6 ms·

> “This case was not about how much tax we pay, but where we are required to pay it," Apple said in a statement. "We're proud to be the largest taxpayer in the

> “This case was not about how much tax we pay, but where we are required to pay it," Apple said in a statement. "We're proud to be the largest taxpayer in the world as we know the important role tax payments play in society." That’s a really beautiful example of spinning the story of what’s going on.

darrenoc 6y ago
The thinly veiled subtext is that the place they are required to pay it is nowhere.
- nojito 6y ago
  It's paid in the US. The EU is mad that they aren't getting it and have been targeting American companies for atleast 5 years. This lawyer also has one of the worst success records in these types of cases.
  - tsbinz 6y ago
    It wasn't paid in the US. The purpose of the scheme that Apple (and other companies) were using was to protect profits from US taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
    - nodamage 6y ago
      Yes, it was. Their arrangement only helped them defer US taxes, but the taxes were paid when the money was repatriated. https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-pay-38-billion-in-repatriation-tax-plans-new-u-s-campus-1516215419 https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-pay-38-billion-in-repa...
      - diffeomorphism 6y ago
        No, as your link says it wasn't. Only part of the taxes were paid when the money was repatriated: > A provision allows for a one-time repatriation of corporate cash held abroad at a lower tax rate than what would have been paid under the previous tax plan. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill...
        nodamage 6y ago
        I mean, tax rates can change over time. It seems like the goalposts have now been moved from "did they pay US tax?" to "did they pay enough US tax?". You're free to argue that 15% is not a high enough corporate tax rate, but it is factually incorrect to say Apple did not pay US tax on the money they earned overseas.
        diffeomorphism 6y ago
        > I mean, tax rates can change over time. It seems like the goalposts have now been moved from "did they pay US tax?" to "did they pay enough US tax?". No, that is decidedly not what we are talking about. The claim was that holding all your money away from the US does not matter because the tax will be paid eventually. As we see, no it wasn't and the tax rate was not lowered because "taxes change over time" but because otherwise companies will just not ever repatriate their money. It is factually correct to say that apple did not pay the full US tax rate on the money they earned overseas. You are free to argue that this is fine and they at least still paid some, lower tax rate, but this is the whole topic we are talking about. Apple pays very low tax rates and the EU, Ireland and the US are arguing whether this is unfair (state aid) and should change.
        nodamage 6y ago
        Perhaps you should re-read the comment I was replying to. The original claim was that Apple didn't pay US taxes at all. I simply pointed out that they did. A temporary change in the tax rate during 2018 is, by definition, the tax rate changing over time. If a product normally sells for $50 and I wait until it's on sale for $25 to buy it, did I pay the "wrong" price? No, I paid the price the vendor set at the time of purchase.
politelemon 6y ago
It is, after all, their area of expertise.
iRomain 6y ago
An horrible company that makes great product. Such is my dilemma with Apple!
- unicornfinder 6y ago
  I mean, their products aren't that great. Their desktop lineup is quite frankly rubbish.
  - routerhash 6y ago
    i haven't seen a desktop without internal wires other than Mac Pro
    - Majestic121 6y ago
      Is this your selling point for 'great' ?
      - raxxorrax 6y ago
        Well, it looks good.
        huseyinkeles 6y ago
        how often do you look inside of your PC? :)
    - NoSorryCannot 6y ago
      Single board computers are numerous, mostly but not entirely at the low end, and no cabled interconnects is the defining trait of the class. The reason we don't see as much of this in full-size desktops is because density is clearly not the objective and it would mean sacrificing the modularity and flexibility of established standards. Or in other words, more expensive with no real gain besides aesthetics, which aren't worthless but I'd bet they aren't worth _much_ for a box which spends most of its time under a desk concealing its insides.
x87678r 6y ago
Well looks like last year they paid $10.5B in taxes (on 65.7B profits) so which part is wrong? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/financials?p=AAPL https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/financials?p=AAPL
- Luc 6y ago
  16%. Niiiice.
  - twoodfin 6y ago
    Add sales taxes on their products, payroll taxes on their employees, capital gain taxes on the dividends they issue.... and Apple is generating much more than 16% of their profits in government revenue vs. a world where Tim Cook closes up shop tomorrow.
    - sil80to 6y ago
      Indeed - tax the little man from all angles, not the big corporation.
      - jtbayly 6y ago
        Taxing the little man vs the big man is not Apple’s decision. Talk to your senator about that.
        sil80to 6y ago
        I am aware, and I don't disagree. I don't even begrudge Apple for using this amazing tax scheme - they'd be foolish not to. But the argument that they're paying enough because they enable the government to milk everyone else in other ways seems entirely wrong.
        dfxm12 6y ago
        They did choose to move to a tax haven though, while still going out of their way to to market themselves as being from California. It sucks they want to reap the benefits of being an American company without sowing their share.
simonh 6y ago
Apple pays an effective rate of 21% on foreign earnings, 35% on income earned from cash invested outside the US and over $10bn in corporate taxes overall. That doesn't include property taxes, payroll taxes, VAT, etc, etc. They are the biggest tax payer in the world. The conventional view is that Apple pays no tax, Ive seen that asserted on HN many times, but it's just flat out not true. If you wan to say the above isn't enough, sure, fine that's an opinion you're entitled to hold. I don't even necessarily disagree, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that we are excessively incentivising the concentration of capital but that's a question for voters and politicians not individual companies.
- hellofunk 6y ago
  It is true about Amazon, though, and I’ve seen Amazon mentioned far more often than Apple in this regard.
- blibble 6y ago
  companies don't pay VAT because they claim it back on everything they buy they do however collect it
  - kalleboo 6y ago
    They pay VAT on the value they add between what they buy and what they sell. Hence, Value-Added Tax.
    - blibble 6y ago
      no they don't, they collect it, but the consumer pays it this is the entire principle behind VAT
      - trollied 6y ago
        You're actually both right. A company collects VAT from customers when they purchase. But it also buys from suppliers at a lower value. It pays the difference in the two VAT numbers (from customer-to supplier) to the VAT authority.

