Irish Government May Close Apple's Biggest Tax Loophole 292
DavidGilbert99 writes "Ireland and its tax system came under some extreme scrutiny earlier this year when it was revealed that Apple funneled billions of dollars of revenue though three subsidiaries based in the country. Thanks to a loophole, none of these subsidiaries were tax-resident in Ireland, meaning they didn't even have to pay Ireland's relatively low 12.5% corporation tax rate. Worryingly for Apple, Ireland's finance minister may now shut this loophole. A measure within a new budget bill (PDF) would disallow Apple's status as a 'stateless' corporate entity for tax purposes. Apple will still be able to select a country like Bermuda as its tax residence, but it's a step in the right direction."
Because Apple (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Because Apple (Score:5, Funny)
Well, currently, no other "most valuable company in the world" does. You know, because like Highlander, there can be only one.
Re:Because Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Which they kind of have to.
When a company does business in two different countries you often have overlapping and contradictory tax rules. Think of it as a compatibility problem. I have seen cases where tax rates go over 100%. In order to fix this broken system a set of kludges are put in place. Which leads to exploitable situations.
Re: (Score:2)
When a company does business in two different countries you often have overlapping and contradictory tax rules. Think of it as a compatibility problem. I have seen cases where tax rates go over 100%.
Not quite, since taxes paid on income earned overseas is deductible for a business and individual, but they must take the proper credits/deductions. For example, say you earned $30,000 in Somewhereakstan and the income tax rate is 10%, that means you will pay $3,000 in taxes to Somewhereakstan, leaving you with $27,000. You would then pay the taxes on that $27,000; since the US marginal tax rate is 15%, you would be paying $3604 in taxes to the US government*.
*your rates may vary
Re: (Score:2)
So, you pay a total of $6604 in taxes in your example, which is an effective 22% tax rate on $30k per year. Yeah, that's fair....
Re: (Score:2)
That does not address the contradictory tax rules. What if Somewhereakstan thinks you earned $35k but the US thinks you earned 25k? Different tax jurisdictions have different rules on when and how profits are recognized. Different rules on short term, ordinary, passive income, etc. Those are the exploits I was talking about.
On to your point. Some tax schemes work that way. Most don't. There are 3 common methods of computing foreign tax and you example did not cover any of them. I would be hard pressed to th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Because Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
That sounds unreasonable. I could understand if you had to pay the US government $1500 or something (5% of 30000). But why would you have to pay taxes over something someone else has already taxed you on?
Ah, the theory of Immaculate Taxation! That corporate and investment income originates in the sanctified state of "already having been taxed" which frees it from ever having to pay a penny of taxes ever again. Indeed a mere penny of taxation levied on a million dollar revenue stream somewhere along the line makes it immune from ever having to bear taxes again (or at least if holy taxation writ were faithfully observed).
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see a citation for this.
I'm not challenging you, or doubting you, but I'd like to read some of the details.
I suspect that the "incompatibility" comes from how little of the corporation's actual income has to be considered "income". From the US to Greece to Finland, you find that even the rates that would be considered confiscatory are almost always accompanied by givebacks, subsidies, and special exemptions.
But Apple's been using fictional countri
Re: (Score:3)
I can't cite anything right now. The example I am thinking about was about Ford in the 1970s.I am doing this from memory.
Briton's corporate tax was base on residency (were the profit was earned) and was north of 60%.
America's corporate tax was based on domicile (where the company was headquarter) and was north of 40%.
So Ford's plants in England was being tax twice on the same profit. At one pint I think it hit 105%. Part of the answer was tax credits which are rational. However America's fix for that was no
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Because Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Saudi Aramco, the actual current most valuable company, doesn't pay shit because they basically own the Saudi government, which is a pretty sweet gig if you can get it.
(But no, let's keep pretending that a cellphone manufacturer is the most valuable company in the world because they have the highest market capitalization when you sort everybody on Google Finance.)
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, the Saudi royal family owns Saudi Aramco, not the other way around.
Why we call these f*tards our "allies" is beyond me. We should take all the money we spend propping up their regime and spend it on alternative energy research.
Re:Because Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Because Apple (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it's the awful commenters that are turning people away. For example, you only had to do a search in the Slashdot Search bar for 'Google Tax' to see half a dozen published stories about Google's tax exploits.
