Slashdot Mirror


Google Agrees To Pay 130M UK Pounds (~ $185M) In Back Taxes (telegraph.co.uk)

whoever57 writes: Google UK has come to an agreement with HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) under which it will recognize a larger share of its UK sales in the UK, instead of funnelling them through the Republic of Ireland. In addition, Google will pay 130M UK Pounds in back taxes representing tax on sales since 2005.

87 comments

  1. And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes... by tlambert · · Score: 1

    And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes... since the income is being realized in the UK instead of Ireland, retroactively.

    Right?

    Right?

  2. Can they afford it? by Mitreya · · Score: 1, Funny

    Google will pay 130M UK Pounds in back taxes representing tax on sales since 2005.

    Isn't UK worried about bankrupting Google into going out of business?

    The agreement, which comes after a six-year HMRC investigation

    Is it at all possible that they spent more than 130M worth investigating this?

    1. Re:Can they afford it? by Greyfox · · Score: 2

      Heh no kidding. Google might have to resort to scrounging in the employee break room couches for that much money! They're either not doing a particularly good job of evading taxes, or they're doing a really good job of evading taxes.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:Can they afford it? by tlambert · · Score: 1

      They're either not doing a particularly good job of evading taxes, or they're doing a really good job of evading taxes.

      Most likely, they are doing this because if realized income on auctions for AdWords counts as a payment negotiation taking place in the UK when the auction goes to a winner for a particular AdWords auction, even though such things as bid amount and so on are automated "negotiations".

      If I were cynical, I'd say they were making agreements like this in order to act as a market barrier to entry for competitors: pay a small enough amount that it doesn't hurt Google, but a large enough amount that matching it would bankrupt a potential competitor. I suppose we won't know whether this cynical view is in any way correct, until Microsoft (Bing), Facebook, or other sites complain about, or support, the outcome.

    3. Re:Can they afford it? by Malc · · Score: 2

      They can afford to build a billion quid campus in King's Cross. 130MM doesn't sound like they're paying enough taxes to me.

      http://uk.businessinsider.com/...

    4. Re: Can they afford it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google took $66 billion in revenue last year alone. 9% of that was from the UK. Given that their net is reported as about 10% of that (which may also be "creatively" reported), thats 660M profit last year alone from the UK. This is meant to be 11 years back taxes, so this seems far too low. Sounds like nothing more than a face saving token gesture in an attempt to keep the proles from grumbling about US corporations leeching money out of the UK, while at the same time allowing them to continue with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

    5. Re: Can they afford it? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I am taking your statements at face value and as being truthful. I do, technically, own shares in Google and can look at their financial filings but I am taking you at your word. Now, I have a few dollars. My account was actually one of the "lead" accountants for my State's Revenue Department. That's why I hired her. She's really, really good. I have survived two audits. I do not personally but I do technically do quite a bit to reduce my tax burden - entirely lawful.

      That, claiming that a mere 10% is net, or taxable income, is so obviously bogus that I am actually impressed. It's horrific, it's wrong, but it is technically possible to do that. You can amortize assets, you can build, you can defer certain types of income, and all sorts of things with the US tax code. I don't even begin to understand it. I actually reduce my tax burden by donations to charitable causes - I consider that taxation with representation and it's legal. I also mostly do long-term investments now so I'm taxed at capital gains rates as opposed to income tax rates. One year, I paid a tax rate of 8% and I got audited. I passed - it was all legal. I hadn't actually spent much that year but I'd donated more than I could write off so I got to reduce it that far. On average, my tax rate would be 23% (State and Federal - capital gains) and I usually specifically aim to pay 15% and don't bother writing down/off more than that.

      But, Google's got to be doing some VERY fancy math to come up with 10% net. I have no idea what the UK's tax code is like but if it is like the US tax code they're straight up doing everything they can to reduce their tax burden. I suspect they did stuff like donate to school programs, property improvements, building, amortized servers, all that stuff. That's just sad but impressive at the same time. I almost feel bad owning Google shares when I read shit like this. That's a dangerous game they're playing - I went through two audits and came out fine but I can imagine they're really, really gonna want a peek at Google's accounting records. They've gotta have employees saving things like lunch receipts to get it that low.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re: Can they afford it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      err accountant* (tired)

    7. Re: Can they afford it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same AC here as parent you were responding to. I got my figures by quickly skimming news articles from multiple sources that summarised their SEC filings rather than read them directly. As such, take what Ive said with an appropriate degree of skepticism. I dont think its that far off, but I'm no expert so obviously feel free to check for yourself. Certainly the low net seems to tally with reports of their UK profits. They have seriously invested in building new campus in London, which is both a huge immediate financial sink and a very canny asset/investment thats sure to only go up in value (unless we get a mainland war or epidemic)

    8. Re: Can they afford it? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah, someone mentioned a billion pound campus being built - and I'm not familiar with UK tax code but that's both an expense and an asset - if they write off the expense and then amortize depreciation on the asset then... Yeah, I could see that whacking a good percentage of their tax burden down to size. I'm had to gain some fluency, over the years, but my taxes are too complicated for me to do on my own and I actually have an accountant who manages my finances for me and takes care of my accounting. It's a necessity more than it is a luxury and something I picked up on while I still owned my business and have maintained ever since selling - though it's a different lady and in a new State. There are, with the US tax code, lots of ways to legally reduce your tax burden. In theory, I could pay no taxes at all with some work - some years I spend so little that I don't pay much at all (comparatively speaking).

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  3. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's how they be.

  4. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are right to be upset. This will destroy the Irish economy.

  5. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amusing how the Republican rulers of Goigle are going to destroy the Republicans in Ireland with this.

  6. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both are terrorists that have those gun things.

  7. UK Pounds? by pele · · Score: 1

    It's either £ or GBP, take your pick.

    1. Re:UK Pounds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much is that in stones? Besides, not so great in a few hundred years now, not since the Yanks kicks your butts back to the old world.

    2. Re:UK Pounds? by ledow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We'll talk when your presidential candidates understand the difference between "race", "religion" and "political idealogy".

      America is a 21st Century country still living with social norms made in the 15th Century (police abuse, civil war levels of personal armament, no healthcare service worth mentioning unless you have money, and wanting to bar all "foreigners" because they don't understand the differences between them).

    3. Re: UK Pounds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its cute how the yanks still think that their little colony mattered at that time. Still, they're well on the way to suffering the same decline. Rather than villify an empire neither of us were alive to see, perhaps you should learn from its history?

    4. Re: UK Pounds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the cry went out. Too long had the UK had all its resources stolen by the US without getting anything in return. No representation without taxation! So their companies were dissolved, and their offices filled with coffee beans and pushed into the harbour....

    5. Re:UK Pounds? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      It's either £ or GBP, take your pick.

      Or indeed £. Preview is your friend, slashcode is not.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    6. Re:UK Pounds? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Or indeed £. Preview is your friend, slashcode is not.

      I can preview £ all I like it still comes out £. If you have a suggestion as to how to avoid this I'd be keen to hear it.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  8. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by Bert64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well the phrasing "come to an agreement" says it all..
    For any normal person you don't come to an agreement with the government, they state how much tax you owe and you have to pay it or you go to jail, there's no negotiation.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  9. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes... since the income is being realized in the UK instead of Ireland, retroactively.

    No chance. Ireland is broke. Once the double-Irish tax dodgy loopholes are closed, they are going to be in some serious problems.

  10. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't care. Those people only care about money.

  11. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both groups want to blow us all up.

  12. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is depressing.

  13. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking from the people is what's these corporations are all about.

  14. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're allowed by our rulers to do this because they are our rulers.

  15. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And wanting to die means they've already won.

  16. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once had a Republican offer to buy me a drink. What he was really doing was trying to rape me. In this scenario Ireland is me and Google is the rapist.

  17. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we want to live to see the future we must stop those Republicans

  18. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The intent of the act is sometimes as important as the act.

