Apple 'among largest tax avoiders in US'

calico_pie · 22-05-2013, 14:17

Quote:

Part red herring. Apple are supposedly only declaring a very small revenue to Ireland.

Most of the cash is in 'no fixed abode'. Whether this is in acquiescence with Ireland is open to argument.
I heard one quote that 'below 2% corporation tax' actually means as little as 0.1% tax.

My understanding is that in Ireland, if the company is not Irish, then they are not liable for Irish tax.

Although I'm not quite sure how this is of benefit to Ireland, if the whole idea was to attract foreign companies, charge them a lower rate of tax than other countries, in the theory that the boost to the economy by virtue of their presence in Ireland would outweigh the reduced rate of tax.

Maybe it just works that although they are not liable, they negotiate a ludicrously low rate on a company by company basis.

In short, it seems that most of the UK issues are to do with the Irish system being a bit bonkers.

And the US issue is to do with the US system being so punitive.

alanwarwic · 22-05-2013, 14:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

they negotiate a ludicrously low rate on a company by company basis...And the US issue is to do with the US system being so punitive.

Nope, Ireland inferring they declare a pitiful amount for the 12.5% Irish rate. There is a distinct difference.

Seems everything is punitive until you get to zero percent.
A prime occupation in zero percent countries is begging.

That belongs to the likes of Sudan where taxes are not 'punitive'. Elsewhere you simply get Islands of convenience.

calico_pie · 22-05-2013, 14:47

From what I'd read I had the impression that Ireland were open to negotiation, depending on the company. Right or wrong, it makes some practical sense insomuch as the larger the company, the greater the boost to the economy, so the lower the tax rate.

We know the US is complaining that Apple isn't paying enough US tax. (Almost certainly grandstanding).

We know the UK would have a case that Apple isn't paying enough UK tax.

But is there anything to suggest that Ireland have any complaints with Apple for paying less than that 12.5%? Not that I'm aware of.

The US tax system is overly punitive in that (unlike other countries) it taxes money returning to the US that has already been subject to corporation tax in the country the money was generated.

Same question I asked Stiggles:

Do you think profit generated by Apple in the UK should be subject to taxation in:

A. The UK?
B. The US?
C. The UK and the US?

And further:

Do you think any US company should be under obligation to repatriate money generated outside the US, and has been subject to foreign corporation tax, just to have it taxed again in the US?

Inspiration · 22-05-2013, 15:36

Funny how as soon as Apple are questioned over tax a thread appears here.. yet there appears to be no thread at all discussing Google's tax setup.. even on a day when Ed Miliband was critical of their business practices at a Google PR event today.

PPhilster · 22-05-2013, 15:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inspiration

Funny how as soon as Apple are questioned over tax a thread appears here.. yet there appears to be no thread at all discussing Google's tax setup.. even on a day when Ed Miliband was critical of their business practices at a Google PR event today.

That's because most Apple haters are obsessive lunatics.

alanwarwic · 22-05-2013, 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by PPhilster

That's because most Apple haters are obsessive lunatics.

Yet no one is defending Google. Nothing obsessive there then?

And so to debate is to only like or hate?

calico_pie · 22-05-2013, 16:02

No-one is defending Apple either.

PPhilster · 22-05-2013, 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Yet no one is defending Google. Nothing obsessive there then?

And so to debate is to only like or hate?

How can there be "obsession" in an act that you say doesn't exist?

One doesn't have to defend Google as a prerequisite to obsessively attacking Apple.

alanwarwic · 22-05-2013, 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by PPhilster

s a prerequisite to obsessively attacking Apple.

Read the posts to see the most 'obsessive'. You might even see that Apple has been defended numerous times.

And has anyone called for a boycott like with Starbucks?

rosetech · 22-05-2013, 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inspiration

Funny how as soon as Apple are questioned over tax a thread appears here.. yet there appears to be no thread at all discussing Google's tax setup.. even on a day when Ed Miliband was critical of their business practices at a Google PR event today.

Google have nothing to answer, as the head of HRMC indicated the laws on taxation are made by MPs. If the MPs believe they are insufficient then they are at liberty to change them.Simply stating I would like you to pay more tax as you are a big company is not in keeping with the present legislation.

alanwarwic · 22-05-2013, 16:48

To me, those calling for lower taxes for the rich were actually encouraging tax dodging.
Google and Apple are as immoral as those same politicians half condoning it.

Those sycophants claiming lower taxes mean more tax income are now shown as the most immoral.
There is plenty to answer all round.

calico_pie · 22-05-2013, 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Read the posts to see the most 'obsessive'. You might even see that Apple has been defended numerous times.

And has anyone called for a boycott like with Starbucks?

What Starbucks did in the UK is completely different to what the US Senate are accusing Apple of doing.

