7 ms·

1) 'Tax evasion' is illegal - it implies you're doing something like hiding money offshore, and not declaring it. Apple is doing nothing more than not paying

1) 'Tax evasion' is illegal - it implies you're doing something like hiding money offshore, and not declaring it. Apple is doing nothing more than not paying the taxes they are not supposed to. If you claim your 'moving expenses' on your tax form, are you 'evading taxes'? No - you're just playing by the rules. Apple basically played by the rules. Nothing they did was illegal until the EU change their laws 25 years retroactively. 2) Europe definitely has a right to tax business activity in Europe. 3) The US does have a right to also tax business overseas, but it needs to be reasonable. Today, the laws are whack and US companies are double-taxed. If they weren't all that money would be coming back. Your comment about Trump are unfortunate, I don't like him either, but he was elected. Also, the bureaucracy has not changed. But consider this: Trump is actually going to change the repatriation laws, and you'll likely see a Trillion dollars parked overseas come back to the US. A good chunk of it will go to investors as dividends, but still, even that money will circulate back into the economy, and that's not all of it. It's surprising Obama did not do this - if he made repatriation laws consistent with the rest of the world ... it could have been a big bump to the economy when the US needed it the most. Edit: to be clear (thanks to Marzan, below) 'double-taxation' is not quite the appropriate term, as US companies are given credit for taxes overseas.

Marazan 10y ago
US companies are not double taxed. Any corporation tax they pay in a foreign jurasdicuon is deducted from their us tax bill.
- ChrisBland 10y ago
  I think OP is referring to places that have tax % lower than the US. Say Country A had a rate of 10%, you get the deduction of the 10% but you still owe 25% more due to the US 35% tax rate when you repatriate the $.
  - amitdeshwar 10y ago
    How is that "double taxation"?
SixSigma 10y ago
> Apple is doing nothing more than not paying the taxes they are not supposed to. Well they did take part in secret sweetheart deals with Luxembourg that were designed to specifically route tax from EU countries into Luxembourg tax shelters. I would define that as "more than following the law" https://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/new-leak-reveals-luxembourg-tax-deals-disney-koch-brothers-empire https://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/new-leak-revea... Jean-Claude Juncker, the current president of the European Commission, who was prime minister of Luxembourg admitted after the “Lux Leaks” publications that the system was “not always in line with fiscal fairness” and may have breached “ethical and moral standards.”
aniro 10y ago
How can you assume that this money would circulate back into the US economy? You imply that it will be used to buy goods and services within the US and thereby serve the "greater good" of increased economic activity of the sort that produces jobs and greater financial well-being for the bulk of the citizenry. Assuming that it did "circulate back into the economy", it seems most likely this money would be funneled into the already bloated financial sector where it can most readily participate in the variety of internal US tax avoidance schemes.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "How can you assume that this money would circulate back into the US economy?" I'm saying that corporate profits returned from overseas are effectively coming back into the economy. Actually - this is statement of fact. It's 'in the US system' as opposed to overseas. Second - your position basically implies that 'corporate profits' are not beneficial to the US economy, which is a stretch. Almost all of the money coming back will be put to use. Do you want to know just one of the many ways: STARTUPS The massive number of startups being funded, at amazing valuations, is a function of 'extra cash' in the financial system. All of those failed startups employees are being paid with those dollars. And in many ways 'it's good' - they learn, they move on to better companies etc.. Massive amounts of money coming back into the US economy is a 'good thing' - the onus I think would be on you to demonstrate how this could really be a negative thing, and I suggest it would be impossible to demonstrate.
  - aniro 10y ago
    I wouldn't exactly call Apple's cash war chest "money circulating within the US economy" but I will take your point as given.. by definition money that returns to the US will technically be (once again) "in the US economy". A significant portion of those profits were shifted overseas to avoid taxation within the US. Providing a "tax holiday" in order to repatriate those monies essentialy validates the tactic of shifting profits overseas to avoid taxation until a critical mass of dollars has accumulated so that it is politically attractive to institute another "holiday" just to bring the money home sans the tax. This tactic is starving the US Treasury of funds needed for the People's Government to perform its functions. This isn't the first go around with this, it is in fact becoming cyclical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_tax_holiday https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_tax_holiday In the meantime, these entities are parking dollars out of reach (actively removing them from circulation) instead of investing or spending them within the US.. where they would have been circulated anyway if not for the tax avoidance. They are being rewarded for removing the money and then politicians are being hailed as heroes for "convincing" them to return it by helping them avoid paying taxes to put it back in the economy it was removed from. I fail to see how you think any of this is beneficial to the US economy.
Fnoord 10y ago
> Nothing they did was illegal until the EU change their laws 25 years retroactively. That's oversimplifying what happened. What happened is that Apple was working with the Irish government for a deal with very low tax %. The EU now told the Irish government that this was illegal, and that they need to ask Apple to pay the full price. Retroactively. If you play dirty around the rules don't complain when it does not work out. If Apple had simply played according to the rules none of this would've happened. The excuse that 'everyone does it' is a bad one. It doesn't work out for all the criminals in jail in US for dealing drugs, now does it?
- edblarney 10y ago
  "The excuse that 'everyone does it' is a bad one. It doesn't work out for all the criminals in jail in US for dealing drugs, now does it?" Governments give incentives including subsidies and tax breaks all the time to companies. Nearly every film made in Canada in the EU gets tax breaks. Are you suggesting 'film makers' are like 'drug dealers'? Can the EU rule that tax credits for film-makers are now 'illegal' after so many years? How about subsidies to Airbus? And defence contractors? That this has been going on for 25 years and the EU didn't say anything about it completely absurd and shows how broken the system is. If you're going to have a 'single market' then you must have tax harmonization, or you have these issues - ergo - the fault is again the EU. Re-interpreting laws 25 years retroactively is firmly in the camp of 'theft of private property' by government, totally banana republic. The EU needs to fix it's game and stop blaming other entities for it's shortcomings.
  - Fnoord 10y ago
    >> "The excuse that 'everyone does it' is a bad one. It doesn't work out for all the criminals in jail in US for dealing drugs, now does it?" > Governments give incentives including subsidies and tax breaks all the time to companies. How on earth is that a reply to what you are quoting? Learn to quote. Your original statement was a deceiving lie, and I corrected it. The EU did, in fact, not retroactively change a law since that is impossible. At interpretation of a law however, can be changed. The EU has told Ireland that their deal was invalid, and asked the Irish government to still ask Apple for all the money they owe the EU. It is money we -as civilians of the EU government- never received from Apple. As I said in my previous post (you did not address any of what I wrote except went on a completely different tangent): If you play dirty around the rules don't complain when it does not work out. If Apple had simply played according to the rules none of this would've happened. My example of how terrible the US government is was actually one where the US government profits because the US government profits from drugs felons via free labour. I'm not going to get into this holier than thou debate on subsidies since I find it a complex topic to judge on by a case by case scenario. Other than that I'm casually gonna mention the US does this as well (in multiple kinds of ways including for example corn), as well as waging all kind of illegal wars and installing democracies as well as dictatorships to wage illegal wars, as well as economic espionage on their allies (Belgacom hacks come to mind). All of which the EU barely does, if it even does that. Some specific EU countries do, and I'm not happy about that. One of the worst culprits on that, for better or worse, is soon leaving us and in that delight I won't shed a tear.
Oletros 10y ago
> Apple basically played by the rules. Nothing they did was illegal until the EU change their laws 25 years retroactively. No law has been changed, the article cited in the ruling has its beginning in the Treaty of Rome of 1957

Marazan 10y ago

US companies are not double taxed. Any corporation tax they pay in a foreign jurasdicuon is deducted from their us tax bill.

ChrisBland 10y ago
I think OP is referring to places that have tax % lower than the US. Say Country A had a rate of 10%, you get the deduction of the 10% but you still owe 25% more due to the US 35% tax rate when you repatriate the $.
- amitdeshwar 10y ago
  How is that "double taxation"?

SixSigma 10y ago

> Apple is doing nothing more than not paying the taxes they are not supposed to. Well they did take part in secret sweetheart deals with Luxembourg that were designed to specifically route tax from EU countries into Luxembourg tax shelters. I would define that as "more than following the law" https://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/new-leak-reveals-luxembourg-tax-deals-disney-koch-brothers-empire https://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/new-leak-revea... Jean-Claude Juncker, the current president of the European Commission, who was prime minister of Luxembourg admitted after the “Lux Leaks” publications that the system was “not always in line with fiscal fairness” and may have breached “ethical and moral standards.”

aniro 10y ago

How can you assume that this money would circulate back into the US economy? You imply that it will be used to buy goods and services within the US and thereby serve the "greater good" of increased economic activity of the sort that produces jobs and greater financial well-being for the bulk of the citizenry. Assuming that it did "circulate back into the economy", it seems most likely this money would be funneled into the already bloated financial sector where it can most readily participate in the variety of internal US tax avoidance schemes.

