Assignment First

美国作业代写:全球形势下的欧盟税收

辩方-欧盟要求该费用作为未缴税款,并认为这是一种公平的商业做法。欧盟和爱尔兰对待跨国公司及其收入的声誉很大程度上是在这里发挥作用的,欧盟试图树立公平贸易实践的榜样,而爱尔兰则试图树立一个有利的国际目的地榜样。在政治紧张局势的缠绕下,美国正辩称,降低税率是为了让外国资金回到国内使用。美国似乎只关心税单是否具有吸引力,而且由于苹果起源于美国,它不知何故将其视为自己对税单的第一项权利。欧盟、爱尔兰和美国的监管成本很高,它们一直没有试图解决此类问题,而是引发了新的问题。因此,为解决或消除这一问题所采取的步骤是不正常的。追溯税法、税基侵蚀和利润转移是所有当局都在关注税单的关键问题。

美国作业代写:全球形势下的欧盟税收

反驳——当全球形势发生变化,促使各国将注意力集中在国内时,这将直接影响到享受极低税率的跨国公司。欧盟的主张是基于其对跨国公司公平贸易待遇的理论,但它必须承认,它发起跨国公司设立业务,并提供税收优惠。这种需求只有在欧盟国内市场状况下滑时才会出现。如果苹果向美国申报其海外收入,并将其汇回美国,这将使爱尔兰和欧盟失去税收账单,以及所有预期的对爱尔兰发展的财政支持。美国财政部还计划降低企业税率,以便在经济需要时将未申报的收入带回美国(Bagwell and Staiger, 2012)。因此,苹果在这方面并不是一个明显的罪魁祸首,因为它受到了邀请,没有什么可隐瞒的,只要它符合欧盟和爱尔兰承诺的所有一致同意的税收待遇。主权在这里受到了质疑,爱尔兰可以在限制苹果公司(Apple)迁出爱尔兰或向欧盟(EU)税收要求让步方面发挥重要作用。

美国作业代写:全球形势下的欧盟税收

Argument – EU is demanding the charge as unpaid taxes, and argues that it is a fair business practice. Much of EU and Ireland’s reputation of treating multinationals and its income is at play here, EU seeks to establish fair trade practice example, where Ireland seeks to establish a favourable international destination example. US, coiled under political tensions, is arguing the lowering of tax rates for calling home foreign money home to be used at home. US has only sounded to be concerned when the tax bill is attractive, and since Apple originated in the US, it somehow sees it as its first right over the tax bill. The cost of regulation is high for the EU, Ireland, and the US, and they have been not attempting to resolve such issues, but give rise to new ones. Hence the steps taken to resolve or eliminate the issue are dysfunctional. Retrospective tax law, base erosion, and profit shifting are the key issues in the case where all authorities are eyeing the tax bill .

美国作业代写:全球形势下的欧盟税收

Rebuttal – When global scenarios change and pushes nations to be domestically focused, it directly affects multinationals that enjoys extremely low tax rates . EU’s claims are based on its theory of fair trade treatment to multinationals, but it must not deny that it initiated multinationals to set up operations and offer tax breaks. The demand comes only when the domestic market condition in EU is on the decline. If Apple declare its offshore income to the US, and repatriate it, this makes Ireland and EU lose the tax bill and all anticipated financial support to Ireland’s development. The US treasury is also planning to lower tax rates for corporate companies so as to bring back undeclared income back to the US, as the economy needs it (Bagwell and Staiger, 2012). Apple is thus not a clear culprit here, because it was invited and has nothing to hide, as long as it meets all the agreed tax treatment that it was promised by the EU and Ireland. Sovereign rights are at question here, and Ireland can play a major role in restricting Apple to move out of the country or to give in to the EU tax demand.