He's got a bee in his bonnet, all right. He has the self-righteousness of Techstud, and a juvenile drive for the last word. Oh, and he has the charm and wit of DaHarder. I think he may be their off-spring.
Given the state of the Irish economy I'm surprised Ireland is continuing to allow virtually tax-free status to corporations while its citizens undergo extreme austerity measures. It seems like Ireland should be pursuing all of these visiting corporations for more tax.
It also seems to me that since Apple effectively imports all its products, they should at least be slugged an import or sales tax on each product sold, currently equivalent to 10 % in Australia. Why the government doesn't pursue this avenue is beyond me, but having worked for governments I know how incompetent and stupid they usually are.
Of course, this applies to all corporations that are doing the same thing, not just Apple.
There is no "international tax system". There are just hundreds of individual national tax systems. The problem is, why pray tell would Ireland want to prevent it?
It should be obvious. If Ireland encourages other countries to tighten up their tax laws and collect more money from multinationals, it makes Ireland look even better by contrast - and gives companies even more incentive to move there.
Just so you know; this one little exchange right here makes it seem like you don't know the difference between the words "avoidance" and "evasion". And particularly as they relate to taxes.
I'm quite aware of the difference.
The point is that tax avoidance is not illegal or even immoral. A company has an obligation to its shareholders to not give away more money than it has to. Thousands or millions of retirees and individuals are relying on Apple's earnings and share prices to live on. If Apple started throwing money away on things that they didn't have to, then they'd be subject to lawsuits for that. Not to mention that it would be immoral for them to unilaterally decide to take money from their shareholders and give it away to the Government.
If the government doesn't like tax avoidance, they're free to write the tax laws however they wish. Writing the laws in one way and then whining that Apple is following the laws is just plain ridiculous.
The government sets the tax rates. Apple pays the required taxes. How is it unfair or how are they depriving the government of revenues? The only way your argument makes sense is if all the money belongs to the government in the first place and they simply allow Apple to keep some. That's not the way it works.
Apple should file for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. They certainly have enough devotees to be considered a religious organization. They even have a dead prophet.
Apple should file for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. They certainly have enough devotees to be considered a religious organization. They even have a dead prophet.
There is no "international tax system". There are just hundreds of individual national tax systems. The problem is, why pray tell would Ireland want to prevent it?
Why would Ireland want to prevent using Ireland for tax avoidance you mean? Good question. International pressure may sway them. Good standing with their EU neighbours may sway them, especially since their economy is still vulnerable and may need further EU support. And depending on what exactly is being proposed they might be able to be convinced that the holding companies that Apple has set up in Ireland aren't of any benefit to Ireland anyway, so reform to bring them under the regular tax umbrella would be a no-lose for Ireland. Of course, Apple does employ some people in other areas of their corporate structure in Ireland, so they may have pressure in the reverse direction. It's by no means simple.
So why do you get to decide what is "unfair" taxation, again?
You must be referring to someone else. I've never claimed that any taxation is unfair. Legislatures set tax rates and Apple has to follow the rates that they set. No 'fair ' or 'unfair' about it.
Legislatures set tax rates and Apple has to follow the rates that they set. No 'fair ' or 'unfair' about it.
That is true in the strictest sense of being legal and what-not. However, for many people, even the rates are not "fair" (too low) for some (usually the rich and big businesses.) Thus, this question of "fairness" inevitably enters any discussion like this despite anyone's ability to objectively articulate what a fair amount is beyond simply "more."
You must be referring to someone else. I've never claimed that any taxation is unfair. Legislatures set tax rates and Apple has to follow the rates that they set. No 'fair ' or 'unfair' about it.
So why would you reply, agreeing with him, about it?
But we don't have good roads, good schools or decent public safety net systems in place, so what good are our taxes? There is nobody in this country that can say our monies are being put to not only good use or even proper use.
Really? Go on theync.com and see all the horrific traffic and workplace accidents in third world countries and you'll be glad of the job the DOT and OSHA have done.
.... If you're going to applaud them for paying so much tax in the USA then can you not see that it is reasonable for citizens of other countries to say "hang on, why not us too?"
First of all, I'm not applauding them for "paying so much tax in the USA". I'm applauding them for making the kind of profits that make those taxes possible. Secondly, there is no need for any of the other countries to say "why not me too?" All of the $$$ that go into the Irish holding company are "after tax" $$$$. Let me say that again. After Tax Dollars. The proper taxes are paid in the country that the profits are earned. The whole idea of the Irish holding company is to have one entity handle world wide profits, not a multitude of companies from a multitude of countries. The profits of that company is taxed in the USA.
The proper taxes are paid in the country that the profits are earned.
You may define "proper" differently to me in this context, but I think it's very apparent that this isn't actually the case. The Irish subsidiaries are clearly being used to transfer profits out of the European markets before they are subject to corporation taxes in the country of sale. The numbers tell that story.
Uh, so Apple was called before a Senate subcommittee for obeying the law? A law that was written by these same senators? If the senators don't like it, they can change the law and stop blaming people for hiring good accountants and lawyers.
"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one%u2019s taxes." %u2014 Learned Hand
"Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one%u2019s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant." %u2014 Learned Hand
"[T]here is nothing wrong with a strategy to avoid the payment of taxes. The Internal Revenue Code doesn%u2019t prevent that." %u2014 William H. Rehnquist
"Avoidance of taxes is not a criminal offense. Any attempt to reduce, avoid, minimize, or alleviate taxes by legitimate means is permissible. The distinction between evasion and avoidance is fine yet definite. One who avoids tax does not conceal or misrepresent. He shapes events to reduce or eliminate tax liability and upon the happening of the events, makes a complete disclosure. Evasion, on the other hand, involves deceit, subterfuge, camouflage, concealment, some attempt to color or obscure events, or making things seem other than what they are." %u2014 Internal Revenue Service
Uh, so Apple was called before a Senate subcommittee for obeying the law?
They weren't called in for obeying the law. They were called in for using the law against its intent for the purposes of generating profit at the great expense of the US Treasury.
There was a time when racial segregation wasn't against the law (no I'm not equating them). Just because things aren't written into law specifically, doesn't mean they are automatically right until someone writes a law to say so, they're just not punishable. The people at Apple knew exactly what they were doing and why, to the detriment of publicly funded services.
"Evasion, on the other hand, involves deceit, subterfuge, camouflage, concealment, some attempt to color or obscure events, or making things seem other than what they are."
Apple has incorporated companies with no tax jurisdiction, passes funds between geographically separate subsidiaries but uses a legal loophole in order to treat them as single tax entities in Ireland, maintains and manages the cash assets and operations of the Irish subsidiaries in the US and publicly declares their US tax rates to be 30.5% when their federal tax returns are nearer 20%. I know it's just semantics but I'd say some of that fits with the definition of tax evasion used there, even if not in a legal way.
It's one thing to take advantage of tax breaks written into law for the purposes of tax relief in order to encourage economic growth and another to use bizarre international setups to get away with paying almost an order of magnitude less tax and then keeping it in a massive cash pile and not using it. They aren't the same thing at all. The intent of tax breaks is not to help insanely wealthy people build up huge piles of money they don't need and have no intention of using.
Uh, so Apple was called before a Senate subcommittee for obeying the law?
They weren't called in for obeying the law. They were called in for using the law against its intent for the purposes of generating profit at the great expense of the US Treasury.
There was a time when racial segregation wasn't against the law (no I'm not equating them). Just because things aren't written into law specifically, doesn't mean they are automatically right until someone writes a law to say so, they're just not punishable. The people at Apple knew exactly what they were doing and why, to the detriment of publicly funded services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjcampbell
"Evasion, on the other hand, involves deceit, subterfuge, camouflage, concealment, some attempt to color or obscure events, or making things seem other than what they are."
Apple has incorporated companies with no tax jurisdiction, passes funds between geographically separate subsidiaries but uses a legal loophole in order to treat them as single tax entities in Ireland, maintains and manages the cash assets and operations of the Irish subsidiaries in the US and publicly declares their US tax rates to be 30.5% when their federal tax returns are nearer 20%. I know it's just semantics but I'd say some of that fits with the definition of tax evasion used there, even if not in a legal way.
It's one thing to take advantage of tax breaks written into law for the purposes of tax relief in order to encourage economic growth and another to use bizarre international setups to get away with paying almost an order of magnitude less tax and then keeping it in a massive cash pile and not using it. They aren't the same thing at all. The intent of tax breaks is not to help insanely wealthy people build up huge piles of money they don't need and have no intention of using.
