5 ms·

I decided to translate the entire article to English from Danish, since this is too important to have people learn about it through friggin’ Google Translate:

I decided to translate the entire article to English from Danish, since this is too important to have people learn about it through friggin’ Google Translate: https://gist.github.com/ndarville/5081765 https://gist.github.com/ndarville/5081765. The only thing that really tripped me up was the corporate terminology between affiliates, companies, corporations, subsidiaries, parent companies, shell companies, etc., but I found the wording in the article to use the terms interchangeably as well. I haven’t proofed it yet, so consider it a rough draft. Feel free to post comments in the Gist about anything that comes to mind.

uvdiv 14y ago
Why did they wait until 2013 to tax something that happened in 2002? That reflects poorly on Denmark.
- hmottestad 14y ago
  It takes time to uncover that Microsoft had done something tax worthy without telling anyone. Microsoft bought a danish company, then sold a huge asset from that company to another Microsoft owned company in Ireland (probably for tax reasons) then told the danish tax department that the asset was worth less than it should have been, thus avoiding large taxes. This all takes a while to uncover, then it has to be double checked. Then you have to talk to Microsoft about it....and then you can tell the press about it.
belorn 14y ago
> I decided to translate the entire article to Danish You meant, to English from Danish. Thanks for translation.
- pessimism 14y ago
  That’s what I get for not proofing my comment. Cheers.
pessimism 14y ago
Just to go full inception, this is my coverage of their coverage of our coverage of their coverage: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2013/03/04/141416.htm http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2013/03/04/141416.htm Main take-away: * #2 on /r/technology * 79% of hits are currently international
tanzam75 14y ago
Could you translate the sidebar, please? Google Translate seems to say that they want to tax Microsoft on annual income, rather than the transfer itself. And it gives a surprisingly large amount for the amount that Microsoft is supposed to have earned. (See my comment for details of why it is surprising: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5320784 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5320784 )
- pessimism 14y ago
  I did a very quick translation—it does contain some important information, as it turns out. The gist seems to be that there is 11B DKK in additional income that is subject to taxes and interest, 5B and 0.8B DKK respectively, totalling the 5.8B number we’ve come to know. In your own words, Skat appear to allege that the deal was underpriced by at least 5B (real 2013) DKK. https://gist.github.com/ndarville/5081765 https://gist.github.com/ndarville/5081765

uvdiv 14y ago

Why did they wait until 2013 to tax something that happened in 2002? That reflects poorly on Denmark.

hmottestad 14y ago
It takes time to uncover that Microsoft had done something tax worthy without telling anyone. Microsoft bought a danish company, then sold a huge asset from that company to another Microsoft owned company in Ireland (probably for tax reasons) then told the danish tax department that the asset was worth less than it should have been, thus avoiding large taxes. This all takes a while to uncover, then it has to be double checked. Then you have to talk to Microsoft about it....and then you can tell the press about it.

belorn 14y ago

> I decided to translate the entire article to Danish You meant, to English from Danish. Thanks for translation.

pessimism 14y ago
That’s what I get for not proofing my comment. Cheers.

pessimism 14y ago

Just to go full inception, this is my coverage of their coverage of our coverage of their coverage: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2013/03/04/141416.htm http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2013/03/04/141416.htm Main take-away: * #2 on /r/technology * 79% of hits are currently international

tanzam75 14y ago

Could you translate the sidebar, please? Google Translate seems to say that they want to tax Microsoft on annual income, rather than the transfer itself. And it gives a surprisingly large amount for the amount that Microsoft is supposed to have earned. (See my comment for details of why it is surprising: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5320784 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5320784 )

pessimism 14y ago
I did a very quick translation—it does contain some important information, as it turns out. The gist seems to be that there is 11B DKK in additional income that is subject to taxes and interest, 5B and 0.8B DKK respectively, totalling the 5.8B number we’ve come to know. In your own words, Skat appear to allege that the deal was underpriced by at least 5B (real 2013) DKK. https://gist.github.com/ndarville/5081765 https://gist.github.com/ndarville/5081765