We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
AMID THE FALLOUT from last week’s European Commission ruling that Ireland must recover €13 billion in back taxes from Apple, the debate has widened to the role of multinational companies as a whole, in our economy.
On Sunday’s Marian Finucane show on RTE Radio One, tax lawyer and commentator Suzanne Kelly claimed that multinational companies in Ireland pay 80% of corporation tax, 50% of PAYE and VAT, and 92% of customs and excise.
And during Wednesday’s Dáil debate, Fianna Fáil TD Jim O’Callaghan echoed the first two of these claims.
Several readers got in touch to ask about this, including Mike in Ballinteer in South Dublin, and Joe Kennedy in Cork, so we checked it out.
(Remember, if you hear big claims over the airwaves, email factcheck@thejournal.ie or tweet @TJ_FactCheck).
We’re going to assess each claim individually.
What was said:
You can listen to Kelly’s claims in full here and read Jim O’Callaghan’s comments here.
But since the original requests we got from readers related specifically to Suzanne Kelly’s comments on Marian Finucane, this is the statement we’re focusing on.
In response to a listener who had accused “Apple and their likes” of paying “peanuts” in tax, Kelly said:
80% of corporation tax is paid by the multinationals. 50% of PAYE is paid for by the multinationals. 50% of VAT is paid for by the multinationals. And 92% of customs and excise is paid for by the multinationals.
Claim 1: Multinational companies pay 80% of corporation tax in Ireland
Verdict: TRUE
In response to FactCheck’s request for evidence on all claims, Suzanne Kelly directed us to this October 2014 report by the Statistics and Economic Research Branch of Revenue.
On page seven, the report states that from 2008 to 2012, 80.58% of all corporation tax was paid by companies assigned to the “large cases division” (LCD).
These are big companies and high net-worth individuals which exceed certain turnover and tax thresholds, but they are not exclusively foreign-owned multinationals.
Some MNCs are not LCDs, and some LCDs are not MNCs.
However, the same report states that multinational companies (MNCs) “match fairly closely” with companies in the large cases division, so there is considerable overlap.
And the report also states that from 2008-2012, MNCs were estimated to have paid more than 75% of all corporation tax (over €15 billion out of €20.5 billion), and in 2012 specifically, they paid more than 79% (€3.4 billion out of €4.3 billion).
In a subsequent report on the tax take in 2015, the Statistics and Economic Research Branch stated that “Foreign owned multinational companies account for around 80% of corporation tax receipts…”
Since net corporation tax receipts amounted to €6.873 billion in 2015, this suggests foreign-owned MNCs paid €5.498 billion in corporation tax last year.
The same report found that LCDs paid 77% of corporation tax. With MNCs paying “around 80%”, this further supports the high level of overlap between the two categories.
Unfortunately, the report doesn’t give raw numbers for corporation tax paid by MNCs specifically, and Revenue was unable to provide them, but the evidence available is enough to warrant a verdict of TRUE.
Claim 2: Multinationals account for 50% of PAYE
Verdict: UNPROVEN
The first thing to note here is that PAYE is an income tax deducted at source from the wages of workers. So it is not multinational companies who “pay” PAYE, it is their employees.
But this is well understood, and it’s clear that claiming MNCs “pay for” 50% of PAYE is shorthand for “50% of PAYE is accounted for by employees of MNCs”, or “MNCs account for 50% of PAYE”.
Unfortunately, while Revenue was able to estimate the percentage of corporation tax paid by MNCs in 2015, it somewhat surprisingly does not systematically track various tax takes from MNCs in Ireland.
Neither report mentioned above gives amounts or percentages of PAYE accounted for by MNCs specifically, and Revenue was unable to provide FactCheck that information.
However, the October 2014 report does state that: “large cases division companies account for 56% of PAYE”.
As we’ve already seen, large case division companies are not exclusively made up of foreign-owned MNCs, but as we have also seen, there is very significant overlap between the two groups in terms of corporation tax take.
So whatever PAYE is accounted for by LCDs, it is likely that the amount accounted for by MNCs is very similar.
However, we cannot make that assumption, and without proper figures from Revenue, the evidence available to us at this time only supports a verdict of UNPROVEN.
Claim: Multinationals account for 50% of VAT
Verdict: UNPROVEN
Once again, due to the lack of systematic MNC tracking by Revenue, we’re forced to resort to figures for LCDs, as a proxy for MNCs. Which is unfortunate.
The October 2014 report states that: “LCD cases account for…52% of VAT”.
Again, given the very high level of overlap between LCD companies and MNCs as regards corporation tax, it is likely that MNCs do pay around 50% of VAT, but we cannot make this assumption.
We rate the claim UNPROVEN.
Claim: Multinationals account for 92% of customs and excise
Verdict: UNPROVEN
Firstly, it’s important to note that when companies pay Revenue excise, they then almost always recoup all of those payments, by adding to the price of products like tobacco, alcohol and fuel.
This is roughly analogous to the point made above about PAYE. The cost of whatever excise is paid by MNCs is ultimately borne, more or less, by the customers of MNCs.
And secondly, customs and excise are two separate levies. It seems likely Suzanne Kelly was referring only to excise, since the evidence she cited only refers to excise, but our request for clarification on this point was not answered in time for publication.
In any event, according to the October 2014 report: “LCD cases account for…92% of Excise…”
Again, based on the overlap, it seems likely that MNCs would pay somewhere in this region of excise to Revenue, but without a specific measure from Revenue, we cannot make this assumption.
We also rate this claim UNPROVEN.
To read Revenue’s 2014 report on corporation tax, click here.
To read their 2016 report on corporation tax, click here.
Send your FactCheck requests to factcheck@thejournal.ie
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I call bull on the VAT anyway.
Contracted to a MNC recently they told me to take the VAT off of the invoice as they are exempt.
Clarified with Revenue: Any MNC who ‘soley’ exports all their products manufactured in Ireland, are exempt from VAT.
The funny thing is, they say they all are for export, but then suppliers have to re-import them at a higher cost. Nice little loophole they have going with Revenue.
The drugs in question are indeed used by the people here. The drugs cost only cents to manufacture each, yet they have to be re-imported to Ireland and cost over €100 per dose at you local pharmacy.
Sickening.
they say you leatn something new everyday – well now I have
But do all these companies pay the same tax rates as others, is all tax rates levelled uniformly and openly available to anyone who wishes to available of them. Then all legal under the EU rules Ireland is signed up for.
On other hand if there is speacial rates and deals for some companies and not others, which MR Cook from Apple said under oath in America that his company negotiated and availed if, then that is ‘SELECTIVE’ and ILLEGAL STATE AID. This is the ONLY question which EU have ruled on.
It’s not about the company paying VAT it’s about 50% of the VAT collected in a year is from income generated by MNCs.
Brent – you misunderstand the nature of VAT. Only end consumers actually pay VAT. The companies in the supply chain are merely collecting it on behalf of the Revenue.
If I am a small domestic company and buy goods for €1000. My supplier charges me €230 in Vat on top. I sell on goods to a consumer for €2000 and charge €460 in Vat. I prepare my tax at the end of month and I deduct the 230 already paid to my supplier and give the remaining 230 to the Revenue.
If my company is chiefly an exporter, I am not collecting vat from my customers. I would not have the ability to deduct vat already paid to my supplier. So the Revenue does not oblige my supplier to charge me vat in the first place. But whatever country my goods end up in , there will be vat charged to the end consumer.
Neither company is actually paying vat. Only the consumer (who is not selling on to somebody else) gets stuck with the VAT.
The difference between the domestic company and the exporter is merely one of when and where cash for vat changes hands.
There are other classes of company who can also do this – such as financial institutions as, again they do not get to charge the vat on to the consumer and net the purchases vat off that figure
Claim 2 has to be false.If there are 200k people working for MNC’s in Ireland and the workforce is almost 2 million give or take,then there is no way that figure could be 50%.
Depends on how much their staff earn.
50% of the workforce earns 28,500 or less, that equates to 4500 a year in income tax roughly (incl usc, prsi) One person on 100,000 contributes 39500 by comparison.
4500*1.8m = 8.1bn, divided by 39.5k is 205k workers. So if all non mnc workers were paid 28500 and all mnc workers were paid 100k the claim would pretty much be true. Obviously this is hugely oversimplified but it shows how it could be true.
You have to take into account all the smaller companies that supply services to them and the work involved in building new factories, offices etc for them. At lot of the construction work in Dublin at the moment is for large multinational companies
True Michael, it’s good to see construction, plumbing, electricians booming again. They offer a route to guys without a college degree to earn some good money. I’m just past college age myself and it’s good to see friends working instead of going straight to the dole like they would have 7/8 years ago.
