Paradise papers

smurgen

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You missed my question. How do you identify the companies you want wallop?

I'm obviously leaving aside the major issue of the state putting a particular company at a sever disadvantage in the market but I'll get back to it once I figure out how the state will choose who to punish.

A study of the finances of the company should be sufficient.such as that which the E.U Comission performed on Apple. Also talking about putting a company at a disadvantage this would be equalized after the penalty was paid.was the point of the E.U jusgement not that Apple was given what amounted to State aid by Ireland? Does this not put apple ahead of companies that not have such arrangements?

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

Which court has ruled that Apple owe anything?

And it's €13billion.......and again, that's a figure based on the Commission's opinion.

It's the Commission's opinion. We respectfully disagree and that's why we're all off to the ECJ to get them to decide and issue the definitive interpretation of the legislation.

And even the Commission recognises they and the Irish government owe Apple a duty of care. If the Commission are so sure they are right why are they facilitating the complicated escrow arrangements being developed to hold and manage the money pending the ECJ action.......surely they'd be happy with it going into even a simple deposit fund? if they were so sure it's owed then there's no chance it might have to be released back to Apple?

Btw, if the Commission are wrong, and we don't escrow the money and manage it diligently, Apple get to sue us (not the Commission) for any profits foregone.

Apoligies you're correct it's 13bn EUR.and the comission has referred Ireland to the ECJ.I see this as a good thing at the start of a larger process of the E.U cracking down on mutinationals exploiting loop holes.I thought you welcomed this also no?

Captain Obvious

smurgen wrote: »

A study of the finances of the company should be sufficient.such as that which the E.U Comission performed on Apple. Also talking about putting a company at a disadvantage this would be equalized after the penalty was paid.was the point of the E.U jusgement not that Apple was given what amounted to State aid by Ireland? Does this not put apple ahead of companies that not have such arrangements?

Right, but now you are talking about giving state aid to other companies by putting a main competitor at a major disadvantage. But to get back to my other point. If you have done an intense financial analysis on a company why would you not simply tax them normally and fine and penalise them for underpayments. Why the need for some new tax to interfere with the market?

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

That's not his VAT works.......VAT is levied on categories of products or services, not individuals or corporations.

And what do you mean 'taxing them at source'?

Btw, Starbucks in Ireland is run by an Irish company registered in Ireland, so would they still pay increased VAT under your scheme?

In this instance it is ran as a franchise with an annual subscription. The payments made by the irish company to starbucks would for example have a tax added onto it call it the tax compliace levy or something. Good that you brought up Starbucks also,a company that openly ignores our planning an licencing laws.had a store close on cork's patricks street because the opened up without the correct licence.if they blatently break rules and regulations like this can you imagine what their books look like?

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

Apoligies you're correct it's 13bn EUR.and the comission has referred Ireland to the ECJ.I see this as a good thing at the start of a larger process of the E.U cracking down on mutinationals exploiting loop holes.I thought you welcomed this also no?

As a lawyer I have zero problem with the rule of law and if the ECJ rules in the Commission's favour I look forward to what we might spend the money on. We can fathom the impact of the judgment on our residual sovereignty in due course.

I do have a problem with people rushing to judgment, accepting authority unquestioningly and the general lynch mob atmosphere stoked by sensationalist and populist media and politicians......

smurgen

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Right, but now you are talking about giving state aid to other companies by putting a main competitor at a major disadvantage. But to get back to my other point. If you have done an intense financial analysis on a company why would you not simply tax them normally and fine and penalise them for underpayments. Why the need for some new tax to interfere with the market?

No you said they were at a disadvantage because of this.i'm saying they wouldn't be levied or taxed extra if they were deemed compliant with our laws.if their competitors were getting a favourable tax rate they should get hit also. Also why the big concern about interferring with the market? Markets need interferring when they're dysfunctional. Having offshore accounts makes markets unequal.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

A study of the finances of the company should be sufficient.such as that which the E.U Comission performed on Apple. Also talking about putting a company at a disadvantage this would be equalized after the penalty was paid.was the point of the E.U jusgement not that Apple was given what amounted to State aid by Ireland? Does this not put apple ahead of companies that not have such arrangements?

And if the company is a private one, not publicly quoted and registered outside the EU's jurisdiction what then?

Plus bear in mind, the Commission's case is based on information provided by the Irish authorities about Apple subsidiaries registered in ireland. If those subsidiaries were registered outside the EU how would you imagine their finances could have been studied by the Commission?

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

As a lawyer I have zero problem with the rule of law and if the ECJ rules in the Commission's favour I look forward to what we might spend the money on. We can fathom the impact of the judgment on our residual sovereignty in due course.

I do have a problem with people rushing to judgment, accepting authority unquestioningly and the general lynch mob atmosphere stoked by sensationalist and populist media and politicians......

