3 ms·
My understanding was that they do pay tax in the country that the profits are earned (unless of course the country has a 0% corporate tax rate), but that they d
by 3pt14159 11y ago
My understanding was that they do pay tax in the country that the profits are earned (unless of course the country has a 0% corporate tax rate), but that they don't pay tax in the parent company until they repatriate.
If that is the case then I'm fine with it. I'm obviously not fine with tax holidays / amnesties; but I consider that a different matter.
- justincormack 11y agoWell they do in theory, in practise of course they don't, and the end recipient country is usually Bermuda or somewhere, via other tax evasion schemes.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tomp 11y agoBecause of different service and intellectual property agreements between different subsidiaries of the company, the subsidiaries almost never generate substancial (accounting) profit. IMO, that's perfectly fair. E.g. Apple isn't generating profit in the UK; it's generating sales in the UK (which are taxed as all sales are), but most of its profit was generated in the US (design, research, strategy, innovation, ...). I think it's a huge problem that the US doesn't force companies to pay tax on profits.
- 3pt14159 11y agoThat isn't exactly profit. As long as things are sold at realistic prices (ie, bulk iPhones are sold to the subsidiary at the same price they would be sold to a domestic buyer) then it should all be fine. It generally works out for multinationals headquartered in Canada, but granted there are far fewer tax loopholes here.