Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Told to Pay Tax on License Fee

Posted by samzenpus on from the we-do-whatever-is-cheaper dept.

MissingRainbow writes "To avoid paying taxes in India, Microsoft wanted a court to believe that it is selling its product and that there are no royalty payments involved. Their own EULA worked against them in this particular case however as it states, "the product is licensed, not sold". The court ruled against them."

4 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Re:dear god! by calebt3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ok, unusable is the wrong word. Ugly fits better. At least I can submit a post without opening a new tab now. And one is forced to preview the post.

  2. Re:dear god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think a good compromise would be to integrate the Reply to this/Parent links into the title/score bar, but align it to the right side. Oh, and for the love of god, don't make the buttons so huge that the bar gets bigger in height.

  3. No Tax on Income or Sales? by GumphMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article implies that there neither sales tax nor company income tax (of the MS subsidiary/partner) exists in India. Is this the case? Is the tax on royalties the only tax income the Indian people get from software peddlers in India?

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  4. Tax makes EULA valid? by Ciggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only thing that slightly worries me about this: if the EULA is what is causing MS to pay the tax, then in paying the tax, MS can clearly say that the EULA is valid (in India at least) as the government has demanded legal taxes based on it.

    --

    A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
    A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell