4 ms·
I've fought this battle for a long time. It seems for most it's just a way to speak of their grievances against a company they don't like. It's just pointing th
by talmand 11y ago
I've fought this battle for a long time. It seems for most it's just a way to speak of their grievances against a company they don't like. It's just pointing their finger at the company saying they obviously are an evil corporation because they choose to take advantage of stupidly written tax laws that are totally legal yet I choose to define them as something only bad people do. Despite the fact they likely use similar "loopholes" in their own taxes and justify it in some way.
- DanBC 11y agoI can't use similar loopholes. Imagine an English person running an English business (eg, a tea shop with a single store and no online presence) in England. They want to advertise to people so they contact Google's English ad division and buy ads to be shown in England. They pay using English money, from their English bank account to Google's English bank account. Somehow this doesn't count for English tax, somehow it's Irish tax.
- talmand 11y agoIf it's covered by law and you qualify, you most certainly can use similar loopholes. That's the thing, many times what people call "loopholes" are actually badly written tax laws. Sometimes it is by mistake, sometimes it is intentional for potentially nefarious reasons. But if you qualify, you can do it. Otherwise, there are similar "loopholes" in complex tax codes. You just need to find them.
- DanBC 11y agoYou're treating it as binary - compliant or not compliant. But laws are tested in court. These companies claim to be compliant, but we don't know because UK tax authorities avoid court for all bit the most flamboyant evaders. No case law means we don't know if they're complying with law or not.