蘋果遇到“喬布斯式”對手

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo,” ran the eulogy of Apple’s Think Different television advertisement in 1997. In the same spirit, here’s to Margrethe Vestager.

1997年蘋果(Apple)在其《非同凡“想”》(Think Different)電視廣告中贊頌道：“向瘋狂的人們致敬。向格格不入的人們、向離經(jīng)叛道的人們、向惹是生非的人們、向方孔中的圓形螺絲、向以不同視角看問題的人們致敬。他們不喜歡墨守成規(guī)，他們也不愿安于現(xiàn)狀。”以同樣的精神，我要向瑪格麗特•維斯特格(Margrethe Vestager)致敬。

The EU competition commissioner insists she is not deliberately making trouble by deciding this week that Ireland should levy €13bn in taxes that it allowed the company to underpay over a decade. “No rules have been changed — not one,” she retorted to the accusation that she is ripping up international tax treaties and diverting US tax revenues to Europe. She looked unperturbed by the rumpus.

這位歐盟反壟斷專員本周認(rèn)定，愛爾蘭應(yīng)該向蘋果征收130億歐元的稅款，這是十多年來愛爾蘭讓蘋果少交的稅。維斯特格堅(jiān)稱，她這一決定不是在故意找麻煩。對于有關(guān)她在撕毀國際稅務(wù)協(xié)議并將屬于美國的稅收引至歐洲的指控，她反駁稱：“沒有任何規(guī)則被更改了——一條也沒有。”看起來此事引起的爭議并未讓她不安。

Ms Vestager seems to have taken lessons from Apple about presentation. Her original 2014 complaint against the company was jammed with details. This week’s update was pared down and clean, making the argument simply. Steve Jobs might have appreciated the elegant Danish design, although the content infuriated the US and Irish governments — and Tim Cook, Jobs’s successor as Apple chief executive.

維斯特格似乎已從蘋果那里學(xué)習(xí)了關(guān)于表達(dá)方式的技巧。她2014年對蘋果最初的投訴滿紙細(xì)節(jié)。而本周的更新版本則篇幅大減，非常簡潔，簡單地陳述了論點(diǎn)。史蒂夫•喬布斯(Steve Jobs)沒準(zhǔn)會欣賞這種優(yōu)雅的丹麥表達(dá)，盡管她所說的內(nèi)容激怒了美國和愛爾蘭政府——以及接替喬布斯擔(dān)任蘋果首席執(zhí)行官的蒂姆•庫克(Tim Cook)。

Its simplicity is both a weakness and a strength. The weakness is that it is hard to believe it will hold up in court, where the argument is heading. There is something a bit too neat about the way Ms Vestager sliced through the Gordian knot of transfer pricing and tax residency with one stroke by declaring Apple’s three-decade-old arrangements with Ireland invalid.

這種簡潔既是弱點(diǎn)，也是優(yōu)勢。其薄弱之處在于，很難相信它在將要走向的法庭上能夠站得住腳。維斯特格宣稱蘋果與愛爾蘭之間長達(dá)三十年的制度安排無效，一舉突破了轉(zhuǎn)移定價和納稅居地這個復(fù)雜的戈?duì)柕现Y(jié)，不過這種快刀斬亂麻的方式有些太過簡單化了。

Corporate tax is a complex matter: intellectual property can be moved to offshore locations and exploited at arm’s length according to intricate related-party formulas; sales in one country can become revenues in another; US companies can invert themselves to somewhere else. If any tax arrangement that beats others can be outlawed as selective state aid, a lot of tax lawyers are out of work.

公司稅是個復(fù)雜的問題：知識產(chǎn)權(quán)可以轉(zhuǎn)移至國外，并依照復(fù)雜的關(guān)聯(lián)方安排，方便地取用;在一國的銷售可能會變成在另一國的營收;美國企業(yè)可能會將自身“倒置”到其他地方去。如果任何優(yōu)越的稅務(wù)安排都可被認(rèn)定為選擇性政府補(bǔ)助、因而非法，許多稅務(wù)律師就失業(yè)了。

Ms Vestager’s strength is that none of that makes much sense, or feels justifiable, to individual taxpayers. “If my effective tax rate would be 0.05 per cent, falling to 0.005, I would have felt that maybe I should have a second look at my tax bill,” she said. Apple insists that it paid $400m in taxes in Ireland in 2014, but her rhetoric was powerful.

維斯特格的優(yōu)勢則在于，在單個的納稅人看來，上述這些都不怎么合理，感覺上也不怎么正當(dāng)。維斯特格說：“如果我的有效稅率原本是0.05%，它降到0.005%時，我會感覺自己是不是看錯了稅單。”蘋果堅(jiān)稱2014年它在愛爾蘭支付了4億美元稅款，然而維斯特格的說法十分有力。

Apple sounded quite flustered as it protested that things are not as they appear. On tax matters, it resembles the nerdy PC character in its “Get a Mac” campaign in the 2000s, with Ms Vestager as the cool, cocksure Mac. The more it explains that it has deferred taxation, not avoided it, the more conventionally corporate it looks.

蘋果抗議稱事實(shí)并不像表面看上去的那樣，這話顯得它很心慌。在稅務(wù)問題上，蘋果就像2000年代的《買臺Mac》(Get a Mac)系列廣告中代表個人電腦(PC)的那個呆頭呆腦的角色，而維斯特格則像代表Mac的那個酷酷的、自信滿滿的角色。蘋果越是解釋它是推遲、而非逃避了納稅，它看起來就越像一家傳統(tǒng)企業(yè)。

Its tax challenge is straightforward enough, and is common to a lot of US companies. It produces most of its value — its intellectual property and distinct approach to technology and design — in California. Under existing global tax treaties, it could legitimately channel most profits from around the world back to the US through royalty fees on overseas sales.

它面臨的稅務(wù)挑戰(zhàn)非常簡單，對許多美國企業(yè)也十分常見。蘋果的多數(shù)價值(它的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)以及它在技術(shù)和設(shè)計(jì)上的獨(dú)特思路)都是在加利福尼亞州創(chuàng)造的。按照現(xiàn)有的全球稅收協(xié)議，它可以通過對境外銷售收取的許可費(fèi)，合法地將其在世界各地獲得的大部分利潤轉(zhuǎn)移回美國。

It does not want to do this because that would involve paying up to 35 per cent tax in the US on the profits compared with Ireland’s 12.5 per cent rate. The simple answer, as Ms Vestager points out, would be to pay the latter instead; Apple is structured so it could easily do so. Its Irish subsidiaries hold royalty rights for European sales and most profits flow there.

然而，蘋果不想這么做，原因是這么做意味著這些利潤要在美國繳納最高達(dá)35%的稅款，相比之下在愛爾蘭只需繳納12.5%。正如維斯特格所指出的，按照后一種稅率繳稅是很容易得出的答案。蘋果的結(jié)構(gòu)讓它可以輕而易舉地這么做。它在愛爾蘭的分公司持有歐洲銷售的許可權(quán)，這樣多數(shù)利潤就流向了那里。

But Ireland used to offer a twist: the right to form companies that were not tax resident there or in the US. Rather than pay taxes immediately, Apple could defer them under US tax law. Hence its anger about being accused of tax dodging: where others see billions in unpaid Irish taxes, Apple and the US government see future US ones. Apple is not, overall, an aggressive tax avoider: it paid $19.1bn in taxes last year.

不過，愛爾蘭也曾經(jīng)提供了可乘之機(jī)，讓既非愛爾蘭納稅居民也非美國納稅居民的公司得以成立。按照美國稅法，蘋果可以不用馬上繳納稅款，而是過后繳納。這正是蘋果被譴責(zé)避稅后憤怒的原因：在其他人眼中數(shù)十億未繳納的愛爾蘭稅款，在蘋果和美國政府看來卻是未來將交給美國的稅款?？傮w上說，蘋果并不是激進(jìn)的避稅者：去年該公司繳納了191億美元的稅款。

It is not quite so simple, though. Apple has made provisions for deferred US taxes on about half of the $215bn in cash and equivalents it held overseas in 2015. It is waiting for the US tax rate to fall before it repatriates this money to shareholders, but this could be a long time. It may never send back the rest: US companies often reinvest overseas cash in growth or acquisitions.

不過，事情并沒有這么簡單。蘋果已為其將延遲向美國繳納的稅款做了撥備，這些稅款對應(yīng)的是該公司2015年在海外持有的2150億美元現(xiàn)金及現(xiàn)金等同物的約一半。蘋果打算等美國調(diào)低稅率后，再把這筆資金轉(zhuǎn)回到股東手上。然而時間可能會很長。剩余部分蘋果可能永遠(yuǎn)都不會轉(zhuǎn)回來：美國企業(yè)經(jīng)常會把在境外的現(xiàn)金再次投資，用于企業(yè)增長或收購。

US corporate taxation is especially peculiar and hard to grasp and is painfully dysfunctional. The US government keeps on trying to pass tax reforms, and the details of Apple’s Irish tax structures first emerged publicly during a Senate committee investigation three years ago. The Senate identified US companies’ overseas cash as a tax target for the US not the EU.

美國的公司稅制特別古怪和令人費(fèi)解，毛病很大。美國政府一直試圖通過稅務(wù)改革法案。蘋果在愛爾蘭的稅務(wù)結(jié)構(gòu)的具體情況，是三年前在一項(xiàng)參議院委員會的調(diào)查中首次公開的。美國參議院當(dāng)時確認(rèn)，美國企業(yè)在美國境外的現(xiàn)金，由美國而不是歐盟(EU)征稅。

Enter Ms Vestager, with her plan to make Ireland retrieve €13bn, and to let other EU countries stake their own claims to the money. Since no one else moved, she gained first mover advantage, and state aid law has given her extraordinary legal powers. It is an audacious, revolutionary and surprising move, but that was Jobs’s style too.

維斯特格登場了。她的計(jì)劃是讓愛爾蘭收回130億歐元稅款，讓其他歐盟國家聲索對這筆錢的所有權(quán)。由于其他人沒有行動，她取得了先發(fā)制人的優(yōu)勢，而國家援助法賦予了她驚人的法律力量。這是個大膽、革命性又令人驚異的舉動，不過這也是喬布斯的風(fēng)格。

Her boldness will change the rules of global taxation if it survives the legal challenges. Bill Gates, Microsoft co-founder, used to get irritated that Apple was hipper than his own company but arguing with public opinion got him nowhere. In Ms Vestager, Apple faces a cool opponent.

如果能經(jīng)受住相關(guān)法律挑戰(zhàn)的考驗(yàn)，維斯特格的大膽舉動將改變?nèi)蚨愂盏囊?guī)則。微軟(Microsoft)聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人比爾•蓋茨(Bill Gates)曾經(jīng)為蘋果比微軟酷而憤慨，然而他爭不過輿論。在維斯特格這里，蘋果遇到了一個酷對手。