I do also and i do appreciate your replies.they do give me food for thought. On the issues of sovereignty i am also torn, i am a proud republican but do see the E.U as more trust worthy than our own politicians in alot in instances.there was so much hurt caused here and our own politicians enabled alot of it in my eyes either through corruption or incompetence.i also see the value in alot of E.U bodies. For example the E.U competition authority now looking into the tracker scandal and the E.U consumer watch dog that pushed for the ruling on roaming charges.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

In this instance it is ran as a franchise with an annual subscription. The payments made by the irish company to starbucks would for example have a tax added onto it call it the tax compliace levy or something. Good that you brought up Starbucks also,a company that openly ignores our planning an licencing laws.had a store close on cork's patricks street because the opened up without the correct licence.if they blatently break rules and regulations like this can you imagine what their books look like?

But Starbucks don't owe Ireland any tax, do they? So is the franchise fee being targeted in your model? And if do why? Because of something they're doing somewhere else?

Plus, they don't blatantly ignore the laws...... as your example shows they closed when the issue was detected......if they were blatantly breaking the rules surely they wouldn't have closed?

Incidently, a quick google shows they amended the store layout and the matter is with the Cork City Council to decide what happens next.

.....and you honestly suggesting a company's tax liability should be determined by their attitude towards the State's planning laws?

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

I do also and i do appreciate your replies.they do give me food for thought. On the issues of sovereignty i am also torn, i am a proud republican but do see the E.U as more trust worthy than our own politicians in alot in instances.there was so much hurt caused here and our own politicians enabled alot of it in my eyes either through corruption or incompetence.i also see the value in alot of E.U bodies. For example the E.U competition authority now looking into the tracker scandal and the E.U consumer watch dog that pushed for the ruling on roaming charges.

Yes, I too am a proud republican, not in the Shinner sense as they don't get to define 'republicanism' (leaving aside their egregious lack of respect for the Constitution). My republican "heroes" would be Lemass, Whittaker, Costello and Browne - people who built something.

At the end of the day, we are a small, open, but globally facing economy......and that disposition has brought us significant wealth. We can embrace it and make it work for us, or go back and take the "Dev route" and throw up the barriers, but such nobility will send us back to poverty because people, wealth etc are now more mobile than they've ever been. So the idea that somehow we're 'missing' out on tax is ridiculous. We could treble or corporation tax, but which is better, getting 37.5% of nothing, or 12.5% of something?

Yes the tax system should change, and how we tax MNCs should definitely change, but I don't believe we should shoot ourselves in the head for the privilege of being the first to change.

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

But Starbucks don't owe Ireland any tax, do they? So is the franchise fee being targeted in your model? And if do why? Because of something they're doing somewhere else?

Plus, they don't blatantly ignore the laws...... as your example shows they closed when the issue was detected......if they were blatantly breaking the rules surely they wouldn't have closed?

Incidently, a quick google shows they amended the store layout and the matter is with the Cork City Council to decide what happens next.

.....and you honestly suggesting a company's tax liability should be determined by their attitude towards the State's planning laws?

Read how they tried to work around the closing of the store, they dragged the process out for as long as possible.it was only until the were formally taken to court and it was looking like bad publicity did they finally close. http://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Starbucks-ordered-to-shut-its-Patrick-Street-outlet-a3b18fd9-051d-4331-8980-c2d1fbe1db6f-ds

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, I too am a proud republican, not in the Shinner sense as they don't get to define 'republicanism' (leaving aside their egregious lack of respect for the Constitution). My republican "heroes" would be Lemass, Whittaker, Costello and Browne - people who built something.

At the end of the day, we are a small, open, but globally facing economy......and that disposition has brought us significant wealth. We can embrace it and make it work for us, or go back and take the "Dev route" and throw up the barriers, but such nobility will send us back to poverty because people, wealth etc are now more mobile than they've ever been. So the idea that somehow we're 'missing' out on tax is ridiculous. We could treble or corporation tax, but which is better, getting 37.5% of nothing, or 12.5% of something?

Yes the tax system should change, and how we tax MNCs should definitely change, but I don't believe we should shoot ourselves in the head for the privilege of being the first to change.

Get 12.5% of something of course,once it's the correct thing we're getting.the issue is we're not even getting that. And just because we're small means absolutely nothing at all.we should be leveraging off our position within europe because we are small.

smurgen

markodaly wrote: »

Everyone wants to avoid tax, sure isn't that what the Irish Water fisaco was about? Bill Gates alone has contributed over $6 Billion to help fight Malaria, HIV and TB, in the poorest place on earth, which is Africa. But I guess he was better off handing that money to Uncle Sam where it would more than likely give it as a subsidy to some large Oil Corporation or buying ammo and bombs for its future military endeavours.