edblarney 10y ago
"How can you assume that this money would circulate back into the US economy?" I'm saying that corporate profits returned from overseas are effectively coming back into the economy. Actually - this is statement of fact. It's 'in the US system' as opposed to overseas. Second - your position basically implies that 'corporate profits' are not beneficial to the US economy, which is a stretch. Almost all of the money coming back will be put to use. Do you want to know just one of the many ways: STARTUPS The massive number of startups being funded, at amazing valuations, is a function of 'extra cash' in the financial system. All of those failed startups employees are being paid with those dollars. And in many ways 'it's good' - they learn, they move on to better companies etc.. Massive amounts of money coming back into the US economy is a 'good thing' - the onus I think would be on you to demonstrate how this could really be a negative thing, and I suggest it would be impossible to demonstrate.
- aniro 10y ago
  I wouldn't exactly call Apple's cash war chest "money circulating within the US economy" but I will take your point as given.. by definition money that returns to the US will technically be (once again) "in the US economy". A significant portion of those profits were shifted overseas to avoid taxation within the US. Providing a "tax holiday" in order to repatriate those monies essentialy validates the tactic of shifting profits overseas to avoid taxation until a critical mass of dollars has accumulated so that it is politically attractive to institute another "holiday" just to bring the money home sans the tax. This tactic is starving the US Treasury of funds needed for the People's Government to perform its functions. This isn't the first go around with this, it is in fact becoming cyclical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_tax_holiday https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_tax_holiday In the meantime, these entities are parking dollars out of reach (actively removing them from circulation) instead of investing or spending them within the US.. where they would have been circulated anyway if not for the tax avoidance. They are being rewarded for removing the money and then politicians are being hailed as heroes for "convincing" them to return it by helping them avoid paying taxes to put it back in the economy it was removed from. I fail to see how you think any of this is beneficial to the US economy.

Fnoord 10y ago

> Nothing they did was illegal until the EU change their laws 25 years retroactively. That's oversimplifying what happened. What happened is that Apple was working with the Irish government for a deal with very low tax %. The EU now told the Irish government that this was illegal, and that they need to ask Apple to pay the full price. Retroactively. If you play dirty around the rules don't complain when it does not work out. If Apple had simply played according to the rules none of this would've happened. The excuse that 'everyone does it' is a bad one. It doesn't work out for all the criminals in jail in US for dealing drugs, now does it?

edblarney 10y ago
"The excuse that 'everyone does it' is a bad one. It doesn't work out for all the criminals in jail in US for dealing drugs, now does it?" Governments give incentives including subsidies and tax breaks all the time to companies. Nearly every film made in Canada in the EU gets tax breaks. Are you suggesting 'film makers' are like 'drug dealers'? Can the EU rule that tax credits for film-makers are now 'illegal' after so many years? How about subsidies to Airbus? And defence contractors? That this has been going on for 25 years and the EU didn't say anything about it completely absurd and shows how broken the system is. If you're going to have a 'single market' then you must have tax harmonization, or you have these issues - ergo - the fault is again the EU. Re-interpreting laws 25 years retroactively is firmly in the camp of 'theft of private property' by government, totally banana republic. The EU needs to fix it's game and stop blaming other entities for it's shortcomings.
- Fnoord 10y ago
  >> "The excuse that 'everyone does it' is a bad one. It doesn't work out for all the criminals in jail in US for dealing drugs, now does it?" > Governments give incentives including subsidies and tax breaks all the time to companies. How on earth is that a reply to what you are quoting? Learn to quote. Your original statement was a deceiving lie, and I corrected it. The EU did, in fact, not retroactively change a law since that is impossible. At interpretation of a law however, can be changed. The EU has told Ireland that their deal was invalid, and asked the Irish government to still ask Apple for all the money they owe the EU. It is money we -as civilians of the EU government- never received from Apple. As I said in my previous post (you did not address any of what I wrote except went on a completely different tangent): If you play dirty around the rules don't complain when it does not work out. If Apple had simply played according to the rules none of this would've happened. My example of how terrible the US government is was actually one where the US government profits because the US government profits from drugs felons via free labour. I'm not going to get into this holier than thou debate on subsidies since I find it a complex topic to judge on by a case by case scenario. Other than that I'm casually gonna mention the US does this as well (in multiple kinds of ways including for example corn), as well as waging all kind of illegal wars and installing democracies as well as dictatorships to wage illegal wars, as well as economic espionage on their allies (Belgacom hacks come to mind). All of which the EU barely does, if it even does that. Some specific EU countries do, and I'm not happy about that. One of the worst culprits on that, for better or worse, is soon leaving us and in that delight I won't shed a tear.

Oletros 10y ago

> Apple basically played by the rules. Nothing they did was illegal until the EU change their laws 25 years retroactively. No law has been changed, the article cited in the ruling has its beginning in the Treaty of Rome of 1957