Ohh? Let's compare the first 5 hits.
First Google:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/06/22/1716232/server-farms-flourish-in-iowa-microsoft-plows-700m-more-into-des-moines [slashdot.org] - "Google said it would put another $400 million into its facility in Council Bluffs. Why Iowa? Aggressive tax incentives" - mentioned after Microsoft and Facebook
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/05/31/1721232/google-maps-used-to-find-tax-cheats [slashdot.org] - In Lithuania - Not about Google at all.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/05/22/1549218/eric-schmidt-google-will-continue-investing-in-uk-even-if-taxes-raised [slashdot.org] - sort of
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/05/20/2213205/nsa-data-center-the-focus-of-tax-controversy [slashdot.org] - imagine, the NSA has to pay taxes for their data centers, like Google - so not about Google at all
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/05/19/1322225/amazon-google-and-apple-wont-need-to-pay-tax-despite-goverment-threats [slashdot.org] - all of the big ones
Now Apple:
First this article
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/13/07/02/2150217/apple-powering-nevada-datacenter-with-solar-farm [slashdot.org] - also pays tax for it
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/13/05/21/0222210/web-of-tax-shelters-saved-apple-billions-inquiry-finds [slashdot.org] - Sure, Google does the same, but we grill Apple because Google lobbies more.
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/13/01/23/1421200/tech-firms-keep-piles-of-foreign-cash-in-us [slashdot.org] - Well, that's odd, there is no mention of Apple in the summary nor in TFA, but Google is in there - yet it is found when searching for Apple
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/11/04/2226236/apple-pays-only-2-corporate-tax-outside-us [slashdot.org] - summary quotes almost the full article but the part about other companies, like Google
So lets see: Out of 5, 2 say Google is paying taxes, 1 Google helps find tax cheats, 1 Google is paying little taxes but it's okay, and 1 Google is paying little taxes but would pay more if they were asked.
Out of 5, 1 says Apple pays taxes, 1 about the Irish wanting Apple to pay more taxes (but nobody else it seems), 1 about the US wanting Apple to pay more taxes (but nobody else it seems), 1 about the Brits wanting Apple to pay more taxes (but nobody else it seems), and 1 about how its obviously Apple's fault that everybody else but Apple pays so little taxes.
Oh wait... (Score:5, Informative)
M$: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-microsoft-avoids-taxes-loopholes-irs-2013-1 [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple was the first.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just a lie, you'll find all sorts of companies hard at it, oil, manufacturing, publishing, any multinational you can imagine, cheating for all you can imagine and corrupt shit head governments like Ireland greasing the theft of social services and infrastructure investment along the way.
The full ta should be paid at the point of revenue, anyone offshore expenditures need to be justified and audited, as proof of cost, any attempting at off shoring profits from local revenue should be penalised and
Re:Because Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple was a pioneer of an accounting technique known as the “Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich,” which reduces taxes by routing profits through Irish subsidiaries and the Netherlands and then to the Caribbean. Today, that tactic is used by hundreds of other corporations — some of which directly imitated Apple’s methods, say accountants at those companies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
Apple literally invented the technique.
Others followed to compete.
Personally, I support any and all means of tax avoidance, so I don't count it against them. But I love bursting Apple Fanboys bubbles.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple may have invented this particular technique, but funneling money through off-shore companies goes back beyond when Steve Jobs was still in diapers.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad they didn't patent it, they'd have yet another reason to sue Google and all it surrogates.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/to-reduce-its-tax-burden-google-expands-use-of-the-double-irish/ [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I support any and all means of tax avoidance
Why? Okay, maybe you oppose taxation in general or whatever, but the undeniable reality is that you have to pay it. Every dollar a corporation avoids paying has to come out of someone else's pocket, i.e. yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Tax Avoidance (Score:5, Insightful)
I will not speak out about this practice that hurts me indirectly because I am deluded into thinking that any day now I'll be rich enough to make use of it myself.
- Joe Sixpack Americano
Re:Tax Avoidance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tax Avoidance (Score:4, Interesting)
My family owns Apple shares and I think it's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious. Do YOU pay more taxes than you're legally obligated to?
If not, why not?
You've just stated that you "think it's wrong" that Apple pays no more taxes than they're legally liable for. Which would make YOU wrong for not paying extra taxes.