darrenoc 6y ago

The thinly veiled subtext is that the place they are required to pay it is nowhere.

nojito 6y ago
It's paid in the US. The EU is mad that they aren't getting it and have been targeting American companies for atleast 5 years. This lawyer also has one of the worst success records in these types of cases.
- tsbinz 6y ago
  It wasn't paid in the US. The purpose of the scheme that Apple (and other companies) were using was to protect profits from US taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Yes, it was. Their arrangement only helped them defer US taxes, but the taxes were paid when the money was repatriated. https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-pay-38-billion-in-repatriation-tax-plans-new-u-s-campus-1516215419 https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-pay-38-billion-in-repa...
    - diffeomorphism 6y ago
      No, as your link says it wasn't. Only part of the taxes were paid when the money was repatriated: > A provision allows for a one-time repatriation of corporate cash held abroad at a lower tax rate than what would have been paid under the previous tax plan. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill...
      - nodamage 6y ago
        I mean, tax rates can change over time. It seems like the goalposts have now been moved from "did they pay US tax?" to "did they pay enough US tax?". You're free to argue that 15% is not a high enough corporate tax rate, but it is factually incorrect to say Apple did not pay US tax on the money they earned overseas.
        diffeomorphism 6y ago
        > I mean, tax rates can change over time. It seems like the goalposts have now been moved from "did they pay US tax?" to "did they pay enough US tax?". No, that is decidedly not what we are talking about. The claim was that holding all your money away from the US does not matter because the tax will be paid eventually. As we see, no it wasn't and the tax rate was not lowered because "taxes change over time" but because otherwise companies will just not ever repatriate their money. It is factually correct to say that apple did not pay the full US tax rate on the money they earned overseas. You are free to argue that this is fine and they at least still paid some, lower tax rate, but this is the whole topic we are talking about. Apple pays very low tax rates and the EU, Ireland and the US are arguing whether this is unfair (state aid) and should change.
        nodamage 6y ago
        Perhaps you should re-read the comment I was replying to. The original claim was that Apple didn't pay US taxes at all. I simply pointed out that they did. A temporary change in the tax rate during 2018 is, by definition, the tax rate changing over time. If a product normally sells for $50 and I wait until it's on sale for $25 to buy it, did I pay the "wrong" price? No, I paid the price the vendor set at the time of purchase.

