a matter of this complexity.

In the US: if you call the IRS and ask for an interpretation of the tax code, the IRS's advice is not legally binding. Even though the advice was provided by an IRS representative, the IRS has no obligation to honor it. This is in direct conflict with the legal principle of "equitable estoppel", which says that a legal authority cannot advise one action, and then turn around and prosecute you for following it.

The IRS will only honor what it calls a "private letter ruling". However, you have to request it, provide a specific set of circumstances, and pay a fee. But, only the requesting taxpayer can depend on it -- it doesn't set a binding precedent for other taxpayers.

A binding precedent can only be set by the Tax Court, unless the taxpayer elects for the simplified procedures for disputes under $50,000. But, since other federal courts also hear tax cases, it's possible for different interpretations (and precedents) to arise.

I don't know the specifics of the dispute between Italian tax authorities and Apple. But, the leadership of Apple has a fiduciary duty to follow the laws to the best of their knowledge and ability. They wouldn't have done this without paying attorneys and accountants a lot of money to interpret the law and established precedents. This same methodology is being used by many multinational companies, so it's not unique.

The difference: Apple has probably made more profit than anyone else. So, when the Italian tax authorities decided to "reinterpret" the law, you can guess who was their first target.

 

[Mums]

Hollow, superficial information that contradicts your original post.

Where did you get the information? Don't be shy. I'm guessing either InfoWars or an obscure blog, similar to the ones that think the United States is a corporation or that there's no gold at Fort Knox.

You appear to be well versed in conspiracy theory.