Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 259 posts

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#21

Post by logicchains »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #12
logicchains wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>while contributing nothing themselves They contribute a service, in this case a search engine that's miles ahead of its closest competitor, Bing. They don't "take" anything, they offer something that you're free not to use. Unlike nation states, which are happy to take whatever they want (claiming they're owed it for providing you things you may never have asked for, which are paid for by other people potentially ag…

Except Google was heavily dependent on funding from various branches of the USG in its early stages. Search for it. > case a search engine that's miles ahead of its closest competitor, Bing Thats debatable. Any blind studies?

>Except Google was heavily dependent on funding from various branches of the USG in its early stages. Search for it.

But that funding could have came from anywhere. Just because the government funded something, doesn't mean that the thing would never be funded if the government didn't fund it.

>Thats debatable. Any blind studies?

Entirely anecdotal, but I've never met anyone who tried Bing and didn't switch back to Google after finding it flounders with more complex searches.

I'm not sure how one'd go about designing such a study, to avoid favouring one search engine by inadvertently testing queries it's more suited to (or picking people who make queries more suited to one than the other). Or how quality of results would be measured.

One somewhat empirical measure: Google has a much larger market share.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#22

Post by [deleted] »

bambax wrote: post #20
ersii wrote: post #4

"Several have been accused of using legal methods to minimise their tax bills." Since when is it illegal to follow the law? Sure, we all have different opinions on the legal gray areas and of whether certain or all laws are legitimate and to what extent - but come on, that quote is just ridiculous.

Don't know about American law, but in French the notion exists and is called "abus de droit"; just because you can do something "in general", you can't do it with the specific purpose of circumventing another legal obligation. For example, as an Irish company, you can open a subsidiary in France to do business in France. That's a right. But if you're doing business in France essentially, you can't make the French com…

[deleted]

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#23

Post by DannyBee »

te_chris wrote: post #11
jessriedel wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an excellent attitude to take if you want Google to physically exit France.

This argument makes no sense. They obviously need a presence in the world's 6th largest economy, otherwise why else would they have said presence.

I think you should look closer at the history of the paris office and why it exists.

It's tremendously arrogant to think it "needs" to be there. It wasn't there for quite a long time, and i doubt it "needs" to be there.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#24

Post by charlesdm »

bambax wrote: post #20
ersii wrote: post #4

"Several have been accused of using legal methods to minimise their tax bills." Since when is it illegal to follow the law? Sure, we all have different opinions on the legal gray areas and of whether certain or all laws are legitimate and to what extent - but come on, that quote is just ridiculous.

Don't know about American law, but in French the notion exists and is called "abus de droit"; just because you can do something "in general", you can't do it with the specific purpose of circumventing another legal obligation. For example, as an Irish company, you can open a subsidiary in France to do business in France. That's a right. But if you're doing business in France essentially, you can't make the French com…

Who says they don't have activities in Ireland? A lot of Google's employees are actually based in Ireland.

> Just because you can do something "in general", you can't do it with the specific purpose of circumventing another legal obligation.

Most countries have laws that say you can't do something JUST for tax purposes. You can, however, structure things in a tax friendly way, if there's a commercial motive to do so.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#25

Post by mike_hearn »

bambax wrote: post #20
ersii wrote: post #4

"Several have been accused of using legal methods to minimise their tax bills." Since when is it illegal to follow the law? Sure, we all have different opinions on the legal gray areas and of whether certain or all laws are legitimate and to what extent - but come on, that quote is just ridiculous.

Don't know about American law, but in French the notion exists and is called "abus de droit"; just because you can do something "in general", you can't do it with the specific purpose of circumventing another legal obligation. For example, as an Irish company, you can open a subsidiary in France to do business in France. That's a right. But if you're doing business in France essentially, you can't make the French com…

For example, as an Irish company, you can open a subsidiary in France to do business in France.

The whole point of the EU single market is that you do not have to do that. You can set up shop in Ireland and sell to the French market until the cows come home. You only owe Irish taxes (modulo the recent completely crazy VAT changes).