  19. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Tepublicans have won all of their battles against the people so of course they take what they think they deserve.

  20. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things are going to get very bad here. Hopefully Goigle will get kicked out of the country for what they are about to do.

  21. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the ta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all hate your children

  22. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the ta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all hate your children

    Hence our little experiment with zika

  23. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    This. It's quite clear that this is a gentleman's agreement and not based on any taxation laws otherwise the headline would be very very different.

  24. What's in a statement? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google has come to an agreement.
    vs
    Google has agreed to a settlement.
    vs
    Google has been found guilty and are forced...

    What is the point of this? It seems very clear that this is some kind of feel good measure, a public gesture of good will. I wonder if this is part of reducing the heat on governments to close the taxation loopholes that allow this kind of activity to be legal in the first place.

    1. Re:What's in a statement? by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about google executives responding from their prison cells via their lawyers. Now that is the proper headline for multi-million dollar tax cheats. Keep in mind, mass cheating in taxes, results in austerity, where the poorest pay for the richest cheating by suffering and dying as a result of reduced social services and all those involved know this, their greed is killing people.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:What's in a statement? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Now that is the proper headline for multi-million dollar tax cheats.

      That's my point. There is no tax cheat. Other than Apple in one country all of these bastards are actually obeying the letter (but not the spirit) of the taxation laws. Which is why it's troubling that Google "reached an agreement" rather than "laws were changed and google was forced".

      What this means is that nothing has been fixed.

    3. Re:What's in a statement? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is how tax works for large corporations in the UK:

      1. Pay accountant to obfuscate your tax liability

      2. Take head of HMRC out to an expensive restaurant and have the following conversion:

      CFO: How much tax do we owe?
      HMRC: I dunno, LOL.
      CFO: Our PR department says we need to pay at least a few mill or people might start to overcome their apathy. Alternatively you could spend years taking us to court and we would win anyway, cos our lawyers are top notch. Then we can do it again every single year.
      HMRC: A few mill sounds fine. I'm ordering dessert.
      CFO: No you aren't.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:What's in a statement? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Google hasnt been found guilty of anything, as this isnt the result of a court case or judicial review - they have come to an agreement with HMRC on the basis that tax law is complicated and can be interpreted in many ways. The two parties came to an agreement and a mutual interpretation of the tax laws without having to involve an independent arbitrator (a judge).

    5. Re:What's in a statement? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind, mass cheating in taxes, results in austerity,

      That's true, but Google may have been acting in no worse faith than any other corporation. The laws are set up to permit the wealthy and corporations to avoid (not evade) taxes. Sometimes they get them a little wrong, and wind up evading instead of avoiding, but we should really not have systems that permit them to avoid more taxes than the little guy, anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:What's in a statement? by GinRummy33 · · Score: 1

      I wish I could pay my taxes for just pennies on the dollar, but this is more like pennies on the hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars. And that's supposed to make up for what they cheated out of for TEN YEARS? This is donut money for Google. It's not money to them until the word starts with a "B."

    7. Re:What's in a statement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would win even with bad lawyers, because the government barely has a case, and only has one at all now because they literally passed a law that says "if a reasonable person were to think you are being unreasonable we can charge you whatever we like". And no, this isn't an abuse of the word "literally", it actually says that and they call it the "double reasonableness test" as if saying the word twice actually makes the law twice as good.

      Effectively the UK no longer has tax law. It has a bunch of recommendations that you are expected to follow as a minimum, but ultimately you can never know how much tax you owe. It could change, retroactively, at any point.

      What the UK and its population can't accept is that Google is not, in fact, a British company. So it not paying a whole lot of UK tax is expected.

      Now with respect to this agreement, it's abundantly clear that £130M for 10 years of back taxes is nothing more than Google allowing HMRC to save face. The press have whipped up a lot of hysteria about this but the law over that 10 years was quite clear and HMRC would have lost any enforcement action.

