>It's transparently obvious that Apple's subsidiaries in Ireland and the Netherlands exist purely to evade taxes. To avoid taxes? Sure. Tax evasion is a crim

>It's transparently obvious that Apple's subsidiaries in Ireland and the Netherlands exist purely to evade taxes. To avoid taxes? Sure. Tax evasion is a crime, though, and they haven't even been accused, let alone convicted. >However their lobbying and economic power have protected them for years, which may have broken recently when the EU determined that they owe $14 billion for illegal benefits... The issue for the EU revolved around whether Ireland must tax Apple under EU law, not whether the profits Apple is recognizing in Ireland can legitimately be recognized in Ireland. >So to answer your question, New Zealand has an agreement with all of the companies that they recognize their revenue and expenses and pay tax on the difference. When Apple New Zealand says that they owe their Irish counterpart hundreds of dollars per phone for licensing, and the New Zeaand authorities see that it's an obvious tax dodge shell company, they can and should question whether those hundreds of dollars fall into form vs substance. There is no actual business purpose to pay licensing fees to an Irish subsidiary that was gifted huge amounts of Apple IP. You're still sidestepping the question. I didn't ask whether tax authorities in New Zealand have an interest in making sure Apple pays what it owes in New Zealand. The question was why would New Zealand care whether or not Apple pays Irish taxes in Ireland.