Eraserhead Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 EU komisija rebnula Apple sa 13 milijardi evra poreza (zaostalog, skrivenog) u korist irskog budžeta: Irska vlada neće pare, kaže da EU ugrožava suvereno pravo oporezivanja Irska nece pare jer bi uzimanje para znacilo da Irska gubi komparativnu prednost u odnosu na ostatak EU. To bi tokom vremena vodilo do daleko vecih gubitaka nego sto je trenutni dobitak. EU bi da se jebe a da joj ne udje. Da satro svi imaju slobodu odlucivanja ali da se ona umesa kad joj nesto ne odgovara.
Prospero Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Cook rejected accusation by EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager that Apple paid just 0.005 percent tax in Ireland in 2014. “They just picked a number from I don’t know where,” he said, adding that Apple pays 26 percent per year on its global profits. Ima ovde malo više o tome: Does the arithmetic behind the €13 billion stack up? In a word: yes. This is from a post last March which looked at ASI in detail. But what if the profits of ASI were to be deemed taxable in Ireland? All the noises are that this is a determination that the European Commission could make. There seems little basis in fact to support it but I guess there are arguments that could be made. These may be that: ASI should be deemed tax resident in Ireland ASI is an Irish-registered company ASI has employees in only one country – Ireland ASI only has substance through its Irish branch which is enough to deem the parent, which has no substance, taxable in Ireland Such is the nature of the activities of the Irish branch that ASI’s sales should be considered to be fully completed by it What happens if all of ASI’s profits are deemed taxable in Ireland? Without the exact calculations it is difficult to tell but if it does happen we will be really at the races and the talk will be of billions not millions.Assuming ASI performance in 2013 tracked that of the overall company then the cumulative profit earned by ASI over the ten-year period from 2004 to 2013 is somewhere around $113 billion. If we just do a crude approximation and apply a 12.5 per cent tax to that you get $14 billion. And you can’t just rock up to the Revenue Commissioners in 2016 and say you want to pay tax due for 2004. At the very least interest will be applied and the interest rate used by the Revenue Commissioners since 2009 has been the equivalent of eight per cent per annum. If we apply eight per cent interest to this notional $14 billion of tax due over the ten years then the total liability reaches $19 billion. --- The calculation was from 2004 to 2013 and is based on the figures in the table below showing ASI’s profits and taxes. Convert to €, add in the amounts for 2014 and interest for another 8 months and you get around €13 billion of tax and around €6 billion of interest. There is nothing wrong with the Commission’s arithmetic. The table below also shows some of the effective rates used by the Commission in their press release. Getting the arithmetic right is one thing; getting the logic right is another. As shown above we suggested five possibilities through which the Commission might conclude that the entire profits of ASI could be deemed taxable in Ireland. They went for a variation of the fourth: ASI only has substance through its Irish branch which is enough to deem the parent, which has no substance, taxable in IrelandEssentially what the Commission have said is that because the parent – which the Commission describe as the “head office” and with the quotation marks! – has no substance (in their view) all the profit allocation within the company should be zero to the “head office” and 100 per cent to the Irish branch (bar some interest income).So while they have the arithmetic right the key question is do they have the basis for the logic behind the arithmetic right. We only have the press release to go on so far so it can be hard to tell what the exact justification is. The government and Apple have the full 130-page ruling so they are in a better position to assess what the Commission have done. But once the smoked has cleared it is something we will come back to over the next while.
Anduril Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Irska nece pare jer bi uzimanje para znacilo da Irska gubi komparativnu prednost u odnosu na ostatak EU. To bi tokom vremena vodilo do daleko vecih gubitaka nego sto je trenutni dobitak. EU bi da se jebe a da joj ne udje. Da satro svi imaju slobodu odlucivanja ali da se ona umesa kad joj nesto ne odgovara. Ne radi se o tome nego obratno - moze Irska slobobodno da uzima porez koji zeli za profit ostvaren u Irskoj. Tu se niko ne mesa. No, kada se radi o profitu koji pokriva celu EU, naravno da ce i EU da se pita - zato i postoji/sluzi.
