3 ms·

Keep in mind that the "evasion" in question is the US government trying to grab taxes on money paid to a company by foreign nationals in a foreign market. It's

Keep in mind that the "evasion" in question is the US government trying to grab taxes on money paid to a company by foreign nationals in a foreign market. It's unclear why that money would be owed to the US ethically. These companies are, ostensibly, already paying their fare share in payroll taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, commercial use taxes, etc.

donkeyd 8y ago
> the "evasion" in question is the US government trying to grab taxes on money paid to a company by foreign nationals in a foreign market It's not just this, It's also evasion of taxes that could've been paid in these countries. (Could've, because what they're doing is legal, so they have no obligation to.) What they do, is most easily explained with the Starbucks example: Starbucks has one subsidiary, based in the Netherlands, that holds the rights to sell coffee with the name 'Frappuccino'. All Starbucks stores are owned by another subsidiary. Whenever a store sells a 'Frappuccino', they pay a $1 royalty on that name. Because royalties aren't taxed in the Netherlands, this $1 is pure profit. This is from memory, so It's probably not completely right, but in the end they really do evade foreign taxes, not just a double tax in the US.
- fixermark 8y ago
  Correct. And they do so by working within the cross-national legal frameworks, and the Netherlands lets them get away with this because they want (to torture the analogy) the Starbucks subsidiary to be doing business at all in their country, and they fear if they started taxing name royalties Starbucks would pack up and leave, taking their franchise rights and the jobs they bring with them. ... and that's before we even touch on the ethical framework around which anybody gets to charge any taxes at all on "right to a name;" the companies we're talking about are already paying sales tax, real estate tax for land, payroll taxes, etc., etc., etc. ... it comes back to the ethics and morality of "Can you tax intangible goods" in the first place, and that's where things get really exciting. For what is the value of a piece of software, and how do you measure it? ;)
tossaccount123 8y ago
>It's unclear why that money would be owed to the US ethically The company is headquartered there, the IP was developed there, the founders were educated there, the core technology that made their company possible was funded by US tax payers, the safe environment that makes business possible is secured by police and military funded by US tax payers, etc
- fixermark 8y ago
  These are all true things, and this is why the company pays all its domestic taxes. When the company then goes on to do business in another country as well, where another nation is providing security, safety, infrastructure, perhaps a public education system that creates a workforce the company wants to invest in... How much does the company owe its home country? If you graduated university, how much do you owe your alma mater in annual donations beyond what you paid for the diploma program? ;)
- sharemywin 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure it's developed in the US and then transferred via questionable account values to the ip holder.

donkeyd 8y ago

> the "evasion" in question is the US government trying to grab taxes on money paid to a company by foreign nationals in a foreign market It's not just this, It's also evasion of taxes that could've been paid in these countries. (Could've, because what they're doing is legal, so they have no obligation to.) What they do, is most easily explained with the Starbucks example: Starbucks has one subsidiary, based in the Netherlands, that holds the rights to sell coffee with the name 'Frappuccino'. All Starbucks stores are owned by another subsidiary. Whenever a store sells a 'Frappuccino', they pay a $1 royalty on that name. Because royalties aren't taxed in the Netherlands, this $1 is pure profit. This is from memory, so It's probably not completely right, but in the end they really do evade foreign taxes, not just a double tax in the US.

fixermark 8y ago
Correct. And they do so by working within the cross-national legal frameworks, and the Netherlands lets them get away with this because they want (to torture the analogy) the Starbucks subsidiary to be doing business at all in their country, and they fear if they started taxing name royalties Starbucks would pack up and leave, taking their franchise rights and the jobs they bring with them. ... and that's before we even touch on the ethical framework around which anybody gets to charge any taxes at all on "right to a name;" the companies we're talking about are already paying sales tax, real estate tax for land, payroll taxes, etc., etc., etc. ... it comes back to the ethics and morality of "Can you tax intangible goods" in the first place, and that's where things get really exciting. For what is the value of a piece of software, and how do you measure it? ;)

tossaccount123 8y ago

>It's unclear why that money would be owed to the US ethically The company is headquartered there, the IP was developed there, the founders were educated there, the core technology that made their company possible was funded by US tax payers, the safe environment that makes business possible is secured by police and military funded by US tax payers, etc

fixermark 8y ago
These are all true things, and this is why the company pays all its domestic taxes. When the company then goes on to do business in another country as well, where another nation is providing security, safety, infrastructure, perhaps a public education system that creates a workforce the company wants to invest in... How much does the company owe its home country? If you graduated university, how much do you owe your alma mater in annual donations beyond what you paid for the diploma program? ;)
sharemywin 8y ago
I'm pretty sure it's developed in the US and then transferred via questionable account values to the ip holder.