8 ms·
Apple Paid $0 in Taxes to New Zealand, Despite Sales of $4.2B
- drpgq 10y agoAn argument for higher sales taxes versus corporate taxes?
- tonyedgecombe 10y agoI wonder if the writing is on the wall for corporation tax, whether competition between nations will drive it down to zero.
- virmundi 10y agoIt really should be zero or at least no higher than 20%. You're double taxing corps. You tax the consumer's paycheck, then tax the corp when it sells.
- chillwaves 10y agoThen I buy goods and pay a sales tax. Triple taxed!
- tonyedgecombe 10y agoI don't think you are, employees salaries reduce profits and hence corporation tax.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- r00fus 10y agoStates already pay for corporations to relocate hoping to make it up by increased employement and ancillary busineses. I don't imagine that in many cases, local governments have basically given money to the corporation with the expecting proceeds not materializing. Corporations with the advent of the WTO and other globalization efforts have essentially made it impossible for nations to actually tax them. How does this change and if such taxation doesn't hold, will the states also eventually become antiquated?
- ghaff 10y agoFor the most part, corporate income tax is dumb. Corporations have a lot more options than individuals, to which corporate profits generally flow eventually, to play games with where they file for different parts of their operations. That said, I don't really expect major changes. Corporate taxes are a lot less unpopular than individual taxes. So the fact that they're avoided a lot of the time is just how it is.
- valuearb 10y agoI hope so, corporate income taxes are the worst, directly taxing investment, and double taxing shareholder profits.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y agoAn argument for higher personal income taxes versus corporate taxes. Sales tax is regressive.
- TechRiderz 10y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEdymJEs96g&t=29s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEdymJEs96g&t=29s Must watch full video and subscribe the channel itz free so subcribe it and share to other...
- al452 10y ago$4.2 billion in sales, subject to 15% GST, suggests $630 million in tax revenue to the NZ government. Not a bad tax take from an operation that runs out of another country.
- drpgq 10y agoIn the US, I suppose a state without a sales tax like New Hampshire also effectively loses out on tax revenue to Apple.
- mustntmumble 10y agoApple doesn't pay the GST on the sales, that is paid for by the consumers. (Yes I know that is a gross simplification but that is the general idea of GST - it is a consumption tax).
- omarforgotpwd 10y agoWhether the consumer pays the tax on top of the retail price, or the producer raises their prices and pays the tax out of their end, it is all the same.
- throwaway2048 10y agotaxes companies pay come out of profits, they may choose to raise prices to increase profits, or due to competition etc, they may not. Its a vast oversimplification to say that all corporate taxes are just paid by the customers anyways.
- omarforgotpwd 10y agoI agree that it is an oversimplification to say the effects are exactly the same, but my point was just that the price will go up and the consumer will pay more regardless of where the tax is levied.
- throwaway2048 10y ago
- twfarland 10y agoWhere's the explanation of how this was achieved?
- keithnz 10y agohttp://www.stuff.co.nz/90613870/Q-A-What-makes-Apple-NZs-tax-arrangements-unique http://www.stuff.co.nz/90613870/Q-A-What-makes-Apple-NZs-tax...
- ucaetano 10y ago>> Apple's New Zealand operations are wholly owned by an Australian parent and appear to be run from there. A tax treaty between the two countries sees dual claims on income tax default to where the company is controlled. Nothing to see here, move along.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- bdash 10y agoThe Reddit comment at https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/60ffl6/apple_paid_0_in_taxes_to_new_zealand_despite/df68ydv/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/60ffl6/apple_pa... mentions the following: > That 0$ is their NZ income tax. Obviously they pay all other taxes for their properties and employees. It is just that New Zealand and Australia have an income tax deal >> Apple's New Zealand operations are wholly owned by an Australian parent and appear to be run from there. A tax treaty between the two countries sees dual claims on income tax default to where the company is controlled. >> Russell, recently selected as the Labour Party candidate for the safe New Lynn electorate for September's general election, said Apple's tax arrangements were totally consistent with the law. > So Apples NZ income tax is paid to Australia. All other NZ taxes are paid to NZ. Hilariously the tax rate in Australia is higher than in NZ >> The accounts for Apple's New Zealand subsidiary disclose in notes that income tax is paid at 30% - the rate in Australia - not the 28% charged in New Zealand. This reference has been in every financial statement filed by Apple with the Companies Office since at least 2007. It provides [1] as its source. [1]: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3515916-Apple-2016.html#document/p28/a344375 http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3515916-Apple-2016.ht...
- acdha 10y agoThe first point is completely irrelevant. Beyond that, it doesn't really seem to matter – is anyone claiming that this is illegal versus a sign that the NZ legal system needs to change?
- wwalser 10y agoThe point that a company paid taxes, in response to an article with a title claiming that they paid $0 in taxes, is irrelevant?
- acdha 10y agoThe article was talking about corporate income taxes. The fact that they also paid property taxes doesn't add much to the conversation, and that's even more the case about whether their employees happened to pay personal income taxes.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- donatj 10y agoWhat taxes are purportedly owed? Do they have a physical presence in New Zealand?
