France Seeking $1.76 Billion In Back Taxes From Google (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader writes: According to a Reuters insider, France is seeking 1.6 billion euros in back taxes from Google, dwarfing what the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay. France apparently has no interest in striking the same 'sweetheart tax' deal that put the UK into a critical light when it revealed that the search giant would pay only 130 million pounds of tax, a $181.18 million settlement, for over 10 years in multi-billion dollar trade in the UK.

Comments

long or short scale?

[turkeydance]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:long or short scale?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's in a headline, it's the short scale.

Re:long or short scale?

[Anonymous Coward]

Milliard or short-scale billion. Not long-scale billion.

Re:long or short scale?

[Anonymous Coward]

1.76 billion dollars = 1076 million dollars.
It's easier this way. :)

Re:long or short scale?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, 1.76 billion dollars = 1760 million dollars.
In France 1 billion means 1000 million.

Re:long or short scale?

[Sique]

In France, 1 billion means 1 million million. (which is far more logical. A billion is a bi-million, million times a million).

Re: long or short scale?

[Anonymous Coward]

1.76 Gigadollars

Re:long or short scale?

[Anonymous Coward]

In France, 1 billion means 1 million million. (which is far more logical. A billion is a bi-million, million times a million).

1 billion (US) = 1 milliard (France) = 1000 million.

Re: long or short scale?

[Orgasmatron]

Hard drive gigadollars or memory gigadollars?

Re: long or short scale?

[Anonymous Coward]

Giga is now (or rather, should be) universally standarized as 10^9. For a memory unit, use gibi.

Re: long or short scale?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we only need the Ministry of Truth to change all historic use of the terms megabyte, gigabyte and terabyte retroactively.

Re:long or short scale?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in France a trillion is a tri-million which is a million times a million times a million (US quintillion)? If the answer is no, then your logic is off.

Re:long or short scale?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why Americans keep posting this on European stories, no-one has used the long-scale measurements since metrication in the 70s.

Re:long or short scale?

[alhead]

Yes, one trillion in France would be called one quintillion in the US. See the wikipedia article on long and short scales, linked by turkeydance.

"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Anonymous Coward]

Some twist language to make the concept of taxation appear less sinister than it is. You might be taking it too far here though.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Anonymous Coward]

France demanded reparations for all their soldiers killed by English bowmen.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[rossdee]

"France demanded reparations for all their soldiers killed by English bowmen."

England lost more soldiers fighting for France in one day on the Somme (WWI) than the English killed in the whole hundred years war

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[drnb]

"France demanded reparations for all their soldiers killed by English bowmen."

England lost more soldiers fighting for France in one day on the Somme (WWI) than the English killed in the whole hundred years war

As someone who grew up around a family member who parachuted into Normandy I certainly understand the sentiment. However how many of those deaths were due to the incompetence of English generals?

A joke I learned from the old paratrooper:

At the start of a mission briefing an officer asks his men what is the number one killer of paratroopers?
One of the men responds, "sir, its generals, usually your own."
The officer then asks what is the number two killer of paratroopers?

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[youngone]

That's quite correct about the Somme, 60,000 casualities on the first day alone. The worst day in the history of the British army.

Just as an aside, my Father was at Dunkirk in 1940 in the BEF and had nothing but praise for the French. Americans joke about them being "Cheese eating surrender monkeys", but if the French 2nd Army hadn't fought on alone and unsupported for 2 days, my Dad probably would have been captured by the Germans, and the War might have been lost right there.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[KGIII]

They war almost certainly wouldn't have been lost if you're father had been captured. The war wouldn't have even been lost if *all* of them had been captured. They were the ground soldiers. I guess you could say that the captured wouldn't have been in N. Africa but there were still plenty of troops if you look at the numbers.

To put N. Africa into scale and WWII numbers, the surrendering Germans were something like 225,000 - in pretty much one go. Would it have been tougher? Maybe, but probably not a hell of a lot. The folks from Dunkirk only made up something like 1/8 of the N. African soldiers.

