3 ms·
I'd like someone to explain to me how this is not tax evasion. This is a US incorporated company that developed its IP in the US. It has its headquarters in the
by rdlecler1 11y ago
I'd like someone to explain to me how this is not tax evasion. This is a US incorporated company that developed its IP in the US. It has its headquarters in the US and it trades on a US stock exchange. Moreover, a good portion of its revenue comes from the US. This business of paying some sort of technology license to a subsidiary you own in Bermuda to avoid taxes seems like outright tax evasion. Whether that is US tax evasion or European tax evasion where the earning were made. If Google is reporting billions of dollars in earnings to Wall Street and they get the benefit of that from the market, then Google should be paying taxes on that and not funneling it to a jurisdiction where they have no actual or tangible business.
- Narkov 11y agoIANATL (tax lawyer) but why can't they sell those US developed rights to Bermuda? Don't hate the player, hate the game.
- baudehlo 11y agoIn this case why can't we hate the player? We apply similar hate to people who abuse the welfare system too. This is very similar.
- Narkov 11y agoThe root cause is still the rules that allow the abuse. It's lazy on all our part to blame Google et al when it is really the rules that force them to do this. See the '5 whys' for why we should look deeper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys
- baudehlo 11y agoNothing I said disagrees with that. But if you are on the side of "don't hate the player" you have to feel that way about all abuses of the system. You don't get to pick and choose when you take that stance.
- justincormack 11y agoBecause selling those rights to a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary for less than fair value in order to evade tax is tax evasion.
- sokoloff 11y agoThen contest that they didn't pay fair value for the transfer. IMO, the strongest possible evidence that you could find is that someone else was willing to pay more at that time. You won't find that, so you'll be making a necessarily weaker argument about what the fair price "ought to have been".