    8. Re:What's in a statement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, exactly, is it okay for the U.K. to take money from Google? Do you walk over to your neighbor's house and take money? That sounds like *theft*. Seems like theft when the government does it too.

    9. Re:What's in a statement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry no one is taking much money from Google. If you think it's theft then I guess all taxes to you are theft.

      I guess the government could come up with a internet AD tax, somewhat like the old window tax (tax paid on number of windows in a house). That would be from googles revenues directly (on the displayer of the AD not the client). Damn maybe they should just start creating all sorts of weird taxes to make multi-nationals pay something in the country where the sales are really being made (Coffe tax, "like" tax for Facebook, Tweet tax,...).

    10. Re:What's in a statement? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Exactly, so next year they'll pay next to no tax again just like all other corporations do. My point is that this isn't good news. This is paying lipservice to the people who complain that corporations pay too little tax. It's a gift to shut up the critics, nothing more.

    11. Re:What's in a statement? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      cheated

      Before you can use that word you need to change the tax law. Google is not a charity and their shareholders would not take too kindly to voluntary overpayment of taxes.

    12. Re:What's in a statement? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      No, in April Google will pay taxes in the UK because the UK changed the law for the start of the 2015/2016 tax year as part of the Finance Bill 2015.

      No one should pay more tax than required by law, and until now its been possible to have the law require you to pay no taxes. The UK did the proper thing and changed the law to eliminate loopholes - until they did that, I was fine with Google et al paying no taxes.

    13. Re:What's in a statement? by dumky2 · · Score: 1

      I agree. The fact that this is a "settlement" rather than an actual trial in court with a judgement means it's unclear whether any law was broken or whether it's just a game of bullying.

      --
      These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
    14. Re:What's in a statement? by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      This should be in the summary, not buried several comments deep, modded only to 3. Sorry, I haven't seen /. mod points in years else I'd have put you up to 4.

    15. Re: What's in a statement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the old "I'm legally compelled to be a sociopath" corporate apologist spiel, which neglects the fairly obvious point that just paying the tax you owe without looking for elaborate loopholes involving offshore shell companies is not, in fact, overpaying.

    16. Re:What's in a statement? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      They are not idiots, they knew exactly what their greed was doing and they were witnessing the outcomes, their response, meh fuck those idiots paying us and paying our taxes, more money for us. Shallow scum supported by corrupt governments, their greed killing people.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    17. Re:What's in a statement? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Are you certain about the timing? In 2015 tax dodging was a big issue in the G20 summit. Laws were passed, agreements were made, but for the most part there was a long grace period for existing tax dodgers. The loopholes are slowly closing and even Ireland has changed the low to prevent double Irish taxation but as of 2015 that applies to only new companies, it won't be applied to existing companies until 2020, which is also consistent with measures some other countries introduced.

      At least it's a step in the right direction even if it doesn't apply from this year on.

    18. Re:What's in a statement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Effectively the UK no longer has tax law. It has a bunch of recommendations that you are expected to follow as a minimum, but ultimately you can never know how much tax you owe.

      Actually, it's incredibly easy to tell how much you owe. If you're a corporation making above £300,000 in the UK, it's 20% (check the current rate) on all profit earned in the UK.

      If you intentionally obfuscate your profit, that's your problem for making it complex, no one elses. There's no reason Google has to try and claim things are carried out offshore that are quite clearly not. The only one confusing things is Google in an attempt to evade tax.

      > What the UK and its population can't accept is that Google is not, in fact, a British company. So it not paying a whole lot of UK tax is expected.

      What the British public can't accept is that it doesn't matter if Google is a British company or not, but simply that whilst in Britain it must abide by their laws, which it's not, which is why it's now having to pay £130mill.

      > Now with respect to this agreement, it's abundantly clear that £130M for 10 years of back taxes is nothing more than Google allowing HMRC to save face.

      Why on Earth would Google pay to save HMRC's face? The fact it's in the tax avoidance/evasion business in the first place shows that Google is interested on trying to hold on to every single last penny it can. If it was happy to hand out money like that then it'd just be paying the taxes it owes in the first place.

