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

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 163 posts

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes

#71

Post by bryanrasmussen »

rjmunro wrote: post #69

As soon as I read "In 2019, Uber claimed $4.5 billion in global operating losses ... in reality, it brought in $5.8 billion in operating revenue." I think either whoever wrote this has no idea what they are talking about, or they are trying to trick readers. "in reality" implies there is a contradiction or fraud, when it's totally possible to have $5.8 billion in operating revenue and still make a $4.5 loss. All this…

>Don't trust this source - they don't know what they are talking about".

or at least, outrage of uninformed readers is potentially larger than outrage of the informed.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes

#73

Post by Dort »

capableweb wrote: post #19
blue1 wrote: post #13

Shell (the oil company) is actually named Royal Dutch Shell. For a moment I was confused by the title. According to wikipedia it is really named after sea shells.

One would think that the logo of the company would be enough to make sure everyone knows where the name comes from :) At first I though it was kind of macabre, but then I got reminded that it's basically standard practice, exterminators frequently have bugs as their logo, bacon packages have happy pigs and so on.

The shell logo dates back to the 19th century, when Shell traded in decorative Japanese seashells. You can read more of the logo history at (Dutch) https://www.shell.nl/over-ons/netherlands/history.html

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes

#74

Post by brtkdotse »

Acinyx wrote: post #55
sschueller wrote: post #37

I don't understand why the US just doesn't make these companies pay the tax instead of trying to get some global minimum tax agreement. If Uber wants to operate in the US. Force them to pay otherwise ban them from operating in the US. Done.

What exactly should they pay tax on? AFAIK, most countries like the US go for a tax on profits, but profits of a multinational country are extremely hard to "locate", as in: in which country was the profit made? Some obvious examples are IKEA stores licensing the rights to the IKEA brand from some company in the Netherlands, which means most stores in the US almost have no profits. Or starbucks USA buying extremely e…

The answer is clearly “blockchain” /s

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes

#75

Post by dalbasal »

dstick wrote: post #4

I'm getting more and more frustrated by my own country's willingness to facilitate this. It just doesn't make any sense. From what I can tell it's all based on old-fashioned debunked economic theories in the same vain as "trickle-down-economy". There's a growing resistance to the Netherlands as a "Doorsluisland", and our current administration's political turmoil will hopefully provide the momentum for actual change…

It's a mistake to think of it as based on ideas or economic theory, debunked or otherwise. "Trickle-down-economy" is a marketing term, intended for rhetoric.

Tax policies, and other corporate friendly loophole machines are all about detail. At the detail level, both rhetorical slogans and technical theories have no meaning. Any given legislation can only be understood as accounting spreadsheets and scenario plans. There's no way to "narrate" it.

One side thinks in terms of objects that have independent moral implications, like shell companies. The other thinks in terms of objects that are a collection of accounting details, like pass-through entities.

There's an old business adage: "you name the price, I'll name the terms." In a startup context, that could mean investing in a company at valuation X, but with terms (eg liquidations preferences, performance goals, etc.) that make a mockery of X as a valuation. Many a vein founder has been scheisted this way. Proudly boasting their impressive, $X valuation and paper-wealth, while giving away the farm.

In corporate law and tax codes, one side has been consistently been winning this game.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes

#76

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

eptcyka wrote: post #68
bko wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its unfair and destroys local competition i.e a Starbucks vs mom's coffee bar. Do you think tax compliance is higher in small local businesses than large mega corps? Based on my experience in the US, tax fraud is much easier and more common with small businesses. Think about how many small shops don't even have a proper point of sales system, encourage cash, and hire under the table. Stackbucks would not be able to…

Starbucks doesn't need to resort to fraud to effectively pay 0% tax.

it's not fraud as in "tax evasion" it's 100% legal albeit morally bankrupt "tax avoidance". the problem is that if you grow a company to a certain size the only way to compete is to be part of this rigged system. not a single fortune-500 company that is in the top 500 because they don't use thick layers of shell companies. the strategy is always to squeeze the supply end and the demand end while scooping the profits in the middle (the low-tax jurisdiction).

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes

#77

Post by VBprogrammer »

poooogles wrote: post #66
bko wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its unfair and destroys local competition i.e a Starbucks vs mom's coffee bar. Do you think tax compliance is higher in small local businesses than large mega corps? Based on my experience in the US, tax fraud is much easier and more common with small businesses. Think about how many small shops don't even have a proper point of sales system, encourage cash, and hire under the table. Stackbucks would not be able to…

>Do you think tax compliance is higher in small local businesses than large mega corps? I can't speak for anywhere but the UK, but yes 100%. Small businesses overall tax burden is much higher than large multinationals.

That can be true while tax evasion is rife. There can't be too many reasons our plasterer expected £4000 worth of work paid in cash. Any honest business would worry about the costs involved in handling that much cash.

Of course plastering is a very labour intensive process and it would be easy to pay all of the guys cash in hand.

Another time I asked our plumber if she minded receiving a large amount of cash (which we'd been legally given by our grandparents) she said it made no difference, she would have to put it into her bank because she was applying for a mortgage.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes

#79

Post by actually_a_dog »

bko wrote: post #58
technicolorwhat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im dutch too and im super frustrated about this. I don't care about paying taxes (I've done so for the last 20+ years) even if they go as high as 52%. But it really irritates me that: - other companies with this tax deals pay almost nothing - its unfair and destroys local competition i.e a Starbucks vs mom's coffee bar.

> its unfair and destroys local competition i.e a Starbucks vs mom's coffee bar. Do you think tax compliance is higher in small local businesses than large mega corps? Based on my experience in the US, tax fraud is much easier and more common with small businesses. Think about how many small shops don't even have a proper point of sales system, encourage cash, and hire under the table. Stackbucks would not be able to…

It's more like capacity for legal tax avoidance is greater with megacoorps than with Mom & Pop.

Re: Uber used 50 Dutch shell companies to dodge taxes

#80

Post by bryanrasmussen »

eptcyka wrote: post #68
bko wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its unfair and destroys local competition i.e a Starbucks vs mom's coffee bar. Do you think tax compliance is higher in small local businesses than large mega corps? Based on my experience in the US, tax fraud is much easier and more common with small businesses. Think about how many small shops don't even have a proper point of sales system, encourage cash, and hire under the table. Stackbucks would not be able to…

Starbucks doesn't need to resort to fraud to effectively pay 0% tax.

right if you're a small company and you pay 0% tax you're probably getting shut down and owner is having some legal problems when they investigate you, if you're big enough you might get a small fine or maybe just have investigation dropped.
Post reply on HN