Eraserhead Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Ne radi se o tome nego obratno - moze Irska slobobodno da uzima porez koji zeli za profit ostvaren u Irskoj. Tu se niko ne mesa. No, kada se radi o profitu koji pokriva celu EU, naravno da ce i EU da se pita - zato i postoji/sluzi. Tu imas vise problema. Prvi je taj sto je odluka ta da apple ovaj porez plati u celosti Irskoj. Iz toga se vidi da je glavni cilj ove odluke da se "ispegla" razlika u porezu izmedju zemalja clanica. Da svaka sledeca kompanija pomisli "ako ce me ionako rebnuti za porez onda nema veZe sto Irska ima najmanje poreze". Druga stvar je sto EU ovim eliminise mogucnost da se zemlje spustanjem poreza nadmecu za investicije. Danas je to porez a sutra moze biti nesto drugo sto se proceni kao "nefer". Trece je to da EU deluje kao nepouzdan partner koji menja pravila igre u toku same igre ili nakon sto je ona zavrsena. Bilo bi bolje da su pronasli mehanizam kako da to promene u buducnosti umesto sto su birokrate odlucile da retroaktivno uzmu nekome kes. EU ne zna gde udara ponekad.
Venom Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Lupas gluposti. Irska nije spustila porez na 0.005% nego je spustila porez na 0.005% kad su odabrane kompanije u pitanju. To cak stoji u fucking naslovu teksta koji citiras. Da probamo jos jednom: 'No company can have selective benefits' - Brussels takes bite out of Apple 'No company can have selective benefits' - Brussels takes bite out of Apple 'No company can have selective benefits' - Brussels takes bite out of Apple 'No company can have selective benefits' - Brussels takes bite out of Apple 'No company can have selective benefits' - Brussels takes bite out of Apple “That is a very selective benefit to a company and that is not allowed in the EU”. “That is a very selective benefit to a company and that is not allowed in the EU”. “That is a very selective benefit to a company and that is not allowed in the EU”. “That is a very selective benefit to a company and that is not allowed in the EU”. “That is a very selective benefit to a company and that is not allowed in the EU”. The standard rate of Irish corporate tax is 12.5 percent. The standard rate of Irish corporate tax is 12.5 percent. The standard rate of Irish corporate tax is 12.5 percent. The standard rate of Irish corporate tax is 12.5 percent. The standard rate of Irish corporate tax is 12.5 percent. Apple effectively paid one percent tax on its European profits in 2003 and about 0.005 percent in 2014. Apple effectively paid one percent tax on its European profits in 2003 and about 0.005 percent in 2014. Apple effectively paid one percent tax on its European profits in 2003 and about 0.005 percent in 2014. Apple effectively paid one percent tax on its European profits in 2003 and about 0.005 percent in 2014. Apple effectively paid one percent tax on its European profits in 2003 and about 0.005 percent in 2014.
borris_ Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Nadmecane za investicije spustanjem poreza na <1%.
Budja Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Ne radi se o tome nego obratno - moze Irska slobobodno da uzima porez koji zeli za profit ostvaren u Irskoj. Tu se niko ne mesa. No, kada se radi o profitu koji pokriva celu EU, naravno da ce i EU da se pita - zato i postoji/sluzi. No, onda da promene pravila o legal/economic entity. Koliko ja znam (a ne znam puno) operezuju se pravna lica a ne grupe, uz korekciju za transferne cene izmedju clanova grupe. Ako EU arbitrarno odluci da to vise ne vazi i da ne mogu troskovi i prihodi da se prelivaju izmedju clanova grupe da bi se izbegao porez, onda bi to moralo legalno da se uredi. Ovo mi suvise lici na ad hoc odluku koja je moralno ok, ali je pravno vrlo upitna i povlaci niz drugih pitanja.