  25. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not so bad as such. I've seen a very specific situation where a friend lived between two countries. He could have legally avoided all taxes in one, however he would have to keep all records very carefully and the tax authorities would have chased him for every detail. Instead he agreed to pay X amount tax in advance and was allowed more flexible travel. The authorities ended up getting more money. He ended up with plenty (money was not his problem in life) and the arguable details of which country he was actually resident in were clearly and openly settled.

    What's wrong here is allowing the use of "intellectual property" for tax deduction. This gives Google a massive and ridiculous advantage since they can shift intellectual property around at will. Merely by paying for trademarks in one country they can shift profits from another one. This means that they enter any negotiations with a huge difference from you or me.

  26. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an agreement to end the investigation and expected trial that was based on taxation law. Google would obviously not have plea bargained if confident about the outcome of the legal proceedings.

  27. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    >For any normal person you don't come to an agreement with the government, they state how much tax you owe and you have to pay it or you go to jail, there's no negotiation.

    That's not actually true. The IRS will sometimes negotiate with you: https://www.irs.gov/Individual...

    In the case of Google, the settlement amount is so small, I suspect the UK knew it would lose in court, since Google has been very clever with its tax strategies.

  28. If that were the actual spirit of the tax laws... by tlambert · · Score: 2

    Other than Apple in one country all of these bastards are actually obeying the letter (but not the spirit) of the taxation laws.

    If that were the actual spirit of the tax laws... the letter would be different.

    Because the letter of the law is what it is, one has to expect that the letter is an accurate embodiment of the *actual* "spirit", as opposed to the "spirit" that everyone pays lip service to.

    If this were not the case, the people making the laws would have to be pretty critically stupid.

    And if that were the case... what does this say about the intelligence of the people who elected them? They don't even have the disadvantage of an electoral college causing a two party system as an emergent property to blame in the U.K., only the intelligence of the electorate.

  29. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going to court over tax matters isn't usually an option in the UK. The Revenue's decision is final. Someone has to make the final decision. It's cheaper, so saves money for everyone, if the Revenue makes that final decision, rather than going through a sequence of courts.

  30. Re: If that were the actual spirit of the tax laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the parts of the UK parliament predate your country by around 800 years, you have no way of comprehending just how godawfully screwed up it is. Your political system was written by people who already knew this, yet they still managed to get it wrong?

  31. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the tax by Malc · · Score: 1

    Really? Won't Apple's tax bill in Ireland more than cover this when the EU get dos with them?

  32. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    For any normal person, the tax law is incredibly simple. The larger you get, the more complicated the laws get.

    If you are employed, you pay your taxes via the PAYE system, your employer handles all your tax issues at source.

    If you have earnings from other sources, you fill out a 6 page form and send your outstanding tax to a HMRC bank account.

    By the time you reach a few million in revenue a year, you need the additional issue of audited accounts. More paperwork, more issues.

    Larger multinational companies have more chance that their operations fall under grey areas in tax law - a UK client is sold a product after entering their details on an enquiry form on a website hosted in the US, then being called back by an account handler in a UK office of an Irish subsidiary, pays into an Irish bank account, has his product delivered from a US data center, support handled by Indian call centers. Where should the tax be paid? Until the recent change in law, Google would only have had to pay VAT on that sale in the UK, as their corporation taxes would fall under a foreign nations revenue.

    The same holds for a small trader in that respect - an Irish website sells something to a British buyer and makes a profit on that, but will only pay tax on those profits in Ireland.

  33. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the ta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know there are a lot of shitty comments on here but this is actually disgusting! You should be fucking ashamed!

  34. Re:If that were the actual spirit of the tax laws. by jargonburn · · Score: 1

    Because the letter of the law is what it is, one has to expect that the letter is an accurate embodiment of the *actual* "spirit", as opposed to the "spirit" that everyone pays lip service to.

    Splitting hairs. All laws are defined by what they are enforced to mean.

