Live data from Hacker News

Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

bbc.co.uk

301–310 of 366 posts

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>Do you know how the railroad infrastructure was built? Abusing the heck out of immigrants and genociding the native people, I'm pretty sure. Also this (link is https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&... ): >Construction of the railroad provided many opportunities for financial chicanery, corruption, graft, and bribery. The greatest financial scandal of the 19th century grew out of the railroad's…

"several members of Congress, to grant lucrative construction contracts"

The difference is that I see that part as the evil. As in who is the "corrupt", "graft" and "bribery" here referring to? It's the government.

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#302
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber's files and computers located in French territory are of course accountable to French authorities, but that's simply not the case for those located in other jurisdictions… Unless there is some international law or treaty mandating that?

Authorities might not be able to seize computers and files in another country, although I think interpol can get involved in tax fraud or tax evasion matters. Preventing access to your accounts during an audit is quite fishy, especially for an onsite audit without warning which, in France, is supposed to happen only if the authorities have doubts that you could make some evidences disappear. During an audit, the CEO…

Unless it’s legally mandatory in such a way that superior authorities can’t overrule it, then it doesn’t seem to matter? (such as the President, appellate courts, etc…)

Clearly in this case Uber got a superior authority to do so, and in any future case that will still be a likely possibility.

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#303
post #216

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?

This is a very emotional way of saying "you're in favour of enforcing contempt of court rulings against people who try to obstruct the judicial process".

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#304
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They just demand the data per warrant and if you don’t deliver you go to jail for obstruction of justice

Is that true? I'm not a lawyer but AFAIU, you don't have to provide incriminating evidence against yourself?

The IT guys aren’t the ones under investigation.

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#305
post #222
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They just demand the data per warrant and if you don’t deliver you go to jail for obstruction of justice

How does that work if it's a cloud system and you're denied access because the IT admin from another continent locked you out? Are you going to keep the executive around as a hostage in hopes of getting them to release the files?

Why should the IT guy lock you out if you want to access your data?

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's hard to see how any French official would have authority to conduct searches 10 meters beyond French borders, let alone over all of Uber's computers located in dozens of other countries.

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.

That sounds like a pretty poor precedent when e.g. Russia or China raids the local office of a social media company to get data on a dissident.

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the French police aren't randomly deciding on a Tuesday for no reason to check the company for proof of them being tax cheats without some court somewhere requesting it, but even if they were, we're talking about a company here, not a person. A person has the right to remain silent, it doesn't make sense for a company to have that same right. And the 2nd half just reads like pure corruption to me, they pai…

> And the 2nd half just reads like pure corruption to me Why did you conclude that? There were some user uploaded pirated content in our platform. As far as I know, some media company won approval by some judge for a raid to discover the extent of piracy. It's just in the police rulebook to get everything during the raid where there could be pirated content, including employees laptops.

Sorry, I meant the 2nd sentence of the OP, where they mention Uber paying off Macron.

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#308
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...or you can just use a VAT, which are also paid at purchase. Tech companies have high margins and low expenses, so if the point is to tax tech companies, taxing purchases and giving a credit to sales is literally the exact opposite of what you want to do.

VAT with 100% deduction places entire tax burden on the end consumer. Income tax aims to extract additional tax from entities that extract money from consumers for investors. VAT could do a lot of the same things that I'm proposing (if the deductions weren't 100%) but is limited in scope. And because of that it has a lot of interfaces to other domains like real estate, import, labor, financial intruments. Interfaces…

Income taxes make everything less straight forward, more risky, more costly, just harder. Small companies are incredibly disadvantaged. If most/all income taxation could be avoided, it potentially translates to incredible productivity gains.

What are the reasons to tax corporate income? The usual reason is so that it doesn't spend the money on executive wages, parties, and so on. The less public reason is so that it doesn't extract all money to a foreign corporation through license/patent fees (dividends are taxed more).

We can do so much more today with the computers we have than the primitive taxation schemes of 1980s Europe. We already have the infrastructure to audit corporate spending and investments - let's just keep using that to avoid the lavish parties and otherwise not serving the shareholders as efficiently as possible. Let's cap wages at 200k - if you want more, get some stock options and share the risk. Any out of country value transfer (money, gold, financial assets...) is taxed 50% (each individual gets an exemption up to 100k/year). Add a 5% inflation rate to discourage cash hoarding.

Now the fun stuff - let's use Land-Value Tax and Progressive Value Added Tax - VAT with progressive rate based on item class and price. Zero rate on basic needs in raw form + everyday items like hygiene. Everything is calculated automatically using the country's E-Cash Register system - absolutely zero bureaucracy, everything is clear upfront and there is no forward risk created by taxation. And it's super hard to avoid taxes when they won't give you the new Lambo unless you pay right there and now.

Most EU countries already have all of the infrastructure in place. Though this scheme would work best in a borderless, continent-wide European state.

Re: Netflix Europe offices raided in tax fraud probe

#309
post #295
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I and many others think the government should have 0 business in my filing cabinet. That difference in world view might be what makes this topic more complex than you seem to think.

[Not parent poster] So even the most heinous act of violence become unprosecutable when the suspects/accomplices have moved all remaining evidence into a magically inviolable filing cabinet? No? Then the world is a lot more complex than property rights trumping everything else.

I think it’s very hard to say, and it just gets harder the more I think about it (like many things tend to).

On one hand, if the condemning evidence can’t be provided by someone other than me, should the case be prosecutable?

On the other hand, any sentient human can come up with examples of cases where it might be reasonable to search my belongings for evidence; multiple independent witnesses point to me being guilty of murder and investigations have otherwise stalled. Or anything of the sort.

What if all the independent witnesses are not independent? What if I’m not the guy, but just a lookalike? What if I’m being set up by the authorities?

The easy thing to do here is to say well okay SOMETIMES it’s okay to search one’s belongings but not for like any silly reason or anything like it has to be a real serious one. Then it’s just a matter of where to draw the lines, and who should get to decide.

I like the more absolute stance I made earlier; the government shouldn’t have any business in my personal belongings. Some crimes will go unpunished and that’s a price I’m willing to pay.

Post reply on HN