Slashdot Mirror


Outrage At Microsoft Offshoring Tax In the UK, Google Caught Avoiding US Taxes

Master Of Ninja writes "After the ongoing row about companies not paying a fair share of tax in the United Kingdom, and with companies such as Starbucks, Amazon and Google being in the headlines, focus has now turned to Microsoft. Whilst the tax arrangements are strictly legal, there has been outrage on how companies are avoiding paying their fair share of tax generated in the country." And over here in the U.S., dstates sent in news of Google getting caught doing something similar: "Bloomberg reports that Google is using Bermuda shell companies to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes worldwide. By routing payments and recording profits in zero-tax havens, multinational companies have been avoiding double digit corporate taxes in the U.S. and Europe. Congressional hearings were held in July on the destructive consequences of off-shoring profits. Why aren't the U.S. and Europe exerting more diplomatic pressure on these tax havens that are effectively stealing from the U.S. and European treasuries by allowing profits that did not result from activities in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands to be recorded as occurring there?"

26 of 768 comments (clear)

  1. What's good for the goose... by Press2ToContinue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Why aren't the US and Europe exerting more diplomatic pressure on these tax havens...?"

    Because where else would US politicians offshore their income? http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts

    --
    Sent from my ENIAC
    1. Re:What's good for the goose... by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pretty much this, anytime someone talks about getting politicians to raise taxes on the top 2% they are talking about getting politicians to raise taxes on themselves. Just look at the income of anyone in any law making or policy making decision in the government and it is no wonder that the middle class and poor have a higher tax rate than the wealthy elite.

    2. Re:What's good for the goose... by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, the US has no business exerting any pressure on other sovereign nations regarding what they do in their legal system, with perhaps exceptions for human trafficking, human rights abuses, and other such things.

      The US should simply make it illegal for these US companies to do this. If they flaunt the law, then they should be punished for it. No need to fuck with other countries laws.

    3. Re:What's good for the goose... by stox · · Score: 5, Informative

      He was until relatively recently, unlike others who were born with silver spoons in their mouths.

      I think he remembers his apartment dwelling days quite clearly.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    4. Re:What's good for the goose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't worry, they'll pass a pay raise for themselves to offset the extra burden. Just like with Obamacare & Medicare/Medicaid. Those are good enough for the common folk, but they've the Rolls Royce of medical plans for themselves. The kind of plans some of receive from our employers that they now want to tax as income (at upwards of $5000/year in some cases).

      This isn't Democrats or Republicans. It's Democrats AND Republicans. The entire lot of them are a bunch of selfish, hypocritical, thieves.

    5. Re:What's good for the goose... by TheGavster · · Score: 5, Informative

      The crux of these loopholes seems to be that by and large, corporate taxes are levied on net profit, not gross revenue. A company will make $10B in the US, then license something from a Bahamanian subsidiary for $10B, resulting in a profit for the US component of $0. If they had to pay on the total revenue, losing money to themselves would only increase exposure (since the US and Bahamanian divisions would both pay tax on the same $10B).

      In the example of a US-based construction firm that made some money through a Canadian subsidiary, Canada would get the tax on that part of the work and the US on their domestic revenues.

      The problem with this taxation model is that it would be a heavy weight on young companies; businesses generally run losses for the first several years of operation, even without paying taxes.

      Obviously this is my layman's view of the way corporate income tax works; I assume that there is a certain complexity to the way that revenue and profit are calculated for tax purposes, and that there are frictional costs associated with various maneuvers.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    6. Re:What's good for the goose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Perhaps you missed Obama filling his cabinet originally. He had to go through 50 people to get 20 from the DNC that had ACTUALLY paid taxes. Daschle failed to pay taxes, a woman named Hillary (not Clinton) was rejected for failure to pay taxes, Tim Geitner was still confirmed even though he didn't pay taxes. Go into Congress and you can find more, like Charles Rangle who didn't pay taxes. There was even a stink about John Kerry mooring his boat in Rhode Island to avoid state taxes from Mass.

      Your point is invalid because its the DNC that raises taxes and its the DNC politicians that constantly fail to pay taxes.

    7. Re:What's good for the goose... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tuition there in 1979, the year Obama graduated, was $2,000, or in today's dollars $6,000. Not insignificant, but certainly not out of reach for those who put value on such things. For reference, the cost of a new car in 1979 was about $3000 - $6000. My father was only a truck driver, but he sure as hell would have put me through private school for $6,000 if he thought it would have given me better opportunities.

    8. Re:What's good for the goose... by sco08y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      all other years being private schooled.

      Attending a private school does not mean you're wealthy. There are plenty of private schools full of children from low and middle class families.

      Oh yeah, from all walks of life. For instance, in Chicago, almost 40% of public school teachers send their kids to private schools. What it comes down to is they're just trying to get a decent education for their children.

    9. Re:What's good for the goose... by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US government should simply announce that they are prioritizing their overseas support of US business based on perecent of revenue booked in the US.

      When Microsoft or Apple get pissed about piracy or knockoffs overseas, the US should simply tell them that they can ask Bermudan or Cayman Islands officials to take care of the issue.

    10. Re:What's good for the goose... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is easy to figure out how to hurt "shell" companies. All you have to do is tax transfers of wealth between corporations. Period. Taxing income is stupid, because all you have to do is hide the income long enough to get it to an offshore holding company in some island in the pacific. BUT if you put a 1% (or whatever) tax on money going out of the country, corporation to corporation, and you have all the revenue you need. Put a tax incentive of .75% tax break on any US corporation bringing money from offshore, and you'll spur the economy.

      Tax the things you don't want, incentivize the things you do want and you can fix the world. Problem is, most politicians do the exact opposite, by taxing productivity and rewarding failure. The fix is simple, but we are unwilling to mess with status quo too much.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:What's good for the goose... by kraut · · Score: 5, Funny

      A good percentage don't vote Democratic or Republican. Problem is they don't make it to the poles either.

      That would be because the North and the South Pole are a long way away, and very very cold.

      Spelling, people, spelling. Now get off my lawn!

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    12. Re:What's good for the goose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your point is invalid because its the DNC that raises taxes and its the DNC politicians that constantly fail to pay taxes.

      No, his point is not invalid, and no it's not the DNC which raises taxes. CONGRESS raises taxes, you need to get this through your thick skull. It's ALL of them, don't buy into the rhetoric and political bullshit they spew out from one side or the other.

      This circles back to the article itself. Did Google break any laws? Did Microsoft? In both cases it appears to be no, they did not. So quit pissing and moaning about "Big Corporations" and/or the Rich evading taxes. Quit giving a pass to the people we elected to run the country. They need to fix the laws so that these types of filthy loopholes simply don't exist.

  2. Re:compete instead of complain by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If only this could apply to regular people - Hey some people are shoplifting the food from the market, let's just lower the price to a point where it's not worth bother... But I guess this only applies to the well-to-do..

  3. I know this is crazy, but. . . by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know this is crazy, but maybe the problem is the taxes. It doesn't make any sense at all tax corporate profits when you could just as easily tax the income shareholders make from the profits, or capital gains in the event a corporation doesn't post dividends.

    1. Re:I know this is crazy, but. . . by stanjo74 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Exactly. Money left in the corporation can only be used for 2 things - reinvest in the business or pay employees/shareholders. If you reinvest, that's a good things - exactly what the US needs; if you pay out, income tax on the individuals should catch that.

      Problem is that capital gains are taxed very low compared to wages, so the company has incentives to keep cash on the books to appreciate the stock without reinvestment risk, thus creating wealth for shareholders at low income tax rates. You will never see the money reinvested or increase of wages at the company.

    2. Re:I know this is crazy, but. . . by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yet another tax policy that makes no sense at all. There is no reason capital gains and dividends shouldn't be taxed as regular income, they justify it today by saying "corporations pay taxes so taxing these things as income is double taxation." It's all just a stupid shell game. They make up a bunch of bizarre, self-reinforcing justifications for a convoluted tax scheme, then move their money through all they loopholes they've built so that is perfectly legal. It's nonsense.

  4. Re:I'm .. I'm stunned! by multi+io · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a publicly traded company, you risk being sued by your shareholders if you do NOT use such tax arrangements as soon as you learn about the possibility. So putting the blame on Google/MS isn't exactly rational.

  5. Re:Applicable quote from Judge Learned Hand by jxander · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Problem is that the rich make the laws. So they adjust the rules to benefit themselves unfairly.

    Hey there poor person, why don't you have your investments setup in IRAs and 401(k)s? You should get into the consulting business and write a few books. Capital gains taxes are rather agreeable. What's that you say, you can't afford food? Well, if you'd taken my advise ...

    --
    This signature is false.
  6. This was required by law. Really. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because where else would US politicians offshore their income? http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts

    I'm NO friend of Mitt Romney - to put it mildly. But let's not blame him for something that's not his doing.

    1) Because Romney was running for president, US law REQUIRES he put his money in a blind trust.

    2) Also under US law the trustee has a "fiduciary duty" to do his reasonable best to protect and grow Romney's money for him. That includes seeing to it that is not taxed substantially more than the law requires. If he can save, say, 40% of the trust's earnings from being taxed away by using a LEGAL tax haven in Bermuda, and trustees of such trusts are expected to know that, he is REQUIRED BY LAW to do so.

    So let's not have cheap shots against politicians and financial managers who are only doing what the law REQUIRES them to do.

    There are plenty of things politicians have done that we can LEGITIMATELY go after them about - which have zapped us to the tune of trillions of dollars - at $3,175.40 from EACH citizen for EACH trillion. Let's not the dilute the discussion, and give them something to use to discredit their critics, by flaming them over drops in the bucket that AREN'T THEIR FAULT.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  7. Re:compete instead of complain by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's bullshit. Bermuda's tax laws have nothing to do with it. It is American tax law that makes the leeching so profitable.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. Re:This was required by law. Really. by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All of this crap is legal, that's why they call it tax 'avoidance'. It's not right, or fair, but it is legal.

  9. Re:compete instead of complain by dondelelcaro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More like, Store A is charging $20 for a loaf of bread, I'll go to store B where I can get it for $5.

    Lets at least get the metaphors slightly more accurate.

    Store A is charging $20 for a loaf of bread, but provides an awesome atmosphere, chairs, clean eating space, nice employees, free coffee, and massages while you eat your loaf of bread. Store B sells the same bread for $5, but you can't eat your bread there. So you buy your bread from Store B, and then expect Store A to let you stay in Store A to eat your bread.

    Companies pay taxes to pay for the externalities that they take advantage of while doing business in a country.

    --
    http://www.donarmstrong.com
  10. Re:This was required by law. Really. by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And frankly, every single one of us does it when we can get away with it, as well.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  11. Re:I've seemed to notice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    LMFAO. The government is incompetent and writes bad rules so they get exploited... I'm a libertarian so we can have less rules... That's like saying "I got mugged once - the police system doesn't work! Let's abolish all laws."

    This is why libertarians aren't taken seriously. If you really think semi-anarchy leaves one free to build one's own future, you should take a look at (semi)-anarchies throughout history and across the world now. Warlords, (robber) barons, and a feudal system do not make for a better world.

  12. Re:I've seemed to notice... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    some sort of perpetual serfdom to the landed classes that see us only as rubes to exploit, cows to milk, or votes to pander to?

    That's what we have right now, which is why the subject is being debated so much. Class warfare has been in place for generations, and the rich have won it. Again. This is not the first time in history, either. The last time, the result was really really ugly. The French Revolution is the favorite example of just how ugly it gets.

    So. We're talking about it. Again. Because it happened. Again. Now it's time to figure out how to bash them back into a box so we can get on with civilization for another few hundred years until the next time the sociopathic assholes win the rigged game AGAIN. It's about goddamn time there was some reverse class warfare. Again. But this time, we're trying to figure out how to accomplish it without blood in the streets. There are a lot more of us now than there ever have been before, so if we do it French Revolution style, you could only dream of your semi-anarchy where one is free to build one's future as best one can. What you'll get instead is pogroms that would make Stalinist Russia look like a picnic in the park with sunshine and birdies and champagne.

    Capitalism has broken civilization. Again. It happens on a regular basis. It's a bug in the system. Historically, the solution to the bug is a system reboot with guns. This time, we would prefer to fix the problem without armed revolution. We like peace and quiet. We like it quite a lot. Violent crime has been declining even in the gun-happy United States. But we DON'T like playing in a rigged game we're guaranteed to lose because a very very small group of people have already won it.