As other users have pointed out, this comment breaks the site guidelines. We've warned you about this before. Please (re-)read and follow them if you want to keep posting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Perhaps billionaires, big corps, political enemies, etc., don't deserve better from you, but the community you're participating in does. And its survival depends on users not burning it down.

This kind of comment isn't in line with the guidelines, please instead use constructive language and refrain from name calling.

He and Apple was following the law. If Europe was so angry about Ireland's tax laws they should have stopped it from taking effect in the beginning.

> If Europe was so angry about Ireland's tax laws they should have stopped it from taking effect in the beginning.

So, poor behaviour is fine, as long as you weren't stopped before you started doing it?

Europe did do something about it, at the speed of international government agreements. You can't honestly be expecting that kind of organization to pre-empt every kind of misbehavior and favoritism inside its member countries.

There is a difference between the laws changing and affecting future behavior and a change being applied retroactively.

An earlier message indicated that the money was being put in escrow because apparently there is still a dispute about how the law should have been applied in the past.

I think it is reasonable to be upset about after-the-fact changes to the application of a law/regulation.

There is

Still legal

Nations built on laws, right?

Just because a particular entities economics position, which has no legal protections enshrined in any national constitutions or political or social theories I know of (economics are economics, not political science), are impacted by that. Welp; nations of laws and legal processes

Downvote with all your ad hominem might all you want. Facts are facts.

Hard to follow you, but the process of law making has its own meta rules that we can talk about and that shape the nature of the resulting legal system. Responding to attempts to discuss these meta rules with "it is the law" is basically a category error, you're avoiding the meta discussion.

For example:

  • laws shouldn't be drafted to apply to a single person (bill of attainder)
  • laws shouldn't be applied retroactively (ex post facto)
  • laws shouldn't infringe on individual rights

I don't know enough about the EU/Irish law to be definitive about what is going on with Apple, but my gut says that the law was probably targeted such that few corporations could take advantage of it but not so much that it was just Apple and that the EU enforcement action should not be applied retroactively.

> He and Apple was following the law. If Europe was so angry about Ireland's tax laws they should have stopped it from taking effect in the beginning.

Ireland and Apple weren't following the law, that's the whole point of this.

Don’t really get people who defend mega corporations. They played the game and they lost. They should’ve known that the rules can change, especially if someone is cheating or gaming the system.

Because it isn't about defending "mega corporations" it is about the general principle that the legal interpretations (or new legislation/regulations) shouldn't be applied retroactively.

It is one thing to change the interpretation and use that going forward. Completely different to change the interpretation and apply it retroactively.

Where is the evidence that they were cheating the system. Ireland created tax laws, to incentivize companies to come. The European commission comes in and decides that Ireland needs to revert laws that have been on the books for years and collect back taxes on it. This is absurd. How can a company plan for all the potential laws that Europe could reverse. Luckily in Apple's case, they have the funds to pay.

>Ireland created tax laws, to incentivize companies to come.

That makes it seem like the EU decided Ireland's corporate tax rates were too low but that's not what happened here. Ireland gave specific tax considerations to Apple that it didn't give other companies which is illegal in the EU. This is just forcing Apple to compete on a level (tax) playing field with other corporations.

> How can a company plan for all the potential laws that Europe could reverse. Luckily in Apple's case, they have the funds to pay.

They can't. The world is uncertain. Sovereign Nations legally have the power to do anything they fucking want in the regions they govern (they might be restricted by their own laws and constitution, but it is an internal one).

In this case, it appears that Apple abused certain Irish tax laws to an extreme degree. The EU is well within its rights to punish Apple for doing so.

No.

Corporation Tax in Ireland is 12.5%. Europe is insisting only that Ireland actually collects it. If, as alleged, someone in Fianna Fail made a deal with Apple thirty years ago to charge it, and it alone, a different rate? It's not on the statute book, the power to do that is not included in law, and therefore it's Not A Thing. Oh, and also someone committed a serious crime, but it's Ireland and they'll never be prosecuted.

Eeasy, given the politics and history of the region in question, anyone in the relevant positions knew Ireland tax break was a long term risk, but worth it short term. Chasing tax breaks is always a gamble.

appealing to/pleading ignorance doesn't sound like a good excuse for a mega multinational company that employs a legion of tax lawyers and accountants. As previous commenters noted, Apple tried to game the system, but lost. Now, it's time to pay up.

Exactly. Nothing against firms trying to optimize their fiscal plan but if you have to pay then shut up and pay it up.

I know it's unreasonable but I'd really love to be a fly on the wall and somehow be able to see, in an alternate reality, how / where / when / why that money they'd be paying would be spent. I'm just purely curious.