5 ms·

Tim Cook to repatriate money

30 points by perseusprime11 10y ago

zghst 10y ago
Well I guess Tim Cook is looking forward to Trump's 15% corporate tax next year...
- B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
  Therefore voting for him? Well, maybe Scott Adams can stop declaring himself a Clinton supporter for his safety ...
  - perseusprime11 10y ago
    Who is Scott Adams? And how did he enter this argument? Sorry I am trying to understand your comment.
    - B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
      Author of the fairly well known Dilbert comic. The dilbert.com page has a link to his blog. I was referring to this: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for-president-of-the-united-states http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for...
supergirl 10y ago
"right now I would forecast that repatriation to occur next year" seems like he's dangling the money in front of the US gov's nose. perhaps the US gov will help apple avoid this huge bill from EU.
- zghst 10y ago
  He gave a testimony to Congress 3 years ago in which he complained about the tax rate. I hardly think this signal will do anything, well all know the one candidate that publicly called for lower corporate taxes and Cook didn't fundraiser for that guy...
codesterling 10y ago
Dumb move by the EU.
- emilsedgh 10y ago
  Care to elaborate?
  - cjensen 10y ago
    I don't know what the parent comment had in mind, but here's why I think it's a dumb move: the EU just announced to the world that they can override the decisions of the member countries retroactively and at will. If you want to invest in something in an EU country, you might calculate the taxes due on your investment before deciding if the investment is suitably profitable. With this decision, you now have an unexpected new risk factor to take into account: the EU bureaucracy may retroactively change your tax rate. That means uncertainty of payout, therefore the investment has a lower payout, therefore you are less likely to invest in an EU country.
    - supergirl 10y ago
      well the EU's case is that what Apple and Ireland did is illegal under existing laws. it's not like they made new laws now so I don't see your point.
    - ttepasse 10y ago
      It wasn't "just now". The rule against privileging single companies is a rule of the Treaty of Rome. Which was first signed in 1957. And by Ireland in 1973. Also the recovery of unlawful state aid is nothing new but established practice. A better way of minimizing your risk factor would be hiring tax lawyers who know the rules of the EU Single Market. Which makes Cook's comments so baffling: Apple should have known that there is a possibility of a crackdown.
      - codesterling 10y ago
        How exactly does a law predate the institution?
chillaxtian 10y ago
misleading title - there's no certainty of repatriation happening in the article.
- throwanem 10y ago
  @dang, or whoever's still in the office - can you change the title here to match that of the actual article? Thanks! ("Tim Cook Says Apple Could Send Cash Back to U.S. Next Year")
protomyth 10y ago
"An Apple spokeswoman said that Mr. Cook was referring to his optimism that the U.S. will change its tax code next year, and that his comments didn’t represent any change to Apple’s position on the question." Not quite the same meaning as the headline.
bapbap 10y ago
Is there any reason why I should have any sympathy? From my basic understanding, these companies engineer their structures and finances in weird and wonderful ways to reduce their tax bill. Fair enough, they have the global reach and luxury of doing so and some aspects legitimately occur in other tax jurisdictions. However I have no sympathy for their complaints that it is too expensive to repatriate the money. It seems unfair to expect the law should change because you made the decision to accumulate money outside of the country to avoid paying taxes that would otherwise be due. I might be naive expecting parity but just like everyone else corporations should pay their way.
- cjensen 10y ago
  Yes, Apple and other international companies have a real point. If they sell stuff in Portugal, for example, the pay taxes on the item to Portugal plus make some profit. If they then transfer the profit to the US, the US would like to tax the company a second time. It's kind of questionable that transferring properly earned and taxed funds from another country into the US makes the US suddenly want to tax the funds. This also has consequences. If the best place for Apple to invest some of its money is the US, but the tax makes it less profitable, Apple may choose to invest that money in a different country instead. So the tax code encourages US countries to invest overseas profits into overseas investments.
  - perseusprime11 10y ago
    They can claim a tax deduction of all the taxes paid globally on their U.S tax returns.