Look at it from another point of view.how many offshore accounts were used to fleece africa? How many african despot leaders had money put into accounts offshore by big corporations such as Shell and Exon Mobile? Wouldn't africa be able to fight it's own diseases if they had this money themselves? https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160725-natural-resource-africa-offshore.html

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

Read how they tried to work around the closing of the store, they dragged the process out for as long as possible.it was only until the were formally taken to court and it was looking like bad publicity did they finally close. http://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Starbucks-ordered-to-shut-its-Patrick-Street-outlet-a3b18fd9-051d-4331-8980-c2d1fbe1db6f-ds

Did they do do anything illegal?

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

Get 12.5% of something of course,once it's the correct thing we're getting.the issue is we're not even getting that. And just because we're small means absolutely nothing at all.we should be leveraging off our position within europe because we are small.

Leveraging our position? What does that mean?

The biggest stick we have is our veto.......should we use that judiciously?

But bear in my mind the EU runs on consensus......it's not the most efficient way to run a government, but it at least tries to keep everyone in the tent......Member States that use their veto tend to not to fair well further down the line when they come looking for things, like support in matters where qualified majority voting applies and they need to enlist allies.

We already punch way above our weight in the EU as it is, if we start being the 'problem child' we lose all the influence we have.

Personally, I think we should use our influence to protect our national interests not to self-flagellate in the pursuit of some moral high ground on tax.

Out of interest, we may not get the full measure of the corporation tax, but in respect of Apple we get a fair chunk of incomes tax, USC etc from the people they employ here.

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

Leveraging our position? What does that mean?

The biggest stick we have is our veto.......should we use that judiciously?

But bear in my mind the EU runs on consensus......it's not the most efficient way to run a government, but it at least tries to keep everyone in the tent......Member States that use their veto tend to not to fair well further down the line when they come looking for things, like support in matters where qualified majority voting applies and they need to enlist allies.

We already punch way above our weight in the EU as it is, if we start being the 'problem child' we lose all the influence we have.

Personally, I think we should use our influence to protect our national interests not to self-flagellate in the pursuit of some moral high ground on tax.

Out of interest, we may not get the full measure of the corporation tax, but in respect of Apple we get a fair chunk of incomes tax, USC etc from the people they employ here.

Leverage our advantages.e.g as the only englush speaking country is Europe Union.this is unique and can make us ahead of ither in areas such as the services sector. Nice to know you see enforcing tax rules as self flagellation.

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

Did they do do anything illegal?

What's you obsession with legal?i can bang my neighbours wife in front of their kids.it's not illegal .They broke planning rules and were taken to court.we'd be along time waiting of lawyers to guide society how to behave in a moral sense as displayed by yourself.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

What's you obsession with legal?i can bang my neighbours wife in front of their kids.it's not illegal .They broke planning rules and were taken to court.we'd be along time waiting of lawyers to guide society how to behave in a moral sense as displayed by yourself.

Because that's the way the world works.

Btw, I know you were trying to use exaggeration for the purpose of illustration but the example you chose was a poor one (both in taste and for illustration).

What you suggested would actually be an offence under S5 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 (Sexual activity in presence of child)......it could get you up to 10 years.

And the law isn't about morality or justice - it's just the law. Get it changed if you feel so strongly. Until then, don't be surprised if individuals, corporations etc use it, the associated processes and any loopholes to their advantage. Btw, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm non-ptractising, but work in a related area.

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

Because that's the way the world works.

Btw, I know you were trying to use exaggeration for the purpose of illustration but the example you chose was a poor one (both in taste and for illustration).

What you suggested would actually be an offence under S5 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 (Sexual activity in presence of child)......it could get you up to 10 years.

And the law isn't about morality or justice - it's just the law. Get it changed if you feel so strongly. Until then, don't be surprised if individuals, corporations etc use it, the associated processes and any loopholes to their advantage. Btw, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm non-ptractising, but work in a related area.

My neighbours kids are 20ish.but that's beside the point.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

My neighbours kids are 20ish.but that's beside the point.

In that case, refer to S45 of the same Act (Exposure, offensive conduct of sexual nature)......but you'd only be on the hook for 2 years.

Unless, no one is offended, in which case it is neither illegal nor immoral

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

In that case, refer to S45 of the same Act (Exposure, offensive conduct of sexual nature)......but you'd only be on the hook for 2 years.

Unless, no one is offended, in which case it is neither illegal nor immoral

I'm sure an expensive solicitor could get me off the hook eitherway 😀

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

I'm sure an expensive solicitor could get me off the hook eitherway ��

eh.....that's not how it works.

You may be amoral, but solicitors/barristers as officers of the court are bound by a fairly strict ethical code.....they owe you their best defence, but when someone says "get me off the hook" that's an implicit admission of guilt and it immediately limits the scope of action for your legal representative.

