3 ms·

I don't believe that this is accurate. Apple believes they are in compliance and at this time it appears the US federal government agrees. If the government was

I don't believe that this is accurate. Apple believes they are in compliance and at this time it appears the US federal government agrees. If the government was to disagree, they could take action and force Apple to comply with the existing tax laws. Apple would have their day in court and precedent would be set. Should Apple win that case, then we'd need to look into creating new laws. I am not convinced that new laws are necessary, in fact, I think this just used to distract from the issue and to allow the polishing of that old chestnut about more laws creating more loopholes. It is my opinion, but I do feel the argument that the problem is the law, and not the large corporations who can afford to flout them, is disingenuous. Apple is under no obligation to pay as little taxes as they can convince themselves is reasonable.

kobeya 9y ago
Companies have had days in court and presidents have been set, even if the name of the defendant was not Apple. This isn't some crazy scheme that Apple's accountants cooked up. Even when the dutch sandwich was new, it was still built from components that individually had case law backing them up. You don't just get to reinterpret the law because you don't like what effects it has. The courts are only really able to interpret ambiguities. Where the law is clear (and it is pretty clear here), you need to change the laws.
- cmiles74 9y ago
  That's pretty much all courts do: interpret the law. There's a lot of ambiguity here, hence all the push-back on Apple stowing profits offshore. In my opinion, the only case that can be made is that, in general, profits made outside of the US by corporations is not subject to tax. That is hardly the only issue being discussed, in fact, it strikes me as the most simplistic interpretation. There are lots of other good questions, and it may not turn out to be the case that everything Apple has done is legal. For instance... Is it legal for Apple to attribute all of their intellectual property to their Irish subsidiary? Is it legal for Apple to avoid paying taxes in Ireland by sending the money to a fictitious head office with no physical location? And so on and so forth. https://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2016/08/30/apples-irish-tax-bill-at-a-glance/ https://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2016/08/30/apples-irish-tax-bi...
__blockcipher__ 9y ago
Pure foolishness. The law says “if you bring your foreign-earned profits abroad, you must pay taxes”. (I left it vague because I’m not an expert but my understanding is Apple would be responsible for around a 30% or higher tax rate). Apple says, “okay we’re not going to bring the money back at that rate. Instead we’ll leave it invested in liquid assets abroad and take on cheap debt in the US to fund our share repurchases”. So what’s your proposal? Forced repatriation? I hope it’s clear why that isn’t a good approach. Our international tax code is completely fucked. Apple’s not the problem. Full disclosure: My portfolio is heavily weighted towards Apple at an average cost of $120/share
- cmiles74 9y ago
  I don't think it's at all that straightforward. Apple has assigned intellectual property to their subsidiaries in Ireland and has used that as a way to direct profits out of the US. Is that legal? I am not an expert, but surely it is not straightforward. Once profits collect in Ireland, Apple moves the profits to it's "head office", which not only is not in Ireland, it's not physical in any way. Thus they avoid the bulk of Irish taxes. The EU is suing Ireland and seem fairly serious, at least in this case it looks like Apple will pay some of the taxes, eventually. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-apple-taxavoidance-court/eu-takes-ireland-to-court-for-not-claiming-apple-tax-windfall-idUSKCN1C913I https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-apple-taxavoidance-cou... Is this the only way they are avoiding taxes? I strongly suspect it is not and that they are breaking the law in more than one case.
  - __blockcipher__ 9y ago
    Which issue are we discussing? The age old double dutch irish or whatever it's called, or tax repatriation? I surmise that you're stating that the two are linked. That's fair. However isn't Apple already paying taxes on its US-sold goods? This thread seems to specifically be about the repatriation side of things, and the only way to force repatriation is to...force repatriation.
- andrepd 9y ago
  >Forced repatriation? I hope it’s clear why that isn’t a good approach. It isn't clear to me. Why is that?

kobeya 9y ago

Companies have had days in court and presidents have been set, even if the name of the defendant was not Apple. This isn't some crazy scheme that Apple's accountants cooked up. Even when the dutch sandwich was new, it was still built from components that individually had case law backing them up. You don't just get to reinterpret the law because you don't like what effects it has. The courts are only really able to interpret ambiguities. Where the law is clear (and it is pretty clear here), you need to change the laws.

cmiles74 9y ago
That's pretty much all courts do: interpret the law. There's a lot of ambiguity here, hence all the push-back on Apple stowing profits offshore. In my opinion, the only case that can be made is that, in general, profits made outside of the US by corporations is not subject to tax. That is hardly the only issue being discussed, in fact, it strikes me as the most simplistic interpretation. There are lots of other good questions, and it may not turn out to be the case that everything Apple has done is legal. For instance... Is it legal for Apple to attribute all of their intellectual property to their Irish subsidiary? Is it legal for Apple to avoid paying taxes in Ireland by sending the money to a fictitious head office with no physical location? And so on and so forth. https://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2016/08/30/apples-irish-tax-bill-at-a-glance/ https://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2016/08/30/apples-irish-tax-bi...

__blockcipher__ 9y ago

Pure foolishness. The law says “if you bring your foreign-earned profits abroad, you must pay taxes”. (I left it vague because I’m not an expert but my understanding is Apple would be responsible for around a 30% or higher tax rate). Apple says, “okay we’re not going to bring the money back at that rate. Instead we’ll leave it invested in liquid assets abroad and take on cheap debt in the US to fund our share repurchases”. So what’s your proposal? Forced repatriation? I hope it’s clear why that isn’t a good approach. Our international tax code is completely fucked. Apple’s not the problem. Full disclosure: My portfolio is heavily weighted towards Apple at an average cost of $120/share

cmiles74 9y ago
I don't think it's at all that straightforward. Apple has assigned intellectual property to their subsidiaries in Ireland and has used that as a way to direct profits out of the US. Is that legal? I am not an expert, but surely it is not straightforward. Once profits collect in Ireland, Apple moves the profits to it's "head office", which not only is not in Ireland, it's not physical in any way. Thus they avoid the bulk of Irish taxes. The EU is suing Ireland and seem fairly serious, at least in this case it looks like Apple will pay some of the taxes, eventually. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-apple-taxavoidance-court/eu-takes-ireland-to-court-for-not-claiming-apple-tax-windfall-idUSKCN1C913I https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-apple-taxavoidance-cou... Is this the only way they are avoiding taxes? I strongly suspect it is not and that they are breaking the law in more than one case.
- __blockcipher__ 9y ago
  Which issue are we discussing? The age old double dutch irish or whatever it's called, or tax repatriation? I surmise that you're stating that the two are linked. That's fair. However isn't Apple already paying taxes on its US-sold goods? This thread seems to specifically be about the repatriation side of things, and the only way to force repatriation is to...force repatriation.
andrepd 9y ago
>Forced repatriation? I hope it’s clear why that isn’t a good approach. It isn't clear to me. Why is that?