[News] Apple sends Ireland $1.76 billion in first payment for back taxes

[StyM]

https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/18/...es-to-ireland/

Back in 2016, the European Commission ordered Apple to pay Ireland around 13 billion euros ($15.3 billion at current exchange rates) in back taxes. Apple had a special sweetheart deal with Ireland, which the commission ruled was illegal. Neither party was happy with this decision. Apple argued that the amount owed was miscalculated, while Ireland believed that the EU overstepped the bounds of its authority, but appeals so far have been unsuccessful. Now, according to Reuters, Apple has begun paying the owed back taxes.

The first payment is for 1.5 billion euros (about $1.76 billion) and it's been deposited into an escrow account that was specifically established by the Irish government to collect these taxes from Apple. This doesn't mean the dispute is resolved, though. Apple is paying the money into an escrow fund specifically because both parties are still trying to appeal the decision. However, the European Commission found that Ireland failed to follow the 2016 ruling in a timely manner, which is why the funds are now being collected.

[Sparky]

Was the purpose of the EU to basically control the individual countries? Because it sure seems like that's what's happened. I mean, if Ireland had some sort of agreed tax setup with Apple, why does the EU get to force Ireland to collect X taxes? Just seems weird...

[AliG]

Technically speaking, as long as they are part of the EU, then yes, the EU has some level of governing power. The EU is really a fiscal governing body; the utility of it for war purposes went away once nukes became a real thing.

[Sparky]

No wonder there was Brexit.

[kromosto]

Was the purpose of the EU to basically control the individual countries? Because it sure seems like that's what's happened. I mean, if Ireland had some sort of agreed tax setup with Apple, why does the EU get to force Ireland to collect X taxes? Just seems weird...

There are no custom taxes between EU countries. So giving a country this option which leads to an advantage over other member countries is not acceptable. This is nothing different than an American state does not obey federal governments regulations over chine trade.

[Sparky]

There are no custom taxes between EU countries. So giving a country this option which leads to an advantage over other member countries is not acceptable. This is nothing different than an American state does not obey federal governments regulations over chine trade.

Except the states were never fully individual sovereign entities like the countries in Europe, so, yes it is a lot different.

[AliG]

Ehh, you're free to your own opinion, but a lot of independent economists think Brexit was a terrible fiscal move. Whether Britain should have realized it or not, they are getting stone walled on the previous trade agreement they had under the EU. That will lead to a significant loss in revenue and/or effective tax increases (vis a vis tariffs).

[kromosto]

Except the states were never fully individual sovereign entities like the countries in Europe, so, yes it is a lot different.

No it is not different. Do you think countries become a member of EU without changing anything? There are law of harmonization code of European Union and countries have to legislate them before entering EU.