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

Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 366 posts

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#241

Post by atmosx »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #158
telotortium wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think any of these kill switches involved deleting data, just temporarily removing access of systems in the affected office.

Not a lawyer, but let’s say the cops were searching my house. If I threw the keys to my unbreakable safe out the window, such that they could never be found, I doubt a judge would care for the distinction. That the evidence exists but cannot be accessed is still going to find you in contempt.

> I doubt a judge would care for the distinction.

If the judge receives a call from the ministry of justice, they will care a great deal about the distinction.

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#242

Post by fragmede »

NBJack wrote: post #133
lokar wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing uber does is crazy anymore

Not by comparison to Uber at least. 'Historical' documentaries about it are going to be wild. And probably on Netflix.

If you haven't seen superpumped or read the book and are interested in Uber's story, it's worth a read/watch, though it's dramatized for tv.

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#243

Post by Onavo »

tonygiorgio wrote: post #234
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer, but let’s say the cops were searching my house. If I threw the keys to my unbreakable safe out the window, such that they could never be found, I doubt a judge would care for the distinction. That the evidence exists but cannot be accessed is still going to find you in contempt.

If it were keys to a safe that existed outside of the warrant requirements (in another country in fact), then it would likely not be illegal. The regulators would unlikely be able to legally access that safe anyways without extra due process, so it’s mostly about protecting against unwarranted access.

Do the folks at Brussels have the concept of "fruit of the poisoned tree" and parallel construction?

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#244

Post by betaby »

Muromec wrote: post #81
lm28469 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well no that's not really what happens, what happens is that legally the french entity is just a service provider for the irish HQ. They pretend it's a simple marketing agency and that the real value is provided by the irish entity

At some point governments will catch up and start taxing based on percentage of global revenue or even turnover.

I hope so. And that's not only USA-copanies phenomenon. I worked for a french company in Montreal which payed close to zero tax amount even though they are doing more than OK financially world-wide, including Canada.

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#245

Post by lacy_tinpot »

sapphire42 wrote: post #185
lacy_tinpot wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this explains why the US is out ahead in GDP, income, and is doing much better pre and post covid than Europe. It's not so much breaking laws, but unnecessary restrictions and harassment by Europeans states. The US is business friendly. It's industry friendly. We don't needlessly harass the business of sovereign individuals, and the state apparatus isn't being used as an excuse as to exert power or influence ov…

You call a tax fraud investigation "needlessly harassing the business of sovereign individuals?" You're right, the U.S. is very business and industry friendly, which explains why the American people have been getting poorer and poorer while corporations and their shareholders get richer and richer.

[flagged]

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#246

Post by betaby »

scotty79 wrote: post #230
vlovich123 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t that a hugely regressive tax?

I don't think so. Rich people buy vastly more. Not just food, shelter and entertainment but also real estate, entire companies and financial instruments. They'd end up paying vastly more tax.

> Rich people buy vastly more

Not enough, especially since everything is business expense for them.

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#247

Post by spwa4 »

gruez wrote: post #221
spwa4 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why did every company in the world start auto-deleting emails ~10 years ago? I don't believe many people were sued for fraud. These days cloud services have auto-delete based on time functionality? It's called "object lifecycle management", because I guess fraud was too catchy.

Usually tax laws have a cut-off date. You don't need to keep records forever, but you do need to keep them around for a few years.

Strange, because that sounds reasonable but the reasoning doesn't actually work, does it?

Either "the law" can be trusted, and there's no point to deleting data after a cut-off date, or the reverse is true and you're no worse off getting caught deleting data.

I believe the law actually provides a middle ground. You're liable for tax fraud for X years, but you're allowed to delete the data after Y years. Since X > Y you make it much harder for the tax office to sue you if you delete data. Plus make it pointless for them to use their other investigative powers against you, which is in reality more important, especially for smaller firms.

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#248

Post by izacus »

gruez wrote: post #216
tokinonagare wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company is doing business here, the actual location of file is irrelevant. Also when the government is really motivated, he can arrested the founders or executives directly (Pavel Durov). Which is what they should do to Netflix execs if they are doing business illegally.

>Also when the government is really motivated, he can arrested the founders or executives directly (Pavel Durov). Which is what they should do to Netflix execs if they are doing business illegally. You're in favor of holding executives hostage to demand access to data? If they actually did something illegal, they can be arrested/tried for that, but arresting executives as a means to coerce companies into doing stuff…

> You're in favor of holding executives hostage to demand access to data? If they actually did something illegal, they can be arrested/tried for that, but arresting executives as a means to coerce companies into doing stuff is a total perversion of the rule of law.

Turns out that witholding data as a company executive is outright illegal, so yeah, we're in favor of it and they can get arrested and charged for for it.

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#249

Post by marcosdumay »

scotty79 wrote: post #230
vlovich123 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t that a hugely regressive tax?

I don't think so. Rich people buy vastly more. Not just food, shelter and entertainment but also real estate, entire companies and financial instruments. They'd end up paying vastly more tax.

If you add financial instruments into the tax (what is a tax on investing, not spending), it will become proportional. What is still not very good.

This blind kind of tax also has horrible impact on the production of goods with high added value.

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#250

Post by [deleted] »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #213
pjerem wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy doesn’t work. Your neighbor is not you. $COMPANY is $COMPANY all around the world and if $COMPANY wants to do business in $COUNTRY (which is not an obligation, they choose to), then yes, they have to entirely cooperate with $COUNTRY. If they don’t want to, they can still do business elsewhere.

> $COMPANY is $COMPANY all around the world This is the thing which is not the case. The subsidiary in the US is nearly always a different company than the one(s) in Europe. They'll have different management and different lawyers etc. Sometimes they even have different owners, e.g. because one of them is a joint venture with some other company, or a franchise. And they have to be different, because different countrie…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN