Slashdot Mirror


Italy Investigates Apple For Alleged Tax Fraud

Frankie70 writes in with some more bad news for Apple in Europe. "U.S. tech giant Apple is under investigation in Italy for allegedly hiding 1 billion euros ($1.34 billion) from the local tax authority, two judicial sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters. Milan prosecutors say Apple failed to declare to Italian tax authorities 206 million euros in 2010 and 853 million euros in 2011, one of the sources said, confirming a report by Italian magazine L'Espresso. The Italian subsidiary of Apple booked some of its profit through Irish-based subsidiary Apple Sales International (ASI), thus lowering its taxable income in Italy, the source said."

175 comments

  1. Corporations dodge tax. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 0

    News at 11.

    Expect to have your life ruined for underpaying or being overpaid by a few cents/pennies, though.

    Capitalism: it always ends up like this.

    1. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know that this is slashdot and that you aren't supposed to read the headline but the entire point is that the Italian government actually tries to do something about corporative tax-dodging.

    2. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the Italian government for the last half-century.

      The problem will not be that Google has not been paying tax - the problem will be that Google hasn't been greasing the right palms.

    3. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know that this is slashdot and that you aren't supposed to read the headline but it is about Apple, not Google.

    4. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      What's the difference?

    5. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      What's the difference?

      The amount of zeros in the payout.

    6. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Well played.

    7. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Well then why not drag Microsoft and Amazon into it too? Gapple, Mapple and Applezon?

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    8. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Sounds good, but the witless /. mods will strike me down with fiery vengeance for suggesting that all the teams are the same.

    9. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Witless they may be, so it's maybe by chance they correctly modded you down. Alice: Germany, what about those salamis they make? You: It's good but the Italians really need to make better mustard Alice: What? You: Exactly! That's you in a nutshell

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    10. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Goomapplezon?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    11. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you're right - capitalism always ends up with huge amounts of money. Strange how that works. Damn those capitalists! Meanwhile a socialist economy is failing again. Why does this always happen!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      I don't know, why do economies based on ideology always fail and have to be rerouted back to mixed economy?

      Why don't we ask the USA or Western Europe, since they've had some excellent recent experience with that problem.

    13. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by jythie · · Score: 1

      The flip side is that the Italian government is notoriously corrupt. If it was a story about, say, Germany coming after Apple for tax evasion I would be 'yay Germany!', but in this case I am not sure I would even believe the charges.

    14. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't hate Google yet. Or not that much anyway.

    15. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by cjjjer · · Score: 1

      Supposedly one *does* evil and one *does no* evil, but the lines are pretty blurred on who...

    16. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      You named a completely different and unrelated company that has nothing to do with the story and still you get modded up.

      Did you even read the article? The headline? Does this place consist of anything more than bots and chimps these days?

      "The maker of the iPhone is the latest prominent corporation to become the target of a tax inquiry in Italy amid a global crackdown aimed at preventing companies such as Google, Amazon and others from avoiding taxes."

      RTFA indeed.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    17. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the Italian government is under water and looking to squeeze the balls of anyone they can for more tax revenue. They can claim "tax dodging" all they want, but it's just a shakedown anyway. Don't be a government boot licker.

    18. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No, Mapplezongle.

      Any word ending in zongle must be good, yeah?

      Actually, Mipplezongle. mmm, mipples.

    19. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Talderas · · Score: 1

      What about Goomipplezon?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    20. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I was hoping to be as obvious as possible without actually stating it, leaving the kids to fling shit until they worked out their mistake, but you said what needed to be said.

      Google has already been the subject of investigations and multiple accusations in Italy, and even TFA points out that new legislation to counteract fiscal dumping has been dubbed "the Google tax".

      So, to reiterate: they're all the same.

    21. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by ultranova · · Score: 2

      Because when the most important factor for making money is having money, you get a vicious circle where a small group ends up looting the entire economy, then using their newfound wealth to buy laws to prevent anyone from rising to challenge them. The scheme finally collapses when the plutocrats start believing their own lies about the system being just and fair, fail to pay enough for maintenance because the serfs deserve their fate, and cause an economic collapse - which is the phase we're in now. The next will be popular uprising, the signs of which are already visible in the form of Occupy movements, the rise of European nationalist parties and even the Tea Party, misdirected as the last might be.

      The interesting question is how much damage resetting the cycle will cause this time. The last great cycle, the one associated with the Industrial Revolution, saw the rise of communism and fascism as reactions to the predations of the plutocrats. The end results were Hitler, Stalin, Mao and a number of lesser (or at least less powerful) monsters, and perhaps a hundred million deaths. How many people need to die this time around?

      It's really up to people like you: will you continue following ideology and distorting everything to fit it to the bitter end, or do you acknowledge reality at some point?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    22. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah, we all realize that ACs are infinite around here. Tell us something we don't know.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    23. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by jodido · · Score: 1

      Setting aside the Google/Apple confusion, the problem is not that whoever has not been paying taxes, the problem is that they are an AMERICAN company not paying taxes. When was the last time anybody suggested the Italian government was aggressive in pursuing Italian tax cheats?

    24. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are at supposedly an Irish company. (They are not paying American taxes either) yet receiving benefits (e.g presidential vetos) as if they were).

    25. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute - did you just put Hitler, a far-right nutbag, and Mao, a respected leftist who is acceptable on university campuses to this day - on the same page? You're a fuckbag.

      Oh, and by the way, serfs do deserve their fate. You going to stand up for trailer trash now? Oppose Jon Stewart? Nah.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    26. Re:Corporations dodge tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that this is slashdot and that you aren't supposed to read the headline but the entire point is that the Italian government actually tries to do something about corporative tax-dodging.

      You're missing the point: the poster you're responding to always tries to get anti-capitalist and/or pro-socialist propaganda into the Slashdot information flow. Anything that portrays capitalism in a positive light, or suggests that it might be possible to make it work, is contrary to this objective.

  2. italians by Redmancometh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not the people to try tax evasion with...they are pros

    1. Re:italians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Italian Corporations? No single individual or national group comes close to ANY multinational corporation.

    2. Re:italians by angelofdarkness · · Score: 0

      Mod parent Up! (Where are mod points when you need them...)

    3. Re:italians by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1, Troll

      Except that if you RTFA it doesn't sound like tax evasion at all. It sounds like the Italians are broke and are harassing Apple because they don't like the fact that Apple bases itself in Ireland.

      (Reuters) - U.S. tech giant Apple is under investigation in Italy for allegedly hiding 1 billion euros ($1.34 billion) from the local tax authority, two judicial sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters ..... The Italian subsidiary of Apple booked some of its profit through Irish-based subsidiary Apple Sales International (ASI), thus lowering its taxable income in Italy, the source said

      "There is a global process under way and the Italian tax authority is one of the most active," said an Italian tax source. "In general, the focus is shifting towards multi-nationals that are able to lower their tax base through their international operations."

      Apple is many things, but sloppy and ridden with fraud is not one of them. The Italian government, on the other hand ....

    4. Re:italians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe you don't know exactly European taxes laws.

    5. Re:italians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, he also thinks it's ok for a few corporations to gobble the world's wealth and let millions starve having nothing.

    6. Re:italians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. Are you telling me everything is fine and done by the book in the promised land of mafia? Apple is a damn amateur who got caught. I bet the mob dodges taxes that arent even theirs.

    7. Re:italians by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

      For many, many years, the Italian Premier Andriotti, was actually the chief of the Mafia.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    8. Re:italians by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Maybe not, but I'm guessing that Apple employs a team of lawyers that do. This sounds like a fishing expedition from a European state who is currently in a financially shaky position, during a time of political change. It's easy to score some cheap political points by beating up on the big bad American corporate tax cheats, and when the whole thing is dismissed in a few months, no one will report squat.

      Unless, of course, Apple is actually breaking Italian revenue code, in which they need to cough up the cash. And then Italy needs to go after everyone else that is doing the same tax avoidance shenanigans (Google, Microsoft, Nokia, etc.).

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    9. Re:italians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, heaven forbid that risk takers actually get something for their troubles. Fuck off, communist.

    10. Re:italians by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      These companies have been running in Ireland for years, if it was illegal don't you think this would have been noticed by now? Here, read this and you may gain some clarity on the matter.

    11. Re:italians by Chickenlips · · Score: 1

      Except that, as shown by the recent past, there is no risk! Stupid, ill advised gamble gone bad? No worries! The tax payer's money to the rescue. Heaven forbid the risk takers should shoulder their own risk, as well as pay their fair share of the infrastructure that allows them to flourish in the first place.