Since your argument appears to place the responsibility for deciding how much tax to pay on the companies themselves, how would you recommend they determine which legal tax avoidance mechanisms they should use and which they should not?
And since tax evasion is, by definition, evasion of taxes by illegal means, Apple cannot be guilty of tax evasion if they did obey the tax laws, however much you might think they took unfair advantage of them.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt
The man won't be stopped!!
He's got a bee in his bonnet, all right. He has the self-righteousness of Techstud, and a juvenile drive for the last word. Oh, and he has the charm and wit of DaHarder. I think he may be their off-spring.
If you ladies want to talk about someone in the 3rd person like this, take it private. Otherwise you look foolish.
Given the state of the Irish economy I'm surprised Ireland is continuing to allow virtually tax-free status to corporations while its citizens undergo extreme austerity measures. It seems like Ireland should be pursuing all of these visiting corporations for more tax.
It also seems to me that since Apple effectively imports all its products, they should at least be slugged an import or sales tax on each product sold, currently equivalent to 10 % in Australia. Why the government doesn't pursue this avenue is beyond me, but having worked for governments I know how incompetent and stupid they usually are.
Of course, this applies to all corporations that are doing the same thing, not just Apple.
duplicate...
It should be obvious. If Ireland encourages other countries to tighten up their tax laws and collect more money from multinationals, it makes Ireland look even better by contrast - and gives companies even more incentive to move there.
I'm quite aware of the difference.
The point is that tax avoidance is not illegal or even immoral. A company has an obligation to its shareholders to not give away more money than it has to. Thousands or millions of retirees and individuals are relying on Apple's earnings and share prices to live on. If Apple started throwing money away on things that they didn't have to, then they'd be subject to lawsuits for that. Not to mention that it would be immoral for them to unilaterally decide to take money from their shareholders and give it away to the Government.
If the government doesn't like tax avoidance, they're free to write the tax laws however they wish. Writing the laws in one way and then whining that Apple is following the laws is just plain ridiculous.
He would have to start speaking rationally before he could stop. So far, there's been no sign of that.
For now.
Originally Posted by jragosta
He would have to start speaking rationally before he could stop. So far, there's been no sign of that.
So why do you get to decide what is "unfair" taxation, again?
Apple should file for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. They certainly have enough devotees to be considered a religious organization. They even have a dead prophet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Apple should file for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. They certainly have enough devotees to be considered a religious organization. They even have a dead prophet.
Well played, sir.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
There is no "international tax system". There are just hundreds of individual national tax systems. The problem is, why pray tell would Ireland want to prevent it?
Why would Ireland want to prevent using Ireland for tax avoidance you mean? Good question. International pressure may sway them. Good standing with their EU neighbours may sway them, especially since their economy is still vulnerable and may need further EU support. And depending on what exactly is being proposed they might be able to be convinced that the holding companies that Apple has set up in Ireland aren't of any benefit to Ireland anyway, so reform to bring them under the regular tax umbrella would be a no-lose for Ireland. Of course, Apple does employ some people in other areas of their corporate structure in Ireland, so they may have pressure in the reverse direction. It's by no means simple.
You must be referring to someone else. I've never claimed that any taxation is unfair. Legislatures set tax rates and Apple has to follow the rates that they set. No 'fair ' or 'unfair' about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Legislatures set tax rates and Apple has to follow the rates that they set. No 'fair ' or 'unfair' about it.
That is true in the strictest sense of being legal and what-not. However, for many people, even the rates are not "fair" (too low) for some (usually the rich and big businesses.) Thus, this question of "fairness" inevitably enters any discussion like this despite anyone's ability to objectively articulate what a fair amount is beyond simply "more."
Originally Posted by jragosta
You must be referring to someone else. I've never claimed that any taxation is unfair. Legislatures set tax rates and Apple has to follow the rates that they set. No 'fair ' or 'unfair' about it.
So why would you reply, agreeing with him, about it?
Really? Go on theync.com and see all the horrific traffic and workplace accidents in third world countries and you'll be glad of the job the DOT and OSHA have done.
.... If you're going to applaud them for paying so much tax in the USA then can you not see that it is reasonable for citizens of other countries to say "hang on, why not us too?"
First of all, I'm not applauding them for "paying so much tax in the USA". I'm applauding them for making the kind of profits that make those taxes possible. Secondly, there is no need for any of the other countries to say "why not me too?" All of the $$$ that go into the Irish holding company are "after tax" $$$$. Let me say that again. After Tax Dollars. The proper taxes are paid in the country that the profits are earned. The whole idea of the Irish holding company is to have one entity handle world wide profits, not a multitude of companies from a multitude of countries. The profits of that company is taxed in the USA."Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the
Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one%u2019s taxes."
%u2014 Learned Hand
"Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in
so arranging one%u2019s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody
does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty
to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not
voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is
mere cant."
%u2014 Learned Hand
"[T]here is nothing wrong with a strategy to avoid the payment of
taxes. The Internal Revenue Code doesn%u2019t prevent that."
%u2014 William H. Rehnquist
"Avoidance of taxes is not a criminal offense. Any attempt to reduce,
avoid, minimize, or alleviate taxes by legitimate means is permissible.
The distinction between evasion and avoidance is fine yet definite. One
who avoids tax does not conceal or misrepresent. He shapes events to
reduce or eliminate tax liability and upon the happening of the events,
makes a complete disclosure. Evasion, on the other hand, involves
deceit, subterfuge, camouflage, concealment, some attempt to color or
obscure events, or making things seem other than what they are."
%u2014 Internal Revenue Service
They weren't called in for obeying the law. They were called in for using the law against its intent for the purposes of generating profit at the great expense of the US Treasury.
There was a time when racial segregation wasn't against the law (no I'm not equating them). Just because things aren't written into law specifically, doesn't mean they are automatically right until someone writes a law to say so, they're just not punishable. The people at Apple knew exactly what they were doing and why, to the detriment of publicly funded services.
Apple has incorporated companies with no tax jurisdiction, passes funds between geographically separate subsidiaries but uses a legal loophole in order to treat them as single tax entities in Ireland, maintains and manages the cash assets and operations of the Irish subsidiaries in the US and publicly declares their US tax rates to be 30.5% when their federal tax returns are nearer 20%. I know it's just semantics but I'd say some of that fits with the definition of tax evasion used there, even if not in a legal way.
It's one thing to take advantage of tax breaks written into law for the purposes of tax relief in order to encourage economic growth and another to use bizarre international setups to get away with paying almost an order of magnitude less tax and then keeping it in a massive cash pile and not using it. They aren't the same thing at all. The intent of tax breaks is not to help insanely wealthy people build up huge piles of money they don't need and have no intention of using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjcampbell
Uh, so Apple was called before a Senate subcommittee for obeying the law?
They weren't called in for obeying the law. They were called in for using the law against its intent for the purposes of generating profit at the great expense of the US Treasury.
There was a time when racial segregation wasn't against the law (no I'm not equating them). Just because things aren't written into law specifically, doesn't mean they are automatically right until someone writes a law to say so, they're just not punishable. The people at Apple knew exactly what they were doing and why, to the detriment of publicly funded services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjcampbell
"Evasion, on the other hand, involves deceit, subterfuge, camouflage, concealment, some attempt to color or obscure events, or making things seem other than what they are."
Apple has incorporated companies with no tax jurisdiction, passes funds between geographically separate subsidiaries but uses a legal loophole in order to treat them as single tax entities in Ireland, maintains and manages the cash assets and operations of the Irish subsidiaries in the US and publicly declares their US tax rates to be 30.5% when their federal tax returns are nearer 20%. I know it's just semantics but I'd say some of that fits with the definition of tax evasion used there, even if not in a legal way.
It's one thing to take advantage of tax breaks written into law for the purposes of tax relief in order to encourage economic growth and another to use bizarre international setups to get away with paying almost an order of magnitude less tax and then keeping it in a massive cash pile and not using it. They aren't the same thing at all. The intent of tax breaks is not to help insanely wealthy people build up huge piles of money they don't need and have no intention of using.
Since your argument appears to place the responsibility for deciding how much tax to pay on the companies themselves, how would you recommend they determine which legal tax avoidance mechanisms they should use and which they should not?
And since tax evasion is, by definition, evasion of taxes by illegal means, Apple cannot be guilty of tax evasion if they did obey the tax laws, however much you might think they took unfair advantage of them.