    - jomamaxx 10y ago
      "They can claim a tax deduction of all the taxes paid globally on their U.S tax returns." No - I don't believe this is true in the sense you mean it. Effectively for corp. taxes - US companies are indeed 'double taxed'. This means US companies are incented to leave zillions overseas and not bring it back to America. The US tax code basically ignores the fact that the rest of the world exists. Most countries tax codes have to deal with the fact there is such a thing as 'international markets'. The terrible thing is - there is any easy fix. Any President could pull it off I think. If the US got rid of double taxation, and reduced the corporate tax rate - I think most business leaders would accept the closing of all the crazy loopholes.
QuantumRoar 10y ago
Am I getting this right? Apple pays 1% or less on corporate profits in the EU. An EU court decides that this is bullshit and shouldn't be that way. Tim Cook complains that they made everything up and that the below 1% tax rate is reasonable and completely legal. Meanwhile Apple's $200 billion are sitting in Europe far away from the 35% tax rate in the US. Tim Cook says that 35% is too high to pay and says that something like 25% would be reasonable. If the US doesn't change its corporate tax rate to something lower, they won't get a single dollar from Apple. Here's the thing I don't get, how is 25% in the US acceptable but more than 1% in Europe is considered wrong? 25% of the $200 billion would be $50 billion which is way higher than the $13 billion fine... Am I comparing Apples to Oranges here? Or is Apple simply unwilling to pay any corporate taxes outside the US?
- hodder 10y ago
  Well Europe is changing the rules retroactively, while the US is clear about taking their share upon repatriation.
  - lokedhs 10y ago
    This has been discussed multiple times in several thread, and no, Europe (i.e. the EU) is not changing any rules retroactively. You're welcome to point out the specific rule they have changed if you feel that I'm wrong.
- izacus 10y ago
  It's actually more absurd - Apple paid between 0,05 and 0,005% in taxes and EU now wants to collect the difference UP TO 1% ;)
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  First of all, the 25% in the US is on top of what is taken in Europe. The US has pretty insane taxes. Secondly, Europe is looking more kleptocratic, and while maybe he can afford to pay up today, who knows what they might take in the future? Would you be willing to put your money into Venezuela even at 0% tax?
hackuser 10y ago
Taxes are not someone else's problem, independent from your own. It's not like someone else's rent or salary. If someone else doesn't pay their taxes, either you make up for it by paying more or government services are cut.
perseusprime11 10y ago
Apple is actually arguing that all of it's value is created in the United States, and so Only U.S. should collect the taxes. But it won't send them to Treasury yet as it is hoping the Govt would lower the tax rate next year.
jomamaxx 10y ago
The USA is alone in the world with it's odd repatriation laws. If a company pays x% tax somewhere overseas - they still have to pay full amount of corporate tax when repatriating - meaning US companies are 'double taxed'. I.E. They pay 30% in Russia, then another 35% in the US. That's crazy. In most countries, you pay tax in the jurisdiction overseas - and then a 1-4% 'repatriation' fee bringing it home. This is more rational. The US also has crazy high corporate taxes - some of the highest in the world - added to this a crazy bunch of odd loopholes. The US tax system needs to be cleaned up here: A) Small repatriation tax, and don't double tax foreign sales. B) Reduce corporate taxes to make them more competitive with international standards. C) Get rid of the loopholes and actually make corps pay the tax. Obviously - the EU needs to clean up it's act as well. Sane, rational taxation would have solved the repatriation problem - and the EU/Ireland tax avoidance problems a long time ago. Unlike healthcare or some other unwieldy subject - this one is easy. Everyone knows what needs to be done. Nobody seems to be willing to do it.
- Veratyr 10y ago
  Does anyone have insight into why this is? The US seems uniquely aggressive in the way it pursues its citizens' and corporations' international earnings. Why is the US the only country that does this? Is it just greedy? Does it feel more entitled to taxing those things than other countries? Is there a historical or cultural reason it ended up this way?
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    I think it's because the laws were made a long, long time ago when internationalism didn't really exist.
perseusprime11 10y ago
How do I get rid of flagged tag on this submission? Does anyone know why it's flagged?

zghst 10y ago

Well I guess Tim Cook is looking forward to Trump's 15% corporate tax next year...

B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
Therefore voting for him? Well, maybe Scott Adams can stop declaring himself a Clinton supporter for his safety ...
- perseusprime11 10y ago
  Who is Scott Adams? And how did he enter this argument? Sorry I am trying to understand your comment.
  - B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
    Author of the fairly well known Dilbert comic. The dilbert.com page has a link to his blog. I was referring to this: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for-president-of-the-united-states http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for...

"right now I would forecast that repatriation to occur next year" seems like he's dangling the money in front of the US gov's nose. perhaps the US gov will help apple avoid this huge bill from EU.

zghst 10y ago
He gave a testimony to Congress 3 years ago in which he complained about the tax rate. I hardly think this signal will do anything, well all know the one candidate that publicly called for lower corporate taxes and Cook didn't fundraiser for that guy...

codesterling 10y ago

Dumb move by the EU.

emilsedgh 10y ago
Care to elaborate?
- cjensen 10y ago
  I don't know what the parent comment had in mind, but here's why I think it's a dumb move: the EU just announced to the world that they can override the decisions of the member countries retroactively and at will. If you want to invest in something in an EU country, you might calculate the taxes due on your investment before deciding if the investment is suitably profitable. With this decision, you now have an unexpected new risk factor to take into account: the EU bureaucracy may retroactively change your tax rate. That means uncertainty of payout, therefore the investment has a lower payout, therefore you are less likely to invest in an EU country.
  - supergirl 10y ago
    well the EU's case is that what Apple and Ireland did is illegal under existing laws. it's not like they made new laws now so I don't see your point.
  - ttepasse 10y ago
    It wasn't "just now". The rule against privileging single companies is a rule of the Treaty of Rome. Which was first signed in 1957. And by Ireland in 1973. Also the recovery of unlawful state aid is nothing new but established practice. A better way of minimizing your risk factor would be hiring tax lawyers who know the rules of the EU Single Market. Which makes Cook's comments so baffling: Apple should have known that there is a possibility of a crackdown.
    - codesterling 10y ago
      How exactly does a law predate the institution?

chillaxtian 10y ago

misleading title - there's no certainty of repatriation happening in the article.

throwanem 10y ago
@dang, or whoever's still in the office - can you change the title here to match that of the actual article? Thanks! ("Tim Cook Says Apple Could Send Cash Back to U.S. Next Year")

protomyth 10y ago

"An Apple spokeswoman said that Mr. Cook was referring to his optimism that the U.S. will change its tax code next year, and that his comments didn’t represent any change to Apple’s position on the question." Not quite the same meaning as the headline.

bapbap 10y ago

Is there any reason why I should have any sympathy? From my basic understanding, these companies engineer their structures and finances in weird and wonderful ways to reduce their tax bill. Fair enough, they have the global reach and luxury of doing so and some aspects legitimately occur in other tax jurisdictions. However I have no sympathy for their complaints that it is too expensive to repatriate the money. It seems unfair to expect the law should change because you made the decision to accumulate money outside of the country to avoid paying taxes that would otherwise be due. I might be naive expecting parity but just like everyone else corporations should pay their way.

cjensen 10y ago
Yes, Apple and other international companies have a real point. If they sell stuff in Portugal, for example, the pay taxes on the item to Portugal plus make some profit. If they then transfer the profit to the US, the US would like to tax the company a second time. It's kind of questionable that transferring properly earned and taxed funds from another country into the US makes the US suddenly want to tax the funds. This also has consequences. If the best place for Apple to invest some of its money is the US, but the tax makes it less profitable, Apple may choose to invest that money in a different country instead. So the tax code encourages US countries to invest overseas profits into overseas investments.
- perseusprime11 10y ago
  They can claim a tax deduction of all the taxes paid globally on their U.S tax returns.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    "They can claim a tax deduction of all the taxes paid globally on their U.S tax returns." No - I don't believe this is true in the sense you mean it. Effectively for corp. taxes - US companies are indeed 'double taxed'. This means US companies are incented to leave zillions overseas and not bring it back to America. The US tax code basically ignores the fact that the rest of the world exists. Most countries tax codes have to deal with the fact there is such a thing as 'international markets'. The terrible thing is - there is any easy fix. Any President could pull it off I think. If the US got rid of double taxation, and reduced the corporate tax rate - I think most business leaders would accept the closing of all the crazy loopholes.