Could you please say which post or posts are "defending Apple".

kidspud · 22-05-2013, 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

To me, those calling for lower taxes for the rich were actually encouraging tax dodging.
Google and Apple are as immoral as those same politicians half condoning it.

Those sycophants claiming lower taxes mean more tax income are now shown as the most immoral.
There is plenty to answer all round.

It is also immoral for governments to raise taxes just to get them out of trouble they caused in the first place. Although I do not condone what these large companies are doing, I also don't like politicians using it as some sort of diversion tactic to help remove the blame for bad decisions from themselves.

Stiggles · 22-05-2013, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inspiration

Funny how as soon as Apple are questioned over tax a thread appears here.. yet there appears to be no thread at all discussing Google's tax setup.. even on a day when Ed Miliband was critical of their business practices at a Google PR event today.

There have been plenty of threads on google, amazon, starbucks etc for months and plenty of whining about it.

alanwarwic · 22-05-2013, 17:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidspud

.. I also don't like politicians using it as some sort of diversion tactic to help remove the blame for bad decisions from themselves.

Apple and Google pay zero UK tax, and it is called a 'diversion'.
I for one am glad they are all finally being diverted into doing something about it.

And on a google diversion, so far there have been 16 Politics forum threads started on 'Google' (one by me) and only the 1 on 'Apple'.

kidspud · 22-05-2013, 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Apple and Google pay zero UK tax, and it is called a 'diversion'.
I for one am glad they are all finally being diverted into doing something about it.

And on a google diversion, so far there have been 16 Politics forum threads started on 'Google' (one by me) and only the 1 on 'Apple'.

It is totally within the gift of the politicians to set the tax laws for this country. Both apple and google are not being accused of breaking any laws. It is a political diversion.

calico_pie · 22-05-2013, 17:31

Alan - what exactly is it you think the US Senate are wanting Apple to do?

neo_wales · 22-05-2013, 17:45

If a company is based here, have centres of operations etc then they should pay tax on sales/profits generated from the UK operation, seems the right thing to do IMHO. Don't forget the government get 20% on the retail goods sold via VAT.

alanwarwic · 22-05-2013, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Alan - what exactly is it you think the US Senate are wanting Apple to do?

Have you ever thought that corporation tax actually promotes investment?

A major problem on this one might be the non spending which is quite recessionary in itself.

calico_pie · 22-05-2013, 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Have you ever thought that corporation tax actually promotes investment?

A major problem on this one might be the non spending which is quite recessionary in itself.

Alan, I took the time to post fairly lengthy posts earlier on. But its almost as though you have completely ignored them.

The issue isn't about whether or not Apple (or anyone) should pay corporation tax.

In the case of the US Senate case, its about whether or not US companies generating revenue overseas should be obligated to repatriate overseas profit that they have already paid corporation tax in the country of origin and pay a second lot of corporation tax in the US.

An arrangement that is unique to the US.

What is it that you think I'm saying?

Because it seems from your posts that you're a bit confused about what I'm saying.

Stiggles · 22-05-2013, 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Or is that just some daft thing to throw in there because, y'know, its about Apple.

There have been threads about google, amazon, starbucks etc etc on this same situation, yet you seem think apple are immune to criticism and shouldn't be mentioned.....

calico_pie · 22-05-2013, 18:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

There have been threads about google, amazon, starbucks etc etc on this same situation, yet you seem think apple are immune to criticism and shouldn't be mentioned.....

Based on what exactly?

That comment was made with specific reference to the line about non spending. Which is odd as I'd be pretty certain Apple are spending a shedload of money in the US.

alanwarwic · 22-05-2013, 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

I'd be pretty certain Apple are spending a shedload of money in the US.

Well I'd be pretty certain that Apple were borrowing a shedload too!

So was that the straw that broke the camel's back?
It certainly raised more than a few eyebrows.

calico_pie · 22-05-2013, 18:27

Duo post

rosetech · 22-05-2013, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Apple and Google pay zero UK tax, and it is called a 'diversion'.
I for one am glad they are all finally being diverted into doing something about it.

And on a google diversion, so far there have been 16 Politics forum threads started on 'Google' (one by me) and only the 1 on 'Apple'.

Google pay UK tax just not the amount the government want them to i.e. on sales. Google also provide free assistance to schools, businesses and developers in the UK. They have also helped the Government to regenerate the UK technology credentials through the tech hub.

22-05-2013, 14:17	#26
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic Part red herring. Apple are supposedly only declaring a very small revenue to Ireland. Most of the cash is in 'no fixed abode'. Whether this is in acquiescence with Ireland is open to argument. I heard one quote that 'below 2% corporation tax' actually means as little as 0.1% tax. My understanding is that in Ireland, if the company is not Irish, then they are not liable for Irish tax. Although I'm not quite sure how this is of benefit to Ireland, if the whole idea was to attract foreign companies, charge them a lower rate of tax than other countries, in the theory that the boost to the economy by virtue of their presence in Ireland would outweigh the reduced rate of tax. Maybe it just works that although they are not liable, they negotiate a ludicrously low rate on a company by company basis. In short, it seems that most of the UK issues are to do with the Irish system being a bit bonkers. And the US issue is to do with the US system being so punitive.

22-05-2013, 14:30	#27
alanwarwic Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: the wild world web Posts: 28,132	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie they negotiate a ludicrously low rate on a company by company basis...And the US issue is to do with the US system being so punitive. Nope, Ireland inferring they declare a pitiful amount for the 12.5% Irish rate. There is a distinct difference. Seems everything is punitive until you get to zero percent. A prime occupation in zero percent countries is begging. That belongs to the likes of Sudan where taxes are not 'punitive'. Elsewhere you simply get Islands of convenience.

22-05-2013, 14:47	#28
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	From what I'd read I had the impression that Ireland were open to negotiation, depending on the company. Right or wrong, it makes some practical sense insomuch as the larger the company, the greater the boost to the economy, so the lower the tax rate. We know the US is complaining that Apple isn't paying enough US tax. (Almost certainly grandstanding). We know the UK would have a case that Apple isn't paying enough UK tax. But is there anything to suggest that Ireland have any complaints with Apple for paying less than that 12.5%? Not that I'm aware of. The US tax system is overly punitive in that (unlike other countries) it taxes money returning to the US that has already been subject to corporation tax in the country the money was generated. Same question I asked Stiggles: Do you think profit generated by Apple in the UK should be subject to taxation in: A. The UK? B. The US? C. The UK and the US? And further: Do you think any US company should be under obligation to repatriate money generated outside the US, and has been subject to foreign corporation tax, just to have it taxed again in the US?

22-05-2013, 15:36	#29
Inspiration Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 53,398	Funny how as soon as Apple are questioned over tax a thread appears here.. yet there appears to be no thread at all discussing Google's tax setup.. even on a day when Ed Miliband was critical of their business practices at a Google PR event today.

22-05-2013, 15:40	#30
PPhilster Inactive Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,693	Quote: Originally Posted by Inspiration Funny how as soon as Apple are questioned over tax a thread appears here.. yet there appears to be no thread at all discussing Google's tax setup.. even on a day when Ed Miliband was critical of their business practices at a Google PR event today. That's because most Apple haters are obsessive lunatics.

22-05-2013, 15:56	#31
alanwarwic Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: the wild world web Posts: 28,132	Quote: Originally Posted by PPhilster That's because most Apple haters are obsessive lunatics. Yet no one is defending Google. Nothing obsessive there then? And so to debate is to only like or hate?

22-05-2013, 16:02	#32
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	No-one is defending Apple either.

22-05-2013, 16:22	#33
PPhilster Inactive Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,693	Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic Yet no one is defending Google. Nothing obsessive there then? And so to debate is to only like or hate? How can there be "obsession" in an act that you say doesn't exist? One doesn't have to defend Google as a prerequisite to obsessively attacking Apple.

22-05-2013, 16:30	#34
alanwarwic Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: the wild world web Posts: 28,132	Quote: Originally Posted by PPhilster s a prerequisite to obsessively attacking Apple. Read the posts to see the most 'obsessive'. You might even see that Apple has been defended numerous times. And has anyone called for a boycott like with Starbucks?

22-05-2013, 16:42	#35
rosetech Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,058	Quote: Originally Posted by Inspiration Funny how as soon as Apple are questioned over tax a thread appears here.. yet there appears to be no thread at all discussing Google's tax setup.. even on a day when Ed Miliband was critical of their business practices at a Google PR event today. Google have nothing to answer, as the head of HRMC indicated the laws on taxation are made by MPs. If the MPs believe they are insufficient then they are at liberty to change them.Simply stating I would like you to pay more tax as you are a big company is not in keeping with the present legislation.

22-05-2013, 16:48	#36
alanwarwic Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: the wild world web Posts: 28,132	To me, those calling for lower taxes for the rich were actually encouraging tax dodging. Google and Apple are as immoral as those same politicians half condoning it. Those sycophants claiming lower taxes mean more tax income are now shown as the most immoral. There is plenty to answer all round.

22-05-2013, 16:56	#37
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic Read the posts to see the most 'obsessive'. You might even see that Apple has been defended numerous times. And has anyone called for a boycott like with Starbucks? What Starbucks did in the UK is completely different to what the US Senate are accusing Apple of doing. Could you please say which post or posts are "defending Apple".

