More from the always interesting Finfacts.ie site (if his site was easier to read and less cluttered, it would be the even more useful; some very good analysis and data on it re Ireland, that you don’t get in other media)
As with Noonan’s dodgy deal on Apple blowing our 2015 GDP up by 26%, in return for taking on up to €380m in extra annual EU GDP levies, I wonder if all of these smaller deals are paying their EU GDP levy cost of 0.25%?
i.e. If a €100m in equity deal, is “housed” in Ireland, that is c €250,000 p.a. extra in EU GDP levies for Ireland. It would be pretty stupid if the deal was paying c €100,000 p.a. in Irish advisor fees for their Irish tax avoidance post-box (on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay), and the State was still paying more in EU levies?
There used to be an Irish Department of Finance argument (doctrine), that artificially boosting Irish GDP (even if we loose all dirct economic benefit from paying extra EU GDP levies), is still worth it as it reduces Irish borrowing costs. However, with Irish Bond yields largely divorced from Irish fundamentals (solely driven by ECB activity)m AND almost at 0% anyway, this arguement would no longer appear to hold up. I wonder if the DOF watch this?
Heres a revelation.
I had a family member was a member of FG many moons ago.
Hes not too bright - was more of the table-thumping type than anything - but he was a paid up member and a reliable ‘believer’ (in as far as he understood what was going on).
What shocked the family was that he was asked to stand in a few no-hoper SCD constituencys in the early 90s.
(edit - he was aware of this but was promised a ‘good’ constituency as if he sucked a few lemons first…)
The family were shocked because he was obviously running a deficit in the ‘understanding the debate department’.
Nonetheless he was pursued until family members persuaded him otherwise.
The conclusion was that FG ‘pick their men well’.
Hayes would be another one that falls into that category - and another I have experience of - a complete moron, but blindly loyal and can throw shapes convincingly.
On a completely unrelated note a farming family from Meath might be far, far brighter (and much, much more arrogant) than you might imagine.
Let’s go through the flaws in this (you will know yourself if you read the first two posts on this thread)
“Any Company could have secured the same deal”. Almost comical statement, unless all of Corporate Ireland was simtaneously too stupid to copy this (and avoid all Irish taxes).
“The Government never selected Apple for this subsidy”. Correct John, Apple demanded it.
“The Irish Revenue act independently of Government”. Does any Irish person believe this?
“[Revenue] They hold themselves to a high standard of objectivity and integrity”. Decades of tribunals (with no prosecutions) right up to the recent Section 110 scandal (where Revenue have been shown to be fiddling with their own anti-avoidance laws to help vultures), means this has as much credibility as 2. above. If in doubt, ask this guy.
Michael Lowry (ex. Fine Gael, and John Bruton loyalist, still not prosecuted)
“The Commission Ruling … creates uncertainty for other Companies”. Only the dodgy ones John. Microsoft and IBM are next.
“May encourage companies to incorporate outside the EU”. Have a good read of the EU TP System manual John. There is a reason why the Apple tax scam doesn’t work from the Cayman Islands etc. The EU have more belief in themselves than Ireland, and do insist that MNCs who want to sell into their valuable markets, follow the rules (just like in the US). Only Ireland believes that every foreigner (MNC and Vulture), should be 100% tax free. That is why Ireland had the GDP per capita of a 1st world country, but the public services of a 2nd world country. A system you helped design John.
“The Commission decision … attempts to change the way profits can be distributed … for taxation purposes”. No John, Apple changed the way its profits are distributed by using a dodgy IP scam in Ireland (to trap profits away from EU and US) and a dodgy Revenue ruling (which gave them “offshore” status while still legally in Ireland).
“Previously Companies could get authoritive guidance from National Tax authorities”. They still can John, but if the Company and Tax Authority are colluding to abuse the international tax system, then they will still be open to prosecution by the EU.
The rest of the article is “faux concern” for the EU Commission who John fears will be weighed down with Companies checking other private rulings (only the legitimate ones I suspect), and deflected from the real issues. However, I can’t imagine that there are more important objectives for the EU Commission then challenging the biggest tax avoidance scheme in modern economic history.
Just when I thought nobody could outdo the stupidity of Mary Mitchell O’Connor’s article (“if they were only here for the low taxes, they could have gone to the Cayman”), O’Leary proves that he is certainly not an expert on everything.
As discussed at length at in the first post of this report, one of Margrethe Vesgater’s “grenades” (and there are several), is showing other EU Revenues that Apple was, according to the Irish Revenue, remitting cash to a “stateless” entity that sits outside the EU TP System with no EU tax treaty. As I showed, this could cost Apple over €60bn (not €19bn), and is why Apple are going to beg us to take the €19bn
(“we messed up, Apple Ireland was always a fully “onshore” Irish resident company”, future statement from Tim C(r)ook).
Interesting article in Irish Times re Japanese Revenue, who have discovered that Apple Japan “forgot” to pay Withholding Tax on their “transfer” to Ireland (any readers of my Section 110 Vulture Fund scandal thread, will understand how critical avoiding Irish Withholding Tax is to Vultures). I forgot Withholding Tax re Apple’s tax scam. It is another nail in Apple’s coffin, as given Apple Ireland was “stateless” (according to our Revenue), it was therefore outside the EU Withholding Tax net (ouch !). This almost guarantees that Apple would incur full EU local taxes in each country, UNLESS it can prove that the Irish Revenue was wrong (ouch !), and Apple Ireland (“ASI”) was really fully Irish resident, all along.
Get ready for our €19bn Christmas present, I don’t think Apple is going to be waiting 6 years for it’s EU appeal to settle it !!
While Suzanne Kelly is a barrister with a deep knowledge of Irish tax law, she makes a fool out of herself here:
She forgot to mention Apple’s enormous and elaborate IP scam (which caused “Leprechaun Economics”), made Apple Ireland (“ASI”) far more then just a “seller” of Apple products; it is the owner of the non-US rights for most Apple products.
She also forgot to mention (she knows this), that Apple made transfers from EU countries to a Company in a “stateless” location (that other EU countries have no tax treaty or transfer pricing arrangement with). This is going to hurt Apple.
Of course, common sensed readers of this thread, will realise that the insight of a “leading US tax academic”, is likely to be a little less biased, then the insight of a person who earns her crust from defending (and issuing private “opinions” for up to €250k a pop), MNCs in Ireland, trying to avoid all EU and US (and Irish) taxes, with dodgy “IP” TP schemes.
The fact that Apple did their “Leprechaun Economics” moment (see first post on this thread), itself proves that Apple themselves know they are wrong, and are trying to limit their liability to other EU Revenues.
Perhaps Suzanne is hoping to represent Apple. However, if she read this thread, she will realise that Apple are going to settle anyway in the next year or so, and pay the €19bn to Ireland.
Imagine if Apple started selling €30,000 cars(they’re working on it) and uses Ireland to do their transfer pricing. Ireland could be the biggest contributor to the E.U. budget of all the member states when the GDP takes off in to the stratosphere.
The journal.ie have that DOB story up and as usual when it come to the Libelous one, comments are closed/not being allowed up. It’s over 1 hour since the story was posted and no comments as yet!
That makes sense as McLaren have an istream process for building cars in factories with a very small footprint and there is talk of them also approaching Magna Steyer who have competence in building cars on behalf of other manufacturers. They could buy McLaren and partner with Magna Steyr.