3 ms·

The media did have the same feat over the double-irish structure. It's possible that you did not notice this at the time, but there was definitely an uproar ov

by rprasad 14y ago

The media did have the same feat over the double-irish structure. It's possible that you did not notice this at the time, but there was definitely an uproar over what many considered to be tax evasion by U.S. companies. In fact, there was another uproar about this earlier this year when Apple was approaching its recordsetting valuation--many newspapers were pointing out Apple maintained an extremely large overseas cash hoard utilizing the double-irish to avoid paying U.S. taxes on that money. Several legislators have brought that up, on both sides, as justification for either doing away with corporate tax breaks, or for doing away with worldwide taxation. Note that the corporations are effectively giving up something -- so long as they want to avoid U.S. taxes on their foreign cash, they cannot use that cash on any aspect of the U.S. business. It's not the same thing as citizenship, but cash is the lifeforce of business. There is nothing legally wrong with what Saverin is doing...depending on why he did it. As I have noted in other comments, there is a subjective element to the abuse provisions of the law. If that subjective element is deemed satisfied, then legally, he will be deemed to have donse something wrong. That determination is for a judge to make.

beagle3 14y ago
> The media did have the same feat over the double-irish structure. It's possible that you did not notice this at the time, but there was definitely an uproar over what many considered to be tax evasion by U.S. companies. There was a small uproar. I was following (and still am). And yet, the tone was along the lines of "well, if we took away their ability to do that, they'd take their business somewhere else, so we shouldn't". Did any senator or member of the house propose a "minimal 30% tax" on Apple or Microsoft or Google? did I miss that one too? > Note that the corporations are effectively giving up something -- so long as they want to avoid U.S. taxes on their foreign cash, they cannot use that cash on any aspect of the U.S. business. It's not the same thing as citizenship, but cash is the lifeforce of business. I stand corrected, they are giving up something. But it's something as small as "by paying 2% taxes instead of 30%, you give up the right to cut your own hair - you have to go to a barbershop". e.g. Apple bought several companies in the last couple of years in Sweden (Polar Rose), Israel (Anobit), and the US. They paid for the first two with outside money, and for the last one with US money. If all their money was repatriated....., it wouldn't have mattered to them at all. Furthermore, they're all banking on a "tax free" or "low tax" repatriation day, for which they've been lobbying for a while; they got one 15 years ago. Corporates taking the long view can bank on that. People can't. > That determination is for a judge to make. Exactly. The relevant laws are already on the books. Schumer is just looking for votes.

by rprasad 14y ago

beagle3 14y ago

> The media did have the same feat over the double-irish structure. It's possible that you did not notice this at the time, but there was definitely an uproar over what many considered to be tax evasion by U.S. companies. There was a small uproar. I was following (and still am). And yet, the tone was along the lines of "well, if we took away their ability to do that, they'd take their business somewhere else, so we shouldn't". Did any senator or member of the house propose a "minimal 30% tax" on Apple or Microsoft or Google? did I miss that one too? > Note that the corporations are effectively giving up something -- so long as they want to avoid U.S. taxes on their foreign cash, they cannot use that cash on any aspect of the U.S. business. It's not the same thing as citizenship, but cash is the lifeforce of business. I stand corrected, they are giving up something. But it's something as small as "by paying 2% taxes instead of 30%, you give up the right to cut your own hair - you have to go to a barbershop". e.g. Apple bought several companies in the last couple of years in Sweden (Polar Rose), Israel (Anobit), and the US. They paid for the first two with outside money, and for the last one with US money. If all their money was repatriated....., it wouldn't have mattered to them at all. Furthermore, they're all banking on a "tax free" or "low tax" repatriation day, for which they've been lobbying for a while; they got one 15 years ago. Corporates taking the long view can bank on that. People can't. > That determination is for a judge to make. Exactly. The relevant laws are already on the books. Schumer is just looking for votes.