    The "spirit" of the law, last I checked, is generally understood to be the intent of those who wrote/approved the law.

  35. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

    Considering I am forced to hand over my money to a private company whether I want to or not which only makes some wealthy people even more wealthy, it appears it's not just Republicans who are stealing money from the people.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  36. Re:If that were the actual spirit of the tax laws. by locofungus · · Score: 1

    If that were the actual spirit of the tax laws... the letter would be different.

    With GAAR in the UK that's no longer true.

    Accordingly, it is essential to appreciate that, so far as the operation of the GAAR is concerned, Parliament has decisively rejected this [any legal arrangement is allowed] approach, and has imposed an overriding statutory limit on the extent to which taxpayers can go in trying to reduce their tax bill. That limit is reached when the arrangements put in place by the taxpayer to achieve that purpose go beyond anything which could reasonably be regarded as a reasonable course of action.

    --
    God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
  37. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it were the same rate of tax in both places, they wouldn't have gone to the effort of funneling the funds to Ireland. If it were cheaper in the UK, they DEFINITELY would not.

    But, yes, they could ask for whatever overpay they owed in Eire that was now in another place.

    But I do have to ask you this: if a bank robber gives the money back to the bank, does this mean he should not be arrested? Even if it was just a burglar?

  38. Re:If that were the actual spirit of the tax laws. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Because the letter of the law is what it is, one has to expect that the letter is an accurate embodiment of the *actual* "spirit", as opposed to the "spirit" that everyone pays lip service to.

    No, it's pretty obvious that isn't the case. Most of these loopholes are clearly designed to take advantage of things that the people drafting the law didn't think of. They then become normalized and the people abusing them scream blue murder if anyone tries to fix the holes, claiming that it will destroy their apparently unprofitable and non-viable businesses.

    It's obvious how we got to this situation. The tax system is extremely complex and has been added to and patch up endlessly over the years to deal with specific issues. It's tempting to think that we could just start from scratch and come up with something bulletproof, but politically it would be nearly impossible and would end up complex anyway as many of the finer points are tied in to other policies around corporate law, benefits and specific issues like encouraging/discouraging procreation.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  39. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by turbidostato · · Score: 1

    "Someone has to make the final decision."

    And that "someone" in any civilized country is a justice court.

  40. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This highlights what a farce those defending long running tax evasion (yes evasion) schemes by large US companies is have been peddling. All along we've heard "But it's legal, they're doing nothing wrong!".

    I've long been making the point that we don't know if it's legal or not, and that's never been fully established.

    Between the amount of settlements now beginning to come through and the various investigations by European wide and European national institutions into tax deals it's beginning to become pretty clear that these companies have been breaking the law.

    They wouldn't hand over large sums of money if they didn't have to. The facade of them "just doing what companies are supposed to do", or "not breaking the law", or "it's only avoidance, not evasion!" is finally beginning to fall.

    The fact is, big tech is one of the most prevalent criminal sectors for tax evasion in the world, and it needs to stop if they want us to give the slightest shit about how offended they are by the government doing this, and the government doing that to them. You have no fucking right to say what you feel about the government doing something if you don't pay taxes owed because you're intentionally making sure you're not a proper part of the country you're complaining about by doing that.

    Nice to see one of the biggest finally be forced to admit wrongdoing by having to hand over a large wad of cash - they got off lightly, but at least this is a clear admittance of guilt, else they'd never have done it if they were in the legal clear.

    Now they all just need to follow suit, all need to apologise, and all need to pay back all the countries they owe. I wont hold my hopes up though, US big tech is big because it's built on this vast web of theft and competing on unfair grounds.

  41. Re: And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the ta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republicans have no shame.

  42. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by Art+Challenor · · Score: 1

    In 2013 Google paid about €28M (~$37M) in taxes in Ireland on their whole European operation (€17B), not just the UK - 0.16% of revenue. So I'm not sure how much of a rebate they might reasonably expect.