    12. Re:italians by Rougement · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Italians wrote the book on tax evasion. Then they failed to declare income arising from the book sales.

    13. Re:italians by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      This is only because the people who want big government demanded it pay those companies for their risky behavior. The people who want smaller government, like myself, said "Fuck them, let them starve."

      I'm not sure on which side you care to place me for that, but I think it was the more consistent stance.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    14. Re:italians by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Maybe you don't know exactly European taxes laws.

      Either him or Italian politicians. Many of whom are known tax frauds. No, wait, those actually knew what they were doing. Anyway

      "The Italian tax authorities already audited Apple Italy in 2007, 2008 and 2009 and confirmed that we were in full compliance with the OECD documentation and transparency requirements. We are confident the current review will reach the same conclusion."

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    15. Re:italians by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

      I am italian, I am not a tax expert but have been involved in these things for professional purposes, and I think that this is the usual govvie blackmail.
      Apple does not produce anything in Italy; the local subsidiary is involved in marketing, and own and operates a relatively small number of own brand stores. By "own brand", read:
      1. the company selling the goods is really Apple;
      2. it always will have its European headquarters in the most favourable tax place, and no, it will not be Italy. deal with it.

      so, what is Apple really doing in Italy? practically nothing that it could not do on line: delivering standardized goods to customers. No personalizations, no customer service. So, in a pinch, Apple could leave Italy altogether, tell my daughter to buy the new Iphone on their internet site, free delivery to the home by UPS, and show Italian tax authorities the finger. Results? LESS tax revenues in Italy. Smart, uh?

      For those not aware, the real swindle is in Ireland: profits of the Irish subsidiary, which would normally be taxed at an outrageous 12,5% Irish tax rate, are trasferred tax free to Bahamas. So the Irish would have two grounds to do something, because that's the de facto legal residence of the subsidiary, and because Apple would not probably get a better deal elsewhere.

      --
      "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    16. Re:italians by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      You're missing the fact that the tech industry does not have the political clout in Washington that outfits like Wall Street and the UAW do. It shoulders its own risk and doesn't get bailouts like the more bribery-aware industries do. If it did, we'd still be ordering our pet food online from a sock puppet.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    17. Re:italians by ultranova · · Score: 1

      For many, many years, the Italian Premier Andriotti, was actually the chief of the Mafia.

      Apple better pay up, then - glass is so terrible fragile :).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    18. Re:italians by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Corporations should pay taxes otherwise people would just hide their personal profits in Corporations - many already do - they get "paid nothing", but get to use the resources of the corporation as theirs.

      I'm fine with Corporations not paying taxes on profits that aren't theirs.

      But it sure seems unfair when a Corporation starts treating certain profits as if it owns them but still doesn't have to pay any taxes on them.

      For example,
      a) if a corporation can include the profit in its financial reports as part of its total profit then the profit is the corporation's and so it should pay any taxes due them. If it doesn't want to pay taxes on them it should not include them as part of its profits.
      b) If a corporation can borrow money using profits of another corporation as collateral, or otherwise control or use the profits of another corporation, then those profits belong to the first company and so it should pay any taxes due on them. If it's not your money why can the bank lend you money using it as collateral? If it's not yours why can you treat it like you own it? If it's yours then pay the taxes on it.

      As for double or triple taxation you could simply say the Corporation has to pay your country what's left over after the other countries have taxed the corporation. If the corporation has paid out zero, your country gets the full amount of tax, if it has paid out a lot then your country might get none of it.

      --
    19. Re:italians by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      "Oh please. Are you telling me everything is fine and done by the book in the promised land of mafia?"
      Yes that was the joke. You got it good job!

    20. Re:italians by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Tax dodges like this are only acceptable in the US. In most of Europe using "shell companies" and "subsidiaries" to hide income or evade taxes, especially for that express purpose is a big no-no.

    21. Re:italians by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Yep. There was an interesting video released a few month ago that showed one of the tax expert working for Apple. He was payed massive sums of money to do this. He basically finds loopholes in the tax systems and uses them. Apple was known to be one of the best at it. I remember a figure of 1.9% tax paid on all revenues generated outside the USA.

      This article talks about the USA tax loopholes they used legally.
      http://www.idigitaltimes.co.uk/articles/469528/20130521/apple-evades-taxes-shifting-profits-overseas-ireland.htm

  3. It is time to stop criminals. by HansKloss · · Score: 0

    Most of big corporations are infiltrated with criminals wearing executive suits. And I'm tired of excuses, "it's legal because our lobbying arm wrote the legislation and paid the right people to pass it"
    Criminal is criminal! No matter how many laws are passed.
    We all pay the price when money is constantly siphoned and siphoned to private corporations by governments sitting deeper and deeper in debt.

    1. Re:It is time to stop criminals. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Criminal means convicted under the law - so it's precisely lobbying and other corruption which stops this behaviour being criminal.

      There is no solution except a tempering of capitalism. If you allow businesses to become too powerful, they will take over governments. They have taken over governments.

    2. Re:It is time to stop criminals. by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      When you go to get a new driver's license, or vote, and they ask you if you want fries with that... it's time to move.

    3. Re:It is time to stop criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of big corporations are infiltrated with criminals wearing executive suits. And I'm tired of excuses, "it's legal because our lobbying arm wrote the legislation and paid the right people to pass it"
      Criminal is criminal! No matter how many laws are passed.

      Apparently you do not know the difference between legal and illegal. Perhaps I should bring up the fact that you're able to go to a bar after work and have a drink. That was not always legal. As you stand there with a drink in your hand reading about how another drunk killed an innocent victim, please tell me again how I would be wrong to want to make alcohol illegal again. Seems you're quite righteous about what is right and wrong when it doesn't affect you.

      If you don't like the way corporations manipulate your elected representatives with their lobbyists to make what they are doing legal, then fucking do something about that singular component you as a voter still control, because you sure as hell don't have control over anything else.

      And maybe now that the urban myths of Obama the Savior have been dispelled amongst the voters he bought with that bullshit, common sense will stand a fighting chance at the polls. Let's hope and pray the female demographic isn't near as ignorant and simply vote with their vaginas as Hillary steps in the ring. Certainly no savior there either as we recycle yet another era of failure back in the office. As much as we mock royalty vs. elections, our structure isn't much better with the Bush and Clinton dynasty. We hardly change names or lineage either, and yet voters expect a different outcome. No wonder you are referred to as sheeple.

      We all pay the price when money is constantly siphoned and siphoned to private corporations by governments sitting deeper and deeper in debt.

      No Shit. Tell me something the last three decades don't know. This isn't new. It's hardly worse. It simply perpetuates in the addiction that is greed.

    4. Re:It is time to stop criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're there already, but they ask for political donations.

    5. Re:It is time to stop criminals. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 0

      I think the main reason Apple gets on everyone's radar is because they are the least politically active. The really corrupt companies spend a lot of money greasing palms and trying to win deals that make them part of the infrastructure.

      Seriously, Italy is the guiding light now of standing up to corruption? Is Berlesconi in Prison yet?

      Ya'll come on down, orgies at the capital and free wine! Of course, Apple, shame on you! You aren't invited to the after party.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    6. Re:It is time to stop criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you aren't to recommend the use of government as the tool for a "tempering of capitalism". Such a "solution" will only result in more of the same.

      Look, companies lobby governments so that the companies can make more money. The companies generally don't care about public policy one way or the other. It's like asking a rabbit to care about the fuel efficiency of your car.

      "Public servants", on the other hand, are generally incompetent at making money, so they amass political power that they can then use to influence the lobbying businesses (the ones that generally don't care about policy) to give them lots of money, whether to the public coffers (taxes) or to their personal ones (campaign contributions). In short, it's a legalized protection racket, complete with the real threat of harm (regulations, lawsuits, investigations, etc.) with individual politicians the substantive beneficiaries.

      To your point, if you bolster the power of companies, you wind up with companies having unjustified influence in government through the power of their money which government wants. On the other hand, if you bolster the power of government, you wind up with companies having unjustified influence in government through the power of their money which government wants.

      Now, knowing that, what peaceful solution do you recommend?

      "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. " - Harry S. Truman, http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

      By the way, if you look closely, you will find that principle applies to all industries and all positions of government.
      The problem is not the companies. The problem is not the government. The problem is very, very human.

