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

How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 350 posts

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#151

Post by cozzyd »

mistercow wrote: post #7
canuckintime wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the US Congress could just change the law, close the loophole and require corporations to bring the money home anyway without any tax holidays...

I'm always skeptical when someone precedes "close the loophole" with the word "just", especially when the entity searching for loopholes has hundreds of billions of dollars in cash. Closing loopholes is good, but they'll almost certainly find another one.

Clearly we need stochastic regulations, where the regulations are chosen randomly from time to time subject to the constraints that they accomplish their policy goals. Just have to change them faster than the accountants can figure out how to exploit them...

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#152

Post by osteele »

exelius wrote: post #33
rrggrr wrote: post #2

If passed, and for a brief period of time, Trump's dollar repatriation tax scheme brings home some of the +2 trillion dollars sequestered abroad - including some of the billions Apple has parked offshore. http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-reform-plan-bil... There's something to be said for Apple's efforts to level the playing field against the favorable tax & public policies under which Samsung and Huawei…

As I look at schemes to prevent this, it's pretty obvious that a low gross tax rate on exported goods is a net positive for a nation. But that leaves the question of how/whether to tax companies with comparatively few exports (think of telecoms as an example, where the majority of a company's total capital is physically located and impossible to move). I don't think there's much argument that a near-zero corporate ta…

There actually is a fair amount of argument [1-4] that a near-zero corporate tax rate is ideal. [5-6] argue that it isn't.

(These are all, except [2], popular press articles. I imagine that there's more considered discussion in the academic literature.)

[1] "Six Policies Economists Love (And Politicians Hate)", Planet Money (podcast). http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-p.... This contains interviews with Dean Baker (co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C.); Russ Roberts (George Mason University economics professor); Katherine Baicker (professor of health economics at Harvard University's Department of Health Policy and Management); Luigi Zingales (professor of entrepreneurship and finance and the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business); and Robert Frank (professor of management and economics at Cornell University's Johnson Graduate School of Management).

[2] "Simulating the Elimination of the U.S. Corporate Income Tax", Hans Fehra, Sabine Jokischb, Ashwin Kambhampatic and Laurence J. Kotlikoff. NBER Working Paper No. 19757. Issued in December 2013, Revised in April 2014.

[3] "Abolish the Corporate Income Tax", Laurence J. Kotlikoff (Economics @ U. Boston), New York Times, Jan 5, 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/opinion/abolish-the-corpo...

[4] "Let's Abolish The Corporate Income Tax", John C. Goodman, Forbes. Aug 26, 2014. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/08/26/lets-abo...

[5] "Why Do We Tax Corporations?: Wouldn't it be easier just to tax individuals?", Christopher Beam, Slate, Oct 17 2008. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...

[6] "10 reasons we should tax corporations", Nicholas Shaxson, The Guardian, March 15 2011. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/15/tax-co...

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#153

Post by nautilus12 »

twblalock wrote: post #128
nautilus12 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that its the "with some maneuvering" that we should re-evaluate as a society. If you can demonstrate clearly (and I think its clear to everyone here that they are dodging taxes) that they are attempting to sidestep the law even though its technically legal, then we should pursue precedents that prevent this.

Where would that end? How could anyone be confident that their actions would not land them in jail, if following the letter of the law did not guarantee safety, and judges or juries could decide that their interpretation of the "spirit" of the law was enough to result in a guilty verdict?

Im not a legal person so I apologize, but how does intent play into this then. If Im climbing with someone and I accidentally drop them and they die, then I have to show that my intent wasn't to murder them right? Can't you make the same argument here, the crime is that apple didn't pay the full taxes it owed the government don't they still have to prove that their intent wasn't dodging taxes?

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#154

Post by Frondo »

sol_remmy wrote: post #30
komali2 wrote: post #5

If you unplugged Apple's board (or given decision-making apparatus) and plugged in a (currently nonexistent) AI with the parameter "Maximize Profit," would you see a different result? I think not. I think we'd see things far more morally horrifying, in fact, with just enough PR makeup to ensure "maximized profit." Unsure why we laud capitalism and then act horrified at the result. Here in America we've made our decis…

If you unplugged the government's board (or given decision-making apparatus) and plugged in a (currently nonexistent) AI with the parameter "Maximize Power of Government," would you see a different result? I think not. ----- My point is that you are implying government is the alternative ("they will govern morally! academics will keep them in check! journalists will keep them in check!") then you need to rethink your…

We The People don't have any other suitable mechanisms to reign in businesses. I'm a citizen first, and a buyer of stuff and owner of shares a distant, distant second.

The laws, that I get to, in at least some way, help craft as a citizen of a country are the only real voice I can meaningfully exert, far more than a boycott or trying to buy shares and sit on a board. And that's a power every voter has.

Heck yeah I want to maximize the government's power to make a better life for me and everyone else--the corp's not looking out for us, but we are.

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#155

Post by quest88 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #134
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we should simply make large corporations like Apple actually follow the existing tax laws Apple is in compliance with our tax laws. The laws, not Apple, are the underlying problem.

