or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › In-depth report finds Apple moved $8B in untaxed profits out of Australia over past decade
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

In-depth report finds Apple moved $8B in untaxed profits out of Australia over past decade - Page 3

post #81 of 188
This thread appears to be generating a fair bit of passion.

The world is fortunate to be full of so many people willing to tell others what to do with their money.

1wink.gif
Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
post #82 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post
 

 

Apple has the best lawyers and the best accountants of any multinational corporation on the face of the Earth.  I'm sure everything Apple did was 100% legal.

 

Suck it, Australia!  

 

Ha ha

 

You miss the real point here, the tax roundabout doesnt  just affect Australia, its the USA who misses out on the tax as well. If you follow the path, its to Ireland, Holland, then the Caymans/Bahama, none of which makes it to the US.

 

But is Apple doing anything different than, Google, Samsung, Msoft etc Probably not.

 

By hey you still have the IRS who will nail YOU if you tried something like this....

post #83 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


Corporations all do that. It may be problematic and grant the largest businesses an unfair advantage, but it needs to be dealt with via updated laws. As Frood pointed out, Apple just happens to be big enough to attract attention. I would add that Apple clamors for press attention, so it happens to include negative attention when they engage in something that should be admonished.

I don't see how you're going to 'deal with it' without dismantling the EU. But if we're lucky, then one day the EU will collapse.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #84 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

No.

So you think that companies pay tax on revenues, not profits and pay that tax on profit in every country they sell to? Just to be clear because "no" isn't much of an answer.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #85 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

So you think that companies pay tax on revenues, not profits and pay that tax on profit in every country they sell to? Just to be clear because "no" isn't much of an answer.

Your implication is that Apple is taxed in California; that isn't so.
Edited by Benjamin Frost - 3/6/14 at 1:30pm
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #86 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


I don't see how you're going to 'deal with it' without dismantling the EU. But if we're lucky, then one day the EU will collapse.

That isn't something I can answer, but your most obvious alternative would involve a drastic shift in business culture. I don't see that happening anytime soon. The negative PR may cost them something, but not enough that it dissuades such practices.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


So you think that companies pay tax on revenues, not profits and pay that tax on profit in every country they sell to? Just to be clear because "no" isn't much of an answer.

 

Taxes paid in other countries are credited against US taxes in almost all cases (may be exceptions), as long as the company applied for refunds of overpaid taxes where applicable. That is at least in the US. This is different from operating costs where they aren't taxed on an amount equivalent to the accrual of certain costs, including depreciation of certain things. If you look at the nature of the criticism, it is sometimes warranted. I can't comment on every situation. Look up Starbucks though. They used disingenuous transfer pricing to make subsidiaries appear to be operating at a loss. If this was really the case, they would have closed stores or changed their strategy in the UK.

post #87 of 188
I am not denying that Apple is not paying taxes and avoiding taxes in Ireland. What I am saying is that revenue is not profit (this report conflates the two) and corporation tax is not paid where items are sold unless there is a physical residence ( in the case of Apple stores there is but the profits there are the difference between retail and wholesale prices minus expenses, and it looks like Apple is paying that).

Starbucks is transfer pricing because they charge the parent company for IP costs for their retail stores, for iPads shipped from Ireland or Holland the profit should be declared in Europe or repatriated to the US, or both. Australia has no claim.

If this continues every country in the world is going to claim corporation tax from every company in the world.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #88 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I find most anti-government rhetoric to be dishonest and hypocritical. People repeatedly laud the free market system as if it's the solution to everything even after witnessing as many catastrophes to suggest otherwise. The hypocrisy comes from the fact that everyone here has most likely gone through a state-funded education and now uses this education to argue against government spending. Most will look forward to a government supported retirement and will currently rely on state-provided law enforcement and transport infrastructure.

This dogma that government needs to go and taxation should be as close to zero as possible just doesn't hold up to reality.

