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

141–150 of 259 posts

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#141

Post by allendoerfer »

gravypod wrote: post #133
allendoerfer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 Not trying to start a flamewar here, but the common German/European perspective on the US legal system consists of corporations owning it (because of huge costs), consumers abusing it ("cat in microwave/washing machine/toaster", unreasonable compensations, class action lawsuit…

We might have our kinks, but I don't think that most of the people in jail ended up in there because "Yea, what you were doing was allowed by the law, but you know we kind of didn't like it". When that finally starts to happen in the USA, you can count on me being in the streets protesting. Edit: You may also want to consider the current practices in Germany regarding frivolous law suits against websites. We aren't t…

>Edit: You may also want to consider the current practices in Germany regarding frivolous law suits against websites. We aren't the only country with this problem. So is every place.

Can you elaborate?

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#142

Post by puzzle »

stuaxo wrote: post #83
puzzle wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google sells ads through auctions, primarily. Do the auctions take place in France?

One would imagine, that these are adverts served to French people by companies that want to sell products in France. The advert cost is based on views (I.E. eyeballs, of said French people in France).

That's not answering the question at all. The service being sold is an auction. Who owns the machines that run the auctions? Google France?

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#143

Post by lavezzi »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #116
kbenson wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "cat in microwave/washing machine/toaster" Okay, I'm curious. What's this supposed to mean? That consumers are putting cats in those devices and getting away with it, or putting cats in those devices to void warranties or something? The best I can come up with is that you are thinking of cat in the microwave, which is an urban legend . I'm not sure how that's affecting the view of the US legal system.

He should have cited the woman who spilled hot coffee on her. The legal precedent being set by the court was "if it's hot enough to hurt someone label it that way" and to do that they had to award punitive (you screwed up and we're punishing you) damages. If they just ordered the company to pay based on medical costs it would have basically said "this is your fault and you should pay for her medical care" but by awar…

That coffee wasn't just hot, it was well beyond expected temperature and gave her third degree burns as a result.

"Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle."

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#144

Post by kbenson »

allendoerfer wrote: post #134
kbenson wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't trying to imply you were saying it was true, I was just trying to figure out what belief of Europeans you were trying to convey, since that idea is so foreign to me. > class action lawsuits, which are not a thing over here, and you get a comical impression. Class actions have a very important place in the law, and they are a thing in parts of Europe[1], and are becoming more so, because they serve a very imp…

>Class actions have a very important place in the law, and they are a thing in parts of Europe[1], and are becoming more so, because they serve a very important need[2]. It gets abused, but so does everything in the legal system, that doesn't mean it's inherently a bad idea. My view on it is a way for lawyers to make big money by recruiting clients not the other way around. It gives the impression, that it is all abo…

> My view on it is a way for lawyers to make big money by recruiting clients not the other way around.

It started out as a way to hold companies responsible for small amounts of harm that are spread out to many individuals. Is it worth it for any one individual to sue a company for a $5 product that purposefully misleads consumers? Is it okay for a company to take advantage of consumers in this way purely because they are unlikely to be called upon to account for their misbehavior? That's the reasoning behind a class action lawsuits. Allow many people to join together to act as a counterbalance to companies flaunting their relative position of power. Regulation is the other way to deal with this, but regulation often lags abuse, and why regulate specifically what is already against the law and just needs an enforcement mechanism?

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#145

Post by rayiner »

tomp wrote: post #90
rayiner wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But "unreasonable" means something closer to its literal meaning in U.S. law. It means a conclusion that a rational person would not reach. So "unreasonable" is a pretty strong safeguard. It's hard to reach an "unreasonable" conclusion about your legal obligations by accident. In the criminal context, we also have the rule of leniety, which holds that ambiguities in criminal laws are resolved in favor of the defendan…

> It means a conclusion that a rational person would not reach. So "unreasonable" is a pretty strong safeguard. This is all nice in theory, but in practice, it's happened multiple times that the (Supreme Court's) interpretation of the same law has changed. Granted, this has happened over decades (or even generations), but this implies that (1) either the definition of what is "reasonable" has changed (I find this unl…

