If it stands, the European ruling would force Apple to pay that $14.5 billion to Ireland. But Irish leaders don't want the money; they say they will appeal the ruling, as will the company.
You can read that desire to appeal a lot of ways, but here's the easiest one: A tax-friendly relationship with Apple, and its 5,500 jobs, is worth more to Ireland than $14.5 billion. That's the minimum value of Apple's leverage over the country for the period 2003-2014. As a straight calculation, it works out to $220,000 per job, per year.
That seems like a heavy subsidy for any government to pay a corporation, let alone the most profitable corporation in the history of the world, which Apple happens to be. The City of Boston and State of Massachusetts, by contrast, recently made a controversial deal with General Electric to lure its headquarters away from Connecticut. The state grants and local tax breaks of the deal amount to $145 million over 20 years, and the company says it will bring 800 jobs. That's about $9,000 per job, per year.
It's hard to imagine Massachusetts taxpayers voting to send every GE headquarters employee a $9,000 annual check, of course, or for Irish voters to agree to send everyone at Apple a cool $220,000. In truth, they aren't: The companies can credibly argue that the tax reductions come out of a pool of money that would not exist if the companies had not moved to those locations. Their presence creates economic activity that would have gone somewhere else — presumably, the place offering the very best tax deal.
Apple says it has invested nearly 140 million euros in Cork, Ireland, since 2012, in order to expand its campus there — where it is the largest private employer. It says it will eventually add another 1,000 workers, and it claims its spending has supported 2,500 jobs in "services such as facilities, catering, security, recruitment, printing, fulfillment and maintenance."
This is a familiar story to anyone who has covered economic development policy in almost any state in America in the last quarter-century. Companies, particularly large companies, use their leverage over lawmakers to win tax concessions, a practice exhaustively documented by the group Good Jobs First.
It doesn't always work — the fact that every tech company in Silicon Valley hasn't been lured to a lower-tax state shows how companies factor things other than tax rates into their location decisions — but it often does. It's true internationally as well. Apple chief executive Tim Cook recently told The Post's Jena McGregor that the company won't bring its international cash stockpile back to the United States to invest here until there's a "fair rate" for corporate taxation in America.
There are two big issues here, for policymakers at every level of government. One is about companies that don't have much leverage: small businesses or businesses that only exist in an entrepreneur's mind. Those companies are the losers when big companies are taxed lower than everyone else. That's a key argument European officials made in targeting Apple.
The other issue, though, is transparent incentives. Existing companies rationally want to minimize their tax bills, and lawmakers rationally want to maximize economic growth in their areas. Those forces push toward better and better tax deals for the biggest companies. They are the reason Ireland's relationship with Apple is worth $220,000 per job, if the alternative is no jobs and no investment. So long as companies have that much leverage, the math will keep working in their favor.
More from The Washington Post: