3 ms·

Important to whom? I intentionally do not make a distinction. I'm not going to start, because the point is important to me. The distinction matters to: decisio

by __jal 10y ago

Important to whom? I intentionally do not make a distinction. I'm not going to start, because the point is important to me. The distinction matters to: decision-makers at the firm in question, shareholders of the firm in question, the sovereign collecting the taxes[1]. And given the the dispute resolution with large corps' tax issues rarely involves people going to jail or even admissions of fault, I'm not sure why anyone outside of that group should care about the (extremely blurry) legality boundaries. Bottom line: most of the rest of us have no obligation to care about their word-choice sensitivities and are free to use language for our own ends. [1] Possibly noninclusive list.

rfrey 10y ago
Well, you have to draw a line somewhere between ethical tax minimization and unethical tax evasion. Where do you draw it? This is a continuum that stretches from clearly illegal schemes through hazy waters, into calm water like deducting salaries and cost of goods sold from revenue and paying tax on the balance. For individuals "tax avoidance" includes deducting charity contributions and taking advantage of things like deductions for dependents. If that is not "unethical" to you then you need to make a distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Many people believe "is it legal" is a good line to use. You may differ on that, but you can't escape the dichotomy.
jomamaxx 10y ago
"Important to whom?" Important to lawful civilizations. If you think that there should be better regulations around setting transfer pricing, then vote for it. Unless companies are breaking the law, then there is a very profound 'distinction'. Some tax issues are easily resolved, or at least, easily improved. 'Transfer pricing' is not one of them. It's very thorny. I for one think that Apple's argument of 'the innovation and design is done in California - not Ireland' - is pretty reasonable. Im fact - the US government should be reaping most of the tax dollars that Apple generates, not Ireland. That said - if they have operations in Ireland they should be paying taxes there. I think that a company should pay it's 'primary corporate tax' in the place where it is incorporated and has it's major operations. And then ancilliary countries like Ireland can tax them at a corporate rate, but discounted for what they payed in America. Ireland's biggest tax receipts from Apple should come from VAT - which is the fairest tax of them all, because it's applied to each iPhone sale in Ireland, not France or wherever. Currently - it's upside down: if a Canadian company has a subsidiary in France, they pay their corp tax rate in France for sales there - and then only a 4% remittance fee to Canada. To me that's backwards. The American system is the worst: American companies pay full tax overseas - and then full tax back in America. Plus American corporate taxes are high.
- __jal 10y ago
  > Important to lawful civilizations. You seem to have misread. I was arguing about word choice about tax policy, not tax policy. I choose to recognize a range of behavior as "evasion". That's what we're talking about. None of your post is relevant to what I wrote.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    The definition of 'tax evasion' is 'the illegal nonpayment or underpayment of tax'. So - it's not up to you to decide what is 'tax evasion'. You can commandeer the term if you want, but you'd have to be very clear that you are doing that.

by __jal 10y ago

rfrey 10y ago

Well, you have to draw a line somewhere between ethical tax minimization and unethical tax evasion. Where do you draw it? This is a continuum that stretches from clearly illegal schemes through hazy waters, into calm water like deducting salaries and cost of goods sold from revenue and paying tax on the balance. For individuals "tax avoidance" includes deducting charity contributions and taking advantage of things like deductions for dependents. If that is not "unethical" to you then you need to make a distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Many people believe "is it legal" is a good line to use. You may differ on that, but you can't escape the dichotomy.

jomamaxx 10y ago

"Important to whom?" Important to lawful civilizations. If you think that there should be better regulations around setting transfer pricing, then vote for it. Unless companies are breaking the law, then there is a very profound 'distinction'. Some tax issues are easily resolved, or at least, easily improved. 'Transfer pricing' is not one of them. It's very thorny. I for one think that Apple's argument of 'the innovation and design is done in California - not Ireland' - is pretty reasonable. Im fact - the US government should be reaping most of the tax dollars that Apple generates, not Ireland. That said - if they have operations in Ireland they should be paying taxes there. I think that a company should pay it's 'primary corporate tax' in the place where it is incorporated and has it's major operations. And then ancilliary countries like Ireland can tax them at a corporate rate, but discounted for what they payed in America. Ireland's biggest tax receipts from Apple should come from VAT - which is the fairest tax of them all, because it's applied to each iPhone sale in Ireland, not France or wherever. Currently - it's upside down: if a Canadian company has a subsidiary in France, they pay their corp tax rate in France for sales there - and then only a 4% remittance fee to Canada. To me that's backwards. The American system is the worst: American companies pay full tax overseas - and then full tax back in America. Plus American corporate taxes are high.

__jal 10y ago
> Important to lawful civilizations. You seem to have misread. I was arguing about word choice about tax policy, not tax policy. I choose to recognize a range of behavior as "evasion". That's what we're talking about. None of your post is relevant to what I wrote.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  The definition of 'tax evasion' is 'the illegal nonpayment or underpayment of tax'. So - it's not up to you to decide what is 'tax evasion'. You can commandeer the term if you want, but you'd have to be very clear that you are doing that.