Budja Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 (edited) Lupas gluposti. Irska nije spustila porez na 0.005% nego je spustila porez na 0.005% kad su odabrane kompanije u pitanju. To cak stoji u fucking naslovu teksta koji citiras. Da probamo jos jednom: 'No company can have selective benefits' - Brussels takes bite out of Apple 'No company can have selective benefits' - Brussels takes bite out of Apple 'No company can have selective benefits' - Brussels takes bite out of Apple 'No company can have selective benefits' - Brussels takes bite out of Apple 'No company can have selective benefits' - Brussels takes bite out of Apple “That is a very selective benefit to a company and that is not allowed in the EU”. “That is a very selective benefit to a company and that is not allowed in the EU”. “That is a very selective benefit to a company and that is not allowed in the EU”. “That is a very selective benefit to a company and that is not allowed in the EU”. “That is a very selective benefit to a company and that is not allowed in the EU”. The standard rate of Irish corporate tax is 12.5 percent. The standard rate of Irish corporate tax is 12.5 percent. The standard rate of Irish corporate tax is 12.5 percent. The standard rate of Irish corporate tax is 12.5 percent. The standard rate of Irish corporate tax is 12.5 percent. Apple effectively paid one percent tax on its European profits in 2003 and about 0.005 percent in 2014. Apple effectively paid one percent tax on its European profits in 2003 and about 0.005 percent in 2014. Apple effectively paid one percent tax on its European profits in 2003 and about 0.005 percent in 2014. Apple effectively paid one percent tax on its European profits in 2003 and about 0.005 percent in 2014. Apple effectively paid one percent tax on its European profits in 2003 and about 0.005 percent in 2014. Ovaj, a gde je dokaz za SELECTIVE? Ovo selective nije: EC Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager told Euronews: “We see these 13 billion euros as unpaid taxes that, due to Irish tax rulings, allowed Apple to put a lot of their profits in a head office that only existed on paper, a head office that was not to be taxed due to Irish legislation. da bi onda rekao “That is a very selective benefit to a company and that is not allowed in the EU”. Sta je tu specijalno za Apple? Jebem li ga, ne verujem da su Irci donosili lex specialis za Apple. Edited September 1, 2016 by Budja
Venom Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Pise ovde: "standard rate of Irish corporate tax is 12.5 percent." Ako neko placa 0.005, onda tu nesto ne stima. Nije samo Apple i koliko sam shvatio, Amazon, Google i slicni ce vrlo brzo biti na tapetu.
Budja Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Pise ovde: "standard rate of Irish corporate tax is 12.5 percent." Ako neko placa 0.005, onda tu nesto ne stima. Nije samo Apple i koliko sam shvatio, Amazon, Google i slicni ce vrlo brzo biti na tapetu. Zasto onda toliko puta nagalsavas "Selective" kada nista selective nema. Drugo, pogledaj bilo koje poreske zakone i videces da racunovodstveni dobitak pre poreza nema veza sa poreskom bazom upravo zbog mnogobrojnih dodatnih odbitaka i poreskih kredita koji cine da porez podeljen sa dobitkom pre poreza izgleda manji.
