> US (and US only as far as I know) tax laws have a “repatriation tax” that is levied on money coming into the country. This has nothing to do with corporate ta

> US (and US only as far as I know) tax laws have a “repatriation tax” that is levied on money coming into the country. This has nothing to do with corporate taxes which are levied on earnings. I've never heard it described this way before. The tax is only applied if the foreign taxes paid are less than what would have been paid in the US, and the amount of the tax is only the difference between the two. If a corporation makes X amount of profit in the US, they owe Y amount of tax on it. If they make X amount of profit overseas, then they still owe Y total taxes on it (the sum of the foreign taxes paid, and the US taxes paid). This makes it so that companies can't avoid paying taxes by fancy accounting that pretends that all their profit is in locations that have little-to-no taxes. The claim that this "repatriation tax" has nothing to do with corporate taxes is just stating the author's political opinion. Additionally, for talking in such depth about the Apple's foreign cash, the real reason it keeps it's cash overseas is never directly mentioned: because Apple (rightly) thought it would get a tax break if it waited long enough. This completely ignores the circular logic of "we should give apple a tax break" -> "because Apple is keeping its cash overseas", "because it thinks it will receive a tax break". In fact, there are two ways to make companies like Apple repatriate their cash: Giving them a tax break, or making it clear that they will never get a tax break. One of these strategies makes the rich a lot richer, the other benefits the American public. Guess which one was implemented?