    7. Re:It is time to stop criminals. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Well, governments aren't going anywhere, and neither are powerful individuals, so either you temper them with a good dose of social democracy, or you lie down and give up.

    8. Re:It is time to stop criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is SUPPOSED to be economics model, not governing model. Capitalism seems to be shooting itself in the foot by oversteping it's limits. Sooner or later the model WILL be changed. If the "wealth" (bits in a computer) is concentrated enough people will abandon the system. Imagine you and your friends creating an imaginary money unit. All goes well as long as the money keeps circulating, if one of the people involved hoards is aal, the other have to find a different money to use as means of trade.

    9. Re:It is time to stop criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To reiterate, social democracy (i.e. bolstering the power of government) doesn't solve the problem, because:
      "if you bolster the power of government, you wind up with companies having unjustified influence in government through the power of their money which government wants."

      I'm not saying that government or companies are going away or should. I'm saying that we need to stop looking at them as if they are enemies, because more often then not, they are in cooperation without regard to other stakeholders.
      The issue isn't as simple as businesses versus governments and we need to face up to that.

      but, perhaps I missed the point with your dismissive generalization?

    10. Re:It is time to stop criminals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, taking away the government power they're seizing. A powerless government stops being a target for corruption.

    11. Re:It is time to stop criminals. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Social democracy isn't bolstering the power of government - the government is already large and powerful and in the hands of businesspeople. I am talking about change of control.

      I don't know what you mean about not seeing companies as if they are enemies. I don't see any of this in terms of enmity or friendship, just power grabs.

      Anyway, there's my dismissal of two of your straw men.

    12. Re:It is time to stop criminals. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Then you take advantage of that law of physics which says that vacuums are never filled.

  4. Isn't apple a church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple just needs to register itself as a text exempt church to solve all this tax mess.

    1. Re:Isn't apple a church by gl4ss · · Score: 1, Funny

      dunno if claiming as a church would go down in italy.

      vatican has monopoly on that.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  5. Predictable by tstur · · Score: 2

    While despicable since megacorps like Apple have no defense for not paying what's owed as part of the cost of doing business, it remains to be said that the taxation system worldwide is completely out of control. No percentage will ever be enough for any government and thus tax paying entities must find techniques to minimize the fleecing.

    1. Re: Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your tax is so high because these people don't pay any. 1 billion divided by 30 million taxpayers in Italy is 30 bucks each.

    2. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it remains to be said that the taxation system worldwide is completely out of control.

      That depends massively on your point of view. Overall tax burdens in Scandinavian countries are reckoned to be among the worlds highest yet they also rank very highly for things like happiness, quality of life and medical care, things which are often moderated by tax-funded government schemes and departments. "Out of control" depends on what you think the taxation system should be achieving.

      Bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether or not you like the tax system: if you operate in a country then you operate under their tax laws.

    3. Re: Predictable by tstur · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trouble is that argument implies there is some magic number that equals Enough for the taxing authority, and there isn't. Or it's enough for that year, then it must be raised again. And again. And Again... Entities not paying tax are not the cause of ever increasing rates.

    4. Re:Predictable by tstur · · Score: 1

      I agree with your last sentence. Rules are rules. But I'm also suggesting there's a larger problem.

      Also, certain things don't scale well. It's conceivable the system that works so well in Scandinavia won't work in more populous countries.

    5. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you operate in a country then you operate under their tax laws.

      exactly, and that includes using their tax laws to minimize your taxes to lowest legal level possible

    6. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Rules are rules.

      Yes, they are. That doesn't make them moral, ethical, constitutional, or safe.

    7. Re:Predictable by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Some people think they have a right to make a profit. They are wrong. We have a right to decide who gets to operate a business in our society and under what terms. If they don't want to contribute back to what we have built we have the right to deny them access.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: Predictable by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Entities not paying tax are a direct cause of increasing rates, because the rates have to go up to compensate for the lost income from the criminals not paying their fair share.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you need to be careful when you get too close to that line, because if you cross it you wind up in jail.

    10. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Why? More populous countries have the advantage of actually having enough people to really benefit from, say, mass transit. The economics of scale come into play. And if they work in the wrong direction you can always just divide the area up to scandinavian country sizes chunks that operate separately. What is the reason scandinavian model won't work with more people? And don't give me crap about "US is a huge, densely populaten country. So are scandinavian ones. On top of that they maintain their roads through winter months and pretty much guarantee the availibility of electricity and internet to every place in their countries)

    11. Re:Predictable by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      This sounds chillingly like, "Shut them all down, comrade"...am I right?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:Predictable by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      No, it's simply "pay your taxes or fuck off". Companies will, when forced to, always choose to pay their taxes because they can still make a profit, just less of a profit.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Predictable by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Also, certain things don't scale well. It's conceivable the system that works so well in Scandinavia won't work in more populous countries.

      Oh no, you aren't allowed to make this argument on Slashdot. For some reason, there is a visceral hatred from some people if you point that out.

      For what it's worth, Sweden is Europe's 5th largest country, behind Russia, Ukraine, France and Spain, and is larger than California. The bulk of its 10 million people live in the southern third of the country, with a few northern cities dotting the eastern coast, and one inland. So government programs and businesses can serve most of the people quite easily.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    14. Re: Predictable by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Your tax is so high because these people don't pay any. 1 billion divided by 30 million taxpayers in Italy is 30 bucks each.

      Ha-ha. Who do you think pays the money to the corporations that they then hand it to the government?

      Hint: it's not the space fairies.

      Corporate taxes are just a way to tax more money from 'the people' while getting idiots like yourself to cheer it on. Every penny comes from increased prices, reduced wages, or reduced income for stockholders.

    15. Re:Predictable by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      No, it's simply "pay your taxes or fuck off". Companies will, when forced to, always choose to pay their taxes because they can still make a profit, just less of a profit.

      Yes. They'll just increase prices, so you pay more and the extra money is sent to the government. Or they'll cut wages, so you earn less and the extra money is sent to the government.

      If you want to give more money to the government, you could just send them a cheque and cut out the middle-man.

    16. Re:Predictable by Xest · · Score: 1

      No you're not.

      He's just saying that if a company does not exist for the betterment of society in general, then there's no point letting it exist at all.

      This policy in fact aids capitalism, because it means companies must compete on the merits of their product, rather than their ability to find loopholes in the law.

      For example, Amazon in the UK basically pays no tax but it does get the benefit of UK educated works and does get to use UK roads causing wear and tear and the publicly subsidised postal network. This makes it a net drain on society (the jobs it creates and the taxes paid on those wages don't make up for it's overall cost to society) meaning it's subsidised by the public which is anti-capitalist and so at that point the public should have the right to have the company shut down if it's not willing to pay it's own way or can't compete on it's merits without this kind of indirect subsidy.

    17. Re:Predictable by dkf · · Score: 1

      They'll just increase prices, so you pay more and the extra money is sent to the government. Or they'll cut wages, so you earn less and the extra money is sent to the government.

      Except there may be legislated minimums on pay rates, and increasing prices may result in a lower level of sales. Or it might not; some goods become more desirable as they become more expensive (typically because the real reason they're bought is to show that the purchaser can afford them; this is stupid, but definitely happens with some goods). But for all that, corporations have been acting like they believe it is their right to pay as little tax as they can get away with, doing tricks like setting the licensing charges for something to exactly match the profits that would otherwise have taxes paid on them. (That's a trick that always smelt very wrong to me, and it appears to be pretty common.) It sounds like the Italian tax authorities are going to try to clamp down on this.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    18. Re: Predictable by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      Ha-ha. Who do you think pays the money to the corporations that they then hand it to the government?.

      Let's see: If the American company Apple does business in Italy but moves it's money to Ireland to pay taxes there, the taxes lost to the Italian treasury are paid by... ah yes, here it is: The Italian people.

      The Italian people first pay the multinationalcompany for the products and then again have to make up for the taxes that this company evaded paying.
      And the multinational gets richer and richer...

    19. Re: Predictable by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Ha-ha. Who do you think pays the money to the corporations that they then hand it to the government?

      Hint: it's not the space fairies.

      Corporate taxes are just a way to tax more money from 'the people' while getting idiots like yourself to cheer it on. Every penny comes from increased prices, reduced wages, or reduced income for stockholders.

