121–130 of 334 posts
There should never be a gap this big unless fraud or evasion is involved. If the rules are that vague it needs to change.
I can understand why an honest mistake, an accounting misinterpretation, or incorrect decision leads to a gap this big - taxes can be complex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LOL, like they would ever do that! They will make MS customers pay for it, if they can't convince the IRS to lower the bill significantly, which they probably can.
Of course they will make their customers pay for it. That's how companies work: the customers pay for the expenses of the company.
Wow. “The IRS says Microsoft owes an additional $28.9 billion in tax for 2004 to 2013, plus penalties and interest.” No wonder why they’re talking about charging for windows 12 features, has to come from somewhere!
Maybe it could come from those huge executive salaries and bonuses that are many multiples higher than regular employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "a ton of tax at the relatively high income tax rates there" Firstly, that's not Apple paying income tax, that's their employees. Secondly, they don't pay much in the way of corporation or other taxes that usually apply because of a sweetheart deal (Google also has one IIRC), which is why much of the EU is up in arms about the Irish government's behaviour here, that effectively allows these multinationals to operat…
"Sweetheart deals" are not allowed in the EU, and whether or not there was one in this case is a matter of controversy[0]. In fact the EU courts have decided that there was no breach of law by Apple, though a further appeal maybe yet be made. It's easy to sling around accusations like this, but it's important to check the facts at the same time. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%27s_EU_tax_dispute
It is interesting that the last news about this is the EU saying they are going to appeal, three years ago.
I find the use of such schemes pretty awful regardless of whether they technically fall inside of the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they are, it’s a contractual agreement that is within the law. The fact that you don’t like it could not be less relevant, you don’t matter. If the government doesn’t like the law, they can (try) to change it but that has to go through the actual process. They are welcome to be as mad as they want that their law is poorly written but it is still their law.
Every law is judged with the intent behind the action... except for taxes which is the single exception I know of. And here the intent is pretty clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every law is judged with the intent behind the action... except for taxes which is the single exception I know of. And here the intent is pretty clear.
Actually there seems to be a lot of intent in tax law, reading the wikipedia page about the Apple/Ireland controversy - some tax mechanisms/structures are specifically called out as not being available for firms looking to reduce their tax bill, use must be for genuine business requirements only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That tax break "Double Irish Dutch Sandwich" is being phased out. It involves both those countries with one of the Irish companies managed out of Bermuda. It has shifted to other schemes now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
What other schemes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's no less fiction than any other contract or legal document.
The idea that the business' value is being created in Bermuda (in Google's case, but there will be similar things going on here) is a fiction. The idea that what creates the value is a single concrete piece of intellectual property is a fiction. The idea that that piece of intellectual policy was transferred to Bermuda is a fiction. The idea that what was transferred could be legitimately valued at zero when transfer…
And, more importantly, nationalize it while compensating the owner for it's declared value, which was zero (or near to).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that the business' value is being created in Bermuda (in Google's case, but there will be similar things going on here) is a fiction. The idea that what creates the value is a single concrete piece of intellectual property is a fiction. The idea that that piece of intellectual policy was transferred to Bermuda is a fiction. The idea that what was transferred could be legitimately valued at zero when transfer…
I'd rather see the US declare that the IP is no longer promoting the progress of science and the useful arts and annul it.
While it discourages long research projects, it really incentivises fast execution and building on other companies designs.