Why the fcuk do you think companies need to transfer IP to sell?
They don't need to. But it's something they can choose to do, and by doing so they may be able to transfer a tax liability from a high tax jurisdiction to a low one. It's not unreasonable to suggest that Apple are doing this as part of routine tax affairs. Not necessarily an evasion or avoidance.
well, can't it be that it is also possible that Apple actually evades taxes? I mean, I live in Italy and fair enough, judicial system has serious issues in efficiency. but this doesn't mean they HAVE to be wrong. Plus consider also that apple had troubles in other countries... in US for example: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324787004578495250424727708
And don't forget the Republican Supreme Court agreed.
Hmmmm. Somebody doesn't understand the constitution. I wonder who it is.
It might be you who doesn't understand. Justice Roberts essentially DID say it was unconstitutional unless it was applied as a tax, which is not how it was written. Roberts basically "rewrote" the law to get it passed. Something the Supreme Court is not allowed to do. They don't write laws and neither does the president. Only the Congress can write the laws. The Supremes determine if they are constitutional. Since this one clearly wasn't, it should've been struck down.
Comments
Italian government is after Apple for corruption? What did someone miss a payment?
Why the fcuk do you think companies need to transfer IP to sell?
They don't need to. But it's something they can choose to do, and by doing so they may be able to transfer a tax liability from a high tax jurisdiction to a low one. It's not unreasonable to suggest that Apple are doing this as part of routine tax affairs. Not necessarily an evasion or avoidance.
$1B is probably less than the entire inventory Apple sold in Italy which is a country known to be not very iOS friendly.
LOL, Italy is not iOS friendly? Is this a joke?
Plus consider also that apple had troubles in other countries... in US for example: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324787004578495250424727708
It might be you who doesn't understand. Justice Roberts essentially DID say it was unconstitutional unless it was applied as a tax, which is not how it was written. Roberts basically "rewrote" the law to get it passed. Something the Supreme Court is not allowed to do. They don't write laws and neither does the president. Only the Congress can write the laws. The Supremes determine if they are constitutional. Since this one clearly wasn't, it should've been struck down.