      Look, that's a good argument when you're talking about a utility, or necessities. But an Apple computer is not a necessity, it is a Luxury. Same with the various iDevices. Even if you have a legitimate need for a device which does what they do, there's still a cheaper option that does the same stuff. Your argument simply does not apply. Putting the tax burden on corporations does indeed result in them raising their prices. Then the consumer can see up front the actual cost of their economic activity, and what's more, the person who incurs the cost actually pays it. In short, it by far makes the most sense to tax corporations on this basis! And only idiots cheer when corporations successfully evade taxes. I want Apple customers to have to pay the taxes from which Apple profits, and not every taxpayer in the EU, which is the current situation!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Predictable by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      If taxes are reduced, will companies pay better wages, decrease their prices, hire more people?
      Hell no! They will still outsource everything, reduce wages and pay the upper management more for increasing profits.

    21. Re:Predictable by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Also, certain things don't scale well. It's conceivable the system that works so well in Scandinavia won't work in more populous countries.

      It is not a question of size it is question of trust, and ultimately corruption. The people need to trust the government and the government need trust the people and corrupt entities should feel ashamed of what they are doing, so society at least has the _appearence_ that corruption is abnormal (increasing trust, which lowers corruption which increases trust...)

    22. Re:Predictable by Vaphell · · Score: 1

      For example, Amazon in the UK basically pays no tax but it does get the benefit of UK educated works and does get to use UK roads causing wear and tear and the publicly subsidised postal network. This makes it a net drain on society (the jobs it creates and the taxes paid on those wages don't make up for it's overall cost to society) meaning

      i hope you got some hard numbers supporting that notion that they are a net drain. What if the gains from reduced prices for consumers are in fact greater than the additional burden on the taxpayer?
      Either way corps are pass-through entities, a fiction conjured by law. They don't live, they don't eat, they don't spend, they don't earn - people do. Chasing corps is an excercise in futility, a game of whack-a-mole.

    23. Re:Predictable by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I see I was too late in my warning below.

      Why? More populous countries have the advantage of actually having enough people to really benefit from, say, mass transit. The economics of scale come into play. And if they work in the wrong direction you can always just divide the area up to scandinavian country sizes chunks that operate separately. What is the reason scandinavian model won't work with more people? And don't give me crap about "US is a huge, densely populaten country. So are scandinavian ones. On top of that they maintain their roads through winter months and pretty much guarantee the availibility of electricity and internet to every place in their countries)

      Your problem is that you are wrong. The US is not densely populated. It has densely populated cities, but it has many more towns, suburbs, and villages spread out over a good portion of a continent. Sweden in comparison has one densely populated area that covers the southern end of the country, four more small northern cities, and the rest is sparsely populated farmland or nearly empty mountains. So for a government program to reach most of the population, there is a self-evident layout that would be needed.

      Your argument is the same one that is always made; that somehow what works in one particular country in Europe could be implemented in the US, because it is just a matter of scaling to our size. How about you try it in Europe first. Extend Sweden's social services (transit, medical, college, etc) to Eastern Europe, overriding the local inhabitant's wishes as needed, and let us know how it works out. Then maybe we'll think about it over here.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    24. Re: Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our taxes are so high because of Government mismanagement, and in Italy's case, a very high level of corruption.

    25. Re:Predictable by Xest · · Score: 1

      But there aren't reduced prices, since Amazon put the likes of Borders out of business it's book prices have become much more expensive.

      It's a key part the problem, because Amazon engages in excessive tax avoidance, even those business that engage minor tax avoidance are outcompeted by it and when Amazon has seized a market because it's put the other major players out of business it just ups it's prices to whatever it wants.

      This is precisely why France is putting protections in place for independent book retailers, and why Apple went to the extreme of pursuing a stupidly risky tactic of forming a price fixing cartel with the publishers.

      Amazon is ruthless for putting others out of business by out competing them on price, then drastically upping prices when it controls the market, something it can largely only be successful at precisely because it pays no tax. It's nonsense to think that is ever going to be anything other than a net drain. If it did the same but managed to do so whilst paying tax then it'd at least be doing something to outweigh it's destruction of competition, but destroying competition, resulting in increased prices due to decreased choice, whilst also paying no tax can't be anything other than a net negative to society.

    26. Re:Predictable by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      They also get a subsidy via in work benefits for their low paid workers who they import from poor country's - its Befords (nearest big town to one of their big distribution centers) claim to fame it used to be the brick works that imported an new ethic group every generation to work in the brick fields.

    27. Re:Predictable by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They'll just increase prices

      Then they will lose custom and go out of business.

      Or they'll cut wages

      Then people will go and work elsewhere. Most of them already pay minimum wage or just a little bit over anyway (Apple, Starbucks etc.) so can't really go any lower.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't seen Amazon prices raise before or after Borders. In my State they will be WH sales tax next year. Which as a business a huge savings as I don't have to deal w/ Use Tax.

      Amazon is easier and more convenient. Case and point I bought a main load breaker box this morning. Was going to local Kirby Risk tried find it on their useless web site. Amazon had at a competitive price I have prime so it would be there by Saturday. If Kirby's site was more user friendly I might have gone down to see them. But, I would then had to get up hour earlier go other side of town and hope they have it. Or I can Click and Fed Ex will bring on Friday. Done in a few minutes with an extra hour of sleep to boot. This is why Amazon is so dominant I usually buy when prices are higher with them. Its just easier unless I need it now which is rare.

    29. Re: Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, your taxes are so high becaus government continues to financialy rape the populace.

  6. who forgot ... by dltaylor · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I suspect the hottest question around Apple today is "who forgot to pay the Parliament's members bribes?" (or, at least, make the appropriate "campaign contributions", as we prefer to call them here in the USofA).

  7. To be fair by clickclickdrone · · Score: 0

    The Italian's main complaint was Apple weren't dodging taxes enough and making the mob run companies look bad.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  8. If they're based in Ireland, why are they in Italy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They do business in Italy. They get money in Italy. They pay Apple (Eire) an extremely uncomptetitive rate for the "rights" to use their own frigging products in Italy so that they make no profit off massive revenue.

    It's absolutely no different from Hollywood Accounting.

    And it IS tax evasion.

    If a private corporation cannot make 3% ROI, then it's a failure. Since so many multinationals manage to wrange a way to a NEGATIVE return on investment, then how the hell is this fatuous meme "The private industry can be profitable, the government can only run things into the ground" created?

    Because they're avoiding taxes by tricks.

    They have two options

    1) they are incompetent, in which case they should be closed down by shareholders for incompetent management and all C*O pay should be slashed because so few manage to make any profit for the company.
    2) they are illegally evading taxes but are otherwise actually competent at business

  9. There is such a value. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Paying for the stuff being done is a "magic number that equals Enough for the taxing authority".

    Morover, when the subject is executive compensation, you're all about how it's allowed that they can just be given as much as they can get away with because "you can't put a limit on what someone earns".

    Yet when it comes to government, somehow, there's a magic number that they cannot spend above and must be limited.

    Hell of a double standard you've got there.

    1. Re:There is such a value. by tstur · · Score: 1

      Right, and the stuff being done is not a static set. Did we need a F-35? Probably not. But the money got spent because it's relatively easy to print more and/or tax more. I'm all for paying for the essential services and benefits, but my point is it's never enough, no matter who your government is.

      What does exec compensation have to do with tax rates?

    2. Re:There is such a value. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Where did executive compensation come from, and how does it negate the point that governments raise taxes constantly?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  10. Apparently you can't read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even when you quoted it, your follow up was nothing to do with that which you quoted, indicating that all you can do is write, never read.

    Saddam Hussein did not illegally have Kurds killed. He made it legally right to do so.

    Yet somehow in this case what the legal law said was irrelevant because the one breaking the law that should be there was writing the laws.

    In this case, the only difference being you worship corporate criminality because you have a chance of gorging at the trough, whereas you weren't getting your beak wet in Iraq.

  11. Wanted by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    A crisply-produced short commercial of a Three Card Monte game involving Dollars, Pounds, and Euros backed by a jaunty piano soundtrack.

    Apple. Steal Different.

  12. This is how you know by erroneus · · Score: 1

    These things have been going on since forever and it has always been a well-known secret. But as times get increasingly desperate, governments and banks get increasingly worse about trying to squeeze money through taxes and fees respectively.

    But this is how you know when things are about to turn bad. Just as with the 2008 collapse, weird things were going on with banks. "Economists" on the news would stand up there claiming everything is doing well and that anyone who says different is a nut job. And what did I read the other day? Something about letting banks, once again, repackage risky debt into commodities again? We know that's a huge part of what went wrong in the first place. So why do it again? They know the end is close and they are just trying to get their last bit before things shut down finally.

    Yeah, I know... all doom and gloom. But just because the truth tastes bad doesn't mean it's not the truth. We've seen it before. We saw what they did. We see they want to do it again. What does anyone THINK is going to happen?

  13. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by lxs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Technically it's tax avoidance, which is immoral but not illegal.

  14. common practice by Tom · · Score: 1

    Every large corporation does it, and there are tons of lawyers and tax consultants who specialise in exactly this kind of stuff.

    It's probably the largest organized crime in the history of mankind, except that through lobbying or sometimes outright bribery, it's actually legal. Well, it's borderline legal, and you get cases like this every time a tax consultant became a tad too creative and crossed the line.

    But it's theft, plain an simple, and every idiot who cheers the corporations should hold it for a second and think about who is going to pay for the missing taxes. Yes, that's right, same idiot. If you wonder why your taxes have been increasing, it's because corporate taxes are dropping. If not on paper (though in many countries there as well) than in reality through tax evasion.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:common practice by phayes · · Score: 1

      It's not theft until it is an act defined as theft in the lawbooks! It's not a crime to follow the laws as they are written. If you want to outlaw the practice, then change the law.

      If it is your position that you get to define what is & what isn't legal without using the law well then so does everyone else. It becomes normal for me to call you a rapist whether or not you have committed acts prohibited by law for example.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    2. Re:common practice by Vaphell · · Score: 1

      so how about keeping it simple. Set the corporate tax to 10% no ifs no buts and get rid of all the bs. Why is there a corporate tax anyway? Corps are merely pass-through entities that can uproot and move with few strokes of a pen. Just wait at the exit, where the money gets passed to the flesh-and-bone people who actually get to spend it.

      I've read somewhere that the compliance with the US tax code costs in aggregate something to the tune of 200 billion dollars. Nobody cares about that but that's countless man-hours thrown at a completely unproductive activity, a pure waste.

    3. Re:common practice by Tom · · Score: 1

      so how about keeping it simple. Set the corporate tax to 10% no ifs no buts and get rid of all the bs.

      A professor of economics in Switzerland once did this excercise. He calculated what the tax level would be if there would be a flat income tax for everyone, at the same rate, with no exceptions.

      It turned out that it was considerably below the level that most people pay today. How is that possible? Because the higher you get the more exceptions you can make use of.

      A short-lived attempt was made to bring this revelation into politics and thus tax laws. It was extremely short-lived. I only heard about it second hand (I don't live in Switzerland), but I can imagine that you could've witnessed an incredible spectacle of overkill as everyone with money brought their lobbyism dogs to bite.

      Corps are merely pass-through entities that can uproot and move with few strokes of a pen.

      That's neo-conservative bullshit. A company does not move easily. It is far, far easier for you and me to move somewhere else than it is for a company. That is because while you and me lose friends and leave family behind, the company will lose business contacts and employees - a study showed that moving the corporate headquarters means you lose about half of your employees either immediately or within the first two years (a lot of them follow, but move back after a while).

      The costs of moving are massive for a corporate entity.

      I've read somewhere that the compliance with the US tax code costs

      You've got it easy. I live in Germany. There's a legend that half of the tax laws world-wide are german.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:common practice by Tom · · Score: 1

      If it is your position that you get to define what is & what isn't legal without using the law well then so does everyone else.

      Legally speaking, you are entirely correct. However, we are not in a court of law, we are on an Internet blog. I can say "theft" here even if legally speaking it is tax evasion in the same way that corporate lawyers say "theft" or "piracy" in the media, but of course use the legally correct term "copyright infringement" when they are in front of a judge.

      And yes, I am all for changing the laws. Don't forget that a lot of the stuff common today used to be illegal until neo-conservatives corrupted our governments and forced "de-regulations" through.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    5. Re:common practice by UnHolier+than+ever · · Score: 1

      so how about keeping it simple. Set the corporate tax to 10% no ifs no buts and get rid of all the bs..

      But 10% of what? That's where the real issue is - what is a profit? Payroll taxes and dividend taxes are typically not an issue, it's easy to track money that actually goes to someone's pockets, it's what happens before it's actually given to someone, when it slushes around different country, that is the issue.

    6. Re:common practice by Vaphell · · Score: 1

      You've got it easy. I live in Germany. There's a legend that half of the tax laws world-wide are german.

      i'm not from the US :) Either way that legend is hard to believe. Reportedly the US code itself is 16k pages and with the IRS rulings you get to 73k o.O
      According to the internet France is somewhere around 2k pages and i doubt Germany is different.

      as for corps not being easy to uproot - well, what you say is probably true. Still, individuals don't hire whole departments of people whose only job is to shave off 1% here and there that will translate to hundreds of millions. With that kind of incentive you can afford to set up all kinds of schemes involving dozens of entities, subsidiaries and all that BS that will make the taxman's head spin.

    7. Re:common practice by Tom · · Score: 1

      Germany is also a federation. We have 16 states that all have their own tax laws in addition to the federal taxes.

      I do think it's exaggerated, too. But it's tricky to declare your yearly income tax without software or a tax consultant.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  15. It sounds like the issue is where sales are made by usuallylost · · Score: 1

    They don't explain the nature of the tax dispute in any detail in the article. What they do say makes it sound like the source of the dispute is that people are ordering Apple products in Italy and the orders are being fulfilled by their subsidiary in Ireland. So the profits are getting booked in Ireland vs. Italy because that is the unit that made the sale. It goes on to say that there is a proposal by the government of Italy to force any company that advertises in and sells online in Italy to do its order fulfillment via "agencies with a tax presence in Italy". I am somewhat sympathetic to countries trying to capture tax revenues from business in their countries. I am far less sympathetic to the idea that they are going to place local presence requirements in order to do online business in Italy. If every country did that it would pretty much end international online sales for anything but the largest companies. Places like Apple and Amazon who can afford, and indeed probably already have, local presence or partners. It will totally screw smaller Internet based merchants that don't have such a presence.

  16. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    technically whenever justices wish using loopholes that go clearly against intent of the law is illegal, turning tax avoidance into tax evasion.

  17. Say it ain't so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple not paying its share. Oh the humanity of it all! I just wonder when people will finally go to those Apple anonymous meetings and get off the Apple juice.

  18. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    It's absolutely no different from Hollywood Accounting. . . Because they're avoiding taxes by tricks.

    Um, that's a contradiction. Corporations like Apple pay less in taxes because they can find loopholes. That's very different than a corporation basically lying to their creditors about how much money they made. I suspect that the Italian government, because it is desperate for money, are now going after practices that they've allowed for years even though tax laws have not changed.

    In crisis-hit Italy, tax authorities faced with dwindling revenues have become more aggressive with domestic and multinational companies.

    They have two options

    Or they can wait until the audit is over and Italy finds that they did nothing wrong.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  19. Re:It sounds like the issue is where sales are mad by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Informative

    there's no issue about where the sales are made actually in this.

    what they have done is artificially move the on-paper profits to the ireland based entity - which is owned by the same people. sales are done in italy, but they're claiming that they make no profit from the sales in italy because they (on paper only, mind you, it's not like they're actually ferrying the shit through ireland) buy the devices at retail price from the another entity in the business which is based in ireland.

    why is it important to squash this practice eventually? well doh, there wouldn't be any taxes to be paid on any corporate profits stemming from sales anywhere else than ireland in europe if they don't do something about it(the alternative is in practicality to raise VAT so that all corporate profits taxing comes from VAT... which might not be that bad of an idea, alternatively force ireland to change it's laws to stop acting as a tax haven stopgap for this purpose)..

    "ASI contracts with mainly Chinese companies to manufacture iPads and iPhones. ASI then sells these products to another Irish company which resells them to retail subsidiaries in Italy and other European countries.

    The pricing of the inter-company transactions ensures that the lion's share of the profit ends up with ASI, the Senate report said. Low profits in countries like Italy mean low tax payments there."

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  20. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by Xest · · Score: 2

    Well in this case, apparently not.

    I think that's precisely why Apple is being investigated here, what's mere avoidance in other countries sounds like it may well be evasion in Italy.

  21. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They do business in Italy. They get money in Italy.

    They do business in Ireland and they sell to customers in Italy. The whole point of the EU is it's a single market, that means, you can establish your company once and sell to everyone within that market. If you set up in Ireland and sell to Italians, not only is that not tax evasion, that is the point of the EU in the first place!

