Apple argues that it has been obliged to pay taxes to Ireland, but it supplies cheaper products to thousands of customers, as a result of low tax rates. It is using development as a ‘progressive weapon’ to ward off tax. In a way it is able to provide reasonably priced products, since it enjoys a low tax bill in Ireland, which is the case in all profit shifting cases . The governments’ attempt of legitimising the issue of tax in case of profit shifting is dysfunctional, and has given rise to such issues such as that of Apple.
If a company does not pay taxes and shifts profits to avoid higher tax rates at home and stashes the profits in low tax countries (Goodwin, 2012), it is depriving the countries of their where it is generating profits . Ireland is depriving EU and other EU nations of its rightful money, which supposedly can provide financial support for domestic development. The cost of regulation for all three entities is a question of which policies precedes the other, once it is agreed on this, the issue could be resolved. The question here is, if Apple ever agrees to pay the tax bill, who will it pay first? The answer will affect millions of customers who might have to bear the tax burden and costly Apple products.