Apple spent ~$3.5 million on lobbying in the first 6 months of the Trump administration: https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/21/apple-trump-lobbying-increase... How many times do we have to reiterate the point that large corporations and the people who own them spend a fortune on lobbying sitting politicians and bankrolling their election campaigns, and that the controls on such spending limits have been systematically disma…

Where did the $3.5 go to?

> The company specifically outlined in its filing that a strong focus of its lobbying has been for immigration.

> In addition to immigration, Apple’s government filing indicates lobbying for climate change, patent reform, accessibility, health initiatives, diversity, and education.

Seems like worthwhile lobbying to me.

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#156

Post by graeme »

leopoldo wrote: post #106
DINKDINK wrote: post #31

Point of debate: Why should Apple have the US government lay claim to the revenue/profits that it generates in non US countries? From the article: "This allowed Apple to funnel all its sales outside of the Americas - currently about 55% of its revenue - through Irish subsidiaries that were effectively stateless for taxation purposes, and so incurred hardly any tax." If you support the taxation, do you also support th…

As a U.S. citizen who has lived abroad, all expats have to report and pay back their taxes to the U.S. Given, there's a bigger exemption (I don't remember the exact number, but you start paying taxes at 40-50K). So I agree, Apple as an American company should pay taxes on the money it makes abroad. And again, I would vouch for a larger tax break, but still pay on their income abroad - as expats do.

The US is the only country which does this though. From an outsiders perspective, it seems unreasonable. The rules have become significantly harsher in recent years. Banks may avoid dealing with Americans, and there is a lot of paperwork to prove you owe zero.

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#157

Post by __blockcipher__ »

cmiles74 wrote: post #130
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we should simply make large corporations like Apple actually follow the existing tax laws Apple is in compliance with our tax laws. The laws, not Apple, are the underlying problem.

I don't believe that this is accurate. Apple believes they are in compliance and at this time it appears the US federal government agrees. If the government was to disagree, they could take action and force Apple to comply with the existing tax laws. Apple would have their day in court and precedent would be set. Should Apple win that case, then we'd need to look into creating new laws. I am not convinced that new la…

Pure foolishness.

The law says “if you bring your foreign-earned profits abroad, you must pay taxes”. (I left it vague because I’m not an expert but my understanding is Apple would be responsible for around a 30% or higher tax rate).

Apple says, “okay we’re not going to bring the money back at that rate. Instead we’ll leave it invested in liquid assets abroad and take on cheap debt in the US to fund our share repurchases”.

So what’s your proposal? Forced repatriation? I hope it’s clear why that isn’t a good approach.

Our international tax code is completely fucked. Apple’s not the problem.

Full disclosure: My portfolio is heavily weighted towards Apple at an average cost of $120/share

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#158

Post by madeofpalk »

mrguyorama wrote: post #66
whatok wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure Apple is following existing tax laws.

That depends if you believe tax law should be about checkboxes or about keeping to the spirit of giving back to the community that made you

In our society, taxation laws are a system of rules. I think its important that if companies and people are following the law that they're then not held to some other second arbitrary standard.

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#159

Post by anigbrowl »

microcolonel wrote: post #119

When talking about "tax avoidance", it is important to be fair. There is only one question, "Is this illegal?", and that question has only two answers. Either it's not illegal, and the onus is on you to lobby for and define laws which achieve your goals, or to simply accept things as they are; or it is illegal, and the onus is on your prosecutors to prosecute. Avoiding taxes is the rational, moral, and fair thing to…

When talking about "tax avoidance", it is important to be fair. There is only one question, "Is this illegal?", and that question has only two answers.

Wait a minute....so it's important to be fair, but not to examine whether the behavior in question is fair? I get that you want to shift consideration to the rules, but as we all know the rules are up for auction by those willing to spend money on lobbying and financing campaigns.

If we're going 'to be fair' - the standard you're asking for - then I think we need to include that factor in our assessment. Otherwise, it seems like you're appealing to people's instinct to support fairness as a diversion from the rather blatant rigging of the rules, and that doesn't seem fair at all.

There's something disturbing about the prevalence of this rhetorical technique by so many posters whenever this subject comes up. Whether it's cynical or reflexive I don't know, but it is misdirection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlkQPiiLs6U

Re: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices

#160

Post by madeofpalk »

lbotos wrote: post #47
DINKDINK wrote: post #31

Point of debate: Why should Apple have the US government lay claim to the revenue/profits that it generates in non US countries? From the article: "This allowed Apple to funnel all its sales outside of the Americas - currently about 55% of its revenue - through Irish subsidiaries that were effectively stateless for taxation purposes, and so incurred hardly any tax." If you support the taxation, do you also support th…

Doesn't it already? I've been under the impression that is one of the big "things" about being an American. You will always pay taxes to the US: "If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where yo…

Yes it does already, and the US is particularly unique in this regard.
Post reply on HN