  43. Re:If that were the actual spirit of the tax laws. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Because the letter of the law is what it is, one has to expect that the letter is an accurate embodiment of the *actual* "spirit", as opposed to the "spirit" that everyone pays lip service to.

    Letters and spirit are in perfect harmony for a local company doing local business. They make sense on an island, they work well in isolation. The problem is that the letter of the law combined with the letters of laws of other nations become incompatible with the spirit.

    See it doesn't matter if the entire world changes their laws to agree with the tax havens, or if the tax havens change their laws to agree with the rest of the world. Both are just fine except that the existence of different definitions of *where* profits should be taxed creates a loophole.

    We're not talking about some dumb local law that can be fixed by a simple amendment. Fixing this problem will take treaties and international co-operation.

  44. Re:If that were the actual spirit of the tax laws. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    It's obvious how we got to this situation. The tax system is extremely complex and has been added to and patch up endlessly over the years to deal with specific issues.

    Perhaps when the government wants to give money to a special interest, instead of changing the tax code from something simple to something extremely complex, they should leave the tax code simple, and make an explicit grant of funds.

    So if you wanted to, say, encourage Twitter to locate its offices in San Francisco, instead of giving them a tax break in law, they'd have to pay exactly the same taxes as everyone else, and then there's have to be a separate "Thank yo for locating in San Francisco" grant to offset the taxes they are being charged for being in San Francisco.

    Of course, that would clearly expose the nature of the relationship: "We recognize our taxes are too onerous to attract the kind of businesses which we want to attract, so we are willing to pay you off for a number of years to put up with it".

    And we couldn't have that, right?

  45. Re:If that were the actual spirit of the tax laws. by dumky2 · · Score: 1

    That's not how politics work. There are simply too many incentives towards complexity and obfuscation, fuzziness and discretion.

    --
    These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
  46. They're not actually fooling anyone, you know. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    That's not how politics work. There are simply too many incentives towards complexity and obfuscation, fuzziness and discretion.

    They're not actually fooling anyone, you know.

  47. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Years ago, when I was opening a new office and picking the location, I actually had various municipalities approach me and offer me various subsidies, abatements for taxes that would be due, and things of that nature. My company was nowhere near the size of Google. At that time, I employed fewer than 150 people. So, I can only imagine what goes on behind closed doors. When we opened our third office, down in Georgia, I was getting calls from various folks as soon as they heard I was looking for large office rental space with a decent data connection. It's kind of crazy what they'll offer. One offer was something like discounted valuation rates and no property taxes for five years, shit like that happens. I'd like to have been a fly on the wall when this "agreement" was made.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  48. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Yeah some of this stuff isn't even based on agreements, it's based on the discrepancy between countries taxing where companies are based and countries taxing where companies are incorporated. The good old Double Irish loophole. Fortunately the loophole has been closed as of 2015. Unfortunately that's only for newcomers to the scheme, existing corporations are given grace until 2020, I'm sure that will be long enough for high paid lawyers to figure out the best place to move the company so the tax bill remains the same.

  49. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by volmtech · · Score: 1

    To negotiate with the IRS keep calling until you get a compatible agent. My business failed and left me with a $20,000 tax bill. Unable to pay that penalties and interest drove it to $50,000. I got a job and the IRS garnished any of my wages over $300 a week. That made providing for my wife and two children difficult. My wife called them to make other arrangements. Every one who had a particular accent told her pay up. After a while she got an agent who spoke with our accent. After a few questions she ask my wife what could we pay. I paid $200 a month for 10 years. The actual total owed actually went up a few hundred but I never missed a payment and by IRS rules any tax owed after making a good faith effort to repay is considered noncollectable after ten years and is no longer due.

  50. Re:And obviously, Ireland will rebate on the taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would Google pay anything at all if it wasn't in the wrong?

    If Google are so desperate to hold on to every last penny as to suffer a hell of a lot of PR through tax avoidance (possibly evasion) then it's not like they're going to then hand out £130million for the hell of it.

    They've very clearly done this because they know they'd lose in court.