I am O·005% sure that Revenue have not given all the facts. Bruton was queried in the Dail on the amount of taxpayers money MNCs received in grants and to whome. He had no answer.
Months later pages upon pages comprising a list of ccompanies was published. Some MNCs worth Billions of Euros received more than one grant. Revenue and the IDA never calculate the taxpayers money it costs against tax received by same companiies when and if they publish ffigures. The last published figures were 2014 and it took a Dail request as already mentioned. As mentioned in today’s papers, all the latest news of secret tax deals need to be published. Transparency was the FG/LP buzz word. What has happened? Paddy wants and demands to know.
@christy, give it a rest. Overwhelming Ireland inc had massively benefited from the MNC’s. Maybe your small audience of people before profit might buy you highly disingenuous spin on reality or I’m wrong and you really are stupid.
There’s that magic year again 2014. They all Keep mentioning that. The EU commission investigation was between the years 2003 to 2013. Maybe factcheck could do a factcheck on apple between these years.
2014 would be the most recent year of figures. Many companies will not have filed their 2015 accounts yet.
The listener was obviously talking about the finding from the EU commission as Suzanne Kelly would have known. So why did she answer for the years that the investigation was about. She didn’t. She mentioned the magic year of 2014.
Where the point of that since the investigation and the 13 billion refer to the years 2003 to 2013. Not 2014.
In response to a listener who had accused “Apple and their likes” of paying “peanuts” in tax, Kelly said:
80% of corporation tax is paid by the multinationals. 50% of PAYE is paid for by the multinationals. 50% of VAT is paid for by the multinationals. And 92% of customs and excise is paid for by the multinationals.
In response to FactCheck’s request for evidence on all claims, Suzanne Kelly directed us to this October 2014 report by the Statistics and Economic Research Branch of Revenue.
“In response to FactCheck’s request for evidence on all claims, Suzanne Kelly directed us to this October 2014 report by the Statistics and Economic Research Branch of Revenue.
On page seven, the report states that from 2008 to 2012, 80.58% of all corporation tax was paid by companies assigned to the “large cases division” (LCD).”
Maybe Kelly read the report.
“However, the same report states that multinational companies (MNCs) “match fairly closely” with companies in the large cases division, so there is considerable overlap.
And the report also states that from 2008-2012, MNCs were estimated to have paid more than 75% of all corporation tax (over €15 billion out of €20.5 billion), and in 2012 specifically, they paid more than 79% (€3.4 billion out of €4.3 billion).”
On page 7 nousername.
On page seven, the report states that from 2008 to 2012, 80.58% of all corporation tax was paid by companies assigned to the “large cases division” (LCD).
These are big companies and high net-worth individuals which exceed certain turnover and tax thresholds, but they are not exclusively foreign-owned multinationals.
But they are not exclusively foreign owned.
Did you miss thst part ?
So again it doesn’t answer the listeners question.
She must have missed that part too nousername if she read the report….
These are big companies and high net-worth individuals which exceed certain turnover and tax thresholds, but they are not exclusively foreign-owned multinationals.
“However, the same report states that multinational companies (MNCs) “match fairly closely” with companies in the large cases division, so there is considerable overlap.
And the report also states that from 2008-2012, MNCs were estimated to have paid more than 75% of all corporation tax (over €15 billion out of €20.5 billion), and in 2012 specifically, they paid more than 79% (€3.4 billion out of €4.3 billion).”
You said that she directed people to this report. The report covers a broader period then 2014.
“But since the original requests we got from readers related specifically to Suzanne Kelly’s comments on Marian Finucane, this is the statement we’re focusing on.
In response to a listener who had accused “Apple and their likes” of paying “peanuts” in tax, Kelly said:
80% of corporation tax is paid by the multinationals. 50% of PAYE is paid for by the multinationals. 50% of VAT is paid for by the multinationals. And 92% of customs and excise is paid for by the multinationals.
Claim 1: Multinational companies pay 80% of corporation tax in Ireland
Verdict: TRUE”
The listener said that Apple and the likes pay peanuts, Kelly provided a response and the Journal checked her response and found this part to be true.
“However, the same report states that multinational companies (MNCs) “match fairly closely” with companies in the large cases division, so there is considerable overlap.