- xupybd 10y agoThey sell goods and services to people with a physical presence in New Zealand. New Zealand supplies the infrastructure to make these sales possible. So why should it even matter?
- mason240 10y agoAnother comment has cited that they do pay taxes for their properties and employees, covering their presence.
- ucaetano 10y agoBecause we're talking about corporate profit taxes, not sales taxes. They already pay sales taxes in NZ (or collect from customers). >> Apple's New Zealand operations are wholly owned by an Australian parent and appear to be run from there. A tax treaty between the two countries sees dual claims on income tax default to where the company is controlled.
- tonfa 10y agoSo if an NZ company sells products in Europe or US or Australia, they should be taxed in all those countries instead of NZ even if the product is fully developed in NZ?
- valuearb 10y agoBecause you shouldn't owe income tax to a country you don't reside in. If a NZ citizen buys from Apple.com and has it shipped to NZ, why should Apple owe both the US and NZ income tax? Sales taxes are a different issue.
- charlesdm 10y agoCorporate taxes should be paid, for the most part, where the IP for the product is created and/or held. In addition, take off the Apple brand, and you're left with a phone you can't sell for a premium anymore.
- skdotdan 10y agoWhat about V.A.T.?
- sitharus 10y agoGST was paid for all physical goods shipped, and recently it's been added to digital goods. Apple doesn't pay that though, the consumer does.
- gech 10y agoWhy should individuals pay the tax? This suppresses demand
- LinearEntropy 10y agoIn New Zealand, GST (15%) is paid by consumers on all purchases, from groceries to phone sales.
- jacquesm 10y agoBecause they want to live in a functioning society.
- sitharus 10y agoTo clarify individuals don't directly pay the tax. All sales of goods and services have 15% tax added. It's collected by the companies and remitted to the government. Since all prices have the 15% added most people don't pay attention to it.
- nkkollaw 10y agoFrom a company that prides itself to be ethical (see the accessibility stuff and their ads), this is not cool. On the other hand, if it's legal why would they not do it.
- tedunangst 10y agoIf one's legal tax bill is $0, how does one calculate one's ethical tax bill? Which form does one fill out to remit ethical taxes?
- al452 10y agoAs far as I have been able to tell from the behaviour of those who believe this kind of thing, the correct authority to consult to determine ethical tax liability is the sub-editor in charge of writing headlines for whichever newspaper one reads.
- nkkollaw 10y agoYou know, there are things that are legal, but you know are unethical and you don't do them. Refusing get up to let an elderly woman sit on the bus is not illegal, but you do it because it's the right thing to do. Apple go to great lengths to make their taxes 0, doing things that small businesses would never be able to do. If they didn't their taxes would be hundreds of millions. This—alongside depriving California and the States of money that could be used for the community—makes it unethical IMHO.
- valuearb 10y agoHow is it ethical to take money from shareholders to pay extra taxes you and they don't owe?
- touristtam 10y agoI am questioning the ethical angle: A company that uses Evangelist as a title for a brand promoter should not be seen as ethical.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
- jjtheblunt 10y agoIs this because the NZ tax system collects from the consumer rather than merchant?
- Lazare 10y agoNZ and Australia have a tax treaty so companies pay taxes where they're based. Apple's Aus/NZ operations are based on Australia, so they pay the (higher) Australia rate to the Aus government, instead of the (lower) NZ rate to the NZ government on their NZ profits. Meanwhile, companies based in NZ are paying no taxes in Australia. WHEN WILL THIS MADNESS END?
- hunta2097 10y agoThe article quotes as follows: "There are so many areas where Apple does enormous good - far, far more good than any other electronics giant" Any idea what is being referred to there? I've never noticed Apple being particularly "good"?
- IncRnd 10y agoThat's just a meaningless introductory statement.
- shrewduser 10y agofar far more meaningless than any other introductory statement
- zepto 10y agoEnvironmental issues, labor conditions.
- e28eta 10y agoAccessibility too. This is the event (probably not the best article, but top google hit and reasonably covers it) that's usually used as an example: http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-versus-a-conservative-think-tank-2014-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-versus-a-conservativ... And slightly more recently, privacy (FBI desiring an encryption bypass).
- hunta2097 10y agoThe article quotes as follows: "There are so many areas where Apple does enormous good - far, far more good than any other electronics giant" Any idea what is being referred to there? I've never noticed Apple being particularly "good"?
- Steeeve 10y agoLet's not forget about sales tax. $4.2B amounted to $630M in taxes. Plus the import tax, which would be another $630M dollars. And then take into account that they have stores and employees and have to pay taxes accordingly. And then there's the investment poured in to generate those entities. Pretty soon, it looks pretty reasonable that the goverment allows things like this to be structured because otherwise, taxes would be a deterrent for companies looking to enter the market.
- jaimex2 10y agoOur governments here in Australia/NZ are convinced huge tax breaks are the only way to keep businesses here and generating jobs. I really don't know if there is a better way but they are certainly scarred of more things moving overseas.