3 ms·

Wow, 5.8 billion on sale of what was originally a 10.8 billion purchase? That sounds steep. This sound like a political trial though based on Denmark wanting t

Wow, 5.8 billion on sale of what was originally a 10.8 billion purchase? That sounds steep. This sound like a political trial though based on Denmark wanting to keep outsiders away from it's businesses and sour grapes Denmark has against MS because they moved the business to Ireland.

jbri 14y ago
"Moved the business to Ireland" doesn't (usually) mean that business has actually moved - operating as a subsidiary of a holding company in Ireland is almost always a pure tax dodge.
- fleitz 14y ago
  I find it ironic that the avoidance scheme MS, GOOG, and APPL employ for European profits is called a double dutch irish sandwich.
loeg 14y ago
I think the 5.8 billion may include late-payment surcharges, given that this happened in 2002 (11 years is a lot of interest).
flexie 14y ago
Granted it sounds high, given that the corporate tax rate was 30 percent 10 years ago. I truly don't believe it's politically motivated, though. I could say a lot of bad things about the Danish tax system, and I do so all the time, but the Danish tax authorities are not known to be corrupt. It might be due to subsequent transactions that the article doesn't mention. Also, since the limitation period is around 5 years in this type of cases, the case may have been going on for several years. It's not possible to say from the article.
belorn 14y ago
We do not know what the number is based on, as the article do not say so. It might be that the company sale is declared invalid, and any product sales made afterward is thus under danish law. Or it could be taxes of the 10.8 billion purchase but with an increased cost thanks to it now being several year later.
kmfrk 14y ago
You need to adjust for inflation for one. $1,000 in 2002 correspond to $1,280 in 2013 (+28%) as an example. You are comparing 5.8 billion 2013-kroner with 10.8 billion 2002-kroner.

jbri 14y ago

"Moved the business to Ireland" doesn't (usually) mean that business has actually moved - operating as a subsidiary of a holding company in Ireland is almost always a pure tax dodge.

fleitz 14y ago
I find it ironic that the avoidance scheme MS, GOOG, and APPL employ for European profits is called a double dutch irish sandwich.

loeg 14y ago

I think the 5.8 billion may include late-payment surcharges, given that this happened in 2002 (11 years is a lot of interest).

flexie 14y ago

Granted it sounds high, given that the corporate tax rate was 30 percent 10 years ago. I truly don't believe it's politically motivated, though. I could say a lot of bad things about the Danish tax system, and I do so all the time, but the Danish tax authorities are not known to be corrupt. It might be due to subsequent transactions that the article doesn't mention. Also, since the limitation period is around 5 years in this type of cases, the case may have been going on for several years. It's not possible to say from the article.

belorn 14y ago

We do not know what the number is based on, as the article do not say so. It might be that the company sale is declared invalid, and any product sales made afterward is thus under danish law. Or it could be taxes of the 10.8 billion purchase but with an increased cost thanks to it now being several year later.

kmfrk 14y ago

You need to adjust for inflation for one. $1,000 in 2002 correspond to $1,280 in 2013 (+28%) as an example. You are comparing 5.8 billion 2013-kroner with 10.8 billion 2002-kroner.