.....which is why they'll facilitate avoidance but not evasion (which is not to say there aren't bad eggs - as there are in all walks of life - who will facilitate both).

smurgen

http://www.dw.com/en/paradise-papers-reveal-how-tax-havens-damage-africa/a-41321485 Good insight into Glencore's shady dealings in Congo.

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

eh.....that's not how it works.

You may be amoral, but solicitors/barristers as officers of the court are bound by a fairly strict ethical code.....they owe you their best defence, but when someone says "get me off the hook" that's an implicit admission of guilt and it immediately limits the scope of action for your legal representative.

.....which is why they'll facilitate avoidance but not evasion (which is not to say there aren't bad eggs - as there are in all walks of life - who will facilitate both).

Oh i'm sure there's only a couple of bad eggs.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

Oh i'm sure there's only a couple of bad eggs.

I'm sure there's more than a couple but not nearly as many as people think.

Btw, the easy way to deal with a lot of this is to pay decent salaries in the PS so that a greater proportion of the best and brightest become 'gamekeepers' instead of poachers. One the of the reasons regulators are so ineffective in this and other countries is that they routinely lose the war for talent.

Shurimgreat

Looks like the EU is already looking at a digital tax.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0911/903931-european-commission-digital-tax-proposal/

Its clear once the money goes into the bank accounts of Apple inc, Facebook, etc, you can forget about it. Its gone for the purposes of taxation. These companies don't believe in paying even close to the headline rate of corporation tax. At best they believe in throwing a few crumbs to the likes of Ireland or Jersey to keep us sweet and then we become advocates for these tax avoiders in the EU.

Taxing them at source with a digital tax is ultimately the only way to get a reasonable amount of tax from them.
Who or how it will be imposed is the next question.
Possibly a 5% duty on all sales carried out over the internet.

The large digital corporations can't say they didn't see this coming. They had their chance to pay a reasonable amount of tax and they gave everyone the two fingers. So time to give them the two fingers in return. Time for them to pay their tax.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Shurimgreat

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

At least it would make the prices of companies competing with them more competitive.

Large online companies like Amazon are often competing with local family owned shops, bookshops, electrical retailers, etc in towns up and down the country who pay their taxes. If its passed on to the consumer so be it. If you are prepared to buy from tax avoiders then you should also be penalised. Taxing at source seems to be the only solution. Waiting for these companies to voluntarily pay more tax hasn't worked and if you close one corporation tax loophole they find another with apparent ease.

server down

Shurimgreat wrote: »

At least it would make the prices of companies competing with them more competitive.

Large online companies like Amazon are often competing with local family owned shops, bookshops, electrical retailers, etc in towns up and down the country who pay their taxes. If its passed on to the consumer so be it. If you are prepared to buy from tax avoiders then you should also be penalised. Taxing at source seems to be the only solution. Waiting for these companies to voluntarily pay more tax hasn't worked and if you close one corporation tax loophole they find another with apparent ease.

Is this an extra tax on top of VAT? Isn’t VAT now taxed where the consumption happens not where the corporation is? Or is it a “corporation tax” taxed at source. That doesn’t make sense since corporation tax is the tax on overall profits not profits per device or item.

Also a tax on revenue doesn’t make sense either as you could end up taxing loss making companies. The solution for Europe is tax harmonisation.

Jawgap

Shurimgreat wrote: »

At least it would make the prices of companies competing with them more competitive.

Large online companies like Amazon are often competing with local family owned shops, bookshops, electrical retailers, etc in towns up and down the country who pay their taxes. If its passed on to the consumer so be it. If you are prepared to buy from tax avoiders then you should also be penalised. Taxing at source seems to be the only solution. Waiting for these companies to voluntarily pay more tax hasn't worked and if you close one corporation tax loophole they find another with apparent ease.

Again, what does that mean? applying tax where the buyer is, the vendor is, the money is or in the jurisdiction where the order is fulfilled?

And what about those "mom & pop" operations that sell online through Amazon, Ebay etc - will they get caught up in this? Never mind the "mom & pop" operations who trade online through their own resources.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jawgap

server down wrote: »

Is this an extra tax on top of VAT? Isn’t VAT now taxed where the consumption happens not where the corporation is? Or is it a “corporation tax” taxed at source. That doesn’t make sense since corporation tax is the tax on overall profits not profits per device or item.

Also a tax on revenue doesn’t make sense either as you could end up taxing loss making companies. The solution for Europe is tax harmonisation.

.....the problem is that the proposal is a tax on turnover or revenue, not profit - such withholding taxes tend to negatively impact companies and their capacity to invest, and incentivises them to ditch business units etc that might be failing or struggling, rather than investing to save or turn them around.

Shurimgreat

server down wrote: »

Is this an extra tax on top of VAT? Isn’t VAT now taxed where the consumption happens not where the corporation is? Or is it a “corporation tax” taxed at source. That doesn’t make sense since corporation tax is the tax on overall profits not profits per device or item.

