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

Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

businessinsider.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 431 posts

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#61

Post by jelling »

nceqs3 wrote: post #57
paxys wrote: post #19

> Uber transfered its intellectual property through a $16 billion “loan” from one of its subsidiaries in Singapore that in turn owns one of Uber’s Dutch shell companies, a manuever that grants the company a $1 billion tax break every year for the next 20 years, the researchers found. Shit like this makes my head hurt and infuriates me at the same time.

Be mad at politicians for writing tax codes that work like this rather than companies for taking advantage of them.

Nah let’s do both. If a company wants to spin a pro-social image - Uber is currently asking consumers to donate vaccine rides - then they sure as hell can take the heat for avoiding pro-social taxes.

At a minimum, they should pay that tax savings towards vaccine rides. I won’t hold my breath.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#62

Post by pstuart »

nceqs3 wrote: post #57
paxys wrote: post #19

> Uber transfered its intellectual property through a $16 billion “loan” from one of its subsidiaries in Singapore that in turn owns one of Uber’s Dutch shell companies, a manuever that grants the company a $1 billion tax break every year for the next 20 years, the researchers found. Shit like this makes my head hurt and infuriates me at the same time.

Be mad at politicians for writing tax codes that work like this rather than companies for taking advantage of them.

That makes it sound like the companies are innocently stumbling upon these opportunities when in fact they're actively lobbying/buying these changes.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#63

Post by quantified »

nceqs3 wrote: post #57
paxys wrote: post #19

> Uber transfered its intellectual property through a $16 billion “loan” from one of its subsidiaries in Singapore that in turn owns one of Uber’s Dutch shell companies, a manuever that grants the company a $1 billion tax break every year for the next 20 years, the researchers found. Shit like this makes my head hurt and infuriates me at the same time.

Be mad at politicians for writing tax codes that work like this rather than companies for taking advantage of them.

You don’t need to choose one or the other.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#64

Post by happytoexplain »

nceqs3 wrote: post #57
paxys wrote: post #19

> Uber transfered its intellectual property through a $16 billion “loan” from one of its subsidiaries in Singapore that in turn owns one of Uber’s Dutch shell companies, a manuever that grants the company a $1 billion tax break every year for the next 20 years, the researchers found. Shit like this makes my head hurt and infuriates me at the same time.

Be mad at politicians for writing tax codes that work like this rather than companies for taking advantage of them.

Why not both? Dissatisfaction drives change. Yes, companies are expected to take advantage of legal means of increasing value, but there is a spectrum of behavior between "shrewd" and "immoral" that still falls entirely within "legal", and the individual human beings in the affected society reasonably have opinions about where the line is. When the numbers are too disgusting, it's OK for people to express dissatisfaction with both lawmakers and the company in question, market forces be damned.

And let's not forget that the companies frequently play an outsize role in influencing the written laws. The line between "playing the game" and "cheating" is very fuzzy in real world systems.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#65

Post by [deleted] »

dkarras wrote: post #34
0goel0 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individuals can't pretend to be based in Ireland to not pay US taxes. US taxes global individual income, but not global corporate profits.

>US taxes global individual income... Always wondered why US citizens do not make a bigger deal out of this. If I understand correctly, if you are a US citizen, but live somewhere else in the world, IRS still expects to be paid tax from your individual income in that foreign country (possibly in addition to the tax you pay in your country of residence) right? I assume there are minimum income thresholds but still...…

[deleted]

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#66

Post by toast0 »

Syzygies wrote: post #4

Individuals are subjected to "alternative minimum tax". Why not corporations?

The trump tax changes actually did. IIRC, a US corporation is taxed either 20% of US net income or 10% of global net income with credits for overseas taxes paid, whichever is more. Corrections welcome, I likely misremembered something. The idea being if you paid at least 10% on the income in the jurisdiction where it was earned, great; if not, you'll pay it at home.

This replaced a higher rate on US net income and global net income that lands in the US.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#67

Post by IdontRememberIt »

If IP and shell companies infuriate you. I invite you to investigate why all billionaires have foundations or its cousin structures and "give" their wealth to it... Clue: tax and inheritance (tax) avoidance. Bill, Buffett, etc. are hypocrites.

But it is not new, even in the Bible they spoke about it (Matthew 6:2): "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men."

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#69

Post by syshum »

flukus wrote: post #60
syshum wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people really want to have a debate on the ethics and morality of forcibly taking property, income, and labor from people or businesses under the threat of violence? Aka taxation?

Property ownership doesn't exist without threat of violence. What's to stop me taking the phone you're holding? It's the threat of violence from you or society in general. Money and taxes are just abstractions on top of the property ownership one, if you want to get rid of taxes you'll need to get rid of property ownership. Many cultures were this way.

Rofl... Sorry no you are completely off base.

First off I hope the only that keep you from being a thief is not that someone would defend themselves from your attempt.

Personally I steal from people as much as I desire to. Which is none at all

However self defense is not in viewed philosophy as a threat of violence. Violence that we are talking about here is the itiation of violence for which governments alone have taken the unethical position they have the lawful and exclusive right to said it itiation of violence in service 'of the greater good'

Finally you in no way need to git rid of property ownership to get rid of taxation. Especially income based taxation like we are talking about here. Income based taxation being the most unethical of all forms of taxation.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes on $6B in revenue

#70

Post by sdljfjafsd »

mycentstoo wrote: post #32

In my opinion, this is example of poor/incomplete regulation. Using sports as an analogy, it's like if a game was designed poorly, we have the expectation that players would act in good faith to not take advantage of rules. But players have the incentive to win, not act in good faith.

Yes, for me this is flopping in soccer and basketball. There's a pro for the athlete (chance of foul called) while the con is little to none. Hence both sports have floppers. The regulatory system must adapt to those who take advantage of the spirit of the policy but adhere to the letter of it. Obviously this is a constant issue, but what won't work is trying to "shame" the bad actors through hearings, media, etc. Policy must constantly evolve, esp. in areas like taxation.

Also for those who are better versed with law, is it possible that companies can legally defend actions like this by arguing they are maximizing shareholder legally and thus, they are obligated to do so?

Post reply on HN