A lot of larger companies do things that could get them fined or prosecuted if the IRS actually had the resources to unravel them. The IRS generally doesn't like corporate targets. Corporate audits cost a lot of money and take a lot of time, so they would have to be sure they could extract a lot of money before proceeding. Apple's biggest problem would be if they were hit with an accumulated earnings tax, but again that's unlikely as I doubt the IRS even has the resources to audit such a thing.
My only issue with your post is that your opinion would flip if a similar story involved Samsung or Google.
FWIW, the IRS is finishing an audit of Apple for their 2007-2009 tax years. Apple disagrees with some of the assessments as would be expected, but there's no indication that the additional taxes and/or fines the IRS has proposed are financially significant.
I don't believe in "no government" , but I do believe in a vastly reduced one because be they institutions or businesses, if they operate without facing competition they will tend to grow out of control, become inefficient and tone-deaf as to their purpose. One of the primary purposes of our government is to defend and adhere to our Constitution, not enrich itself at the expense of the people.
I don't believe in "no government" , but I do believe in a vastly reduced one because be they institutions or businesses, if they operate without facing competition they will tend to grow out of control, become inefficient and tone-deaf as to their purpose. One of the primary purposes of our government is to defend and adhere to our Constitution, not enrich itself at the expense of the people.
Defend and adhere to our Constitution ... That document was written a long time ago by people who do not have the knowledge and values we have today. Even with various amendments, it is hopelessly out of date and largely irrelevant to today's society. More than anything, it is often used to justify actions that are otherwise unjustifiable. The best interests of a nation should not rest on such antiquity.
Defend and adhere to our Constitution ... That document was written a long time ago by people who do not have the knowledge and values we have today. Even with various amendments, it is hopefully out of date and largely irrelevant to today's society. More than anything, it is often used to justify actions that are otherwise unjustifiable. The best interests of a nation should not rest on such antiquity.
Ah, "ignore laws because they're old", all right, then. Let's see… no reason to abide by patent or trademark law, no reason to abide by copyright law, no reason to abide by many of the murder or theft laws… and no reason to abide by all but the most recent of driving laws.
"Wait, what? You can't take me to jail, those laws are old! They're completely meaningless and out of date!"
As a stock holder I would more than a little annoyed if the Apple leadership did not take every available to maximize profits. It goes without saying there is an expectation they will do nothing illegal or anything that will seriously damage the brand name.
There's a difference between legal behavior and ethical behavior. When Apple (or any company) sets up a mailbox or a small office with just a few people for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes elsewhere, it might be totally legal (although it certainly violates the intention of the law), but it's not ethical.
And the reason why the press goes after Apple is because it's become so big. It's why they go after Wal-Mart or Exxon-Mobil or Microsoft as well.
One of the reasons why we're broke is because while the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates in the world, no corporation actually pays anything near those rates and most of the largest corporations pay nothing or very little in U.S. Federal Taxes.
What's so dirty about the Times reporting is everything Apple does is completely legal yet most people seeing the headline flash across their screen will think Apple is dong something bad/wrong/illegal. And of course that was their purpose in splashing it across the front page of th Sunday Times. Apple's stock is down over 2% so far today so the Slimes certainly are getting their desired effect. B*astards.
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>senyorapple</strong> <a href="/t/149722/apple-accused-of-sidestepping-taxes-company-counters-by-touting-job-creation#post_2102722"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <p> As a stock holder I would more than a little annoyed if the Apple leadership did not take every available to maximize profits. It goes without saying there is an expectation they will do nothing illegal or anything that will seriously damage the brand name.</p> </div></div><p> </p><p> There's a difference between legal behavior and ethical behavior. When Apple (or any company) sets up a mailbox or a small office with just a few people for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes elsewhere, it might be totally legal (although it certainly violates the intention of the law), but it's not ethical. </p><p> </p><p> And the reason why the press goes after Apple is because it's become so big. It's why they go after Wal-Mart or Exxon-Mobil or Microsoft as well. </p><p> </p><p> One of the reasons why we're broke is because while the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates in the world, no corporation actually pays anything near those rates and most of the largest corporations pay nothing or very little in U.S. Federal Taxes. </p>
No the reason we're broke is because we spend money we dont have. And with high unemployment people are collecting unemployment and welfare benefits instead of paying income taxes. It's not Apple or any other corporations fault the USA is broke.