I don't condone how government spends its funds at all, I just think people should be honest about how much they rely on it. They shake their right fist in condemnation and hold out their left hand for support.
What does transparency have to do with cost? Nobody knew what Enron or Lehman was up to either. You can see the breakdown of tax spending and most of it goes to things that are nothing to do with spying:

http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_estimate_vs_actual_2013
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2291739/snowden-leaks-cia-and-nsa-black-budget

The entire budget is $3.5 trillion, the spying appears to be in the tens of billions. They aren't going to shut down the intelligence agencies because a few people decide not to pay their taxes.
So you want to eliminate the organisation that checks tax returns while maintaining some form of taxation. Before you suggest this tax checking duty can be performed by a private company, who would check their tax returns and that they aren't being bribed?
 
 

To your credit, Marvin you are very polite.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #89 of 188
Good for them. I didn't overpay my tax obligations either.
post #90 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

I am not denying that Apple is not paying taxes and avoiding taxes in Ireland. What I am saying is that revenue is not profit (this report conflates the two) and corporation tax is not paid where items are sold unless there is a physical residence ( in the case of Apple stores there is but the profits there are the difference between retail and wholesale prices minus expenses, and it looks like Apple is paying that).

Oh I didn't notice that. I'll re-read the article again later. I'm aware of the issue of physical residence. There are countries where a given company may not own their distribution channels. It could just be Company A --> third party resident company within that country --> retailers. I'm not actually sure how they're set up in Australia. My main point there was to mention that they could claim a credit against taxes paid there, so they would not actually pay that amount a second time on repatriated funds.

 

 


 

Quote:
Starbucks is transfer pricing because they charge the parent company for IP costs for their retail stores, for iPads shipped from Ireland or Holland the profit should be declared in Europe or repatriated to the US, or both. Australia has no claim.

Again that is interesting, but it means I really need to re-read the attached material. I mentioned Starbucks for their abuse of loose regulation on transfer pricing. They own both subsidiaries. One resides in a lower tax country. They charge themselves at a level that would be unsustainable if the money was owed to another company. That's why I find it disingenuous and used that as an example of deserved negative PR.

 

Quote:

If this continues every country in the world is going to claim corporation tax from every company in the world

 

It's complicated with big companies. I think most of them regard themselves as essentially sovereign and merely parked in one country or another.

post #91 of 188

I don't have access to the AFRs analysis or to the records Apple provided ATO.

 

It is certainly undeniable that Apple has been create in its tax accounting. It uses the "double-Irish-Dutch" scheme and some have said that it invented it. That, however, is beside the point.

 

A crucial point - almost always overlooked in sensational media releases such as these, is that thirty years ago Apple took a bold step in its development strategy. One that has paid off in this instance. That step was to allocate expenses for development of its intellectual property (the most valuable asset) between the U.S. [maybe North America] and the rest of the world. Each division was charged a portion of the cost in proportion to the share of sales. This started in about 1980 or 1981 - I'm not sure of the exact year but it certainly was before the introduction of Macintosh which was 1984. So "Apple US" paid its share for devices sold in the US [or North America] and "Apple Ireland" paid its share for devices sold in the rest of the world.

 

So the point is that we don't know - and AFR is probably not interested in finding out - whether or not this profit is just a reasonable return - to Apple Ireland - on the years of development expenditure it has incurred. 

 

I acknowledge the point that Apple has been creative in structuring its corporate organization to minimize its taxes. There's no fault in that. If the Government wants to change it then let it change. Until then it is what it is.

 

If AFR wants to assert that Apple has acted illegally with use of "transfer pricing"  etc. then it should make that claim and let it play out in court. I'll wager that it [AFR] will never do so because it would expose its somewhat shoddy investigative and reporting practices.

 

Game on, AFR !

post #92 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

I cannot see how creating empty companies with huge bank accounts rhymes with abiding to the spirit of the law.

As an aside, has any major development on the OS's ever been performed in Ireland?

 

No. BUT - Apple Ireland has been paying its share of R&D costs (mostly in California) since 1980. As such, Apple Ireland does have a valid claim to the revenues produced by that investment.

 

As it is right now, Apple Ireland contributes more to Apple's R&D expenses than Apple US, since their sales are greater.

 

So - Is it [OS development] done in Ireland? No.

Is it paid for from Ireland? Yes.

 

Next question ...


Edited by plovell - 3/6/14 at 7:45pm
post #93 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by lghulm View Post

I want to let everyone know that is commenting for Australia to "Suck it" and change our laws if we don't like Apple dodging taxes here - WHAT THEY DID IS ILLEGAL UNDER AUSTRALIAN LAW!!!!! In Australia it is illegal to use transfer pricing to move profits from an Australian subsidiary to an offshore enterprise where it is evident the transfer was intended to dodge taxes.

The Australian government (my government) will pursue Apple for this money and there is a very good chance that Apple may have to fork out a multi billion dollar settlement to cover the matter. That money will be used to pay for roads, schools, healthcare and education.. Something Apple should be proud to contribute to.

 

Bullshit.

 

See the Australian Tax Office's recent payout of $880 million to News Corp after they lost the case.

 

You can read all about it in the crap Rupert Murdoch's puppet hacks present as news in his newspapers.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #94 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post
 

And then Apple would get get sued by its' shareholders for making these voluntary yet 'illegal' payments as it would be a breech of the corporation's fiduciary responsibilities to its' shareholders.

Who really cares about what shareholders think? If they don't want to own shares in a profitable company that behaves ethically in relation to paying taxes, then they can sell their Apple shares and buy shares in a company in the fossil fuel, tobacco or gambling industries which have no scruples about behaving unethically. 

post #95 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


The Kerry citation is not an example of selfishness.

 

Actually it is, if he didn't have a heart attack he probably would never have donated the defibrillators.

 

As Marvin pointed out if he hadn't avoided (as opposed to evaded) taxes the ambulances may have been equipped at the governments expense, which is something our taxes should be spent on.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #96 of 188

Good for Apple.  Any company doing there job should minimize there taxes its there job to do that for the shareholders.  If Australia wants more tax legislate and close the holes that allowed that money to slip through.

post #97 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldfullerton View Post
 

Who really cares about what shareholders think? If they don't want to own shares in a profitable company that behaves ethically in relation to paying taxes, then they can sell their Apple shares and buy shares in a company in the fossil fuel, tobacco or gambling industries which have no scruples about behaving unethically. 

 

Shareholders also have a vote on who sits on their board of directors, they vote on shareholder proposals and other important facets of the company, in addition to owning the stock.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #98 of 188

Saddening.  Big corporations spirit profits away to phantom holding companies, while developed countries suffer from lack of government revenues and get turned to increasingly right-wing politics as a result.  The neo-con destruction of the state is happening everywhere, and the burdens on the people increases every day.  And they applaud.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #99 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldfullerton View Post
 

Who really cares about what shareholders think? If they don't want to own shares in a profitable company that behaves ethically in relation to paying taxes, then they can sell their Apple shares and buy shares in a company in the fossil fuel, tobacco or gambling industries which have no scruples about behaving unethically. 

Guess that means no Fortune 500 companies or 99.9% of other businesses (or taxpayers for that matter) then. How much in extra taxes do you think corporations should pay that would make sure they are paying their 'fair' share? As a rule companies, corporations and  individuals take every deduction they can and do not pay more than that are legally obligated to pay. How many companies do you know of, have paid extra 'voluntary' taxes?

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #100 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post
 

How many companies do you know of have paid extra 'voluntary' taxes?

 

I'm sure there are companies that could employ offshore schemes to reduce their tax burden and haven't.  Hell, Tim Cook has made a point of saying that Apple pays its full allotment of US tax for its US operations, and the numbers bear that out.  I bet they could shift some of that offshore if they wanted, but they don't, because of negative PR.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #101 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

When ethics and law are at cross purposes, one must follow the law. That is good corporate governance. It is a fiduciary responsibility that must be met. It is ethical behavior. And, most importantly, it supports the rule of law. If you don't like that ethics and the law are at odds, change the law to suit your ethical purpose. If you can't do that, accept that others' views of what is ethical are at odds with yours. If that is still unsettling, either change your ethical values or work to change others'.