    These companies have all had exactly the same tax arrangements for years and as Apple point's out in the article, have been repeatedly audited and passed. In fact Italy appears to have audited Apple three years in a row, which seems only explainable as harassment - tax audits are supposed to be semi-random spot checks to ensure compliance. If you pass an audit, getting audited the next year is just a waste of time and money for all concerned.

    What's happening now is that a lot of governments around the world, having spent many decades promoting trade and economic integration when times were good and they had excessively cheap credit, now decided that maybe free trade isn't such a hot idea after all. After all, it might mean that other countries who you trade with end up more appealing to do business in. Ireland has had a long-standing policy of aggressively attracting international businesses with low tax rates, it's a very popular policy amongst the people in Ireland, and in fact until their government foolishly panicked and committed to a full bailout of their banks their economy was doing great. If the Italians are now mad about it, they have two choices:

    1) Start rolling back the EU single market, then they can pass rules that say "if you want to sell stuff to Italians, you must run your business out of Italy and pay whatever taxes we want to do that" (of course this means some companies won't bother)

    2) Deal with it and find other sources of revenue, whilst enjoying the fact that when Italian companies sell to the Irish, the Italians get to keep the corporate tax from that.

    Right now governments are trying to do both simultaneously, which is why they grind to a halt in an internal deadlock of contradictions and you get bizarre setups like companies buying things from themselves.

    Apple specifically will "solve itself" after a while because probably, Ireland will start making them corporation tax in Ireland safe in the knowledge that it's still more appealing than the alternatives. However this will not satisfy other members of the EU who dislike tax competition.

    By the way, your post is very emotional. Tax should not be an emotional topic. Tax is (or rather should be) a technical matter in which people analyze the most efficient ways to raise the revenues governments need to function. Whether corporation tax is even a good idea at all is a matter of some debate in academic circles - the fact that you're trying to tax an entity that doesn't actually have any specific physical location is one reason why everyone ends up feeling like it's "not fair".

  22. Netherlands has the same situation. by dexpetkovic · · Score: 1

    By some reason, I came across a writing on a Dutch Apple store website in which it says that VAT on software is 23%. Knowing that the VAT in the Netherlands is 21%, I read the disclaimer and the tax is 23% to all services. The services include software and once purchased, sw is "shipped" from Ireland. Maybe the Dutch have arranged it differently. I am not sure if Dutch Apple subsidiary is paying taxes to Dutch or Irish state, since the below statement does not clarify that: Excerpt from http://store.apple.com/nl/help/payments "Voor klanten van Apple die in de Apple Store elektronische softwaredownloads bestellen of andere producten die worden aangemerkt als diensten, geldt een btw-tarief van 23%. Elektronische softwaredownloads worden beschouwd als dienstverlening, en niet als product. Aangezien de dienst wordt geleverd vanuit Ierland, geldt een btw-tarief van 23%." translated: "For Apple customers who order from the Apple Store Electronic Software Downloads or other products classified as services, applies a VAT rate of 23%. Electronic software downloads are considered as services, and not as a product. Since the service is supplied from Ireland, a VAT rate of 23% applies."

    1. Re:Netherlands has the same situation. by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 1

      No tax evasion here.

      If the order is fulfilled from the servers that reside in Eire then you pay the VAT applicable for Eire.
      There is a space on the VAT form to record the VAT you have collected on behalf of other EU countries.
      I have the same gripe with Adobe. Buy a DVD and you pay 20% because it is shipped from Scotland(I'm in the UK). Download it and you pay 23% because their servers are in Eire.

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    2. Re:Netherlands has the same situation. by dexpetkovic · · Score: 1

      Exactly, makes sense. So basically what Apple store does is that it pays tax on behalf of Eire.

  23. Avoidance = Evasion by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Technically it's tax avoidance

    Avoidance is a synonym for evasion. A distinction without a difference whether it is legal or not. They might be obeying the letter of the law but it is tax evasion nonetheless.

    1. Re:Avoidance = Evasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legally they're distinctly different.

    2. Re:Avoidance = Evasion by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Not it’s not. Let’s talk about “Transfer Pricing” which is subjective. Issue like this happen because the tax rules in the two different countries and not aligned. It is a subjective quagmire with no correct answer. Heck, I am hard pressed to think of 2 countries where they are aligned. However, there are rational solutions out there.

      Apple (Ireland) and Apple (Italy) sell a product and make $100 in profit.

      Apple claims most of the profit was made in Ireland and is subject to Ireland’s low taxes. But then again they structure the prices (and thus profits) at which the two units transfer goods between them to minimize the taxes.

      Italy claims 100% of the profit was made in Italy and should pay Italian taxes. But then again they are broke and looking to tax anyone except their own voters.

    3. Re:Avoidance = Evasion by peppepz · · Score: 1

      But then again they are broke and looking to tax anyone except their own voters.

      Actually, they're taxing their voters like there's no tomorrow. Italy has a fiscal pressure over GDP of 54%, which makes it the most taxed state among the developed countries. In a time when families are expected to give to the State more money than they can keep, I can't see anything questionable in asking Apple to pay up, or alternatively sell their phones to the Irish.

    4. Re:Avoidance = Evasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then again they are broke and looking to tax anyone except their own voters.

      Yeah sure, come here [Italy] and get your 30k/y income taxed @ 54% and make a living with what's left, facing one of the most expensive markets in the EU when it comes to groceries and fundamental goods/services, not to mention the illusion of free health care, which you have to avoid and go private if you get anything more serious than a bu-bu on your finger.

      Italy is broke, and it doesn't give a shit who it can tax, voters or otherwise. The will come at you even if the chances they will have to actually fine you are 1%. Only difference, Apple has the money and lawyers to defend itself. I don't. Most of what I pay in taxes feels like extortion. If an accounting error in the public offices (not in my book-keeping) fines me for anything between 1 and 3k EU, I'm better off paying it than face the expenses, time and effort to actually contest it.

      Ciao,

      Sent from the most beautiful place in the world, where you can enjoy the view while being butt-fucked (dry of course).

  24. Re: If they're based in Ireland, why are they in I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Irish economy was not doing great before the bailout. The fact that they couldn't raise interest rates burnt them badly when their economy overheated.

  25. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All big American companies do that in Europe, Micro$oft is another bright example.
    They open a subsidiary in the European country with the lowest taxes (namely Ireland) and make business in whole Europe.
    Sometimes they get caught because they don't clean up properly.

    And this is why Apple is in Italy even though it's based in Ireland.

  26. Guardia di Finanza by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not the people to mess around with, indeed.

    Back in the 80's, I was riding with a friend in Sicily... the GF unit that stopped us to check that the appropriate tax stamps were on licenses, registration, etc., were openly carrying fully automatic submachine guns....

  27. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Corporations like Apple pay less in taxes because they can find loopholes.

    We call them loopholes specifically because they present a way to do a run around the intent of the law. Simply by speaking English correctly you have doomed your own argument.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  28. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by phayes · · Score: 1

    I'd be extremely surprised if it was Tax Evasion as Apple has very competent lawyers and accountants and the methods employed are clearly legal according to the laws as they stand. If Italy changes their laws to make the Double Irish illegal & Apple still tried to tunnel their profits out of Italy using it, then it would be illegal.

    Every single state in the EU has refused to outlaw the strategy Apple, Google, Starbucks, etc are using because unless they all change at the same time, the countries that outlaw it would be at a competitive disadvantage. EU politicians need to grow some stones and work out a plan for outlawing the practice globally in the EU or stop whining when the laws they write are followed as they are written.

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  29. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    So you are an expert on Italian law? It is a common trick used by many companies but it is illegal in most places. The hard part for the local tax offices though is to prove the internal pricing between Apple offices is fraudulent.

  30. Tax incidence by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Ha-ha. Who do you think pays the money to the corporations that they then hand it to the government?

    You are talking about tax incidence.

    Corporate taxes are just a way to tax more money from 'the people' while getting idiots like yourself to cheer it on.

    In many cases you are quite correct but that logic falls apart somewhat (though not completely) when you are talking about large multi-nationals where the company owners might not be citizens of the taxing country. The mere fact that Apple is headquartered in the US means relatively little by itself. Apple really is a bunch of companies under an umbrella company. Figuring out just how profitable the Italian subsidiary of Apple happens to be is a shockingly imprecise exercise that gets into all kinds of transfer pricing and other arcane accounting prone to fudging even by well intentioned people. (I'm a certified accountant so I ought to know) So owning a piece of a multinational can end up being a tax evasion strategy (by keeping the money in the company) unless you tax the corporation directly in certain cases.

  31. Well I never. by DrPBacon · · Score: 1

    Off with their heads!

    --
    Spent All My Mod Points
  32. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

    It is closer than you think. Neither case is about lying.

    In Apple’s case they are shifting the profit (and thus taxes) from Italy to Ireland. Is Apple doing this to boost profits? Yes. Is there a large amount of subjectivity in meshing Irish and Italian tax codes together? Yes. Should a country be able to structure its tax code to boost growth? Yes.

    In Hollywood they shift revenue (and thus payouts) from the movie to the production and distribution companies. I have a lower regard for Hollywood accounting because the movie, production, and distribution companies are all controlled by the same group of people and is a example of self-dealing but that is a different story.

  33. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

    Well in this case, apparently not.

    I think that's precisely why Apple is being investigated here, what's mere avoidance in other countries sounds like it may well be evasion in Italy.

    that's exactly the case. the judiciary in Italy have given an enormously lax interpretation of abuse of law, to the extent that it is in the sole and retrospective interpretation of the tax authorities to say what the law actually intended years ago. Mind you, that leads to byzantine tax laws, since the legislator has no interest whatsoever to do it right the first time.

    --
    "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
  34. Tax Free Tour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From OP: "Apple pays every dollar and euro it owes in taxes and we are continuously audited by governments around the world," the company said in a statement.

    BULL*cough*SHIT:
    Where do multinationals pay taxes and how much? Spoiler: nowhere, anything.

    Here's how 99% of Wall Street gets away with effectively paying 0%: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4o13isDdfY - The Tax Free Tour (VPRO, Marije Meerman, 1h docu)

  35. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by Krneki · · Score: 1

    Anyone with a positive IQ know what is going on and in the current form it's legal.

    What the prosecution hopes is to find an error somewhere and make them pay a fine.

    They are tackling global tax avoidance in the most stupid way and it's not an Apple problem, any company that earns enough pays income taxes only if they want.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  36. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorta.

    Read this (set aside about 2-4 hours to do it)
    http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/contents.html

    Now realize this. Different govs are all trying to game the system. They are trying to create equality amongst the people. You will see things like "fair" "not taxed enough" etc...

    What this book demonstrates is that all of these feel good programs end up doing pretty much the opposite of what they set out to do.

    For example right now we have our interest rates near 0 (like we did in the 60s). You can not beat the market. It *will* come back the other way. We already have high commodities inflation (hidden by the fact they do not measure it anymore, my guess about 20-30% in the past 8-10 years). We will have high interest rates in the future. Count on it. Sorry bit OT.

    Anyway, given that the governments are gaming the system. It stands to reason that individuals and corporations could game it as well. Especially companies like Google and Apple who have very smart people working for them. Exploiting loopholes for their advantage. In this case instead of wealth coming back to the 'owner' it gets funneled somewhere else to hide it from taxes. Which means it sits in a bank somewhere or is invested somewhere. Now banks being lenders of money lend out that money or it is already directly invested.

    So instead of thinking those awful corps 'stealing' money. They are basically creating more jobs with that money than any gov ever will. They just are not creating the jobs here. It will happen wherever the money gets parked at and loaned back out and have the resources to use that loaned money.

    Perhaps we should address our awful tax policies? What makes a corp want to keep its money on the other side of the world? Creating Rube Goldberg like corporate structures whos only lot in life are to hide money and not create wealth. Why is this happening? Poor tax structures with high rates of confiscation if you do not game the system. For example lets say Apple made 1 billion dollars. Then decided to bring it all home. They would pay 350million dollars in taxes. Money that many argue is being spent on pointless wars and "standard of life" programs.

  37. Jobs' legacy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This does not surprise me in the least.

  38. Re: If they're based in Ireland, why are they in I by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

    Yes, they were doing pretty great, so great that the name "Celtic Tiger" was invented specifically to describe the Irish economy.

    Like most economies that have inflationary currencies, this led to exuberance and dumping of money into a housing bubble, on the theory that whilst money inflates away houses don't. Being in the Euro had nothing to do with this, it's a disease that affected the USA and the UK as well, even though they have their own currencies and central banks. In fact these governments (but especially the UK) were all desperately trying to push people into the housing bubble due a massive and misguided social engineering program rooted in the belief that home-ownership is an end rather than a means.

    But this is not specific to Ireland. It's actually a problem fundamental to an environment with compound inflation (recall that at 2% per year, prices go up every year by more than the previous year because inflation is expressed as a percentage rise on the previous year, not a fixed reference point).

    Quoting the wikipedia article I linked:

    During that time, Ireland experienced a boom, which transformed it from one of Europe's poorer countries into one of its wealthiest. The causes of Ireland's growth are the subject of some debate, but credit has been primarily given to state-driven economic development; social partnership among employers, government and unions; increased participation by women in the labour force; decades of investment in domestic higher education; targeting of foreign direct investment; a low corporation tax rate; an English-speaking workforce; and membership of the European Union which provided transfer payments and export access to the Single Market.

    So they went from one of the poorest countries in Europe to being equal to some of the best in only a couple of decades, and a big chunk of that was due to low corporation tax (but not necessarily low taxes in general, mind you) combined with access to the single market.

    The Irish people love their low corporation taxes and did not really raise them even during the global recession, because they have attracted tons of very high-skilled jobs from well known, rich corporations - companies like Apple, Google, Intel and others. The latter two alone created tens of thousands of jobs, which in a small country is a Big Deal, and they're far from the only ones. So not surprisingly, a policy that has created a spigot of good local jobs is popular - a government with higher tax revenues but that spends it all on welfare is not obviously a better state to be in.

    This isn't necessarily a strategy that can be replicated everywhere: Ireland was catching up from behind during its boom years, not accelerating ahead of all the other countries. And some of its appeal to international companies was the fact that it wasn't very rich, so wages weren't extremely high. But there are other parts of Europe that are now also behind (think: Spain, Portugal, northern England), so perhaps they can consider whether the same strategy would help.

    Some will say this leads to a race to the bottom, and there's some truth to that, but the question is does it matter? It's not like taxing corporations is the only way to raise revenue. Indeed, if you trace a money flow, you'll see that when someone buys something, there's sales tax/VAT paid on that. Then (ignoring the case where the money is sent back to HQ abroad for a moment), it's booked as profit and tax is paid on that too, and then the company pays its wages and possibly pays employment taxes as part of that, and of course property taxes for the place where the employees work, the employee pays income taxes on their wages as well, and in some places also pays a wealth tax at the end. So by the time the money has flowed from one person to another (which is what we really care about, given that economies are ultimately made of and in service of people), it's been taxed many times repeatedl

  39. Killing jurds was legal too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gassing Jews? legal.

    Being a colony of the British Empire and taxed unequally? Legal.

    Yet somehow merely being legal isn't enough: these actions were wrong, despite being legal.

    Moreover, if something being legal were the end of the matter, then you would not need juries: just read the law.

  40. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by mjwalshe · · Score: 2

    And a lot of eu states are not happy with the way Ireland behaves over this - I suspect that a quick cut to the CAP (farm) subsidy and removing it from the list of "poor" countrys that get EU infrastructure funds would bring Ireland into line.

  41. Same back at you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, since that executive compensation came from the people who pay taxes and buy stuff with what's left over, how does that make the government grabbing as much as it spends wrong and CEOs doing the same fine?

    Answer: it doesn't.

    And if it doesn't negate the point that governments raise taxes constantly (which is 100% false) why does that make CEO compensation growing constantly (in fact, as opposed to fiction) and VASTLY FASTER than taxes have EVER grown right?

    Answer: it doesn't.

  42. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    (insert here any, and I mean abso-lu-freakin'-any government spending level, borrowing level, or political narrative blasted over speakers to masses who help you take power by the abstraction of might makes right called The Vote) and those guys over there need to pay their fair share!

    Take a bigger percent. Repeat again next year.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  43. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should a country be able to structure its tax code to boost growth?

    No.

  44. There wasn't any argument there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All it said was a hand-washy "certain things".

    WHAT things?

    WHY?

    HOW?

    Nothing said on that, just a "certain things" for which we're supposed to work out both what they are and how they apply.

    This isn't any form whatsoever of an argument, merely an avoidance of one.