politelemon 6y ago

It is, after all, their area of expertise.

iRomain 6y ago

An horrible company that makes great product. Such is my dilemma with Apple!

unicornfinder 6y ago
I mean, their products aren't that great. Their desktop lineup is quite frankly rubbish.
- routerhash 6y ago
  i haven't seen a desktop without internal wires other than Mac Pro
  - Majestic121 6y ago
    Is this your selling point for 'great' ?
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
      Well, it looks good.
      - huseyinkeles 6y ago
        how often do you look inside of your PC? :)
  - NoSorryCannot 6y ago
    Single board computers are numerous, mostly but not entirely at the low end, and no cabled interconnects is the defining trait of the class. The reason we don't see as much of this in full-size desktops is because density is clearly not the objective and it would mean sacrificing the modularity and flexibility of established standards. Or in other words, more expensive with no real gain besides aesthetics, which aren't worthless but I'd bet they aren't worth _much_ for a box which spends most of its time under a desk concealing its insides.

x87678r 6y ago

Well looks like last year they paid $10.5B in taxes (on 65.7B profits) so which part is wrong? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/financials?p=AAPL https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/financials?p=AAPL

Luc 6y ago
16%. Niiiice.
- twoodfin 6y ago
  Add sales taxes on their products, payroll taxes on their employees, capital gain taxes on the dividends they issue.... and Apple is generating much more than 16% of their profits in government revenue vs. a world where Tim Cook closes up shop tomorrow.
  - sil80to 6y ago
    Indeed - tax the little man from all angles, not the big corporation.
    - jtbayly 6y ago
      Taxing the little man vs the big man is not Apple’s decision. Talk to your senator about that.
      - sil80to 6y ago
        I am aware, and I don't disagree. I don't even begrudge Apple for using this amazing tax scheme - they'd be foolish not to. But the argument that they're paying enough because they enable the government to milk everyone else in other ways seems entirely wrong.
      - dfxm12 6y ago
        They did choose to move to a tax haven though, while still going out of their way to to market themselves as being from California. It sucks they want to reap the benefits of being an American company without sowing their share.

simonh 6y ago

Apple pays an effective rate of 21% on foreign earnings, 35% on income earned from cash invested outside the US and over $10bn in corporate taxes overall. That doesn't include property taxes, payroll taxes, VAT, etc, etc. They are the biggest tax payer in the world. The conventional view is that Apple pays no tax, Ive seen that asserted on HN many times, but it's just flat out not true. If you wan to say the above isn't enough, sure, fine that's an opinion you're entitled to hold. I don't even necessarily disagree, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that we are excessively incentivising the concentration of capital but that's a question for voters and politicians not individual companies.

hellofunk 6y ago
It is true about Amazon, though, and I’ve seen Amazon mentioned far more often than Apple in this regard.
blibble 6y ago
companies don't pay VAT because they claim it back on everything they buy they do however collect it
- kalleboo 6y ago
  They pay VAT on the value they add between what they buy and what they sell. Hence, Value-Added Tax.
  - blibble 6y ago
    no they don't, they collect it, but the consumer pays it this is the entire principle behind VAT
    - trollied 6y ago
      You're actually both right. A company collects VAT from customers when they purchase. But it also buys from suppliers at a lower value. It pays the difference in the two VAT numbers (from customer-to supplier) to the VAT authority.