"The California based company's European operations pulled in $36.3 billion in net sales to European customers in 2012. Of that, Apple reported that $15 billion was operating profit."
By any standards, that is an obscene profit margin.
Nothing obscene about it. The margins are supported by what consumers are willing to pay.
Starbucks, dunkin donuts have margins 60% - 75% on coffee/tea.
This may not be illegal but it is unethical. The UK has a welfare system and a fantastic National Health Service (all medical care free at source). As a British national I would prefer Apple to respect our welfare system and the cost of running it. You may not have such luxuries in the USA but the majority of our country is proud of our ability to help everyone regardless of wealth or income.
I fully agree with your support for welfare, affordable health services etc. I am more than willing to pay for that myself, too.
Just, seriously, "unethical" does not really work in case of a publicly listed company. They have to create as much income for their shareholders as possible. Paying legally avoidable taxes would require the consent of the owners. Without being cynical about it: this is not going to happen. Furthermore, Apple is not existing in a vacuum. Virtually all of its competitors do the same, some Eastern competitors even enjoy full tax breaks and government subsidies and protectionism in their home countries on top of that. Being "ethical" in such an environment is the first step to being dead.
We can twist that any way we want, without governments setting sustainable rules which then apply equally to all companies, there is no way out of this. And, actually, this would be very simple... All corporate profits get taxed at the point of sale, because this is where the added value is created. No exceptions. Any cost for managing subsidiaries, in Ireland or elsewhere, is tax-deductible at actual documented cost (salaries, rents, etc.). Done. But, as some Austrian comedian once said, getting people in any democracy to vote for something that would benefit everybody, seems impossible.
Starbucks, dunkin donuts have margins 60% - 75% on coffee/tea.
And even that is Namby-Pamby (bits and pieces)... Many types of medicine carry a 1000% margin in Western Europe (and up to 5000% in the US). Even some as common as Aspirin, relying on a patent from 1899 and, in its natural form (bark of the willow), used by the ancient Greeks long before the year zero. I guess they are still covering R&D cost here. Try that for "obscene"
So sick of these articles. If Apple did something illegal than fine, lets see it. If they are just following the tax laws which are all screwed up anyway than lets praise them instead since they are looking out for the interests of their shareholders. They are doing nothing different than most other companies out there.
They aren't doing anything different, they are just better at it than many other companies, and their product mix and lack of an old-growth of international branches allows them to structure the company more effectively to take advantage of various tax codes.
But those who don't like the laws should simply change them not whine at those who manage to make the best of them.
It's envy, greed and blame shifting making loud noises, nothing else.
There isn't just anything illegal about what Apple does (until proven otherwise) but not even anything unethical.
Taxes are not an issue of morality, the are a government created obligation that you fulfill by following the law; there is no such thing as "voluntary" or "charitable" tax payments.
If Apple wants to be charitable with some of the money saved in taxes, they can find their own causes or use it to build solar power plants instead of enabling the government to waste taxes on oil company and "clean coal" subsidies.
When you buy an Apple product in the UK, you pay a VAT of %20. This is a huge amount of money on a MacBook Pro!
The government collects its taxes at sales time. The UK government has made a lot of money from Apple.
Further, since Apple made use of tax writeoffs for employee compensation, and the government taxes the employees income, the government collected taxes there.
For Apple to have paid taxes on that, and then the employee pays taxes on that would be double dipping-- something governments really like to do.
Taxes are theft. This is indisputable objective reality.
I look forward to the AppleInsider article "Apple, once again, doesn't have $4B in product stolen by thieves!"
The VAT is paid by consumers not by Apple. The UK gov't is making money from consumers and Apple employees, not from Apple as a corporation.
The U.S. is the same. Some states levy sales taxes or use taxes (from consumers), and IRS collects income taxes both from Apple employees and Apple corporation.
Apple is not paying any corporate tax in UK. Why this is news? As long as the tax avoidance strategy is legal, I have no problem with it.
Apple deserves the scrutiny -- and there's a lot of commentary on Apple and other corporate tax avoidance at www.applesfiction.com
Yeah, and especially the UK government is a good candidate to raise this issue. ROFL.
(Before anybody gets me wrong, I have nothing at all against our UK friends, I am actually marrying one next month - this is only about some facts.)