Also a tax on revenue doesn’t make sense either as you could end up taxing loss making companies. The solution for Europe is tax harmonisation.

Very few of these online companies are loss making. However if they are truly loss making they can apply for a rebate.

A 5% tax isn't going to decide if a company stays in business or not.

Tax harmonisation would not be good for Ireland and would totally remove our competitive advantage. Its a blunt instrument to solve a specific problem. A lot of the companies in Ireland such as the Intels, etc who engage in actual manufacturing so I would say pay their corporation taxes to a reasonable amount.

But the large Silicon Valley tech companies have no interest in paying any tax. These specific companies need to be targeted. One of the reasons they make massive profits is they are not taxed.

Shurimgreat

Jawgap wrote: »

.....the problem is that the proposal is a tax on turnover or revenue, not profit - such withholding taxes tend to negatively impact companies and their capacity to invest, and incentivises them to ditch business units etc that might be failing or struggling, rather than investing to save or turn them around.

Well what's your suggestion on how these companies can pay a reasonable amount of corporation tax?

Shurimgreat

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are sounding very like an apologist for large tax avoiders like Amazon and Apple. Again, have you a better suggestion on getting them to pay their fair share of tax? If you have let's hear it.

Mr. Incognito

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Well what's your suggestion on how these companies can pay a reasonable amount of corporation tax?

Companies will never pay a reasonable amount of corporation tax.

Anyone that thinks they can be forced to is extremely niavie and has no idea how corporation tax actually works.

Any company can simply incorporate their head office in a jurisdiction that has no tax and hive out subs.

The Tech and Pharma industries brought Ireland from a backwater in the 1980s to a first world country in 30 years.

People need to get a grip and stop biting the hand that feeds us.

These companies bring employment and well paid jobs. That funds secondary industries catering for these well paid jobs and disposable income. Ireland makes it in VAT and employment taxes.

They will never pay corporate tax. Ask Donald Trump how its going for him with his US companies.

Companies exists solely for profit and are mobile. You cannot use morals here.

Shurimgreat

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Companies will never pay a reasonable amount of corporation tax.

Anyone that thinks they can be forced to is extremely niavie and has no idea how corporation tax actually works.

Any company can simply incorporate their head office in a jurisdiction that has no tax and hive out subs.

The Tech and Pharma industries brought Ireland from a backwater in the 1980s to a first world country in 30 years.

People need to get a grip and stop biting the hand that feeds us.

These companies bring employment and well paid jobs. That funds secondary industries catering for these well paid jobs and disposable income. Ireland makes it in VAT and employment taxes.

They will never pay corporate tax. Ask Donald Trump how its going for him with his US companies.

Companies exists solely for profit and are mobile. You cannot use morals here.

There are ways and means to force everyone to pay a reasonable amount of tax. Just giving up isn't really the answer.

Is it fair that companies like Apple and Amazon avoid/evade tax while Joe Bloggs family retailer has to pay their share.

I agree Ireland has been wholly complicit in what the likes of Apple have done. Its pretty shameful really and has effectively amounted to a form of money laundering through this country.

You should also make a distinction between companies engaging in legitimate manufacturing and services here and those who are based here purely to engage in tax avoidance. Its the latter we want to tackle not the former.

Our 12.5% rate is still competitive and will attract responsible companies, not those only interested in paying 0.0005% tax.

You would be the exception by the way in saying we can't do anything or we shouldn't do anything.

The majority of people recognise 1. some of these large tech firms aren't paying even close to a reasonable amount of corporation tax and 2. something meaningful should be done to force them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jawgap

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Well what's your suggestion on how these companies can pay a reasonable amount of corporation tax?

And take off the Irish jersey while you are at it.

Well, no - I'm not going to take off the Irish jersey because I live here and there's no nobility in poverty. Our capacity to compete is severely limited by our size, position and lack of resources - I think we should continue to compete on the basis of tax, and resist any attempt by the EU to change the TEU or other legislation that might undermine that capacity.

Second, I've already outlined what I think should happen, several times, so maybe go back and read the thread.

Third, avoidance is always going to happen - expecting MNCs (or anyone) to voluntarily pay a 'fair' share is fantasy, la-la land economics - 'fair' is subjective. You can make the system more equitable to be sure to try and skew spending decisions etc more towards socially desirable outcomes, but again 'socially desirable' is subjective and what the political system wants is not necessarily socially desirable.

Fourth, despite what I said at #2, here's what I'd do.....

• Get rid of the ambiguity in relation to territories like the IoM etc - either a territory is part of a state or its not part of state and by extension - you are either in the EU/EEA or you are not in the EU/EEA
• To trade in the EU, a company must be registered in the EU
• Sales are booked once and booked in the jurisdiction of the purchaser
• Profits are booked in the jurisdiction of the MS in which the company (or its European subsidiary) is registered and taxed according to the policies of that MS
• Tighten up the whole area of transfer pricing - at least make the OECD Guidelines mandatory.
• Finally, not be surprised that when all this 'fair' tax is handed over that governments don't become efficient, just more wasteful

Shurimgreat

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again you fail to recognise the distinction between those engaged in legitimate manufacturing and services and who pay close to the headline rate of 12.5% of tax and those like Apple who paid 0.005% some years.

Shurimgreat

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, no - I'm not going to take off the Irish jersey because I live here and there's no nobility in poverty. Our capacity to compete is severely limited by our size, position and lack of resources - I think we should continue to compete on the basis of tax, and resist any attempt by the EU to change the TEU or other legislation that might undermine that capacity.

Second, I've already outlined what I think should happen, several times, so maybe go back and read the thread.

Third, avoidance is always going to happen - expecting MNCs (or anyone) to voluntarily pay a 'fair' share is fantasy, la-la land economics - 'fair' is subjective. You can make the system more equitable to be sure to try and skew spending decisions etc more towards socially desirable outcomes, but again 'socially desirable' is subjective and what the political system wants is not necessarily socially desirable.

Fourth, despite what I said at #2, here's what I'd do.....

• Get rid of the ambiguity in relation to territories like the IoM etc - either a territory is part of a state or its not part of state and by extension - you are either in the EU/EEA or you are not in the EU/EEA
• To trade in the EU, a company must be registered in the EU
• Sales are booked once and booked in the jurisdiction of the purchaser
• Profits are booked in the jurisdiction of the MS in which the company (or its European subsidiary) is registered and taxed according to the policies of that MS
• Tighten up the whole area of transfer pricing - at least make the OECD Guidelines mandatory.
• Finally, not be surprised that when all this 'fair' tax is handed over that governments don't become efficient, just more wasteful

Was it right that Apple should pay 0.005% tax on profits? Simple question.

We basically let Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc decide how much tax they wanted to pay. Is that ok?

Is it ok for our sovereignty to be over-ridden by large tech firms?

And finally is it right that these firms should pay a reasonable of tax? Lets say for the sake of argument 4-5% on profits.

Jawgap

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There are ways and means to force everyone to pay a reasonable amount of tax. Just giving up isn't really the answer.

Is it fair that companies like Apple and Amazon avoid/evade tax while Joe Bloggs family retailer has to pay their share.

I agree Ireland has been wholly complicit in what the likes of Apple have done. Its pretty shameful really and has effectively amounted to a form of money laundering through this country.

You should also make a distinction between companies engaging in legitimate manufacturing and services here and those who are based here purely to engage in tax avoidance. Its the latter we want to tackle not the former.

Our 12.5% rate is still competitive and will attract responsible companies, not those only interested in paying 0.0005% tax.

You would be the exception by the way in saying we can't do anything or we shouldn't do anything.

The majority of people recognise 1. some of these large tech firms aren't paying even close to a reasonable amount of corporation tax and 2. something meaningful should be done to force them.

Any evidence of evasion on the part of these companies?

Most companies/individuals pay the taxes due under the legislation - being 'Joe Bloggs' the family retailers (or even Mick Wallace the friendly builder) doesn't mean every example of the same being compliant - as the list of defaulters shows.

Anyway, in my experience with family members who run their own businesses, small business people and farmers are just as creative at avoiding tax as any MNC

Mr. Incognito

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There are ways and means to force everyone to pay a reasonable amount of tax. Just giving up isn't really the answer.

Is it fair that companies like Apple and Amazon avoid/evade tax while Joe Bloggs family retailer has to pay their share.

I agree Ireland has been wholly complicit in what the likes of Apple have done. Its pretty shameful really and has effectively amounted to a form of money laundering through this country.

You should also make a distinction between companies engaging in legitimate manufacturing and services here and those who are based here purely to engage in tax avoidance. Its the latter we want to tackle not the former.

Our 12.5% rate is still competitive and will attract responsible companies, not those only interested in paying 0.0005% tax.

You would be the exception by the way in saying we can't do anything or we shouldn't do anything.

The majority of people recognise 1. some of these large tech firms aren't paying even close to a reasonable amount of corporation tax and 2. something meaningful should be done to force them.

Okay. I'm not really going to labour the point but Apple are engaged in legitimate manufacturing. They employ 4,000 people in Cork.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/a-look-inside-a-global-giant-apple-and-their-european-headquarters-in-cork-333878.html

Amazon and Apple are not engaged in tax avoidance. They did everything legally. The EU has charged Ireland with granted what amounts to illegal state aid by signing off on their arrangment. That will be decided in the Courts but it is Ireland not apple being charged.

The majority of people recognise 1. some of these large tech firms aren't paying even close to a reasonable amount of corporation tax and 2. something meaningful should be done to force them.

