LyrArc Article Gist
This Washington Post article by Henry Farrell explains the implications of the 2016 EU ruling on Apple asking it to pay 13 billion euros in back taxes. Other countries in the European Union are upset that Ireland is taking away business and siphoning away tax revenues from their country, and giving most of it back to Apple. Normally the European Union Commission does not have authority over taxes in the member states. However considering the social and political implications at a time of deep recession and political upheaval in the EU and the U.S., the European Union Commission under Margarethe Vestager has seen it proper to look at arrangements in which companies come up with tax arrangements that deprive member states unfairly of tax revenues- revenues that could support social welfare and basic education, healthcare services at a time of painful cuts. A tax rate of .005% in 2013 for Apple is cited by Vestager as she points out that Apple's taxable profit does not correspond to economic reality, as most operations are conducted outside Ireland. Ireland is just on paper the tax location for EU operations. Vestager has thus come up with a legal approach based on Ireland's tax arrangements being a form of illegal state subsidy, which is not allowed under EU rules, and gives the EU Commission authority to require that it be reversed by paying the back taxes of 13 billion euros. Farrell answers the question why the U.S. Treasury is saying that Apple should not have to pay these taxes, as the U.S. also hopes to get some of these taxes at some future date with Apple repatriating profits to the U.S. under a still to be set tax arrangement. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Faiola points to public opinion in Ireland that shows the recovery in Ireland looks better on paper than it really is. Opinion polls show a large gap between the views of the government and of people in Ireland. EU estimates of growth in GDP of about 1% is inflated by profits of multinational companies such as eBay, Facebook and Google, a large part of which is repatriated. The multinational companies employ only 7% of the workforce. In reality consumer spending, retail sales and bank lending have suffered, and unemployment is at 14%. The feeling in Ireland is that the austerity cuts alone- spending cuts, higher sales and property taxes- with no effort to support growth, will leave the country in this situation for many years. A ruling by Ireland's attorney general that a referendum is required for approval of the new EU agreement on fiscal discipline, means that a referendum wll be held in June 2012. In 2001 and 2008 Ireland rejected EU treaties, only to obtain concessions and approve the treaty in second referendums. This time the referendum is expected to be seen as a vote on the three year agreement reached by Ireland with the EU, the IMF, and ECB in 2010, as its banks were on the verge of collapse in a property bubble. That agreement imposed strict austerity measures. Under the treaty terms only 12 of 17 EU countries have to ratify the treaty. The Socialist candidate in upcoming French presidential elections, Mr. Hollande, has called for renegotiation of the fiscal treaty to include measures to promote growth. For young people in particular, immigration- to Australia, New Zealand, Canada- is looking like an attractive option. For new graduates jobs are scarce, and cuts in university subsidies mean additional out of pocket costs of over $8000 a year with no student loan options....

LyrArc Article Gist
Rappaport of the NYT asks how it is possible that the U.S. Treasury is critical of the EU Commission's ruling that Apple pay back $13 billion in taxes because of its low tax rate of .005% in Europe, when Treasury is strongly critical of tax avoidance. The negligible tax by Ireland, base of Apple operations, is seen as a state subsidy not available to competitors. It also, as the EU Commission says, does not correspond to economic reality because the revenues are mostly made outside Ireland. An arrangement that is basically a strategy of tax avoidance. Today the leading candidates for president, Trump and Clinton, the major parties, and Congress, all are critical of tax avoidance strategies which deprive Treasury of much needed revenues. Restoring upward mobility is a priority today and programs to provide tution free access to public colleges, healthcare access, and infrastructure development, require public funding. Then why is the U.S.Treasury critical of the EU ruling? It is because Treasury sees this as money that should be coming to Treasury not the EU. However Treasury has failed to make this clear. The Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition's Clark Gascoigne, calls it very ironic. And other experts say the money would not be coming to the U.S. anyway unless a low tax rate induces Apple to repatriate profits to the U.S. One expert calls it hypocritical. Senator Schumer says he agrees with Paul Ryan that tax legislation for a low tax rate for repatriation of profits back to the U.S. should be the next step, so that an infrastructure fund can be setup. Senator Levin and transparency advocates sees the EU action as normal and to be expected, as the anti-establishment sentiment today comes from such dealings that create the impression that the system is rigged in favor of some corporations. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ discloses that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition 160 page report in 2012 described Google's anti-compettitive practices and recommended a anit-trust lawsuit for three anti-competitive practices. The WSJ obtained documents based on the Freedom of Information Act. Mullins and Winkler provide a detailed account of the practices cited in the report as anti-competitive. The FTC Commissioners did not act on the report and instead voted unanimously in 2013 to end the investigation after Google agreed to some voluntary changes. The report stated a different conclusion: Google's "conduct has resulted-and will result- in real harm to consumers and to innovation in the online search and advertising markets." Mullins and Winkler point out that this report shows Google's statement that no wrongdoing was found is incorrect.

LyrArc Article Gist
Fact checking Apple CEO Tim Cook's statements on the EU Commission ruling for $13 billion in back taxes, shows that CEO Tim Cook's statement that "we never asked for, nor did we receive any special deals," is not true. Ireland let Apple determine what it would pay in tax, and Apple had the benefit of loopholes in Irish tax laws, the fact check by experts shows here. Apple's Cook also says it would hurt investment and jobs in Ireland. Another NYT article showed that the entire healthcare budget of Ireland would be covered by the $13 billion, and 66% of its budget for social support services to the public. Apple has 22,000 employees in Europe and 6000 in Ireland in 2016. Based on the $13 billion owed in taxes, for every job in Ireland the cost to Ireland is 2.17 million euros, and for every job in the EU the cost is 590,000 euros. Apple could turn around and locate in some other place, other than Ireland, in which case Ireland does not get the 6000 jobs. This is Ireland's incentive to give Apple tax benefits. Only if all EU countries had common tax laws would it be possible to avoid this situation, and generate much needed tax revenues at a time of cuts in public spending in healthcare, education, and social services, and invest in infrastructure, worker retraining. The alternative is for the EU to look at other remedies. This is what the EU Commissioner Vestager did when she announced that this was a state subsidy and illegal under EU rules. Because the appeal by Apple goes to the EU Courts the appeal is difficult say legal experts. The EU courts look at the legal aspects of the ruling, was it justified, not at the overall aspect of the ruling by Vestager, as EU Competition Commissioner. This may be why there is so much outcry from Apple, and other digital companies.  ...