or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

So instead of questioning Sog's figures you're accepting them as accurate. And to support that agenda you use 9 months from a calendar year, quote what Apple is provisioning so far instead of what they actually paid and claim that the 14% worldwide effective rate is FUD.?? Mirror, mirror. .You really want to know the truth?Why not use some real year-end figures showing Apple's cash payments for taxes, and even better show how those off-shore profits, some with no taxes...
OK. Take 2012 as an examplehttp://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312512444068/d411355d10k.htmFrom Apple's 10-K you find "Income before provision for income taxes 55,763". Now under taxes paid you get this figure: "Cash paid for income taxes, net 7,682" Divide one by the other and tell me how you get 25% from that.So where did Cook get his 30% plus tax rate claim that he testified to in the Senate? Technically it was not a lie. They did, but that 30% rate was...
Where do you get Apple paying 25% corp tax? Provisioning is not the same as writing the check. With most of Apple's revenue derived from overseas operations, and largely filtered thru special tax arrangements with Singapore in the East (China, Australia, New Zealand, etc) before joining up with the western revenue landing in 2% (or zero depending) Ireland I don't see any possibility that Apple has actually PAID a tax rate of 25%.
They have done new deals, the most recent in 2007 I think, tho it could have been 2010
I don't think Commissioner Almunia can be "re-elected" can he when he and the other members are not elected in the first place.
You keep throwing the back taxes issue in there rather than actually answering the question I asked. Do you think the EU cannot pressure Ireland into discontinuing the unique tax arrangements they have with Apple. Ignore the back taxes issue, where I tend to lean your way when it comes to that.By the way I think the EU could only go back 10 years if they decided to pursue the back tax issue, not 25. Could be wrong.
So you don't think the EU could find the tax agreements to be illegal and no longer usable for Apple tax advantages? Ignore for the moment whether Apple might or might not have to pay back taxes. That's a separate issue that you're clouding your opinion with.The story is more whether Ireland can continue with the back-room negotiated tax schedules with specific large corporations, giving them an unfair financial advantage, that others have no access to. Do you think...
Dang. . . twice in 24 hours. Sorry about that Anant. So your opinion now would be . . . ?
The loopholes are not available to every company if the initial findings are correct. The facts determined so far indicate that Apple's favorable tax situation in Ireland was not the result of an arms' length use of transfer pricing arrangements. Instead it was set up in closed door negotiations using arbitrarily set formulas with no basis in fact for determining the profits to be reported each year. Most companies do not have access to those tax officials and the pull...
New Posts  All Forums: