TBH, I have no view on Apple's tax affairs, but your definition of a loophole is incorrect.
The situations you cite are just normal tax rules, not loopholes. A tax loophole is where someone finds a way to circumvent certain tax rules without breaking the law. One is adhering to the rules, the other is adhering to none (whilst not breaking any either).
Nonsense. That's a silly, arbitrary definition. Using the tax laws in a legal manner is simply following tax rules. Only people who want to mindlessly attack someone call it a loophole.
But even if you were correct, where's your evidence that Apple has circumvented the tax rules? The argument seems to be that the 'loophole' they are using is in earning money overseas and leaving it there. Just how is that circumventing the rules? Aren't the rules set up specifically to cover that situation?
Now, personally, the tax code in the US is a disaster and I doubt that it's any different anywhere else. I would favor massive simplification - throwing out just about everything but a simple formula:
First X dollars are not taxed.
Next Y dollars are taxed at rate a%.
Everything above X+Y taxed at rate b%.
Use GAP to define income.
Problem solved. However, even that would not stop the whining on this topic. You have to add in the principle of national autonomy. The United States does not have any jurisdiction over Ireland or Singapore or China or anywhere else. Money earned in those countries is under the jurisdiction of those countries and they can tax it however they wish. Only if the money is transferred to the US would the US have any jurisdiction.
Edited by jragosta - 7/10/12 at 7:39am