The UK government has steadily worked on establishing the lowest corporate tax rate in any major European country (20% is far below the US, France and Germany) in order to make businesses move to the UK. (I am not saying this is unethical or bad, I am just pointing it out.) It has (multiple times) lowered the security requirements for even founding a company, resulting in multiple fishy businesses (from all over Europe) settling in the UK. There are several big UK businesses, including banks, consultancies and insurances, that channel billions of Pounds through Ireland, the, aptly named, Channel Islands or other tax havens (from the Bermudas to Labuan, Malaysia). I am yet waiting for them to receive any scrutiny, or being called out by the UK government. Why use Apple for a publicity stunt, when they have so many black sheep in their own flock to choose from?
Let me be clear. If that is what the people in the UK want, so be it. But people should fulfil their number one duty in a democracy: watch those who govern you. One data point? While the ratio of corporate and individual taxes collected is close to 1:1 in France and Germany, it is between 1:3 and 1:4 in the UK. So, when they announce the next cut of benefits, or the next raise of prices... don't look at Apple. They are just an easy target here.
The real problem here is the assumption that Apple owes money to the UK. Or the US even. It can't be both.
I think the US has the better claim, but the UK has none. Basically they are - as usual with these kind of idiocies - mistaking sales in a country with Corporation tax owed in that country. Its a bit like Ireland complaining that ARM doesn't pay corporation tax in Ireland.
Ireland has nothing to do with this story, it is Apple "avoiding" tax in it's retail stores in the UK. Otherwise the UK has not claim on Ireland's tax base.
What a weird phrasing. Apple UK is only one of Apple's subsidiaries; every European country has its own. This phrasing makes it seem like the billions of operation income across Europe comes to the UK and then flow to Ireland. This is not the case. Each subsidiary gets the money made in each individual country, and has to adhere to each country's tax system. Then the money flows to the Ireland Holding; so to keep the money in one place. Apple pays taxes where the law stipulates and does nothing illegal.
However, Apple does have real sales operations for its online store based in Cork Ireland. All online sales across Europe operate from Ireland. So if you buy your Mac online, you officially buy something in Ireland. Same for iTunes and App store, I believe. And Apple adheres to Ireland tax laws for all these sales.
Actually if a UK Apple store does sell an iPhone it makes the same profit as any other retailer on the iPhone - the difference between the wholesale and retail price - the Cork Office books the wholesale price. Apple UK which runs retail books the difference.
The idea that Apple Ireland is stealing from the UK is nonsense, thats normal practice. Its like saying that BMW doesn't pay corporation tax in the UK.
Of course there is an issue that Apple doesn't pay tax in Ireland. Again, that is misunderstood. Apple does use Ireland's laws to avoid tax due in Ireland (actually it uses a mixture of Ireland and US laws). The entire subcommittee investigating this didn't understand the simplest point about this - if Ireland reforms it's laws the money will go to Ireland not the US. In fact the US can only ever hope to get money back from Apple if it doesn't pay it in Ireland because of double taxation laws. Apple owes more money on repatriation to the US precisely because it has avoided the Irish tax system.
When thorougly reading the article you can read that Apple made 15billion operating profits in the EU and 10% of revenues are attributed ot the UK.
That would mean that Apple made ~1,5billion operating profits in the UK, but they are reporting 102million.
Do you really think that selling goods in the UK is so much more expensive than in the rest of the EU?
The question that has to be answered is why has Apple so mediocre profits in the UK!
Is Apple Ireland selling the goods to Apple UK more expensive than to others to minimize the taxable profit in the UK?
Would any other reseller sell Apple goods at an ebit of ~2,8%?
I don't know, but these are questions that come to my mind.
You are right that it looks like Apple is singled out and that laws - at least within the EU should be homogenized to reduce the incentive to manipulate numbers.
I hope the UK powers that be are checking into Google, Microsoft, etc. etc. etc ....
Actually they have all been investigated. Starbucks was in the news last year when they were investigated over transfer pricing. Apparently they've been operating at a loss for years there due to the cost of coffee beans paid to their subsidiary. You read more about Apple because it's an Apple centric site. The articles about competitors are mostly filler. I wouldn't assume this doesn't happen to others without first researching it.
When thorougly reading the article you can read that Apple made 15billion operating profits in the EU and 10% of revenues are attributed ot the UK.
That would mean that Apple made ~1,5billion operating profits in the UK, but they are reporting 102million.
Do you really think that selling goods in the UK is so much more expensive than in the rest of the EU?
The question that has to be answered is why has Apple so mediocre profits in the UK!
Is Apple Ireland selling the goods to Apple UK more expensive than to others to minimize the taxable profit in the UK?