This worries me. Reasonable is subjective. I think 0,00% is perfectly fine as long as they continue to pump jobs into Ireland because before these Tech Companies arrived our young people were emigrating with no skills and most of our industry was agricultural.

Secondly, the majority of people have no idea how tax works. You cannot "force" a company to do anything. Period. You create laws. Guess what, so do other jurisdictions. Manufacturing costs for Dell were too high in Limerick. So they left for Poland.

Guess how Limerick is doing now- highest unemployment rate in Ireland. Ireland should be doing everything in its power to retain these companies and their success has lead to huge advancements in Technology in Ireland and ou own indigenous growth.

The Collisons dounded Stipe benefiting from computer courses taught at UL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Collison

Anyone who doesnt lick their opinions of the Star and the Sunday independent which is full of equally uninformed opinions knows that in the real world these companies will never pay tax and you cannot "force" them to. You instead form a strategy to make money for the exchequer from services and VAT and upskilling indigenous peoples and companies.

Jawgap

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Was it right that Apple should pay 0.005% tax on profits? Simple question.

We basically let Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc decide how much tax they wanted to pay. Is that ok?

Is it ok for our sovereignty to be over-ridden by large tech firms?

And finally is it right that these firms should pay a reasonable of tax? Lets say for the sake of argument 4-5% on profits.

OK, for a start you need to get a grip on some basic concepts. First, you asked about 'amounts'

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Well what's your suggestion on how these companies can pay a reasonable amount of corporation tax?

....now you're asking about proportions - which is it you actually think they should pay - a fair amount, or a fair proportion? And how are you assessing 'fair'? Relative to profit, turnover, cashflow?

As for the question 'is it ok?' - yes, it is. You may have a different view, and that's fine.

Mr. Incognito

I hate cutting posts apart but this needs to be addressed.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Get rid of the ambiguity in relation to territories like the IoM etc - either a territory is part of a state or its not part of state and by extension - you are either in the EU/EEA or you are not in the EU/EEA

This was done in the Budget 2016

To trade in the EU, a company must be registered in the EU

Registered? For tax. This is already required.

Sales are booked once and booked in the jurisdiction of the purchaser

I dont think you understand accounting or how things are "booked"

Profits are booked in the jurisdiction of the MS in which the company (or its European subsidiary) is registered and taxed according to the policies of that MS

This already happens

Tighten up the whole area of transfer pricing - at least make the OECD Guidelines mandatory.

Ireland is in line with the OECD Guidelines already

Finally, not be surprised that when all this 'fair' tax is handed over that governments don't become efficient, just more wasteful

There is no such thing as a "fair" tax

Was it right that Apple should pay 0.005% tax on profits? Simple question.

"Right" is irrelevant. It was lawful

We basically let Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc decide how much tax they wanted to pay. Is that ok?

No. that's not actually what happened. They paid the tax in accordance with the tax ruling for apple. They others pay tax in accordance with the tax law

Is it ok for our sovereignty to be over-ridden by large tech firms?

ummmm. What? Do you understand what soverignty is? We set down the tax law. They pay the tax in accordance with the law. What's your issue.

And finally is it right that these firms should pay a reasonable of tax? Lets say for the sake of argument 4-5% on profits.

They pay 12.5 % on profits.

I'm happy to debate or explain how tax works to you if you have any technical questions. When you start bandying about information which shows that you are basically repeating other ill informed commentary in the salacious aspects of an ill informed press and in fact most of these issue are common sense issues that actually exist in law already I'm afraid that your opinion is clearly ill informed.

Jawgap

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I hate cutting posts apart but this needs to be addressed.



I'm happy to debate or explain how tax works to you if you have any technical questions. When you start bandying about information which shows that you are basically repeating other ill informed commentary in the salacious aspects of an ill informed press and in fact most of these issue are common sense issues that actually exist in law already I'm afraid that your opinion is clearly ill informed.

Hey, I'll fully admit to not being a tax expert.

Although, in relation to the IoM etc I wasn't just thinking about how we regard them, but in the context of the EU - MSs shouldn't have territory that is in some kind of half-way house in respect of the EU. also in relation to the OECD Guidelines - again I wasn't just thinking about our status in respect of them but their status across the entire EU/EEA.

My own view is simple -

.....evasion, bad - prosecute them.

....avoidance, legal - bash away - it's up to us to change the laws, and it's ridiculous to expect anyone (not just MNCs) to pay more than minimum of taxes required under our legislation.

As an aside, beyond what I pay in tax, if I want to up my contribution to society I'll make a donation to a charity of my choice tackling an issue I think is important (and if it meets the threshold I'll give them enough of my details so they can get the tax back on it).

seamus

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Was it right that Apple should pay 0.005% tax on profits? Simple question.