  45. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    From my understanding Hollywood accounting categories costs for items that are not costs or calculates costs based on formulas rather than actual numbers. The thing with Hollywood accounting is that it hasn't ever passed legal muster. The companies do everything in their power to avoid this or even to disclose details. Legal loopholes like the ones Apple and Google use are actually codified. Although Ireland has issues with what Apple did, it was perfectly legal. Ireland has to change their laws to avoid it.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  46. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Yes but requires them to actually change their tax codes. In this case it seems Italy wants to disallow practices they have allowed in the past without having to change anything in their codes.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  47. Hardly immoral by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Technically it's tax avoidance, which is immoral but not illegal.

    Given what most governments do with the money, it doesn't seem at all immoral to withhold as much as possible from them (especially the Italian government).

    Remember that your tax dollars are funding the NSA.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  48. Look Around for Reality by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    you get a vicious circle where a small group ends up looting the entire economy,

    You should really try traveling more. Because from a lot of travels in Europe and Africa, even the poor in the U.S. have quite a good lifestyle.

    How is it looting when everyone benefits?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  49. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    If you actually read above you'd see that's not the crux of argument. Is a corporation lying about their accounting and keep secret their methods the same as a corporation following the rules of law in lowering their taxes? Since Hollywood accounting has never been definitively declared in a court as legal or not, that defeats your limited understanding of the nuance. Is my English clear enough for you?

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  50. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    The EU is already working on a fix. The plan is to make any company that does business in the EU pay tax proportionate to the amount of business it does in each member state, regardless of where it is based or how much money it claims to be losing due to nonsense licensing fees etc. You do business here, you pay, simple as that.

    Naturally the Irish and UK governments are against it, but seems likely they won't be able to stop it happening.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  51. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    The whole point of the EU is it's a single market, that means, you can establish your company once and sell to everyone within that market.

    Except that Apple does have an Italian corporation that runs its stores there, provides tech support, advertising, manages the local business and so forth. That company just doesn't make any profit because it has to pay crippling licensing fees to Apple Ireland, a shell company. Strangely though it doesn't go out of business despite these losses.

    The Italians quite correctly recognize this arrangement as bullshit, a silly tax dodging scheme designed to prevent an Italian company paying its fair share of tax.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  52. Yes, it's called clarifying the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's the main reason why many countries have a common law system.

    Where actual case law clarifies the law without having to change the wording of the law.

    Apparently you want them to change their legal system without changing their legal system's procedures.

    1. Re:Yes, it's called clarifying the law. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Really? In years past I was able to deduct certain things on my taxes. Now my state decides those are no longer deductions but the tax code hasn't changed. Is that clarifying or changing?

      Apparently you want them to change their legal system without changing their legal system's procedures.

      Er what? Apparently you want countries to change laws without having to go through their constitutional processes whatsoever. Today in Italy, theft is now considered murder. New head of state, new meanings.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  53. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

    O.K. – I will bite. If Ireland can’t structure its tax code and shouldn’t determine how their economy should run, who should? And if the answer is Italy, does that mean Argentina gets to run Italy’s revenue service?

  54. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by jarle.aase · · Score: 1

    Technically it's tax avoidance, which is immoral but not illegal.

    I would say that not paying taxes to /any/ government is the most moral thing a man can do.

  55. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technically it's tax avoidance, which is immoral but not illegal.

    That used to be the case - but a lot of countries over here have suddenly discovered they are stoney-broke and that the amount of tax lost from technically legal 'avoidance' is a damn good chunk of the money they are 'missing'.

    So now some of them are busily re-defining and rewriting legislation to make it both immoral and illegal - as it always should have been.

    However, they will of course leave in some 'accidental' loop-holes for themselves to abuse and the whole cycle will start again, changing absolutely fuck all... but oh well :)

  56. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Failing to starve the beast is immoral. Tax avoidance is not only moral, it's an imperative.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  57. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

    Italy actually still cares about the spirit/intent of the law apparently. Something blatantly done to get around paying a proper percentage of taxes from their standpoint should be punishable.

    When it comes to tax law I don't agree with this, because governments waste/funnel taxes en masse a la the NSA comment above. However there are many instances in the US justice system where a "technicality" or "loophole" was the definitive argument in a case. At some point we went from valuing the letter of the law over the spirit of the law, and it's a really bad idea.

    It wastes judicial resources, it can be used for selective prosecution (they only prosecute the technicality in certain cases since it's obscure), and because of it innocent people go to jail. Further blatantly guilty people are able to walk free because they spent millions on a legal team. We in the US (sorry if you aren't from here and this offends you) no longer trust officials to actually make a judgement is the root of the matter, and clearly Italy still does.

  58. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    It's not some secret that Apple has been doing this for years. Many other companies like Google do the same. And Italy was fine with it as Apple passed audits for many years. Now Italy thinks differently because they are facing financial crisis. If Italy cared all along, they didn't care enough to address it earlier.

    From what I know of the Italian government, judgment changes based on whoever is in power at the moment. The shed I built last year was up to code. New government, new judgment --> now I have to pay for a "permit" because the local government wants more money. Should that be allowed?

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  59. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

    Whether corporation tax is even a good idea at all is a matter of some debate in academic circles - the fact that you're trying to tax an entity that doesn't actually have any specific physical location is one reason why everyone ends up feeling like it's "not fair".

    Well they receive protection from law enforcement and enjoy the privilege of appeal to the courts, separately from the individuals who own interest in the corporation, so why should they not pay taxes?

  60. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Well in this case, apparently not.

    I think that's precisely why Apple is being investigated here, what's mere avoidance in other countries sounds like it may well be evasion in Italy.

    RTFA - they did the same investigation the last couple of years and nothing came of it. This is nothing but the Italian government trying to give the Italians the impression they are trying to balance the budget by getting money from the evil Americans. Hey, and it even works in the US.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  61. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

    It's bad but not that bad.

    What I think you are referring to is the expense accounting of capital interest charges, depreciation of intangibles, etc. These areas are actually codified. Except the code did not expect such a creative / aggressive approach.

    For example, if it takes me 3 years to build a skyscraper I can take the interest that I was charged on the construction loan, capitalize it, roll into the costs basis of the building and depreciate over the life of the building - 30 years. That’s legit.

    If it takes me 3 years to produce a movie, (from a mere idea to being on the silver screen), can I capitalize my costs and depreciate them over the life of the movie - 50 years? I would say no, but.

  62. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    As a person, that sort of thing is a problem. As an international corporation, you have choices as to where you do business.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  63. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With so many posts below you, I don't know if you will read my comment. But if you do, I'd want your opinion about this.

    If Americans living overseas are subject to American income tax, and if corporations are people, then should corporations be able to avoid paying American income tax when they move overseas? Or should they be subject to it like flesh-and-blood people?

    I would propose that any business born in the USA should be subject to income tax even if they move overseas, for a period not less than 10 years. Of course, out of fairness, the rate should be adjusted. So if in that foreign country they're paying X%, and they'd normally be subject to Y% in the USA, they'd have to pay (Y-X)% in the USA. Or something like that.

  64. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Corporations like Apple pay less in taxes because they can find loopholes.

    We call them loopholes specifically because they present a way to do a run around the intent of the law. Simply by speaking English correctly you have doomed your own argument.

    Laws aren't defined by "intent" but by the words they are written in. If the lawmakers fuck up, it's their fault.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  65. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    In the EU as a company, you are allowed to declare the EU country to base taxes. Apple chose Ireland. This was supposed to be one of the benefits of the EU. Companies would no longer have to tangle with each EU country's tax codes, but just one. After the financial crisis, Italy wants more money and have tried for years to audit Apple in getting more revenue, but Apple has passed each year. At best, Ireland might get more taxes from Apple, not Italy. So Italy either has to change their tax codes (which would irk all other EU companies) or find other means.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  66. Re:If they're based in Ireland, why are they in It by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Hollywood accounting is more complex at the macroscopic and microscopic level. Many studios create subsidiaries which "made" the movie. The parent company collects revenue from ticket sales, licensing, etc. The subsidiary charges the parent company the cost of the movie. Often the cost is the same amount as revenue. At the microscopic level, these subsidiaries charge exorbitant rates. For example, the cost of set location is not what it cost to truly build and maintain that set. Personnel are also charged extremely high rates. Salaried personnel are charge many times their salary when split over many movies. If it were a normal business arrangement, the client would balk if they paid $40,000 for an assistant for a month's work ($480,000/yr for an assistant who is paid $30,000/yr in salary). But the client is the parent company so the parent's overall bottom line isn't affected. But per film, the studio lost money.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.