22-05-2013, 17:02	#38
kidspud Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 11,501	Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic To me, those calling for lower taxes for the rich were actually encouraging tax dodging. Google and Apple are as immoral as those same politicians half condoning it. Those sycophants claiming lower taxes mean more tax income are now shown as the most immoral. There is plenty to answer all round. It is also immoral for governments to raise taxes just to get them out of trouble they caused in the first place. Although I do not condone what these large companies are doing, I also don't like politicians using it as some sort of diversion tactic to help remove the blame for bad decisions from themselves.

22-05-2013, 17:07	#39
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by Inspiration Funny how as soon as Apple are questioned over tax a thread appears here.. yet there appears to be no thread at all discussing Google's tax setup.. even on a day when Ed Miliband was critical of their business practices at a Google PR event today. There have been plenty of threads on google, amazon, starbucks etc for months and plenty of whining about it.

22-05-2013, 17:10	#40
alanwarwic Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: the wild world web Posts: 28,132	Quote: Originally Posted by kidspud .. I also don't like politicians using it as some sort of diversion tactic to help remove the blame for bad decisions from themselves. Apple and Google pay zero UK tax, and it is called a 'diversion'. I for one am glad they are all finally being diverted into doing something about it. And on a google diversion, so far there have been 16 Politics forum threads started on 'Google' (one by me) and only the 1 on 'Apple'.

22-05-2013, 17:30	#41
kidspud Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 11,501	Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic Apple and Google pay zero UK tax, and it is called a 'diversion'. I for one am glad they are all finally being diverted into doing something about it. And on a google diversion, so far there have been 16 Politics forum threads started on 'Google' (one by me) and only the 1 on 'Apple'. It is totally within the gift of the politicians to set the tax laws for this country. Both apple and google are not being accused of breaking any laws. It is a political diversion.

22-05-2013, 17:31	#42
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Alan - what exactly is it you think the US Senate are wanting Apple to do?

22-05-2013, 17:45	#43
neo_wales Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: South Wales/Gran Canaria Posts: 8,298	If a company is based here, have centres of operations etc then they should pay tax on sales/profits generated from the UK operation, seems the right thing to do IMHO. Don't forget the government get 20% on the retail goods sold via VAT.

22-05-2013, 17:59	#44
alanwarwic Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: the wild world web Posts: 28,132	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie Alan - what exactly is it you think the US Senate are wanting Apple to do? Have you ever thought that corporation tax actually promotes investment? A major problem on this one might be the non spending which is quite recessionary in itself.

22-05-2013, 18:05	#45
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic Have you ever thought that corporation tax actually promotes investment? A major problem on this one might be the non spending which is quite recessionary in itself. Alan, I took the time to post fairly lengthy posts earlier on. But its almost as though you have completely ignored them. The issue isn't about whether or not Apple (or anyone) should pay corporation tax. In the case of the US Senate case, its about whether or not US companies generating revenue overseas should be obligated to repatriate overseas profit that they have already paid corporation tax in the country of origin and pay a second lot of corporation tax in the US. An arrangement that is unique to the US. What is it that you think I'm saying? Because it seems from your posts that you're a bit confused about what I'm saying.

22-05-2013, 18:19	#46
Stiggles Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 9,293	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie Or is that just some daft thing to throw in there because, y'know, its about Apple. There have been threads about google, amazon, starbucks etc etc on this same situation, yet you seem think apple are immune to criticism and shouldn't be mentioned.....

DS Forums

Apple 'among largest tax avoiders in US'

22-05-2013, 18:21	#47
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by Stiggles There have been threads about google, amazon, starbucks etc etc on this same situation, yet you seem think apple are immune to criticism and shouldn't be mentioned..... Based on what exactly? That comment was made with specific reference to the line about non spending. Which is odd as I'd be pretty certain Apple are spending a shedload of money in the US.

22-05-2013, 18:25	#48
alanwarwic Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: the wild world web Posts: 28,132	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie I'd be pretty certain Apple are spending a shedload of money in the US. Well I'd be pretty certain that Apple were borrowing a shedload too! So was that the straw that broke the camel's back? It certainly raised more than a few eyebrows.

22-05-2013, 18:27	#49
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Duo post

22-05-2013, 18:28	#50
rosetech Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,058	Quote: Originally Posted by alanwarwic Apple and Google pay zero UK tax, and it is called a 'diversion'. I for one am glad they are all finally being diverted into doing something about it. And on a google diversion, so far there have been 16 Politics forum threads started on 'Google' (one by me) and only the 1 on 'Apple'. Google pay UK tax just not the amount the government want them to i.e. on sales. Google also provide free assistance to schools, businesses and developers in the UK. They have also helped the Government to regenerate the UK technology credentials through the tech hub.