"Reasonable" just means that a conclusion follows logically from a set of accepted premises. That those premises may change over time does not render the concept of "reasonable" nonsensical, it just makes "reasonableness" a function of society's generally-accepted premises. That seems to me like a desirable property of legal systems, not an undesirable one.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#146

Post by mike_hearn »

Xylakant wrote: post #96
mike_hearn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really about tax loopholes. It's about France being uncompetitive and unwilling to change. Google advertisers sign contracts with a company in Ireland because Ireland decided to effectively not apply corporation taxes (i.e. use a low rate and allow a variety of schemes that reduce the real rate even further). They did this fully knowingly ... the policy has been popular with voters ... because they wanted…

> Getting the VAT rules for online businesses altered so now instead of paying VAT where the sale takes place, you have to pay to the country of the buyer ... woebetide you if you don't speak Hungarian or Croatian. You're gonna have to find someone who does and get them to file a tax return for you. This is a consequence of amazon and apple (and probably others) all "shipping" their digital goods from Luxembourg or I…

Countries charging different tax rates is not a loophole and that's the entire problem the EU has: some countries can't compete with the lower tax areas for cultural reasons. Unless you think Luxembourg is some sort of anarchist hellhole, of course.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#147

Post by Xylakant »

weberc2 wrote: post #140
tomp wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's completely within the right of Ireland and Irish citizens to promote investment by lowering the tax rates, as it is within the right of France and French citizens to tax companies that earn profits in France according to French tax law. I really don't see a problem.

If the article is to be believed, the problem is that France is prosecuting law-abiding companies, presumably because they're doing business in rival nations.

That's not what the text says. Googles spokesperson is quoted as saying they're complying with the law - but well, what is Googles spokesperson supposed to say?

The whole paragraph starting with "accused of" is not about "legally being accused of breaking the law" but about the fact, that this (seemingly) legal tax structuring is under increased scrutiny. One part of that is testing if that's actually really legal because scholars can hold different opinions and it's never been tested in court, another part is changing the laws to make this actually illegal and close loopholes. This has been going on for a while in europe and it's not a problem, France or otherwise. The fact that Google did pay up in a similar UK case indicates to me that matters are not obviously and 100% legal.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#148

Post by allendoerfer »

allendoerfer wrote: post #134
kbenson wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't trying to imply you were saying it was true, I was just trying to figure out what belief of Europeans you were trying to convey, since that idea is so foreign to me. > class action lawsuits, which are not a thing over here, and you get a comical impression. Class actions have a very important place in the law, and they are a thing in parts of Europe[1], and are becoming more so, because they serve a very imp…

>Class actions have a very important place in the law, and they are a thing in parts of Europe[1], and are becoming more so, because they serve a very important need[2]. It gets abused, but so does everything in the legal system, that doesn't mean it's inherently a bad idea. My view on it is a way for lawyers to make big money by recruiting clients not the other way around. It gives the impression, that it is all abo…

Thread limit reached:

>It started out as a way to hold companies responsible for small amounts of harm that are spread out to many individuals. Is it worth it for any one individual to sue a company for a $5 product that purposefully misleads consumers? Is it okay for a company to take advantage of consumers in this way purely because they are unlikely to be called upon to account for their misbehavior? That's the reasoning behind a class action lawsuits. Allow many people to join together to act as a counterbalance to companies flaunting their relative position of power. Regulation is the other way to deal with this, but regulation often lags abuse, and why regulate specifically what is already against the law and just needs an enforcement mechanism?

Thanks for clarifying, I learned something new. I think ideally you would have as little regulation as possible and inspectors + fines for highly critical stuff, so courts and consumers will not have to deal with this at all.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#149

Post by nametakenobv »

puzzle wrote: post #142
stuaxo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would imagine, that these are adverts served to French people by companies that want to sell products in France. The advert cost is based on views (I.E. eyeballs, of said French people in France).

That's not answering the question at all. The service being sold is an auction. Who owns the machines that run the auctions? Google France?

Governments tax generated income or goods sold or imported. Your question is non pertinent.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#150

Post by zevyoura »

allendoerfer wrote: post #93
dmfdmf wrote: post #75

When asked by a reporter why the tax agents raided Google he replied "Because that's were the money is".

What's wrong with that? You would expect a food inspector to control places "where meat is".

It's a joke referencing Sutton's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton%27s_law
Post reply on HN