4 ms·

No, they couldn't. The money belongs to foreign corporations also named Apple whatever. That little issue is purposefully glossed over for the sake of sensat

No, they couldn't. The money belongs to foreign corporations also named Apple whatever. That little issue is purposefully glossed over for the sake of sensationalism to sell advertising, of course.

kobeya 9y ago
Treat income of any foreign company wholly owned or with substantially similar ownership structure of a domestic company as taxable income for that domestic company. I don't think this is a good idea; I'm just demonstrating that it's not impossible.
- cc439 9y ago
  How do you define "domestic"? Is it a company that earns the majority of its revenues in your country? That won't work because Toyota is certainly not an American company but the US market represents the majority of their revenues. Is it a company that was founded in your country? That won't work because of companies like Airbus that are supranational in origin. Is it a company that is headquartered in your country? That won't work because a headquarters can be moved in a matter of months (look at how GE left CT for a more regional example).
  - kobeya 9y ago
    Domestic has a technical meaning: a company registered in a US state. To do business in the US you have to spin up a US company. Toyota USA would be taxed for global Toyota income. You could try to mitigate that by saying these rules only apply to companies whose ownership or control structure is more than 25% american, directly or indirectly. But yeah, these side effects are part of why I say I don’t agree with such a proposal.
matt4077 9y ago
Those foreign corporations named "Apple whatever" are owned, and controlled by "Apple Inc. (forever)". Such conglomerates are usually treated as one for tax purposes, which is why Apple and others can't just create 2500 shell companies each year to take advantage of various "startup" incentives across the world. That's the sort of knowledge journalists learn in journalism 101, before they advance to their seminar on "sensationalism and selling advertisement" and the group therapy session "some know-nothing on the internet thinks I have anything to do with the BBC's business side, completely ignoring that online advertisement is, like, 0.001% of the BBC's revenue and that, being one of x thousand people working for the BBC, and my articles' revenue going into one big pot with all the others', my personal future is almost completely devoid of anything resembling a link to my articles' readership numbers".

No, they couldn't. The money belongs to foreign corporations also named Apple whatever. That little issue is purposefully glossed over for the sake of sensationalism to sell advertising, of course.

kobeya 9y ago

Treat income of any foreign company wholly owned or with substantially similar ownership structure of a domestic company as taxable income for that domestic company. I don't think this is a good idea; I'm just demonstrating that it's not impossible.

cc439 9y ago
How do you define "domestic"? Is it a company that earns the majority of its revenues in your country? That won't work because Toyota is certainly not an American company but the US market represents the majority of their revenues. Is it a company that was founded in your country? That won't work because of companies like Airbus that are supranational in origin. Is it a company that is headquartered in your country? That won't work because a headquarters can be moved in a matter of months (look at how GE left CT for a more regional example).
- kobeya 9y ago
  Domestic has a technical meaning: a company registered in a US state. To do business in the US you have to spin up a US company. Toyota USA would be taxed for global Toyota income. You could try to mitigate that by saying these rules only apply to companies whose ownership or control structure is more than 25% american, directly or indirectly. But yeah, these side effects are part of why I say I don’t agree with such a proposal.

matt4077 9y ago

Those foreign corporations named "Apple whatever" are owned, and controlled by "Apple Inc. (forever)". Such conglomerates are usually treated as one for tax purposes, which is why Apple and others can't just create 2500 shell companies each year to take advantage of various "startup" incentives across the world. That's the sort of knowledge journalists learn in journalism 101, before they advance to their seminar on "sensationalism and selling advertisement" and the group therapy session "some know-nothing on the internet thinks I have anything to do with the BBC's business side, completely ignoring that online advertisement is, like, 0.001% of the BBC's revenue and that, being one of x thousand people working for the BBC, and my articles' revenue going into one big pot with all the others', my personal future is almost completely devoid of anything resembling a link to my articles' readership numbers".