Sorry I have to correct you. Under Australian law (tested in the courts) fiduciary duty (to shareholders) is not considered preeminent over common ethics and the good of society. If a business can be shown to have acted within the law, but with the intended PURPOSE of contravening the SPIRIT of the law than they may still be found guilty of the crime. The cases may be quiet challenging to prosecute but there is precedent in Australia and our laws are cleverly written to this effect. What you say may be true under US law but respectfully is incorrect under Australian law which you are obviously unfamiliar. It is a contravention of Australian law to knowingly circumvent the spirit of the law for the benefit of shareholders - let's be very clear about that.

Yes - where intent can be proven that they undertook actions purely from intention to circumvent the activities that the law was designed to prohibit.
post #102 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

 

I'm sure there are companies that could employ offshore schemes to reduce their tax burden and haven't.  Hell, Tim Cook has made a point of saying that Apple pays its full allotment of US tax for its US operations, and the numbers bear that out.  I bet they could shift some of that offshore if they wanted, but they don't, because of negative PR.

Not worth a response. Try living in the real world for a change!

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #103 of 188

So my Apple example is incorrect?  Tim Cook lied to Congress?


Edited by Crowley - 3/6/14 at 7:10pm

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #104 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by lghulm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

When ethics and law are at cross purposes, one must follow the law. That is good corporate governance. It is a fiduciary responsibility that must be met. It is ethical behavior. And, most importantly, it supports the rule of law. If you don't like that ethics and the law are at odds, change the law to suit your ethical purpose. If you can't do that, accept that others' views of what is ethical are at odds with yours. If that is still unsettling, either change your ethical values or work to change others'.

Sorry I have to correct you. Under Australian law (tested in the courts) fiduciary duty (to shareholders) is not considered preeminent over common ethics and the good of society. If a business can be shown to have acted within the law, but with the intended PURPOSE of contravening the SPIRIT of the law than they may still be found guilty of the crime. The cases may be quiet challenging to prosecute but there is precedent in Australia and our laws are cleverly written to this effect. What you say may be true under US law but respectfully is incorrect under Australian law which you are obviously unfamiliar. It is a contravention of Australian law to knowingly circumvent the spirit of the law for the benefit of shareholders - let's be very clear about that.

Yes - where intent can be proven that they undertook actions purely from intention to circumvent the activities that the law was designed to prohibit.
Not going to bother to correct the misquoted inclusion of material I did not write.

If I read you correctly: it is against the law to obey the law when your intent is to circumvent the ethical intent of the law even when you follow the law.

That is screwed up.
post #105 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

No. BUT - Apple Ireland has been paying its share of R&D costs (mostly in California) since 1980. As such, Apple Ireland does have a valid claim to the revenues produced by that investment.

As it is right now, Apple Ireland contributes more to Apple's R&D expenses than Apple US, since their sales are greater.

So - Is it [OS development] done in Ireland? No.
Is it paid for from Ireland? Yes.

Next question ...

Thank you for helping me out. So it gets money from - amongst others - sales from Australia, for which it funds R&D performed mainly in the US

The spirit of the law... Yeah, right!
post #106 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post


Thank you for helping me out. So it gets money from - amongst others - sales from Australia, for which it funds R&D performed mainly in the US

The spirit of the law... Yeah, right!

 

Yep, just like any of the big multinationals, pharmaceuticals, fossil fuels, foodstuffs, media, tech anything and everything and they all have every right under the law to do this.

 

If you don't like it vote for the party most likely to change the laws, the government are the only ones with the power to change the legislation.