Would any other reseller sell Apple goods at an ebit of ~2,8%?
I don't know, but these are questions that come to my mind.
You are right that it looks like Apple is singled out and that laws - at least within the EU should be homogenized to reduce the incentive to manipulate numbers.
Apple Europe may make 1.5B operating profits but it does so by selling from Cork. The only corporation profits due in the UK are the profits of Apple UK, which is effectively a retail division. Apple UK, like Currys or other electrical retailers, buys goods from the manufacturer - Apple Ireland - and makes a profit on sales. Currys would do exactly the same.
This isn't tax avoidance, its the way tax works. Its the same for BMW, were it to make say 1.5B in Europe it would book it to Munich; however if BMW owned it's own showrooms it would create a subsidiary in the UK to run the local retail division. The profit would be the difference between the retail and the wholesale price of the cars sold in those showrooms.
Apple Europe may make 1.5B operating profits but it does so by selling from Cork. The only corporation profits due in the UK are the profits of Apple UK, which is effectively a retail division. Apple UK, like Currys or other electrical retailers, buys goods from the manufacturer - Apple Ireland - and makes a profit on sales. Currys would do exactly the same.
This isn't tax avoidance, its the way tax works. Its the same for BMW, were it to make say 1.5B in Europe it would book it to Munich; however if BMW owned it's own showrooms it would create a subsidiary in the UK to run the local retail division. The profit would be the difference between the retail and the wholesale price of the cars sold in those showrooms.
You're correct, except Apple UK makes almost zero profit on their sales as the price they pay the Irish subsidiary for hardware is way above wholesale. That's the whole point, Apple Ireland buys direct from China and they then sell to each country at almost full retail price to reduce their tax bill in those countries to almost zero. And because of the Irish setup, they pay almost zero tax there as well.
I'm not saying you're wrong, or criticising Apple, but just pointing out how they are using the tax systems to pay as little as possible, which they are entitled to do.
"The California based company's European operations pulled in $36.3 billion in net sales to European customers in 2012. Of that, Apple reported that $15 billion was operating profit."
By any standards, that is an obscene profit margin.
British Politicans such as Boris Johnson suggest that if we reduce taxes we will actually collect more.
Heading to a world without taxes means education, health, roads and even water supply could be a thing of the past for some.
You're correct, except Apple UK makes almost zero profit on their sales as the price they pay the Irish subsidiary for hardware is way above wholesale. That's the whole point, Apple Ireland buys direct from China and they then sell to each country at almost full retail price to reduce their tax bill in those countries to almost zero. And because of the Irish setup, they pay almost zero tax there as well.
I'm not saying you're wrong, or criticising Apple, but just pointing out how they are using the tax systems to pay as little as possible, which they are entitled to do.
"The real problem here is the assumption that Apple owes money to the UK. Or the US even. It can't be both.
I think the US has the better claim, but the UK has none. Basically they are - as usual with these kind of idiocies - mistaking sales in a country with Corporation tax owed in that country. Its a bit like Ireland complaining that ARM doesn't pay corporation tax in Ireland."
Many people are already boycotting Starbucks who's scheming also avoids tax.
The fact that you now have people in the US claiming ownership on British income says Apple is next.
Also, if Obama acceded to Apple's repatriation request, tit for tat protectionism will destroy many a world economy. Like Starbucks, I'm wondering if many goods should be allowed in Britain.
Actually they have all been investigated. Starbucks was in the news last year when they were investigated over transfer pricing. Apparently they've been operating at a loss for years there due to the cost of coffee beans paid to their subsidiary:rolleyes: . You read more about Apple because it's an Apple centric site. The articles about competitors are mostly filler. I wouldn't assume this doesn't happen to others without first researching it.
I was simply trying to point out the obvious i.e. everyone does it, it is within the law and Apple should not be singled out. If governments don't like it then they should amend their laws.
However, I think you are doing the reverse, i.e. seeing it as an Apple Centric issue is totally belying the reality. Just explain AAPL rationally! Non Apple centric sites have 'Apple's woes' as headlines everywhere you look. Apple is the biggest target for both this sort investigations and journalists and for the same reason. Some bland English politician can stand up and shout about evil Apple and get attention in the British press he wouldn't otherwise ever get and a journalist can write about evil Apple and get hits on ads that covering coffee prices wouldn't attract. Meanwhile Apple keep on making the best products, are virtually alone in innovation in their chosen market and make almost all the profits in those markets.
Of course I am aware of the other investigations but no company in the last year or two has taken more of a beating. /rant over
Can't find the article now, I think I've got it bookmarked at home so will post it up later.
In fairness to you, the bit you bolded may be incorrect (near full retail price - me bad!!) but it is definitely a heavily inflated price that is meant to reduce their tax bill in each country. Its standard practice for multi-nationals. As was mentioned above, Starbucks do the exact same thing. Their Swiss subsidiary buys the contracts for coffee beans from the growers and then sell them to each country at vastly inflated prices, hence Starbuck's zero tax bills in several countries.
Comments
Nothing obscene about it. The margins are supported by what consumers are willing to pay.
Starbucks, dunkin donuts have margins 60% - 75% on coffee/tea.
I fully agree with your support for welfare, affordable health services etc. I am more than willing to pay for that myself, too.
Just, seriously, "unethical" does not really work in case of a publicly listed company. They have to create as much income for their shareholders as possible. Paying legally avoidable taxes would require the consent of the owners. Without being cynical about it: this is not going to happen. Furthermore, Apple is not existing in a vacuum. Virtually all of its competitors do the same, some Eastern competitors even enjoy full tax breaks and government subsidies and protectionism in their home countries on top of that. Being "ethical" in such an environment is the first step to being dead.
We can twist that any way we want, without governments setting sustainable rules which then apply equally to all companies, there is no way out of this. And, actually, this would be very simple... All corporate profits get taxed at the point of sale, because this is where the added value is created. No exceptions. Any cost for managing subsidiaries, in Ireland or elsewhere, is tax-deductible at actual documented cost (salaries, rents, etc.). Done. But, as some Austrian comedian once said, getting people in any democracy to vote for something that would benefit everybody, seems impossible.
If they "face scrutiny" it's a non-story.
And even that is Namby-Pamby (bits and pieces)... Many types of medicine carry a 1000% margin in Western Europe (and up to 5000% in the US). Even some as common as Aspirin, relying on a patent from 1899 and, in its natural form (bark of the willow), used by the ancient Greeks long before the year zero. I guess they are still covering R&D cost here. Try that for "obscene"
They aren't doing anything different, they are just better at it than many other companies, and their product mix and lack of an old-growth of international branches allows them to structure the company more effectively to take advantage of various tax codes.
But those who don't like the laws should simply change them not whine at those who manage to make the best of them.
It's envy, greed and blame shifting making loud noises, nothing else.
There isn't just anything illegal about what Apple does (until proven otherwise) but not even anything unethical.
Taxes are not an issue of morality, the are a government created obligation that you fulfill by following the law; there is no such thing as "voluntary" or "charitable" tax payments.
If Apple wants to be charitable with some of the money saved in taxes, they can find their own causes or use it to build solar power plants instead of enabling the government to waste taxes on oil company and "clean coal" subsidies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
This is not accurate.
When you buy an Apple product in the UK, you pay a VAT of %20. This is a huge amount of money on a MacBook Pro!
The government collects its taxes at sales time. The UK government has made a lot of money from Apple.
Further, since Apple made use of tax writeoffs for employee compensation, and the government taxes the employees income, the government collected taxes there.
For Apple to have paid taxes on that, and then the employee pays taxes on that would be double dipping-- something governments really like to do.
Taxes are theft. This is indisputable objective reality.
I look forward to the AppleInsider article "Apple, once again, doesn't have $4B in product stolen by thieves!"
The VAT is paid by consumers not by Apple. The UK gov't is making money from consumers and Apple employees, not from Apple as a corporation.
The U.S. is the same. Some states levy sales taxes or use taxes (from consumers), and IRS collects income taxes both from Apple employees and Apple corporation.
Apple is not paying any corporate tax in UK. Why this is news? As long as the tax avoidance strategy is legal, I have no problem with it.
Yeah, and especially the UK government is a good candidate to raise this issue. ROFL.
(Before anybody gets me wrong, I have nothing at all against our UK friends, I am actually marrying one next month - this is only about some facts.)
The UK government has steadily worked on establishing the lowest corporate tax rate in any major European country (20% is far below the US, France and Germany) in order to make businesses move to the UK. (I am not saying this is unethical or bad, I am just pointing it out.) It has (multiple times) lowered the security requirements for even founding a company, resulting in multiple fishy businesses (from all over Europe) settling in the UK. There are several big UK businesses, including banks, consultancies and insurances, that channel billions of Pounds through Ireland, the, aptly named, Channel Islands or other tax havens (from the Bermudas to Labuan, Malaysia). I am yet waiting for them to receive any scrutiny, or being called out by the UK government. Why use Apple for a publicity stunt, when they have so many black sheep in their own flock to choose from?
Let me be clear. If that is what the people in the UK want, so be it. But people should fulfil their number one duty in a democracy: watch those who govern you. One data point? While the ratio of corporate and individual taxes collected is close to 1:1 in France and Germany, it is between 1:3 and 1:4 in the UK. So, when they announce the next cut of benefits, or the next raise of prices... don't look at Apple. They are just an easy target here.
The real problem here is the assumption that Apple owes money to the UK. Or the US even. It can't be both.
I think the US has the better claim, but the UK has none. Basically they are - as usual with these kind of idiocies - mistaking sales in a country with Corporation tax owed in that country. Its a bit like Ireland complaining that ARM doesn't pay corporation tax in Ireland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Blame Ireland, not Apple.
Ireland has nothing to do with this story, it is Apple "avoiding" tax in it's retail stores in the UK. Otherwise the UK has not claim on Ireland's tax base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F.
What a weird phrasing. Apple UK is only one of Apple's subsidiaries; every European country has its own. This phrasing makes it seem like the billions of operation income across Europe comes to the UK and then flow to Ireland. This is not the case. Each subsidiary gets the money made in each individual country, and has to adhere to each country's tax system. Then the money flows to the Ireland Holding; so to keep the money in one place. Apple pays taxes where the law stipulates and does nothing illegal.
However, Apple does have real sales operations for its online store based in Cork Ireland. All online sales across Europe operate from Ireland. So if you buy your Mac online, you officially buy something in Ireland. Same for iTunes and App store, I believe. And Apple adheres to Ireland tax laws for all these sales.
Actually if a UK Apple store does sell an iPhone it makes the same profit as any other retailer on the iPhone - the difference between the wholesale and retail price - the Cork Office books the wholesale price. Apple UK which runs retail books the difference.
The idea that Apple Ireland is stealing from the UK is nonsense, thats normal practice. Its like saying that BMW doesn't pay corporation tax in the UK.
Of course there is an issue that Apple doesn't pay tax in Ireland. Again, that is misunderstood. Apple does use Ireland's laws to avoid tax due in Ireland (actually it uses a mixture of Ireland and US laws). The entire subcommittee investigating this didn't understand the simplest point about this - if Ireland reforms it's laws the money will go to Ireland not the US. In fact the US can only ever hope to get money back from Apple if it doesn't pay it in Ireland because of double taxation laws. Apple owes more money on repatriation to the US precisely because it has avoided the Irish tax system.
When thorougly reading the article you can read that Apple made 15billion operating profits in the EU and 10% of revenues are attributed ot the UK.
That would mean that Apple made ~1,5billion operating profits in the UK, but they are reporting 102million.
Do you really think that selling goods in the UK is so much more expensive than in the rest of the EU?
The question that has to be answered is why has Apple so mediocre profits in the UK!
Is Apple Ireland selling the goods to Apple UK more expensive than to others to minimize the taxable profit in the UK?
Would any other reseller sell Apple goods at an ebit of ~2,8%?
I don't know, but these are questions that come to my mind.
You are right that it looks like Apple is singled out and that laws - at least within the EU should be homogenized to reduce the incentive to manipulate numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I hope the UK powers that be are checking into Google, Microsoft, etc. etc. etc ....
Actually they have all been investigated. Starbucks was in the news last year when they were investigated over transfer pricing. Apparently they've been operating at a loss for years there due to the cost of coffee beans paid to their subsidiary
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland
When thorougly reading the article you can read that Apple made 15billion operating profits in the EU and 10% of revenues are attributed ot the UK.
That would mean that Apple made ~1,5billion operating profits in the UK, but they are reporting 102million.
Do you really think that selling goods in the UK is so much more expensive than in the rest of the EU?
The question that has to be answered is why has Apple so mediocre profits in the UK!
Is Apple Ireland selling the goods to Apple UK more expensive than to others to minimize the taxable profit in the UK?
Would any other reseller sell Apple goods at an ebit of ~2,8%?
I don't know, but these are questions that come to my mind.
You are right that it looks like Apple is singled out and that laws - at least within the EU should be homogenized to reduce the incentive to manipulate numbers.
Apple Europe may make 1.5B operating profits but it does so by selling from Cork. The only corporation profits due in the UK are the profits of Apple UK, which is effectively a retail division. Apple UK, like Currys or other electrical retailers, buys goods from the manufacturer - Apple Ireland - and makes a profit on sales. Currys would do exactly the same.
This isn't tax avoidance, its the way tax works. Its the same for BMW, were it to make say 1.5B in Europe it would book it to Munich; however if BMW owned it's own showrooms it would create a subsidiary in the UK to run the local retail division. The profit would be the difference between the retail and the wholesale price of the cars sold in those showrooms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Apple Europe may make 1.5B operating profits but it does so by selling from Cork. The only corporation profits due in the UK are the profits of Apple UK, which is effectively a retail division. Apple UK, like Currys or other electrical retailers, buys goods from the manufacturer - Apple Ireland - and makes a profit on sales. Currys would do exactly the same.
This isn't tax avoidance, its the way tax works. Its the same for BMW, were it to make say 1.5B in Europe it would book it to Munich; however if BMW owned it's own showrooms it would create a subsidiary in the UK to run the local retail division. The profit would be the difference between the retail and the wholesale price of the cars sold in those showrooms.
You're correct, except Apple UK makes almost zero profit on their sales as the price they pay the Irish subsidiary for hardware is way above wholesale. That's the whole point, Apple Ireland buys direct from China and they then sell to each country at almost full retail price to reduce their tax bill in those countries to almost zero. And because of the Irish setup, they pay almost zero tax there as well.
I'm not saying you're wrong, or criticising Apple, but just pointing out how they are using the tax systems to pay as little as possible, which they are entitled to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewb123
"The California based company's European operations pulled in $36.3 billion in net sales to European customers in 2012. Of that, Apple reported that $15 billion was operating profit."
By any standards, that is an obscene profit margin.
British Politicans such as Boris Johnson suggest that if we reduce taxes we will actually collect more.
Heading to a world without taxes means education, health, roads and even water supply could be a thing of the past for some.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid
You're correct, except Apple UK makes almost zero profit on their sales as the price they pay the Irish subsidiary for hardware is way above wholesale. That's the whole point, Apple Ireland buys direct from China and they then sell to each country at almost full retail price to reduce their tax bill in those countries to almost zero. And because of the Irish setup, they pay almost zero tax there as well.
I'm not saying you're wrong, or criticising Apple, but just pointing out how they are using the tax systems to pay as little as possible, which they are entitled to do.
Have you a source for that boldified bit.
If so that is a bit of avoidance for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
"The real problem here is the assumption that Apple owes money to the UK. Or the US even. It can't be both.
I think the US has the better claim, but the UK has none. Basically they are - as usual with these kind of idiocies - mistaking sales in a country with Corporation tax owed in that country. Its a bit like Ireland complaining that ARM doesn't pay corporation tax in Ireland."
Many people are already boycotting Starbucks who's scheming also avoids tax.
The fact that you now have people in the US claiming ownership on British income says Apple is next.
Also, if Obama acceded to Apple's repatriation request, tit for tat protectionism will destroy many a world economy. Like Starbucks, I'm wondering if many goods should be allowed in Britain.
I was simply trying to point out the obvious i.e. everyone does it, it is within the law and Apple should not be singled out. If governments don't like it then they should amend their laws.
However, I think you are doing the reverse, i.e. seeing it as an Apple Centric issue is totally belying the reality. Just explain AAPL rationally! Non Apple centric sites have 'Apple's woes' as headlines everywhere you look. Apple is the biggest target for both this sort investigations and journalists and for the same reason. Some bland English politician can stand up and shout about evil Apple and get attention in the British press he wouldn't otherwise ever get and a journalist can write about evil Apple and get hits on ads that covering coffee prices wouldn't attract. Meanwhile Apple keep on making the best products, are virtually alone in innovation in their chosen market and make almost all the profits in those markets.
Of course I am aware of the other investigations but no company in the last year or two has taken more of a beating. /rant over
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Have you a source for that boldified bit.
If so that is a bit of avoidance for sure.
Can't find the article now, I think I've got it bookmarked at home so will post it up later.
In fairness to you, the bit you bolded may be incorrect (near full retail price - me bad!!) but it is definitely a heavily inflated price that is meant to reduce their tax bill in each country. Its standard practice for multi-nationals. As was mentioned above, Starbucks do the exact same thing. Their Swiss subsidiary buys the contracts for coffee beans from the growers and then sell them to each country at vastly inflated prices, hence Starbuck's zero tax bills in several countries.