What Hope For Civilisation If Apple Pays No Tax?
by Paul Sweeney on 8 February 2017
“I was a dissenting member of the government advisory group that recommended the low 12.5 per cent rate of corporation tax in the early 1990s. I dissented because I believed that the rate should only be reduced to 20 per cent from the 35 per cent nominal rate then prevailing. I believed if it was only 12.5 per cent after legitimate deductions, companies might only pay an effective rate of 6 or 7 per cent.”
“I was so naive. Today some companies pay nothing and too many pay very little. Apple paid a mere 0.005 per cent on its European profits in 2014.”
For anyone who follows this blog and might be interested, I just posted a series of tweets to a Greg Sargent tweet re the 9th Cir. panel’s opinion in which I respond to Ben Wittes’s and Trump’s tweet complaining that the 9th Cir. panel didn’t “bother to” mention INA (f):
I hear that so-called judges are particularly prone to persuasion when briefs are written in all caps. https://t.co/45Te4VHCMB
I suggest that the reason is that the Trump administration’s interpretation of Section (f) would render it a violation of the separation of powers between the executive brand AND CONGRESS, under the Constitution’s Art. 1 and 2.
The doctrine of separation of powers bars Congress from delegating to the executive branch unfettered powers and powers that the Constitution gives to Congress or to the judicial branch. That’s why the line-item-veto statute was held unconstitutional.
I also say in my tweet series that I was surprised that Washington State’s lawyer didn’t argue this at the oral argument, although he guessed correctly that relying only on the issue of judicial reviewability on the equal protection and due process issues, coupled with the federal government’s burden of persuasion at the interlocutory-appeal stage of showing a likelihood of victory in the full appeal, would suffice.
But I say that I do expect that the issue of the breadth of Congressional authority to delegate to the executive branch unfettered lawmaking powers, re immigration and national security or anything else, to be a key issue at the Supreme Court. And I’m betting that the Court will rule, with dissents only by Alito and Thomas, that the 9th Cir. panel was spot-on.
That would be an interesting argument, Beverly. Ruling that Congress cannot delegate that authority to the executive branch would, of course, bring up a whole host of problems:
– Can Congress delegate rule-making authority (“regulations”) to the executive branch?
– Was Congress’s delegation of powers to the DC Council a violation of Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power… To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States….”?
What Hope For Civilisation If Apple Pays No Tax?
by Paul Sweeney on 8 February 2017
“I was a dissenting member of the government advisory group that recommended the low 12.5 per cent rate of corporation tax in the early 1990s. I dissented because I believed that the rate should only be reduced to 20 per cent from the 35 per cent nominal rate then prevailing. I believed if it was only 12.5 per cent after legitimate deductions, companies might only pay an effective rate of 6 or 7 per cent.”
“I was so naive. Today some companies pay nothing and too many pay very little. Apple paid a mere 0.005 per cent on its European profits in 2014.”
https://www.socialeurope.eu/2017/02/hope-civilisation-apple-pays-no-tax/
relax. in the 1770’s the aristocracy of France paid no taxes. what could possibly go wrong?
For anyone who follows this blog and might be interested, I just posted a series of tweets to a Greg Sargent tweet re the 9th Cir. panel’s opinion in which I respond to Ben Wittes’s and Trump’s tweet complaining that the 9th Cir. panel didn’t “bother to” mention INA (f):
I suggest that the reason is that the Trump administration’s interpretation of Section (f) would render it a violation of the separation of powers between the executive brand AND CONGRESS, under the Constitution’s Art. 1 and 2.
The doctrine of separation of powers bars Congress from delegating to the executive branch unfettered powers and powers that the Constitution gives to Congress or to the judicial branch. That’s why the line-item-veto statute was held unconstitutional.
I also say in my tweet series that I was surprised that Washington State’s lawyer didn’t argue this at the oral argument, although he guessed correctly that relying only on the issue of judicial reviewability on the equal protection and due process issues, coupled with the federal government’s burden of persuasion at the interlocutory-appeal stage of showing a likelihood of victory in the full appeal, would suffice.
But I say that I do expect that the issue of the breadth of Congressional authority to delegate to the executive branch unfettered lawmaking powers, re immigration and national security or anything else, to be a key issue at the Supreme Court. And I’m betting that the Court will rule, with dissents only by Alito and Thomas, that the 9th Cir. panel was spot-on.
That would be an interesting argument, Beverly. Ruling that Congress cannot delegate that authority to the executive branch would, of course, bring up a whole host of problems:
– Can Congress delegate rule-making authority (“regulations”) to the executive branch?
– Was Congress’s delegation of powers to the DC Council a violation of Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power… To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States….”?