We basically let Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc decide how much tax they wanted to pay. Is that ok?

Is it ok for our sovereignty to be over-ridden by large tech firms?

And finally is it right that these firms should pay a reasonable of tax? Lets say for the sake of argument 4-5% on profits.

It seems pretty clear here that you just don't want to engage on the topic and want to be able to complain about MNC's without considering the legal basis behind how taxation works.

Instead you're firing rhetorical questions with made-up figures in response to a post of Jawgap's which if you actually read, agrees with you that we should break down the structures which allow this creative accounting to occur.

One thing which people probably don't consider is that if Apple, for example, paid 12.5% tax on the profit on every iPhone sold in Ireland, 33% in France, etc, then you'd start to see a huge disparity in pricing, far worse than what we experience now, as companies balance tax payable against the cost of sales. To a certain degree, as a tiny island economy, we benefit from a much lower cost for imported goods because the cost of importing the goods can be swallowed by the the manufacturer.

There's also the matter that if were to move towards a system which forces MNCs to "properly" pay tax, then that will require a concerted effort amongst the largest economies, and tax harmonisation across the EU. We can't hold onto a 12.5% corporate tax rate while complaining about creative accounting. It's hypocritical. We're either in favour of companies paying more taxes on their profits, or we're in favour of them shopping around for the best rates. You can't have both.

Fair taxation is an incredibly complicated matter. Blanket rates are actually the ultimate in unfairness because they don't take differences in businesses into account. So talk of 5%'s here and there is pure fantasy.

Shurimgreat

We're not going to agree on this its clear. Corporation tax is one of those divisive topics that few people agree on.

On one side you have those who are basically of the view that they don't care if Apple never paid a red cent or as near to it as makes no odds in corporation tax as long as they employ people in Ireland.

On the other, some people myself included believe Apple should pay a minimum and reasonable amount of corporation tax, roughly 5% would be my view.

My main point is we shouldn't allow our nation and sovereignty to be ridden roughshod by large corporates who base their European HQs here in the hopes of paying negligible amounts of tax. On the one hand we have people whinging about U2 and the stars of Mrs. Brown's Boys avoiding tax and on the other a lot of people are ok with the large corporates doing the same.

As a nation we are better than that. But anyways, like I said we aren't going to agree and rather than continue around in circles I'm going to check out of this thread. People know my views from my previous posts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mr. Incognito

Shurimgreat wrote: »

We're not going to agree on this its clear. Corporation tax is one of those divisive topics that few people agree on.

On one side you have those who are basically of the view that they don't care if Apple never paid a red cent or as near to it as makes no odds in corporation tax as long as they employ people in Ireland.

On the other, some people myself included believe Apple should pay a minimum and reasonable amount of corporation tax, roughly 5% would be my view.

My main point is we shouldn't allow our nation and sovereignty to be ridden roughshod by large corporates who base their European HQs here in the hopes of paying negligible amounts of tax. On the one hand we have people whinging about U2 and the stars of Mrs. Brown's Boys avoiding tax and on the other a lot of people are ok with the large corporates doing the same.

As a nation we are better than that. But anyways, like I said we aren't going to agree and rather than continue around in circles I'm going to check out of this thread. People know my views from my previous posts.

I havent read any of your previous posts.

You havent articulated where you stand.

5% of what? 5% of Sales in Ireland? If so then the exchequer takes 23% of Sales of Apple products in Ireland from VAT.

The European Commission is alleging that Apple should pay 5% of the profits booked here but in Apples Case that covers Europe and North Africa. Once again they will pay local taxes on sales and then the profits are expatriated through Ireland to their ultimate holding company.

It used to be a Stateless company but since they changed the rules I believe media reports are saying its now in Bermuda where they pay a big fat 0%.

The difference in opinion as you put it is the real world, reality where a simple holding company will ensure these companies pay no tax and the make believe world of the Red Tops and the Sunday independent where economic reality is dumbed down to tasty sounding soundbites like Riding roughshod over our Soverignty!!

What does that even mean?

We set the law. They obey it. We purposely picked this tax regime for the good of the nation which was backward and broken. They are bowing to our soverign strategy which has been successful. Look at Greece, Look at Ireland. One is in recovery. One is not.

The people who set the law are not stupid. They know that Apple will simply incorporate companies in jurisdictions that allow them to avoid tax.

If we for example set a law of 5% say with no R & D Credits or Capital Allowances (of which we wont go into for the purposes of your simplistic superficial knowledge of tax) what would Apple or Pyzier or Facebook or Google or Linkedin or any of these companies do?

They would buy cheap property in another jurisdiction and move. And where they move a lot of the other start ups which incorporate to poach their talent or vice versa would go with them.

Belfast, Spain, Italy, Poland, Bulgaria. Take your pick.

Then you and your bitter buddies and the rest of us would be on the dole queue with our moral high ground.