QuantumRoar 10y ago

Am I getting this right? Apple pays 1% or less on corporate profits in the EU. An EU court decides that this is bullshit and shouldn't be that way. Tim Cook complains that they made everything up and that the below 1% tax rate is reasonable and completely legal. Meanwhile Apple's $200 billion are sitting in Europe far away from the 35% tax rate in the US. Tim Cook says that 35% is too high to pay and says that something like 25% would be reasonable. If the US doesn't change its corporate tax rate to something lower, they won't get a single dollar from Apple. Here's the thing I don't get, how is 25% in the US acceptable but more than 1% in Europe is considered wrong? 25% of the $200 billion would be $50 billion which is way higher than the $13 billion fine... Am I comparing Apples to Oranges here? Or is Apple simply unwilling to pay any corporate taxes outside the US?

hodder 10y ago
Well Europe is changing the rules retroactively, while the US is clear about taking their share upon repatriation.
- lokedhs 10y ago
  This has been discussed multiple times in several thread, and no, Europe (i.e. the EU) is not changing any rules retroactively. You're welcome to point out the specific rule they have changed if you feel that I'm wrong.
izacus 10y ago
It's actually more absurd - Apple paid between 0,05 and 0,005% in taxes and EU now wants to collect the difference UP TO 1% ;)
yummyfajitas 10y ago
First of all, the 25% in the US is on top of what is taken in Europe. The US has pretty insane taxes. Secondly, Europe is looking more kleptocratic, and while maybe he can afford to pay up today, who knows what they might take in the future? Would you be willing to put your money into Venezuela even at 0% tax?

hackuser 10y ago

Taxes are not someone else's problem, independent from your own. It's not like someone else's rent or salary. If someone else doesn't pay their taxes, either you make up for it by paying more or government services are cut.

perseusprime11 10y ago

Apple is actually arguing that all of it's value is created in the United States, and so Only U.S. should collect the taxes. But it won't send them to Treasury yet as it is hoping the Govt would lower the tax rate next year.

jomamaxx 10y ago

The USA is alone in the world with it's odd repatriation laws. If a company pays x% tax somewhere overseas - they still have to pay full amount of corporate tax when repatriating - meaning US companies are 'double taxed'. I.E. They pay 30% in Russia, then another 35% in the US. That's crazy. In most countries, you pay tax in the jurisdiction overseas - and then a 1-4% 'repatriation' fee bringing it home. This is more rational. The US also has crazy high corporate taxes - some of the highest in the world - added to this a crazy bunch of odd loopholes. The US tax system needs to be cleaned up here: A) Small repatriation tax, and don't double tax foreign sales. B) Reduce corporate taxes to make them more competitive with international standards. C) Get rid of the loopholes and actually make corps pay the tax. Obviously - the EU needs to clean up it's act as well. Sane, rational taxation would have solved the repatriation problem - and the EU/Ireland tax avoidance problems a long time ago. Unlike healthcare or some other unwieldy subject - this one is easy. Everyone knows what needs to be done. Nobody seems to be willing to do it.

Veratyr 10y ago
Does anyone have insight into why this is? The US seems uniquely aggressive in the way it pursues its citizens' and corporations' international earnings. Why is the US the only country that does this? Is it just greedy? Does it feel more entitled to taxing those things than other countries? Is there a historical or cultural reason it ended up this way?
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  I think it's because the laws were made a long, long time ago when internationalism didn't really exist.

perseusprime11 10y ago

How do I get rid of flagged tag on this submission? Does anyone know why it's flagged?