Venom Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Kad pravila budu ista za sve, rec selektivno nece biti potencirana. Apple, Amazon i Google nisu jedine tri firme u Irskoj. I ne naglasavam ja, nego EC, zato sto je to sustina njihove odluke. Ili jos jednom: "standard rate of Irish corporate tax is 12.5 percent." + "Apple effectively paid one percent tax on its European profits in 2003 and about 0.005 percent in 2014." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = selective
Prospero Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Zasto onda toliko puta nagalsavas "Selective" kada nista selective nema. ... Objašnjeno je u saopštenju komisije: ... Following an in-depth state aid investigation launched in June 2014, the European Commission has concluded that two tax rulings issued by Ireland to Apple have substantially and artificially lowered the tax paid by Apple in Ireland since 1991. The rulings endorsed a way to establish the taxable profits for two Irish incorporated companies of the Apple group (Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe), which did not correspond to economic reality: almost all sales profits recorded by the two companies were internally attributed to a "head office". The Commission's assessment showed that these "head offices" existed only on paper and could not have generated such profits. These profits allocated to the "head offices" were not subject to tax in any country under specific provisions of the Irish tax law, which are no longer in force. As a result of the allocation method endorsed in the tax rulings, Apple only paid an effective corporate tax rate that declined from 1% in 2003 to 0.005% in 2014 on the profits of Apple Sales International. This selective tax treatment of Apple in Ireland is illegal under EU state aid rules, because it gives Apple a significant advantage over other businesses that are subject to the same national taxation rules. The Commission can order recovery of illegal state aid for a ten-year period preceding the Commission's first request for information in 2013. Ireland must now recover the unpaid taxes in Ireland from Apple for the years 2003 to 2014 of up to €13 billion, plus interest. In fact, the tax treatment in Ireland enabled Apple to avoid taxation on almost all profits generated by sales of Apple products in the entire EU Single Market. This is due to Apple's decision to record all sales in Ireland rather than in the countries where the products were sold. This structure is however outside the remit of EU state aid control. If other countries were to require Apple to pay more tax on profits of the two companies over the same period under their national taxation rules, this would reduce the amount to be recovered by Ireland. ... The taxable profits of Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe in Ireland are determined by a tax ruling granted by Ireland in 1991, which in 2007 was replaced by a similar second tax ruling. This tax ruling was terminated when Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe changed their structures in 2015. ... The two tax rulings issued by Ireland concerned the internal allocation of these profits within Apple Sales International (rather than the wider set-up of Apple's sales operations in Europe). Specifically, they endorsed a split of the profits for tax purposes in Ireland: Under the agreed method, most profits were internally allocated away from Ireland to a "head office" within Apple Sales International. This "head office" was not based in any country and did not have any employees or own premises. Its activities consisted solely of occasional board meetings. Only a fraction of the profits of Apple Sales International were allocated to its Irish branch and subject to tax in Ireland. The remaining vast majority of profits were allocated to the "head office", where they remained untaxed. Therefore, only a small percentage of Apple Sales International's profits were taxed in Ireland, and the rest was taxed nowhere. ... The Commission's investigation has shown that the tax rulings issued by Ireland endorsed an artificial internal allocation of profits within Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe, which has no factual or economic justification. As a result of the tax rulings, most sales profits of Apple Sales International were allocated to its "head office" when this "head office" had no operating capacity to handle and manage the distribution business, or any other substantive business for that matter. Only the Irish branch of Apple Sales International had the capacity to generate any income from trading, i.e. from the distribution of Apple products. Therefore, the sales profits of Apple Sales International should have been recorded with the Irish branch and taxed there. ...
Tribun_Populi Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Pa klasična utanjena kapitalizacija, sa fantomskom centralom tj. majkom kompanijom. Oni su samo razgrnuli formu, ustanovili da se iza toga krije kompanija bazirana u Irskoj gde je generisan profit, i opičili porez. BTW. Ovde se uporno pominje ruling, dakle pojedinačna odluka as in decision, verdict, a ne regulation, statute, rules što će reći zakon ili uredba. Tako da jeste nekakvo specijalno pravilo samo za Apple kreirano.
Prospero Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Možda je takva odluka bila dostupna i drugim kompanijama, to je ostalo nejasno. Ali je jasno da je suludo da postoji tako smešan efektivni porez na poslovanje u celoj EU a na osnovu arbitrarnih odluka jedne države-članice. To je osnovno, a regulacija neka onda to isprati.
Budja Posted September 1, 2016 Posted September 1, 2016 Objašnjeno je u saopštenju komisije: Hvala. No, pravno, nije li to pitanje za gradjane Irske i irski Vrhovni sud kao i drgue kompanije koje tu posluju nego za EU? Kreiranje lex specialis za jednu kompanije je, onako, bas presedan. Ja bih pre rekao da je u pitanju tumacnje poreskih pravila a koje je mogla da iskoristi bilo koja druga kompanija. Ostaje da cujemo tumacnje irske strane.
Recommended Posts