Related: the new GOP tax bill makes it much cheaper for US companies to bring that money back in to the country while paying minimal taxes on it. Google's been playing offshore accounting games for 10+ years waiting for this moment of tax holiday. http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-reform-plan-repatri...
Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B
51–60 of 164 posts
Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B
#52There 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.
That supposes that there was no intent to leave the loopholes in. "It's not a bug, it's a feature"
Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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, a…
The definition of 'expected' comes from the tax code and the government. The article itself states that the governments are expecting more revenue than they are receiving from these companies. Why are they expecting more? Because the companies spend more money finding ways to stash it offshore than the current employees at the government offices can spend to find and estimate the losses that will incur from a company creating its own loopholes for the future.
It messes up government planning and spending by cheating them out of money that they were expecting based on the profits from the company.
It's clear cut.
> Sure, it's just that some might prefer charities.
Charities don't build roads or other infrastructure, or test food for safety concerns, or build other large scale useful works that life people out of poverty at scale.
Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Charities are no replacement for a functioning democratic government. Charities do not build large scale infrastructure or keep populations safe or anything as powerful as a functioning government can do to lift citizens out of suffering and poverty.
Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Exactly this. The term is "fiduciary responsibility". Their directors could be sued for paying unnecessary tax, against which "doing the right thing" is not a legitimate defense. ("Right" in that statement having different moral and legal meanings.) Or, put another way, it would have been illegal for them to have paid that tax.
>Exactly this. The term is "fiduciary responsibility". Their directors could be sued for paying unnecessary tax
Directors have a responsibility to the corporation, they have no fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.
No shareholder would win a case against a corporation for 'paying too much tax' any more than they would win a case against a corporation for paying the directors or the CEO too much money.
This myth needs to die already.
Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Don't know about you, but I tend to vote for politicians that enact my policy preferences.
Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 k…
>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
You don't pay taxes so that governments can spend money. Governments can spend as much money as they like - they print the damn stuff.
The economy would function precisely as it does now if every dollar paid in tax were burned and every dollar spent by the government were printed.
Taxes paid to extinguish money. It is supposed to be deflationary - a transfer of wealth to everybody else spending money in the economy.
Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B
#58There 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.
It is not at all that cut and dried. Engaging in sham business activity for the specific purpose of tax avoidance is not legal. Many of these tax schemes could be declared invalid at the discretion of the IRS (or other governments - the EU already has in some cases). These companies are not complying with tax law. They are cheating and paying bribes or doing favors to get away with it, and everyone knows it.
These companies are paying the minimum amount of taxes that they can make a reasonable legal case to pay for. They have armies of lawyers that check and recheck the scheme.
Yes, there are many judgement calls, and as with all judgement calls, there may be differences of opinion. But you can bet that they all believe that they can make a strong case that they are within the law.
Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B
#59There 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.
What about a software bug that was actually a deliberate "backdoor"? Or what about a tax statute that was written with warnings that it was ripe for abuse (e.g. the pass through income tax cut)?
Re: Google used a tax loophole to shelter $19.2B
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Don't know about you, but I tend to vote for politicians that enact my policy preferences.
You're probably also the sort of person that donates time/money to candidates whose positions align with yours, rather than their opponents.