No it doesn't. Ireland did this deal to benefit from it. What they lost from direct tax in one area they gained in others. Had Ireland not made this deal, it's unlikely it would have become the conduit for Apple profits from around the world.
The subject of the ruling contains "concerning tax rulings issued by Ireland in favour of Apple"
Just because a country has children and immigrants does not absolve it of criticism.
And that's the problem right there. It's a constant race to the bottom between EU states where the EU taxpayers are the loosers and the corpos are the winners.
"The EU head office said that Ireland granted such lavish tax breaks to Apple that the company's effective corporate tax rate on its European profits dropped from 1 percent in 2003 to a mere 0.005 percent in 2014." https://apnews.com/article/apple-european-union-tech-b1575db...
Utter nonsense.
Apple Ireland has more employees than Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden combined.
There are employment quotas for the tax arrangements.
Are you suggesting that Ireland did not benefit from this illegal deal?
Can we write “search”? Google is hardly a usefull search engine anymore.
Apple Ireland is home to Apples only self-operated manufacturing plant in the world employing ~6,000 people building iMacs to order by hand (lol). There are employment quotas to meet for the tax arrangements which is one example of how Ireland as a whole benefits.
Ireland is ranked 2nd with the highest GDP per capita in the world and they got there by being an unlawful tax haven benefiting as whole at the expense of others.
Where is your evidence? I quoted the court decision to support my position.
The very existence of revolving door politics is an example of how conflicts of interest can exist which favor those in power, to the overall detriment of the population.
Government officials and politicians are well aware there may be a cushy job for them with the big companies they once regulated, so long as those companies are happy with them.
Thus I again caution on using "Ireland" in a way which blurs the difference between those in Ireland who gained from unlawful state aid and those who gain from its return.
Consider how the ruling says "Ireland had renounced tax revenue, which had given rise to a loss of State resources". This means many people living in Ireland got less government resources than they would have, including people like children and immigrants who did not have the right to vote so cannot be said to have been involved in the cheating, even though they are part of Ireland.
Legally speaking it's not a "payout" but "recovery of unlawful state aid."