And the report also states that from 2008-2012, MNCs were estimated to have paid more than 75% of all corporation tax (over €15 billion out of €20.5 billion), and in 2012 specifically, they paid more than 79% (€3.4 billion out of €4.3 billion).”
I’ll keep posting it if you like.
“And the report also states that from 2008-2012, MNCs were estimated to have paid more than 75% of all corporation tax (over €15 billion out of €20.5 billion), and in 2012 specifically, they paid more than 79% (€3.4 billion out of €4.3 billion).”
If you disagree with it then that’s fine, but there;’s nothing wrong with what Kelly said in regards to that part of her claim, if you disagree with the report, then provide your own facts.
Post away nousername. Show me where in that report or Suzanne Kelly response, she specifically answers the question in relation to the listeners question. She doesn’t, she points to something that doesn’t break down the facts and figures individually from companies. She points out something that does not answer the question. The question was apple not paying enough tax. Not what the combined breakdown of every multinational pays in Ireland.
The facts are that between the years of the investigation that the EU commission investigated in relation to apple was a period of ten years in which they say was 0.005 %.
When it comes to facts you like posting parts of something like you did the other day thinking no one notices like the Santander case. Here the other day
I had to show that you posted only parts of the story.
Do excuse me if I take what you say with a pinch of salt.
nousername
Wed 3:03 PM # 34 9
On 7 November 2014, the General Court found in the companies’ favour and rejected the Commission’s conclusion that the scheme amounted to illegal state aid.
The reason the General Court found in their favour was based on the nature of how state aid is defined.
This will be absolutely critical in the Irish case.
For a tax concession, such as that given to Apple, to qualify as illegal state aid, four criteria must be fulfilled.
* The aid must be provided by the state and financed by state resources.
* It must grant an advantage.
* The advantage must be selective – i.e., it goes to one company, or one category of companies with a specific commercial activity, and not to others.
* Finally, it must distort competition and trade within the EU.
The third criterion is the key one, selectivity.
In the case of Santander, Santusa and Autogrill, the General Court ruled that the Commission hadn’t proved that the scheme selectively benefitted some companies over others.
It argued that the concession under Spain’s tax code was theoretically available to anyone, so therefore it wasn’t selective.
LITTLEONE
Wed 6:05 PM # 2 23
Nousername. You do realise that ruling has been overturned.
But the legal tussle over the Santander case didn’t end in November 2014.
The European Commission appealed the General Court judgment, which meant the issue went up to the European Court of Justice itself.
Essentially, the Commission argued that the General Court was wrong in the way it interpreted European law in how it addressed the selectivity issue.
Specifically the Commission argued that the General Court was too restrictive in how it addressed the issue of how you identified a category of companies.
Few people outside Spain’s corporate sector would have paid any attention to these complex, legalistic goings on in the sombre environs of the Luxembourg court buildings.
But some were.
Outside of Spain, only two EU member states sent lawyers to make detailed written and oral submissions to the hearing.
One was Germany. The other was Ireland.
In fact, the Santander case had been regarded with intense interest by Dublin for at least a year, and probably dating back to the point at which the European Commission appealed the General Court decision which would have been some time in late 2014 – i.e., the same year that Brussels had issued its preliminary negative finding against Ireland and Apple.
The Irish Attorney General, the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance jointly recommended to the Government that Ireland intervene in the Santander case.
But the battles at the European Court of Justice on the issue were subject to one more dramatic twist on 28 July last.
Despite the interventions by Santander – and Ireland – the European Court of Justice Advocate General, during the appeal by the Commission against the General Court’s decision, issued a legal opinion on the matter at hand.
The Advocate General, Belgian judge Melchior Wathelet, rejected the General Court’s ruling which had overturned the Commission’s case against Santander.
This meant he agreed with the Commission’s interpretation of selectivity, and disagreed with Santander’s (and Ireland’s) interpretation.
Here’s a relatively clear analysis by tax consultants KPMG on the dramatic development.
“The Advocate General noted that the fact that such a measure is available to a large number of taxpayers, or that the conditions to benefit from it are easy to fulfill, does not call into question its selective nature but only the degree of selectivity.
“In the case at hand, the AG concluded that undertakings taxable in Spain and that acquire shareholdings in a foreign company on the one hand, and in a domestic company on the other hand, are in a comparable situation.
“As a consequence, the Spanish aid is selective, since it benefits undertakings performing cross-border transactions, but not undertakings performing the same transactions at the national level.”