Re:Tax Avoidance (Score:4, Insightful)
I do, I sometimes don't claim back charitable donations. I don't claim depreciation on my rental property I do not think it is valid expense. I claim deductions that I believe to be fair and for business purposes, I do not claim ones i don't, legal or not.
But the real reason is probably everybody could get away with paying less tax if they knew what they where doing. The reason normal people don't is it is not feasible for the average person to pay millions to an accountancy firm to set up tax shelters. Once a company starts making billions however those admin costs become insignificant.
Why couldn't you set up a company in Ireland and contract out of that instead of being directly employed by your company. (they would think you where dodgy but only because it isn't common practice). Your employer is paying you the same amount, what difference does it make to them. The hassle is just not worth it, at least for the common man.
Re:Tax Avoidance (Score:4, Interesting)
Just curious. Do YOU pay more taxes than you're legally obligated to?
If not, why not?
You've just stated that you "think it's wrong" that Apple pays no more taxes than they're legally liable for. Which would make YOU wrong for not paying extra taxes.
Whoa. You're confusing "It's wrong because ethically it stinks" with "It's wrong because it's against the law".
It IS wrong that multibillion dollar corporations are unfairly paying cellar-level taxation for large profits made from consumers. Just because corporations own governments around the world and have enshrined that unfairness in taxation law to benefit themselves does not suddenly make that right.
Re:Tax Avoidance (Score:5, Insightful)
Many jobs are nonessential up until they aren't. For example, you don't need the people who inspect aircraft repairs or nuclear power plant repairs to be there every minute of every day, but if they don't do their jobs for a long enough period of time, you get consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you get the latest TPM? You're supposed to tone it down a little.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[I]f the portions of government we shut down are so nonessential, why the fuck did we spend money on them in the first place?
What do you do for a living? Could your company survive without you doing your job for a few days? How about a week or a month? Be realistic here -- are you the kind of person who can take vacation without someone else having to do your job to keep everything from falling apart? If not, then do you know people like that?
That's what "non-essential" means. It doesn't mean that the work doesn't ever need to be done. It just means that we can go without it for a short time, like skipping a meal to make su
Thousands of shares. (Score:2, Insightful)
I own Apple shares. So in a small way, I already benefit from this practice.
Unless you own millions of dollars worth of shares, I assure you that the net benefit between your gains on that stock and what you personally have to chip into the US coffers because of companies like this is a negative for you.
If companies like this repatriated the profits that they are stashing overseas, much of our government budget problems would be solved. As it is, you and I are stuck with the bill - contrary to the propaganda on Fox News and Talk Radio.
Yes, the US tax system is THE worst in the Wor
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you own millions of dollars worth of shares, I assure you that the net benefit between your gains on that stock and what you personally have to chip into the US coffers because of companies like this is a negative for you.
Not really. My interest in collecting potential taxes is far more diluted than my benefits accrued by ownership and this tax strategy. The 'break even' would be at about 3 shares of Apple stock.
Re: (Score:2)
I own Apple shares. So in a small way, I already benefit from this practice.
But as a member of the society that Apple is evading tax in, you suffer for it in a big way.
Re: (Score:2)
I will not speak out about this practice that hurts me indirectly because I am deluded into thinking that any day now I'll be rich enough to make use of it myself.
- Joe Sixpack Americano
"Yeah, kick Apple in the balls! Hey, were ya going, Apple? Wait! Come back!" -- Paddy "Pintchugger" Irelando
Re: (Score:3)
Except that's wrong.
The money is not in Ireland, or in the EU. It's in the carribean somewhere. The company has it's HQ in Ireland but is tax resident somewhere else, so it only pays tax on revenue it makes in Ireland. For the US it's an Irish company, and the money that never comes back to the US isn't taxed either so they are piling it up somewhere. But, like Google, they cannot actually use that - they're all holding out for the next tax amnesty.
That's the loophole being closed - it will no longer be pos
job killing regulations (Score:4, Interesting)
apple will just move to the next free zone
Re: (Score:2)
Behold the beauty of the free market. Libertarians and anti-regulation-zealots rejoice!
Apple is exercising its god-given right to freedom!
Re: (Score:3)
Apple employs a lot of people in Cork, Ireland. They might slow down their presence in Ireland if it doesn't benefit them anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think so. The tax loophole being closed was for “stateless” profit being generated by intangibles. Its purpose was to lower Apple’s taxes worldwide. So it going to affect some accountants and lawyers but it will not affect “real workers” doing “real work”
The reason is that higher taxes - all things being equal - results in lower investment and thus fewer jobs. Of course not all things are equal. Corporations want high quality government services, such as inf
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is closing this loophole "job killing"?
Sometimes reading past the title of the post is helpful. The GP answered your question before you asked it.
"Job creating" == broken windows (Score:3)
Sometimes reading past the title of the post is helpful. The GP answered your question before you asked it.
And then once they move to the next lowest rung on the race to the bottom, what -- are they gonna set up robots there or something?
I tend to find that if the only thing someone can offer in defense of a policy is that it's "job creating," then they damn it with faint praise. Many extremely negative behaviors "create jobs." Pimps create jobs. Drug lords create jobs. People who dump toxic waste create all kinds of jobs in the cleanup. Heck, bureaucratic redtape creates jobs to deal with it all!
Saying som
Re: (Score:2)
And Apple will not leave Ireland or kill jobs since the subsidiaries they used weren't even in the country to begin with.
If they 'weren't even in the country to begin with', why should they be paying tax there?
They'll just pack up and leave (Score:2, Insightful)
If you start charing us tax, you'll lose even the tax we're paying you now, because we'll move somewhere else. Err... right, we're not paying any. Oh, oh, I know! Job, if you charge us tax we'll have to fire the two people that earn minimum wage for us in your country! You anti-capitalistic pigs are destroying jobs!
Captcha: avarice - I can haz source code and database of this captcha? I really likez.
Re: (Score:2)
Job, if you charge us tax we'll have to fire the two people that earn minimum wage for us in your country!
Except Apple has a rather large presence in Ireland, not two people earning minimum wage.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that the subsidiaries they are using are not.
Thanks to a loophole, none of these subsidiaries were tax-resident in Ireland,
Linkbait (Score:4, Informative)
Apple is not the only company doing this. Google does it was well.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we ought to get rid of corporate tax to end this pointless charade. Tax dividends and capital gains as income and move on with life. It's not all that much revenue, and could easily be made up. As a bonus, if other countries don't follow suit, companies might shift their headquarters to the US.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think we ought to get rid of corporate tax to end this pointless charade. Tax dividends and capital gains as income and move on with life. It's not all that much revenue, and could easily be made up. As a bonus, if other countries don't follow suit, companies might shift their headquarters to the US.
I do so very much enjoy the primitive thinking that if we just increase the amount of sacrifices and offerings we give to the volcano gods, they'll cast down their blessings on us and save us from our increasing lack of sacrifices and offerings to give to the volcano gods.
Re: (Score:2)
What in the world is so primitive about taxing the people instead of the pretend economic entity? Are you honestly happy with the current situation?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is not the only company doing this. Google does it was well.
Most big companies do this. Why not? It is completely legal. If America wants more tax from companies that employ people in America, they should just raise payroll taxes. That would have the same effect.
Re:Linkbait (Score:5, Insightful)
This is bullshit. The link between huge corporations and jobs has been use to justify all types of abuses and it's time to move on. The Internet has killed that link. We are shoveling more an order of magnitude more money (at least) towards corporate welfare than we do towards "real" welfare based on that theory. The small business is the only that is going to save he economy of the U.S. because those are the only jobs that are based in communities. The race to the bottom has made many multi-national employees no better off than slave labor. It's time to STOP shoveling money towards he biggest multinationals and taking care of the people that are doing the REAL capitalism, and that's small business owners.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It goes beyond that. [nytimes.com] Some complaints are legitimate, but things like this are just gaming the system:
Finally, multinationals that invert have an easier time achieving “earnings stripping,” a tax maneuver in which an American subsidiary is loaded up with debt to offset domestic earnings, lowering the effective tax rate paid on sales in the United States.
Most people do not know any of the details of these kinds of operations and so we all must just trust our benevolent job creators. As long as Obama has GE sitting at the table when he calls businesses in to talk about tax reform it'll never go anywhere significantly better for us the little men.
Re: (Score:2)
Gaming the system is fine. If the system was simpler, it wouldn't be possible to game. The really shady thing is when they buy the complifications, so that they can get their army of clever accountants (which wouldn't be needed in a simple scheme, and which don't actually produce any wealth....) can game them for all they're worth.
Tax everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tax everywhere (Score:5, Informative)
Different countries have different ways of appropriating revenue. Take Russia with their relatively low flat tax. It was made possible in a large part because of the State is being funded by oil tax revenues. In the case of Bermuda they have these low taxes for corporation and individual income but the kick is that land taxes are extremely high and they live on tourism revenues so you get taxed for snorkling, renting a hotel, etc. Monaco has the casino profits. Etc.
Re:Tax everywhere (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand why countries like Ireland or Bermuda or wherever don't all just charge a small tax of some kind (like say 5%) that keeps the companies coming there, but gets them tons of money.
Because that would quickly turn into a race to the bottom. If Ireland charged 5%, then Bermuda would charge 4%, so Ireland would lower theirs to 3% .... The only Nash Equilibrium [wikipedia.org] is zero.
What does Bermuda get out of having Apple "based" in Bermuda if they don't get any tax revenue?
They get corporate registration fees, and jobs for a few lawyers and administrators. That is better than nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
There are more than a few jobs. By last year 2,800 staff in Cork [irishtimes.com] alone.
The money brought in by that level of employment may be worth more than some minor tax they might earn if
Ireland changed the tax loophole.
Because Apple need do nothing more than change a couple lines their US tax return to cut that revenue stream
out from under Ireland. So you can bet there will be some small increase in taxes but that increase will be very
small as long as there is a large employment component in Ireland.
Re: (Score:2)
OR: Bermuda and Ireland would both stick with 5%, getting more money than if they lowered the rate, and having no need to compete with each other.
This is NOT a free market! Ireland and Bermuda are free to collude with each other, and pick a rate just barely lower than other countries, and they'll still make obscene amounts of cash. As each loop-hole closes, the next-best gets more expensive, and there's more profit to
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/you-cant-blame-ireland-for-apples-tax-avoidance-either/276120/ [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean it actually benefits them, it just means that the administrators think it benefits them.
How many cities get conned into building a giant new sports stadium, and then stuck with all the costs? Do those ever break even? Yet the lure of "jobs" and the chance of cutting into a ribbon or digging into a small pile of dirt with an impractically shiny shovel never fails to draw out the so-called "leaders."
Re: (Score:2)
Cartels always break down. Think about it.
An astoundingly false statement. Functional cartels are all around us, raking in excess profits from the restraint of competition.
Two examples: the US Pharmaceutical Industry and the oil refining industry.
Many generic drugs have only a single manufacturer, and thus no price competition what with foreign drug imports effectively banned (those Canadian drugs will kill you I says!). Surely competitors will jump in crank out those generics and bring prices down, no? No. There is a quid pro quo observed in pract
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about time the multinational thieves got lynched and paid their fair share.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, yes, it does.
...It just also needs to spend it on worthwhile things, such as a proper healthcare system, a proper social insurance system, and proper infrastructure (roads, water, sewage, etc.). Sadly worthwhile things isn't what get people elected anymore -- it's military/'defence' spending and lowering taxes on the rich that does. The American Delusion is that anyone and everyone could make enough money to take advantage of those lowered taxes, so they're fooled into believing its in their best
Not a Loophole! (Score:5, Insightful)
A loophole is unintended.
If anyone thinks that the tax code and the ability to do exactly what Apple (and others) are doing isn't completely intention is an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a US company - Can't lobby (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with corporations taking advantage of whatever the law allows them to do but there should be consequences. If the government is going to consider a corporation to be like a person with 1st amendment rights and money to be speech, well they are declaring their corporate personhood to not be a citizen, only a resident. Residents don't get to vote, only citizens. If you don't have a vote then you shouldn't have any right to contribute anything to the election process. If you want a voice in the government then pay taxes.
No you're close, but not quite there. If corporations are people too then I would like to see Apple pay social security, AMT, and be taxed at the same income tax rate as an individual. They can't have their cake and eat it too. If a corporation has personhood, then let the corp pay on the same tax schedule as me. AMT means they would not be able to use all the crazy deductions they use as a corp and should have to pay much higher taxes than they do now.
No such thing as a corporation tax (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, I'm all for dumping taxes on corporations and appropriately ratcheting up income and captal gains rates to compensate. Corporations are enough of a legal contrivance that they can reshape themselves in ridiculous ways to avoid just about any tax we lay on them. We're just giving them massive incentves to waste resources doing stupid things, and we're no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pay American taxes, or lose American support (Score:4, Interesting)
Why does Apple get to lobby the government or expect the support of the government when they won't pay for it?
Maybe the next time Apple has a patent dispute, the Chinese authorities embargo their product at the docks, or the EU starts making demands the US government should tell them to sit down and take a number.
I love how corporations and the rich hate the government and won't pay for it until they need it to do their bidding.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's spending on lobbying is actually one of the lowest among the big tech players, if not the lowest. Quite a bit of speculation on why Washington is putting this pressure on them centers around the idea that it's a form of punishment aimed at Apple for not playing ball with them. Tim Cook seems to be waking up to that fact, since I seem to recall hearing some quotes recently suggesting that he intends to increase Apple's presence in Washington.
And it's not as if Apple is the only one employing this par
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why does Apple get to lobby the government or expect the support of the government when they won't pay for it?
Apple paid more in corporate taxes to the American government than any other company (iirc, they cut the US Treasury a check for $6 BILLION).
Sorry to ruin your rant with facts...
Re: (Score:2)
They pay some greedy(as opposed to one who's interested in serving the people) politician a little money. Then the greedy politician borrows from the national debt and pays back his campaign contributors. The fact that the non-greedy politicians can't get campaign contributors furthers the problem and there is probably no solution to it.
I love the USA, don't get me wrong. I just don't think the way it runs now
But what about community reinvestment? (Score:2)
Didn't we just read a story about that?
Corporate tax versus sales tax (Score:2)
Corporate tax in the global world is very complex.
On the one hand, you have global companies who create products/services in lots of countries.
So where do they 'book' their profits? The ability to choose a place to book profits is something that has to be done.
Now, this of course has resulted in companies doing little/no work in certain countries, yet picking it as the country to 'book' their profits due to the low rate.
This is not a complete game. For example, Apple pays US corporate taxes on the income it
Irish v Apple (Score:2)
Clearly, the Irish have not figured out who's the boss.
Ireland tax income (Score:2)
The Irish make ~$46B in tax revenue from corporate taxes. Their GDP is only 210B. Apple's gross income is ~$60B. I doubt Apple is paying close to 80% of their income to the Irish.
"worryingly for apple" (Score:2)
Pfft. If you are a multi-national company with shareholders, you minimize your tax burden, by optimizing your company structure within whatever legal framework exists. This isn't exclusive to apple, and is not going to suddenly stop when Ireland change their taxation law. The company (like all the major multi-nationals) will simply evolve to make the best use of whatever taxation structure is possible.
If apple (or google, or samsung no doubt) were to NOT make use of legal quirks like this, then they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Few things sadder than someone who proudly declares that they have nothing important to say and yet who fails to even deliver that simple of a message on time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact is corporations need to be taxed because otherwise you would just shift all your assets into a corporation with you as the sole proprietor and pay no tax at all. In fact this is more or less what those CEOs you hear "only take minimum wage" do. They get their income from either bonuses or stocks which are taxed differently. Were they taxed more heavily this would not happen. Meanwhile us chumps can't enter this little shell game. BTW this is one of the arguments for the so called flat tax systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting listed on NASDAQ however is not quite that simple.
Re: (Score:3)
Tax reform would be fine, but ONLY if we get rid of the corporate loopholes.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be perfect. Your boss can drop your pay by the amount of taxes you're saving and he can have more money.
You with your reduced income can now pay all those extra fees, tolls etc, perhaps even to your boss so he'll have even more money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly this varies from country to country, but, in the U.S. roads, sanitation, aqueducts, etc. are paid by local taxes (states, counties and municipalities) and fees.
We (the U.S.) ended up with a corrupt system where the national government takes a lot of revenue from the individual states and then funnels it right back to those states for some of those projects.
The majority of national-level taxes collected and debt incurred in the U.S. go to income redistribution via one program or another.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are people, my friend!
Re: (Score:2)