It's like how they use to justify slavery in the south when it was legal at the time. If Steve wanted it bad enough he could of brought assembly jobs back to the USA, but like paying their fair share of taxes they found a loop hole bigger than the one that is at the center of Apple's 15 billion dollar future (one ring to rule them all) HQ.
Dear Mr. Commodification,
Those jobs never existed in the U.S.
EVER.
There never, ever was a microelectronics industry in the U.S., now was there? Did you ever buy an American-made solid-state TV? A video camera? A digital camera? A VCR? A Walkman? A transistor radio? The ecosystem to produce those things has been in Asia for two generations. All the thousands of little-bitty components are made there, aren't they?
You could not produce these things in the U.S. any more than China could produce 747s from scratch. Even if Steve Jobs were running the show.
If what you say is true, then it would also be true that you cannot produce these things in Brazil. Indeed, Brazil has much LESS industry making the little-bitty components that the ecosystem needs to produce those things.
All this stuff could be produced in the USA. The megacorporate excuses notwithstanding.
I love the word choice here: "sidestepping"...one poster uses the word "dodge".
While both technically correct these terms clearly have a pejorative tone.
Apple is not doing anything wrong. They are doing everything they can (and undoubtedly have a legal responsibility to do for their shareholders) to legally pay the least amount of taxes possible in order to retain as much of the money they've earned for their shareholders and/or to invest in future production and growth.
Good for them. Keep it up Apple! You have no reason to apologize.
Exactly...
All the bitching about how much Apple pays in taxes is ridiculous. Apple pays what the governments of the world require them to pay.
Actually, Apple conflates esoteric sections of the codes in an unexpected manner, and pays extremely much less than the governments of the world intended them to pay.
Apple is not using the tax code in the manner intended. Instead, they are exploiting loopholes in a manner nobody intended.
This is a reason CA should repeal Prop. 13 for corporations. Corporations get to pay very low property tax rates but skirt the income tax unlike average citizens. They take advantage of the good things CA has to offer-- great weather, transportation infrastructure, and educated workforce—without really paying for them. They are like a married guy who heads off to Nevada on weekends for gambling and prostitution. It may be legal but it's not right.
This is a wake-up call for anyone who thinks "Think Different" is anything more than just advertising slogan.
And the fact that it follows right on the heels of them trying to make waves with Daisey-gate and then NC-energy-gate suggests that Apple is being treated unfairly.
Apple has been treated unfairly ever since they were sued by Xerox. Put a lid on it.
Very true, but at least we'd get to find out what childish names he would make up for Samsung and Google.
That's pure BS. I've criticized Samsung and Google for many things, such as shamelessly stealing and copying other's IP. I have never criticized either of them for legally paying their taxes.
Ah, "ignore laws because they're old", all right, then. Let's see… no reason to abide by patent or trademark law, no reason to abide by copyright law, no reason to abide by many of the murder or theft laws… and no reason to abide by all but the most recent of driving laws.
"Wait, what? You can't take me to jail, those laws are old! They're completely meaningless and out of date!"
Come on, man.
Come on man, you took my digression too far.
I didn't say we should ignore the Constitution. But I do object to people invoking constitutional rights whenever it suits them.
Patent law is an example of something that needs to be updated, BTW.
Apple's owners pay them. 70% or more are institutional investors.
To say anything else is a stretch.
Call me stretch, but Apple's "owners" do not pay the taxes. Want to argue about that? Try the following litmus test: If Apple is short on cash to pay the taxes, do the shareholders make up the difference?
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>Commodification</strong> <a href="/t/149722/apple-accused-of-sidestepping-taxes-company-counters-by-touting-job-creation/80#post_2102852"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> It's like how they use to justify slavery in the south when it was legal at the time. If Steve wanted it bad enough he could of brought assembly jobs back to the USA, but like paying their fair share of taxes they found a loop hole bigger than the one that is at the center of Apple's 15 billion dollar future (one ring to rule them all) HQ.</p> <p> <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/162429/width/600/height/331" target="_blank"><img alt="design-for-apple-hq.jpeg" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/162429/width/600/height/331" /></a></p> </div></div><p> </p><p> Dear Mr. Commodification,</p><p> </p><p> Those jobs never existed in the U.S.</p><p> </p><p> EVER.</p><p> </p><p> There never, ever was a microelectronics industry in the U.S., now was there? Did you ever buy an American-made solid-state TV? A video camera? A digital camera? A VCR? A Walkman? A transistor radio? The ecosystem to produce those things has been in Asia for two generations. All the thousands of little-bitty components are made there, aren't they?</p><p> </p><p> You could not produce these things in the U.S. any more than China could produce 747s from scratch. Even if Steve Jobs were running the show.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p>
Isn't Apple about making the impossible 'possible', yet apparently their 'making a particular product at particular price point' means they must find tax loop holes and use Chinese slave-like labor to do it. I'm not saying Apple broke any laws because they didn't, but neither did southern slave owners before the civil war and what they did was evil but not illegal at time.
They do not pay the amount of taxes intended by the various tax codes.
Instead, they slice and dice otherwise innocuous provisions and set up huge inefficient edifices in order to exploit provisions in a manner never intended when they were drafted.
I agree the headline is inflammatory (and it worked, didn't it?). But writers do not pick the headlines. Often, they don't even see it (although in this case, I think the authors would have because this was not a column with a deadline). The article is about how Apple manages to pay less. Some parts of it dwell on fair share. Smear piece? Is it? To qualify as such, there has to be egregious fact distortion. I don't see it.
Regardless of the headlines, the entire piece reads like a "look what we discovered about how evil Apple is and how they get around paying fair taxes. There's no rule that says something has to have egregious fact distortion to be a smear piece. It's enough to show that they are presenting facts in a very biased way. The fact that they created a lengthy article about Apple without mentioning that everyone else does it, not to mention that they've been responsible for a couple of other hit pieces against Apple (Daisey-gate and Greenpeace-gate) in the past month or so is pretty clear evidence that they're not presenting journalism. Rather, it's a clear attempt to put Apple down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
If what you say is true, then it would also be true that you cannot produce these things in Brazil. Indeed, Brazil has much LESS industry making the little-bitty components that the ecosystem needs to produce those things.
All this stuff could be produced in the USA. The megacorporate excuses notwithstanding.
You just managed to prove that you don't have a clue about the issues involved with manufacturing:
Reasons that manufacturing in Brazil is far more economical than manufacturing in the U.S.:
- Liability laws
- Minimum wage laws
- Health and safety laws
- Environmental laws
- Cost of overheads
- Corporate tax rates
And so on.
Furthermore, if Apple doesn't manufacture in Brazil, they would have to write off most of the Brazil market because of Brazil's exclusionary import laws. The U.S. doesn't have such laws.
Come back after you've learned a little bit about business.
According to Forbes the tax rate the NY Times quoted in their article is incorrect. Basically they too estimated tax payments against 2011 earnings when most of those estimates we're based on 2010 earnings. In Apple's SEC filing they report a 24.2% effective tax rate, much higher than the 9.8% the Times is reporting.
Apple's owners pay them. 70% or more are institutional investors.
To say anything else is a stretch.
Call me stretch, but Apple's "owners" do not pay the taxes. Want to argue about that? Try the following litmus test: If Apple is short on cash to pay the taxes, do the shareholders make up the difference?
OK, Apple itself, the entity, pays Apple's taxes. Nobody else.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
A lot of larger companies do things that could get them fined or prosecuted if the IRS actually had the resources to unravel them. The IRS generally doesn't like corporate targets. Corporate audits cost a lot of money and take a lot of time, so they would have to be sure they could extract a lot of money before proceeding. Apple's biggest problem would be if they were hit with an accumulated earnings tax, but again that's unlikely as I doubt the IRS even has the resources to audit such a thing.
My only issue with your post is that your opinion would flip if a similar story involved Samsung or Google.
FWIW, the IRS is finishing an audit of Apple for their 2007-2009 tax years. Apple disagrees with some of the assessments as would be expected, but there's no indication that the additional taxes and/or fines the IRS has proposed are financially significant.
I don't believe in "no government" , but I do believe in a vastly reduced one because be they institutions or businesses, if they operate without facing competition they will tend to grow out of control, become inefficient and tone-deaf as to their purpose. One of the primary purposes of our government is to defend and adhere to our Constitution, not enrich itself at the expense of the people.
Which parts of govenment should be eliminated?
Specifically?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
I don't believe in "no government" , but I do believe in a vastly reduced one because be they institutions or businesses, if they operate without facing competition they will tend to grow out of control, become inefficient and tone-deaf as to their purpose. One of the primary purposes of our government is to defend and adhere to our Constitution, not enrich itself at the expense of the people.
Defend and adhere to our Constitution ... That document was written a long time ago by people who do not have the knowledge and values we have today. Even with various amendments, it is hopelessly out of date and largely irrelevant to today's society. More than anything, it is often used to justify actions that are otherwise unjustifiable. The best interests of a nation should not rest on such antiquity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Defend and adhere to our Constitution ... That document was written a long time ago by people who do not have the knowledge and values we have today. Even with various amendments, it is hopefully out of date and largely irrelevant to today's society. More than anything, it is often used to justify actions that are otherwise unjustifiable. The best interests of a nation should not rest on such antiquity.
Ah, "ignore laws because they're old", all right, then. Let's see… no reason to abide by patent or trademark law, no reason to abide by copyright law, no reason to abide by many of the murder or theft laws… and no reason to abide by all but the most recent of driving laws.
"Wait, what? You can't take me to jail, those laws are old! They're completely meaningless and out of date!"
Come on, man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by senyorapple
As a stock holder I would more than a little annoyed if the Apple leadership did not take every available to maximize profits. It goes without saying there is an expectation they will do nothing illegal or anything that will seriously damage the brand name.
There's a difference between legal behavior and ethical behavior. When Apple (or any company) sets up a mailbox or a small office with just a few people for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes elsewhere, it might be totally legal (although it certainly violates the intention of the law), but it's not ethical.
And the reason why the press goes after Apple is because it's become so big. It's why they go after Wal-Mart or Exxon-Mobil or Microsoft as well.
One of the reasons why we're broke is because while the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates in the world, no corporation actually pays anything near those rates and most of the largest corporations pay nothing or very little in U.S. Federal Taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodification
It's like how they use to justify slavery in the south when it was legal at the time. If Steve wanted it bad enough he could of brought assembly jobs back to the USA, but like paying their fair share of taxes they found a loop hole bigger than the one that is at the center of Apple's 15 billion dollar future (one ring to rule them all) HQ.
Dear Mr. Commodification,
Those jobs never existed in the U.S.
EVER.
There never, ever was a microelectronics industry in the U.S., now was there? Did you ever buy an American-made solid-state TV? A video camera? A digital camera? A VCR? A Walkman? A transistor radio? The ecosystem to produce those things has been in Asia for two generations. All the thousands of little-bitty components are made there, aren't they?
You could not produce these things in the U.S. any more than China could produce 747s from scratch. Even if Steve Jobs were running the show.
If what you say is true, then it would also be true that you cannot produce these things in Brazil. Indeed, Brazil has much LESS industry making the little-bitty components that the ecosystem needs to produce those things.
All this stuff could be produced in the USA. The megacorporate excuses notwithstanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
I love the word choice here: "sidestepping"...one poster uses the word "dodge".
While both technically correct these terms clearly have a pejorative tone.
Apple is not doing anything wrong. They are doing everything they can (and undoubtedly have a legal responsibility to do for their shareholders) to legally pay the least amount of taxes possible in order to retain as much of the money they've earned for their shareholders and/or to invest in future production and growth.
Good for them. Keep it up Apple! You have no reason to apologize.
Exactly...
All the bitching about how much Apple pays in taxes is ridiculous. Apple pays what the governments of the world require them to pay.
Actually, Apple conflates esoteric sections of the codes in an unexpected manner, and pays extremely much less than the governments of the world intended them to pay.
Apple is not using the tax code in the manner intended. Instead, they are exploiting loopholes in a manner nobody intended.
This is a reason CA should repeal Prop. 13 for corporations. Corporations get to pay very low property tax rates but skirt the income tax unlike average citizens. They take advantage of the good things CA has to offer-- great weather, transportation infrastructure, and educated workforce—without really paying for them. They are like a married guy who heads off to Nevada on weekends for gambling and prostitution. It may be legal but it's not right.
This is a wake-up call for anyone who thinks "Think Different" is anything more than just advertising slogan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And the fact that it follows right on the heels of them trying to make waves with Daisey-gate and then NC-energy-gate suggests that Apple is being treated unfairly.
Apple has been treated unfairly ever since they were sued by Xerox. Put a lid on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Who do you think ultimately pays Apple's taxes?
Apple's owners pay them. 70% or more are institutional investors.
To say anything else is a stretch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail
Very true, but at least we'd get to find out what childish names he would make up for Samsung and Google.
That's pure BS. I've criticized Samsung and Google for many things, such as shamelessly stealing and copying other's IP. I have never criticized either of them for legally paying their taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ah, "ignore laws because they're old", all right, then. Let's see… no reason to abide by patent or trademark law, no reason to abide by copyright law, no reason to abide by many of the murder or theft laws… and no reason to abide by all but the most recent of driving laws.
"Wait, what? You can't take me to jail, those laws are old! They're completely meaningless and out of date!"
Come on, man.
Come on man, you took my digression too far.
I didn't say we should ignore the Constitution. But I do object to people invoking constitutional rights whenever it suits them.
Patent law is an example of something that needs to be updated, BTW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Apple's owners pay them. 70% or more are institutional investors.
To say anything else is a stretch.
Call me stretch, but Apple's "owners" do not pay the taxes. Want to argue about that? Try the following litmus test: If Apple is short on cash to pay the taxes, do the shareholders make up the difference?
Isn't Apple about making the impossible 'possible', yet apparently their 'making a particular product at particular price point' means they must find tax loop holes and use Chinese slave-like labor to do it. I'm not saying Apple broke any laws because they didn't, but neither did southern slave owners before the civil war and what they did was evil but not illegal at time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
What is Apple failing to comply with?
They do not pay the amount of taxes intended by the various tax codes.
Instead, they slice and dice otherwise innocuous provisions and set up huge inefficient edifices in order to exploit provisions in a manner never intended when they were drafted.
But you knew that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
I agree the headline is inflammatory (and it worked, didn't it?). But writers do not pick the headlines. Often, they don't even see it (although in this case, I think the authors would have because this was not a column with a deadline). The article is about how Apple manages to pay less. Some parts of it dwell on fair share. Smear piece? Is it? To qualify as such, there has to be egregious fact distortion. I don't see it.
Regardless of the headlines, the entire piece reads like a "look what we discovered about how evil Apple is and how they get around paying fair taxes. There's no rule that says something has to have egregious fact distortion to be a smear piece. It's enough to show that they are presenting facts in a very biased way. The fact that they created a lengthy article about Apple without mentioning that everyone else does it, not to mention that they've been responsible for a couple of other hit pieces against Apple (Daisey-gate and Greenpeace-gate) in the past month or so is pretty clear evidence that they're not presenting journalism. Rather, it's a clear attempt to put Apple down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
If what you say is true, then it would also be true that you cannot produce these things in Brazil. Indeed, Brazil has much LESS industry making the little-bitty components that the ecosystem needs to produce those things.
All this stuff could be produced in the USA. The megacorporate excuses notwithstanding.
You just managed to prove that you don't have a clue about the issues involved with manufacturing:
Reasons that manufacturing in Brazil is far more economical than manufacturing in the U.S.:
- Liability laws
- Minimum wage laws
- Health and safety laws
- Environmental laws
- Cost of overheads
- Corporate tax rates
And so on.
Furthermore, if Apple doesn't manufacture in Brazil, they would have to write off most of the Brazil market because of Brazil's exclusionary import laws. The U.S. doesn't have such laws.
Come back after you've learned a little bit about business.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/04/30/apples-9-8-tax-rate-new-york-times-ignorance-again/
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Apple's owners pay them. 70% or more are institutional investors.
To say anything else is a stretch.
Call me stretch, but Apple's "owners" do not pay the taxes. Want to argue about that? Try the following litmus test: If Apple is short on cash to pay the taxes, do the shareholders make up the difference?
OK, Apple itself, the entity, pays Apple's taxes. Nobody else.