It’s important to stress that this is only a legal opinion. The full judgment on the Santander case will probably take another few months.
But in 80% of cases, the final judgment in ECJ rulings concur with the Advocate General’s opinion.
This means the Irish Government faces a cliffhanger.
Dublin is likely to appeal the Commission’s decision, and it is almost certain that it will rely heavily on existing case law to argue that what was provided to Apple was, strictly speaking, not selective, as the concept is understood in state aid law.
As one observer put it, the Commission would have to show that it had done due diligence and proved that lots of other companies in Ireland, whether multinational or not, could not have availed of a similar tax deal.
But…
If the final judgment in the Santander case – which will probably come out after the Government jumps – declares that the Commission’s definition of selectivity is the correct legal one, then that judgment would trump all other European case law.
That would make Ireland’s appeal very difficult to win, according to several experts.
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0902/813591-santander-apple/&ved=0ahUKEwjMqJeD3v3OAhXsLMAKHad1Av8QFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNG5yjZ9Z4Fgtn3BANpRtt6FpObIJQ&sig2=J0wNEmYSJ8fgd4G5wDK81Q
The question was ‘Apple and it’s like’.
Exactly Jason. All this obfuscate. Why all the sidestepping and deflection on something simple.
The listener asked about apple not paying enough tax.
The investigation was done over a period of 10 years which said apple paid 0.005 %.
Simple answer no one seems to want to answer.
What % of tax did apple pay for the time period of the EU investigation?
Either they don’t know to which they should say they don’t know but pointing to something that’s irrelevant to the question is not helping.
Littleone: While I don’t feel obliged to respond to your post – I should really point out that I was responding to another poster:
shane o malley
Wed 2:51 PM # 8 45
why are F/F F/G & LAB all banging on about tax rates,,this is about competition and state aid,, nothing to do with our tax rates,,F/F say this deal was open to any other company,,my question is how many other company’s was it offered to,,there be the problem,,the EU are saying no others were offered the deal apple were offered ,,,
I posted that part in response.
It’s not all about you and we’re not out to get you lol.
Honestly……
Sure nousername. Yet you didn’t post the vital part of that link . The fact that the decision was overturned and that the selectivity issue is about to be judged which very may go in the commission favour which then becomes European case law. Something that the government and apple would be up against. What you posted was irrelevant also as that was no longer relevant as the decision had been overturned.
That’s interesting Little One, but it doesn’t address one question. How the fk, can your word allowance on a single comment be so big. I’ve noticed certain other contributors on various subject strings have the same concession? Is there a specialist comment allowance?
Can we also put to bed the claim by Dubliners who say they contribute most to the state despite a report here that says Cork contributes more.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/revealed-the-county-that-generates-the-most-revenue-in-the-state-35031768.html
Is that not based on the amount each worker contributes? Last time I checked that there is a hell of a lot more people working in Dublin than there are in Cork. So the combined contribution in Dublin would be greater.
Padraig, you should read the news item you posted. The report refers to per capita capital generation not overall contributions. Dublin contributes in excess of 50% of TAXES paid to the State. So Dubliners subvent Cork and every other town in Ireland. Even our Property Taxes are used to provide services in Cork. Dublin Airport Authority charges every person using Dublin Airport an extra charge to subvent the loss-making Cork airport. So, I think you meant to say: “Thank you, kind Dubliners!”
I work in Dublin, live in Wexford. So do 100′s of others. So thank you culchies.
Never before met a supplier that thinks the customer should thank them
So, Jason…..yet another reason to be grateful to Dublin. It gives you an opportunity to pay taxes by giving you a job. Do Culchies never have a good word to say about Dublin? It beyond ironic the negative rhetoric in relation to Dublin by country folk considering the vast numbers of your kind who choose Dublin to live and/or work in.
@George
Cork is a net contributor to the State.It looks after itself.It also had the most Pharma plants in the country paying a lot of Corporation tax.Dont even go there on the Cork airport issue.
You’re wrong, Padraig. Dublin keeps Cork afloat! Your airport is millions of euro in debt. Our DAA charges Dublin Airport users an extra charge to keep your airport open. Rumour has it, that Shannon is to be the major airport down South and that Cork airport will probably close. The population of Cork is decreasing, while Belfast and Galway are increasing. Even Cork’s companies don’t pay their fair share, e.g. Apple. Although, Apple will probably leave Cork in five years. Dublin will be happy to offer you jobs, as usual!
And your kind from Dublin massively push up prices of
Property in places like Wexford,
Meaning we have to find jobs in Dublin to live at home.
Believe me, my kind from Dublin, don’t travel to places like Wexford.
If multinationals pay 80% of the corporation tax, think of how much they are funnelling through here using Ireland as a tax haven? Or rather, how less pain our people would have been put through since the collapse if the government hadn’t turned a blind eye to our state operating like the wild west.
If it wasn’t ‘funnelled’ through here, it would be paid elsewhere, so then there’d be less tax overall in the coffers.
Its funnelled to stateless companys that only exist on paper, which have no tax liability. Do try to keep up jason.
So Google, Facebook, Amazon, PayPal, Adroll etc only exit on paper Jamming/Connilly/Jambob/John? Do try to keep up.
Apple created a stateless shell company called AOI which exists only on paper and has to tax liability. Apple used this to avoid tax via a loophole in our tax laws. Like I said, do your homework.
Let each MNC in Ireland voluntarily disclose the total taxes paid in Ireland by each MNC. Let it authorise the Revenue Commissioners to confirm or deny the accuracy of the figure.
Add the geographical,sources of income and profits, the area where the economic activity has been carried out.
I was shocked that Suzanne Kelly was not challenged on Sunday to provide the information on the basis of which made her extraordinary factual assertions. I am extremely sceptical as to the accuracy of her assertions.
I agree with SF/AAA/PBP on this one. We must get rid of the multinationals and foreign investors; we need to disconnect from globalism, capitalism and profitmaking.
We can return to the fields and rural life, close to nature without the curse of the internet, mobile phones and the toxicity of modern life. We can easily make enough food to feed ourselves, and with a modest shake-in the RTE entertainment line-up we’ll be totally self-sufficient.
We need to be rid of all profit making organisations. Foreign and domestic, for their jack boots are wearing down the proletariat.
What percentage does “match fairly closely” mean. You need a discipline breakdown anyway. Tesco and Dunnes would be Large Cases but they’re not going anywhere. Also need risk categories in terms of pulling out, companies with few physical assets tied to the country would be the highest risk. Throwing around high level numbers with no assessable data behind it only muddies the water.
Why wouldn’t tesco leave they did before in the 1980′s
They can if they want but I heard somewhere Tesco Ireland is their most profitable branch. I just threw Tesco in their with Dunnes, one being ‘a matching’ multinational, the other being ‘an unmatching’ privately run family business (unless they’ve changed). And also mentioned them because not all multinationals are here to hire staff and produce for export elsewhere which is almost implied by the quoting of these big figures, some are here to make profit domestically. That paye percentage almost makes you think that over half the people in Ireland are hired by the likes of Apple and the pharmaceutical industry. (I accept there is spinoff activity from them, just don’t like the way the stats are framed)
I met a three card trick man at Puck Fair this year, he claimed he pays VAT, PAYE, stamp duty, turnover tax, water rates, property tax, and gives receipt for all winnings. He further claimed that there card trick men like Politian’s and multi-nationsls were the most honest, caring, consciousness upstanding and progressive people in Ireland. The encounter and his reassurance restored by confidence in humanity.
Maybe factcheck should examine if the “double Irish” and section 110 is legal under European law or is it as the commission has found state aid. It would seem that Apple inc wants to hid behind every other multinational in Ireland. You can’t believe one word from noonan, he can’t admit Ireland tax laws are being used by unethical companies to rob taxpayers in other European country’s. He thinks other European countries will help Ireland keep our tax haven status While austerity tears there own countries apart. Noonan is part of the problem, why has Phil hogan not resigned from the commission when his party openly defies its findings. We are being sold one story and Europe is amazed how easily we can be conned by curropt politicians again and again.
How much did they pay you to conduct this study?
Fact is our politicians are clowns and they’re 100 percent responsible for effing up again. They fecked up the property boom by offering loads of property tax breaks, inflating the bubble. They should have stuck to the 12.5 percent tax with apple but no, they had to make it something like 0.5 percent tax for Apple. We need proper politicians in this country, not these uaeless FG and FF jokers we’ve currently got.
guys wally’s watching eastenders at this time …just to let you know his answer is..zero ..nothing…zilch…nada ..nothing !
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say