Laws that say "forget the law, anything we think is unreasonable is illegal" are a growing problem in Europe. It makes the EU look like fools to the rest of the world when something as basic as the rule of law becomes flaky and unpredictable. France is not just causing itself problems with this kind of action, their greed will create a bad impression of the whole of the EU.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#26

Post by 0xFFC »

Idk, but I feel Google is under tremendous pressure right now.Oracle likely going to win (they have best legal team in whole industry). Europe will hit Google with antitrust and now this.Microsot is coming for them, and they(Microsoft) positioned themselves very well.

Maybe I don't realize correctly, but it seems Google is going to have hard time with all of this.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#27

Post by cmdkeen »

logicchains wrote: post #7
te_chris wrote: post #5

Good. The way multinationals are allowed to take the resources of the various nation states they operate in while contributing nothing themselves, yet still claiming to be 'people' and demanding all sorts of rights, is beyond the joke. Before anyone says it, yes I'm aware they pay GST/VAT/PAYE etc, but if I have to pay company tax, why don't they?

>while contributing nothing themselves They contribute a service, in this case a search engine that's miles ahead of its closest competitor, Bing. They don't "take" anything, they offer something that you're free not to use. Unlike nation states, which are happy to take whatever they want (claiming they're owed it for providing you things you may never have asked for, which are paid for by other people potentially ag…

Google aren't in France in order to better serve up search results - that can be done from anywhere. Google are in France to sell advertising, they are carrying on a business selling services to French companies.

One of the big things in the UK was Google claiming they sold all their adverts from the Republic of Ireland not the UK and thus could pay Irish taxes. This was despite having lots of sales staff at their London office...

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#28

Post by rmc »

lloyd-christmas wrote: post #15
hrnnnnnn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the most eloquent phrasing. I think what they're trying to say is "People find legalistic tax-dodging unethical, and they're sick of rich people and big companies getting away with it."

Solution: Get rid of tax law as one of the major sub-industries of the legal profession. When I no longer need a lawyer to submit my taxes, I'll start caring about corporate tax loopholes.

Is this actually a thing in USA? Where you need a lawyer to do your taxes? Cause I'm in the EU, and this never happens.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#29

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

lloyd-christmas wrote: post #15
hrnnnnnn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the most eloquent phrasing. I think what they're trying to say is "People find legalistic tax-dodging unethical, and they're sick of rich people and big companies getting away with it."

Solution: Get rid of tax law as one of the major sub-industries of the legal profession. When I no longer need a lawyer to submit my taxes, I'll start caring about corporate tax loopholes.

Addendum: make filing taxes a largely automated task where data are shared with the government so the online submission is merely a review of what is already on your W-4 (or what have you). Make it so dead simple it should take no more than 15 minutes for the average citizen with a computer. Anything that is purchased or paid to you should already be built in: if you paid mortgage interest, the deduction is automatically applied from data supplied by the lender; if you installed solar panels on your roof, the vendor will have already informed the government and the correct deduction is pre-applied; if you registered a corporation in your name, the filing service will relay your costs to the government, as will your lawyer, if you did not file personally. If you paid interest on your student loans, the taxman will know long before April 15.

Tack on a processing fee for manual deductions that scales with the potential cost of an audit.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#30

Post by mike_hearn »

realusername wrote: post #18
ersii wrote: post #4

"Several have been accused of using legal methods to minimise their tax bills." Since when is it illegal to follow the law? Sure, we all have different opinions on the legal gray areas and of whether certain or all laws are legitimate and to what extent - but come on, that quote is just ridiculous.

All the laws are judged on intent, not on the exact wording, why would finance laws be any different than the other ones ?

No, people are judged on intent. Laws are meant to be applied as written. That's why you hear about people getting off on a technicality, and why you hear about obviously dumb rulings like two teenagers who get into a relationship and end up guilty of paedophilia. That obviously wasn't the intent of the lawmakers, but it's the result of the law as written.

The notion of intent is a very important protection in law ... for the accused. For lawmakers, not so much.

Post reply on HN