5 ms·
The 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/techno
by bdash 10y ago
The 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.
- Dylan16807 10y agoGoing through the list of taxes and pointing out that they paid every single one of them with no discounts, but one got weirdly routed, is relevant.
- dangjc 10y agoSounds like NZ needs a destination based cash flow tax, like the idea that is floating around Congress now: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/upshot/the-major-potential-impact-of-a-corporate-tax-overhaul.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/upshot/the-major-poten...
- Lazare 10y agoBut why does it need to change? Would NZ really be better off if it got to tax the NZ revenue of Australian companies operating in NZ but gave up being able to tax the Australian revenue of NZ companies operating in Australia? Given that Australia both NZ's largest trade partner and much larger (and somewhat wealthier) than NZ, isn't it likely that quite a lot of NZ companies earn significant amounts of revenue in Australia? Would NZ even come out ahead from such a change, even ignoring the (very significant) costs of a massive change to the tax code? Because offhand it doesn't look like it.
- acdha 10y agoI'm not saying it needs to change but that seems to be the argument of people like the Green Party member quoted. If the intention is to have a corporate tax it seems like a problem if huge amounts of money are exempted.
- Lazare 10y agoBut it's not being exempted; it's being taxed. At a higher rate! Right?