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

Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 164 posts

Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B

#41

Post by cantrip »

cryptoz wrote: post #36
monktastic1 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you mean, 'should'? I read it as something like 'are required to by law.' > Sure they would. Why not? I've done this. Canadian government and US government. It doesn't make sense not to do this sometimes. I'm curious, what was your reasoning for paying $500 more than expected? And in what way did it "not make sense" to not do that?

> I read it as something like 'are required to by law.' I would have said 'have to' to be required by law. 'Should' implies a moral code, a desire to do right and good. In this case, Google absolutely 'should' pay those taxes. > I'm curious, what was your reasoning for paying $500 more than expected? And in what way did it "not make sense" to not do that? If you have more money than necessary, and you know that other…

I have never paid more taxes (that I'm aware of) than I am legally obligated to and I never will.

Your list of conditions for rationally paying more taxes hinges on so many assumptions that it's a moot point. You might as well say it's rational to burn money in a fire.

If you have more than you need, and you know that others don't, and you know that the government is not efficient enough to use it properly, and you know that corporations will keep it instead of paying higher wages to workers, and you know that non profits will eat the majority of it in overhead before it helps people, and you know that decreasing the amount of money in circulation will cause the value of all money to increase, you should rationally set fire to your extra cash.

Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B

#43

Post by ghaff »

cryptoz wrote: post #36
monktastic1 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you mean, 'should'? I read it as something like 'are required to by law.' > Sure they would. Why not? I've done this. Canadian government and US government. It doesn't make sense not to do this sometimes. I'm curious, what was your reasoning for paying $500 more than expected? And in what way did it "not make sense" to not do that?

> I read it as something like 'are required to by law.' I would have said 'have to' to be required by law. 'Should' implies a moral code, a desire to do right and good. In this case, Google absolutely 'should' pay those taxes. > I'm curious, what was your reasoning for paying $500 more than expected? And in what way did it "not make sense" to not do that? If you have more money than necessary, and you know that other…

>Paying as little taxes as possible to avoid jail is absolutely not the rational move for people or corporations.

Of course it is, and then both individuals and companies have the option to make voluntary payments as charitable contributions or to support local institutions--as many universities to to their municipalities.

Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B

#44

Post by monktastic1 »

cryptoz wrote: post #36
monktastic1 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you mean, 'should'? I read it as something like 'are required to by law.' > Sure they would. Why not? I've done this. Canadian government and US government. It doesn't make sense not to do this sometimes. I'm curious, what was your reasoning for paying $500 more than expected? And in what way did it "not make sense" to not do that?

> I read it as something like 'are required to by law.' I would have said 'have to' to be required by law. 'Should' implies a moral code, a desire to do right and good. In this case, Google absolutely 'should' pay those taxes. > I'm curious, what was your reasoning for paying $500 more than expected? And in what way did it "not make sense" to not do that? If you have more money than necessary, and you know that other…

> the rational thing to do could be to help out

Sure, it's just that some might prefer charities.

> The rational move is to fully pay all expected taxes

The difficulty is in defining "expected." If the tax authorities give your return the green light, in what sense did they "expect" more? If your definition of expectation isn't about the letter of the law but the spirit, then whose spirit (amongst the many lawyers, accountants, and executives) should be followed? This doesn't even touch the issue of fiduciary responsibility, covered elsewhere in the thread.

Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B

#45

Post by glitcher »

charlesdm wrote: post #11
deadmetheny wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These loopholes abuse the tax codes of multiple nations. They absolutely are loopholes that ignore the spirit of the law.

Honestly, to me, the law has no spirit. The law having a spirit would mean we have to depend on ethical beliefs, and those can be wildly different for every person and/or company. What seems like an acceptable rate of taxation to pay for person A seems outrageous for B, and both rates would probably seem outrageous anyway to both those people if they have to pay those abroad (e.g. not in the home country of the main…

> the law has no spirit. The law having a spirit would mean we have to depend on ethical beliefs

The law is also not a set of boolean logic statements. The "spirit" is just a way of acknowledging that language is imprecise at best, and often laws are poorly written to begin with.

Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B

#46

Post by omarforgotpwd »

gowld wrote: post #16
thrill wrote: post #6

There are no such things as tax loopholes. There is compliance with the law as Congress has written with all of their agendas, and there is noncompliance.

Loopholes exist, because language is imprecise and imperfect. Laws have loopholes like code has bugs. In this particular case, it's probably not a loophole, since the behavior in question has been known for many years, and the US government has made no effort to change how the law fails to tax overseas income of corporations. In many cases, tax law says or (implies) "you pay $X to us, but you get credit for tax paid…

> the US government has made no effort to change how the law fails to tax overseas income of corporations

Of course they have made an effort to fix this -- the recently passed tax reform bill makes this a thing of the past by dropping the tax rate for foreign profits to 0%.

Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B

#47

Post by joelg »

thrill wrote: post #6

There are no such things as tax loopholes. There is compliance with the law as Congress has written with all of their agendas, and there is noncompliance.

"There are no such things as bugs in code; the computer always executes the code as written."

Loopholes and bugs are differences between intent and effect.

Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B

#48

Post by crdoconnor »

cantrip wrote: post #24
thrill wrote: post #6

There are no such things as tax loopholes. There is compliance with the law as Congress has written with all of their agendas, and there is noncompliance.

Exactly. Do you think shareholders would stand for a company paying $19.2B more in taxes than they should? That would be absurdly negligent on the part of everyone leading the company. Would an individual pay $500 more in taxes than they are required to out of the goodness of their heart and belief in the American government? Don't indict corporations for following the tax code, change the laws.

>Don't indict corporations for following the tax code, change the laws.

I wouldn't have done in the past before Google hired lobbyists, but if they're sending people to Washington to "help" draft laws then pretending that they are not culpable is simply dishonest.

Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B

#49

Post by debt »

flor1s wrote: post #35
debt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. Loopholes are the side effect crappily written laws. And in many cases, loopholes are unearthed by an army of high-paid law firms. Unintentionally created, but very intentionally exploited. As these loopholes are closed(again, because they're unintentional), these mega corporations are moving around their money from tax haven to tax haven; they're actively exploiting these loopholes in various countries. I…

Companies pay low tax in one country for money they earned in another country. Almost every multinational does that, there are buildings in The Netherlands in which a dozen of international firms have a postbox just so they can redirect their revenue and pay the lowest tax on it. Being Dutch, I am ashamed that our government does not do anything to change the laws which allow for this to happen.

Poor countries use tax havens as well.

Those countries are the most hurt by the use of tax havens. Many people in poor countries depend on tax dollars to survive.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/14/tax-ha...

It's a disgusting practice, that many on this forum seem to have no problem defending. Astounding.

Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B

#50

Post by crdoconnor »

burke wrote: post #20
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that most of Google's political positions lean liberal, in subsidizing government services by raising taxes. For this same company to be participating in a scheme designed to deprive the government tax revenue, while advocating raising everyone's taxes to pay for things... Suffice to say, this is not a company "doing the right thing", as their code of conduct suggests they should. And bear in mind, this is n…

Corporations literally have a legal obligation to attempt to pay as little tax as is legally possible (really, to maximize shareholder value, which might even mean paying less tax than is legally possible, as long as the expected value of the gambit is positive). The issue is not corporations taking advantage of it, the issue is that we have a system where an actor is obligated to optimize for certain variables withi…

>Corporations literally have a legal obligation to attempt to pay as little tax as is legally possible

That is a myth. Directors and officers have no such legal responsibility. Equity is a residual claim.

Post reply on HN