 

Too bad their election campaigns are paid for by the corporations that can afford to do this stuff and the people are manipulated by media barons who also use these loopholes.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #107 of 188

It's a legitimate point, I think, that the technology Apple has given Australia is probably worth more than those taxes. Imagine having to use Windows computers and Samsung tablets, yuck! :)

post #108 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

Yep, just like any of the big multinationals, pharmaceuticals, fossil fuels, foodstuffs, media, tech anything and everything and they all have every right under the law to do this.

 

If you don't like it vote for the party most likely to change the laws, the government are the only ones with the power to change the legislation.

 

Too bad their election campaigns are paid for by the corporations that can afford to do this stuff and the people are manipulated by media barons who also use these loopholes.

Interesting how the spirit of the law - Apple's argument changes into just being legal.

We all know it's legal. But is it right? According to the spirit of the law (everybody pays his fair share of taxes), clearly not. 

post #109 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Yep, just like any of the big multinationals, pharmaceuticals, fossil fuels, foodstuffs, media, tech anything and everything and they all have every right under the law to do this.

If you don't like it vote for the party most likely to change the laws, the government are the only ones with the power to change the legislation.

Too bad their election campaigns are paid for by the corporations that can afford to do this stuff and the people are manipulated by media barons who also use these loopholes.

You seem quite happy to be covering a tiny bit of what Apple and other wealthy entities would (should) have paid in taxes with your own personal hard-earned money. No doubt they appreciate it. I'm not as pleased when April inevitably rolls around each year and the rich get even richer.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #110 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post

Interesting how the spirit of the law - Apple's argument changes into just being legal.
We all know it's legal. But is it right? According to the spirit of the law (everybody pays his fair share of taxes), clearly not. 

Who cares what the "spirit" of the law says? What matters is the letter of the law, because by the letter of the law they will try, convict and hang you. Laws are made to give the illusion that the individual is powerless against the mighty state.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #111 of 188

So just what is the SPIRIT of the law? That no company should be able to be successful and make a profit unless the government can take whatever percentage they can get their hands on? 

 

And as far as paying a fair share of taxes comment that was made - can you please define what a fair share is using a simple single formula that applies to every entity around the world? 

post #112 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Who cares what the "spirit" of the law says? What matters is the letter of the law, because by the letter of the law they will try, convict and hang you. Laws are made to give the illusion that the individual is powerless against the mighty state.

Tim Cook seemed to care (when speaking to the commission)

post #113 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post
 

So just what is the SPIRIT of the law? That no company should be able to be successful and make a profit unless the government can take whatever percentage they can get their hands on? 

 

And as far as paying a fair share of taxes comment that was made - can you please define what a fair share is using a simple single formula that applies to every entity around the world? 

 

You're turning the tables. The law foresees a fixed percentage of taxes.

Companies engineer constructions to pay less than what the law foresees.

 

As to your second question, no I cannot. Neither can you.

But a generally accepted rule of thumb is that the richer pays more taxes than the poorer.

Not only in amounts but also in percentages.

0,50 USD on 1000 USD is not fair.

 

Should you ask yourself any question about the above: I am in the highest income category

and tax rate.

post #114 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post


Thank you for helping me out. So it gets money from - amongst others - sales from Australia, for which it funds R&D performed mainly in the US

The spirit of the law... Yeah, right!

So if you want to set up design + build for "Australia's Own Phone" - go right ahead.

 

I hear that there's a site in Fisherman's Bend and another in SA that'll be available soon.

post #115 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post
 

So if you want to set up design + build for "Australia's Own Phone" - go right ahead.

 

I hear that there's a site in Fisherman's Bend and another in SA that'll be available soon.

 

Actually it's no-one's phone... except for the Irish as they fund its development.

On the back, it should read "Designed by Apple in Ireland, Assembled in China"

post #116 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


I disagree. Apple are largely taking advantage of the EU. If Europe consisted of politically and economically independent countries, then Apple would be obliged to pay whatever tax those countries set. But because the EU treats many European countries as one state, Apple can take advantage of this.

 

I don't see that as a disagreement at all.  I agree Apple is taking advantage of the EU (as well as Australia, the US).  Perhaps if Europe consisted of politically and economically independent countries, Apple would be obliged to pay whatever taxes....  but Europe *is* the EU, and Apple is legally taking advantage of its laws, its infrastructure, and its court systems to not pay what would ethically be its share due in those respective countries.  

 

It is the job of those countries (and the EU) to write laws that are ironclad and not based on "What would happen if people followed these according to the spirit of the law" but based on "lets assume we're dealing with money grubbing weasels who will take advantage of any possible loophole they can find" and then write a law such that it would require the weasels to actually break the law in order to gain.

post #117 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

I don't see that as a disagreement at all.  I agree Apple is taking advantage of the EU (as well as Australia, the US).  Perhaps if Europe consisted of politically and economically independent countries, Apple would be obliged to pay whatever taxes....  but Europe *is* the EU, and Apple is legally taking advantage of its laws, its infrastructure, and its court systems to not pay what would ethically be its share due in those respective countries.  

It is the job of those countries (and the EU) to write laws that are ironclad and not based on "What would happen if people followed these according to the spirit of the law" but based on "lets assume we're dealing with money grubbing weasels who will take advantage of any possible loophole they can find" and then write a law such that it would require the weasels to actually break the law in order to gain.

I'm probably being overly simplistic, but as far as I can tell, Ireland has a very low tax rate in relation to the rest of the EU. Because of the nature of the EU, Apple is allowed to use that tax rate to apply to all sales made in the EU. That is due to the intrinsic design of the EU. It seems entirely reasonable that Apple would take advantage of that.

There is an ongoing debate as to whether Ireland will raise their rates to deter international companies from taking advantage of this. Problem is, Ireland benefits substantially from this. If they raise their rates, there is nothing to stop Apple from moving their base to another EU country with a low tax rate. Of course, if all EU countries had the same tax rate, it would be irrelevant.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #118 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

I'm probably being overly simplistic, but as far as I can tell, Ireland has a very low tax rate in relation to the rest of the EU. Because of the nature of the EU, Apple is allowed to use that tax rate to apply to all sales made in the EU. That is due to the intrinsic design of the EU. It seems entirely reasonable that Apple would take advantage of that.

There is an ongoing debate as to whether Ireland will raise their rates to deter international companies from taking advantage of this. Problem is, Ireland benefits substantially from this. If they raise their rates, there is nothing to stop Apple from moving their base to another EU country with a low tax rate. Of course, if all EU countries had the same tax rate, it would be irrelevant.
Benjamin, Apple isn't paying the taxes thru Ireland either, tho they do have a lower rate at just 12.5%. Some of the uintaxed money even sits in banks here in the US. The Apple subsidiary who controls the money doesn't have a tax home at all and thus pays no taxes on the bulk of the profits. Supposedly Ireland is in the process of creating new law that would remove Apple's (and presumably others) ability to avoid answering to any taxing authority.
Edited by Gatorguy - 3/7/14 at 8:31am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #119 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Benjamin, Apple isn't paying the taxes thru Ireland either. Some of the money even sits in banks here in the US. The Apple subsidiary who controls the money doesn't have a tax home at all and thus pays no taxes.

Apple pays no tax on sales in the EU? I don't think so.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #120 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Apple pays no tax on sales in the EU? I don't think so.

For the most part they do not if reports are accurate.

As an example that Irish subsidiary claimed profits of $7.1B on sales of $29B between 2004 and 2008. That was before the big iPhone revenues started hitting the books. Rather than the approx. $900M in taxes that should have flowed to the Irish govt Apple paid only $34M, claiming a mysterious and still unexplained "lower tax rate" in statements. The Irish government says they didn't reduce Apple's tax rate. Since then Apple has done even better by claiming they have no tax home at all which Ireland says they're going to put an end to. Eventually.

Next stop Singapore?
Edited by Gatorguy - 3/7/14 at 9:02am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › In-depth report finds Apple moved $8B in untaxed profits out of Australia over past decade