Slashdot Mirror
In Australia, Google Pays Just $74k Tax On Claimed Revenues of $200 Million
daria42 writes "Looks like Apple isn't the only company with interesting offshore taxation practices. The financial statements for Google's Australian subsidiary show the company told the Australian Government it made just $200 million in revenue in 2011 in Australia, despite local industry estimating it actually brought in closer to $1 billion. The rest was funnelled through Google's Irish subsidiary and not disclosed in Australia. Consequently the company only disclosed taxation costs in Australia of $74,000. Not bad work if you can get it — which Google apparently can."
"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
What kind of fool of a company would Google be if it DIDN'T exploit every tool the government gives it to minimize it's tax burden? Furthermore, how irresponsible to it's share holders if it didn't utilize the law to achieve the highest rate of return.
Google is not the villain here. No company is, when it's simply exercising the controls given to it by the government under which it operates.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
It goes by many names. Tax avoision, tax optimisation, tax efficiency. Google does it, Microsoft does it, Apple does it... even the optician I use has a token headquarters in the tax haven of Gurnsey. Every major company engages in the practice, and they'd be stupid not to. Making a profit is the reason for their existance.
Google makes their money with local ads. It's not unreasonable to expect that they pay local tax rates for local ads in Taiwan bought by local Taiwan businesses and served from local Taiwan servers. That is entirely different from making your software in Redmond, WA, licensing it through a Nevada puppet corporation and then laundering the money through the double-Dutch or Blind Irish mechanisms of financial wizardry to make the profit happen offshore when that same software is sold from Khazakstan to Bangalore, and all the points between.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Just because they didn't break the law doesn't mean they didn't do wrong. There is a difference. For example all those Nigerian scams are actually legal because their law says you can cheat people who break laws. But would you really say that those Nigerian scams are objectively and morally right things to do? I don't think so. Likewise, Google has not done anything legally wrong. Their actions, however, are morally wrong.
And no, there is no easy solution to this. The ultimate reason why we need these are to allow companies in other countries to do business with companies in another. However, then we have jerks like Google who abuse this by setting up shell companies to take advantage of it and avoid taxes. Again, legally ok, but not morally.
I think people here don't seem to understand the Australian tax system.
It is entirely designed to take money from productive individuals and hand it over to corporates, while cutting in the politicians who facilitate this. Then the government proceeds to hand over a few crumbs to the unwashed masses (a.k.a. taxpayers) from the sell-off of natural resources, while avoiding at all cost to invest anything in infrastructure.
In such context, Google's contribution of $74,000 (which is less than half of the income taxes I pay as an individual Australian resident per year at the marginal rate of 48% for my income from hard work and lots of overtime) can be seen as a generous token, because most corporations seem to pay bugger all and just pocket obscene subsidies instead.
They broke Amazon.
They'll either break Google (10% tax on gross income) or force Google to make massive political contributions (aka blackmail) like they did for Microsoft.
For crying out loud: Companies pay taxes on profits, not revenues. If you read the article, "the company made a loss on paper of $3.9 million in that period. Both Google’s revenues and losses were up over calendar year 2010."
If you a company makes a loss, it doesn't pay taxes. Why should it?
Now, whether the accounting practices that lead to this loss are kosher or not, I don't know.
no taxation without representation!
And that's part of the problem. Since they only pay taxes on profits, they can easily set up a subsidiary in country X (Ireland in this case), where the tax rate is close to zero. Then they have the subsidiary bill the parent company a few billion dollars for nonexistent services. And look, the company is suddenly not making any profit.
Yes, exactly, we should all run our countries like Ireland. They have no corporate taxes so they must be a bastion of innovation with a booming economy and full employment.
Oh wait, they have a bunch of shell offices for major corporations which pay no corporate tax and hire one person, they're broke, and they're economy is fucked, let's not.
It's funny how the neo cons all forgot the Irish. A few years ago they were the country to be idolized if you were a conservative, low corporate taxes, close to zero regulation, everything they believe creates a wonderful economy. Then it all fell in a pile because their unregulated banks, with the help of unregulated US banks, fucked them, and the corporations they didn't tax paid no tax but didn't open up offices to generate other benefits. Now if you talk to a neo con Ireland is just like the other PIGS and must have been a dirty socialist pit with profligate spending habits.