- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I think they should add a 15% tip to be polite.
Good for the EU. It’s about time tax-dodgers were held accountable. I have no hope of seeing that here in the U.S. though.
deleted by creator
I’d metaphorically masturbate to that happening.
deleted by creator
Right. Maybe not metaphorically.
deleted by creator
I’ll write that down in my to-do list.
deleted by creator
Metaphallically?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Ireland, where Apple has its European headquarters, is known for its favorable tax rules that have attracted a number of large US-based tech companies to set up shop on the Emerald Isle.
In 2016, the European Commission figured those two rulings allowed Apple to exclude profits derived from intellectual property licenses held by ASI and AOE.
Fast-forward to 2020, and the General Court of the European Union decided Apple didn’t actually need to pay the tax due to the arrangement the iPhone maker had in Ireland seemingly being above board.
We got a hint of how the EC planned to appeal against that general court decision, and extract billions from Apple, in 2021, and the filing by Pitruzzella’s office makes largely the same argument.
Basically, if a US company wants to sponsor an employee’s green card, so that the staffer can get permanent residency in America, the biz usually (but not always) has to apply for a PERM certificate from the Dept of Labor so that the foreign worker’s immigration process can be completed.
To get that PERM cert, the business has to demonstrate that no US citizen or someone already with a green card is available and qualified to do that employee’s role in America and thus the foreigner needs permanent status in the country to fill the position.
The original article contains 918 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is a terrible summary…
Edit: A better summary.
Apple has a corporate structure based in Ireland consisting of two companies (ASI and AOE) setup in 1991 and 2007. This is to minimize tax burden.
The European Commission has concerns that this structure isn’t legal. There have been a series of court cases (2016, 2018, 2020) about this. The current status is that Apple is fine, but there was a filing for appeal in 2021 and an opinion published in September 2023 that this should be reviewed.
(The CJEU published a press release about the recent opinion in November a few days ago, which is why this is news.)
This would cost Apple $13B. Apple’s Q3 profit this year was $23B.
Entirely separate from the EU case, Apple will pay $25M to the US Department of Justice for violating the Immigration and Nationality Act.
To hire a nonresident alien in the US (and to sponsor them for a green card), employers must demonstrate that the position could not be filled by an American citizen or permanent resident. Typically, this is done by advertising the position where only Americans can apply.
Apple technically did the advertising, but they required applicants using this process to mail paper applications. The DOJ found that this did not give proper advantage to Americans.
The European Commission has concerns that this structure isn’t legal. There have been a series of court cases (2016, 2018, 2020) about this. The current status is that Apple is fine, but there was a filing for appeal in 2021 and an opinion published in September 2023 that this should be reviewed.
Important to note that the European Commission gave the OK when these were set up. They’re only complaining now.
Also Apple paid the bill in 2018 and it’s been sitting in escrow since.
Who’s going to pay higher prices for already overpriced tech appliances? Yes, users!
You think Apple’s prices are primarily determined by cost, or demand?
Theyre determined by shareholders desire for more profit. Lost profit from fines means they have to make up the revenue somewhere else. I doubt they have any avenue for decreasing manufacturing costs without also decreasing revenue itself… which means they would increase revenue directly, which means increased costs (in one form or another) for consumers.
If Apple could make up the cost by raising the price, why aren’t they raising the price right now? Are shareholders saying “please stop at the current profit margin”?
Or is it more likely that Apple is already charging the highest price they can without losing sales and revenue?
This. You’d be silly to think that Apple didn’t already spend a lot of time and money figuring out the highest price they can charge for devices.
They already do, apple just doesn’t pay their tax
