5 ms·

This op-ed conveniently ignores several important aspects of reality. 1. Agency of sovereign nations. Ireland, and other countries, set low tax rates to attra

This op-ed conveniently ignores several important aspects of reality. 1. Agency of sovereign nations. Ireland, and other countries, set low tax rates to attract businesses. That’s their prerogative. 2. Revisionist history. After a company moves to capitalize on the offered low tax rates, people start screaming, “hey, look at all the taxes being avoided because the company did exactly what the country wanted them to do!” 3. Obligation to shareholders. Corporations are not philanthropic charities. They are required, by law, to try to maximize returns. It would be illegal, for example, for Apple’s executives to charitably repatriate their money and pay taxes — they would get sued by the shareholders, and they’d lose. 4. Side-effects of complicated tax laws. Every time a politician proposes a new tax increase, other politicians scream, and they all seek a compromise. They successfully compromise by inserting loopholes into the new tax. Then, predictably, people take advantage of those loopholes.

karmajunkie 9y ago
> 3. Obligation to shareholders. Corporations are not philanthropic charities. They are required, by law, to try to maximize returns. It would be illegal, for example, for Apple’s executives to charitably repatriate their money and pay taxes — they would get sued by the shareholders, and they’d lose. No, they wouldn't, because contrary to popular belief, that's not actually a law. Please cite which US statute you're referring to if you'd like to refute me.
- dogruck 9y ago
  You’re correct that my language is too loose there. Here’s what would happen: 1. Apple would declare that they are repatriating the money. 2. The shareholders would disagree. They would sue, claiming that the company’s directors are obligated to do what’s best for the corporation. The shareholders would vote to replace the board, and the newly elected board would replace management. The threat of #2 prevents #1.
  - karmajunkie 9y ago
    You're making some pretty ridiculous presumptions there. All Apple would have to do is pay a sizable dividend as one of the purposes of repatriation and any shareholder angst would evaporate.
- antif 9y ago
  Sounds like an application of the `business judgement rule`: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule
  - karmajunkie 9y ago
    That rule grants wide latitude to the directors of a company. Barring self-interested decisions and egregious waste, the directors are presumed to be acting in the corporations best interests. Paying taxes due to the country and state where the corporation is domiciled is not waste. Indeed, there is a case to be made that failure to repatriate profits prevents payment of a dividend to shareholders, which would form a better basis for a shareholder lawsuit than NOT repatriating profits because of taxes.

karmajunkie 9y ago

> 3. Obligation to shareholders. Corporations are not philanthropic charities. They are required, by law, to try to maximize returns. It would be illegal, for example, for Apple’s executives to charitably repatriate their money and pay taxes — they would get sued by the shareholders, and they’d lose. No, they wouldn't, because contrary to popular belief, that's not actually a law. Please cite which US statute you're referring to if you'd like to refute me.

dogruck 9y ago
You’re correct that my language is too loose there. Here’s what would happen: 1. Apple would declare that they are repatriating the money. 2. The shareholders would disagree. They would sue, claiming that the company’s directors are obligated to do what’s best for the corporation. The shareholders would vote to replace the board, and the newly elected board would replace management. The threat of #2 prevents #1.
- karmajunkie 9y ago
  You're making some pretty ridiculous presumptions there. All Apple would have to do is pay a sizable dividend as one of the purposes of repatriation and any shareholder angst would evaporate.
antif 9y ago
Sounds like an application of the `business judgement rule`: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule
- karmajunkie 9y ago
  That rule grants wide latitude to the directors of a company. Barring self-interested decisions and egregious waste, the directors are presumed to be acting in the corporations best interests. Paying taxes due to the country and state where the corporation is domiciled is not waste. Indeed, there is a case to be made that failure to repatriate profits prevents payment of a dividend to shareholders, which would form a better basis for a shareholder lawsuit than NOT repatriating profits because of taxes.