Also, any American who holds such views about France is an idiot. We have our country because of France and some might say that gift cost the leader's heads. If they hold those views, they have no idea about WWII. If they hold those views, they sure as hell know nothing of the French Foreign Legion. I am American, by the way.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[drnb]

To be fair we Americans are usually referring to French politicians and "elites" in such jokes, not ordinary citizens. We understand that there is often a great disparity in beliefs and actions between a nation's political/social/economic elites and the ordinary citizen ... whether that nation is France, Russia, China, Iran, etc.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[SvnLyrBrto]

"Cheese eating surrender monkeys" was a one-off joke about an uneducated *Scottish* character's opinion of France when he was forced into the position of substitute French teacher. It was an obvious over-the-top exaggeration of the thousand year long cross-channel rivalry and, to my recollection, was not repeated on the show.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[ravenshrike]

Frenchmen, when led be either a female or non-frenchmen, make perfectly good soldiers. Their is something about the french male however, that when given authority at the rank of General or higher, turns their brains into swiss cheese.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Anonymous Coward]

"The officer then asks what is the number two killer of paratroopers?" - politicians!

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Anonymous Coward]

it was the professional backbone of the army that made that force. My grand father who also fought in the rear guard at Dunkirk had nothing but praise for the French troops. The French farmers however a different story - he said they would rather spill the milk churns than allow the troops a drink.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but it gets constantly repeated by Americans because they enjoy making fun of French people (an inheritance of the French-English rivalry I suppose).

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not eating would also be a number two killer.

*badoom tish*

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[tsotha]

Americans just place far too much emphasis on WW II. Prior to that war France was seen as great power you didn't want to mess with. But while it's true individual French soldiers and units fought bravely and effectively, as a whole the French army did not live up to expectations in 1940.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, but that does not matter since they were white lives. White lives do not matter. It is only black lives that matter. The fact that you are even talking about old white men show how culturally insensitive you are. How about talking about something other than European history once. European civilization is not the only civilization.

I can't w8 until Bernie Sanders becomes president and he rounds up all you white crackers and kills you all. Once he does this we can finally end hatred and create racial equality.

                                                                                             

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[youngone]

The BEF was almost the entire British Army in 1940. Apart from some divisions in India there would have been no-one to defend Britain.

Obviously the Royal Navy could still have controlled the Channel, but a negotiated surrender would almost certainly have happened.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Malc]

That still doesn't explain why more than half of American voters selected George W. Bush having already experienced four years of his presidency, nor why so many Republicans are currently choosing Donal Trump.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly, they started doing that just when the U.S. was run by warmongering idiots and France held a foreign policy that was relatively sane.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[alex67500]

"France demanded reparations for all their soldiers killed by English bowmen."

England lost more soldiers fighting for France in one day on the Somme (WWI) than the English killed in the whole hundred years war

Only cos' there were less people back then.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Coisiche]

Maybe Osborne did give Google money and then claim to the press that they had paid a "substantial" value in back taxes to the treasury.

I guess the Eton curriculum doesn't cover the correct use of "substantial".

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Americans joke about them being 'Cheese eating surrender monkeys'" --- funny you should say that. I first heard that phrase from an Irishman.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[TheCastro1689]

I think it has more to do with WW1 (somewhat), WW2 (mostly) and Vietnam rather than then the English-French rivalry. Remember the French helped during the revolution and Napoleon sold us Louisiana and more.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Anonymous Coward]

% of population that votes: less than half
% of voter turnout: half again
Results go to Electoral College = May or may not even look at results of above.

More than half of American voters did *not* select George W. Bush. More than half the Electoral College did.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Anonymous Coward]

You appear to be splitting hairs. More than half of the voters did vote for Bush, as the parent said. You were just choosing to interpret a different way to be pedantic and obtuse..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[ganjadude]

not really sure what thay has to do with anything. I mean how do we explain people voting for obama a second time?? I get the hopey changey thing in 08 but in 12???

again, this has nothing to do with anything, mod me and OP off topic

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Eunuchswear]

All that proves is that the half of the population that didn't vote was just as stupid as the half that voted for GWB -- so 75% of Americans are idiots by your reckoning.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Eunuchswear]

The alternative was Romney. Even if you think Obama was no great shakes, at least he wasn't Mitt.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Eunuchswear]

And odd, because traditionally Scotland was an ally of France. The "thousand year long cross-channel rivalry" was between England and France, not Scotland and France.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[painandgreed]

To be fair we Americans are usually referring to French politicians and "elites" in such jokes, not ordinary citizens. We understand that there is often a great disparity in beliefs and actions between a nation's political/social/economic elites and the ordinary citizen ... whether that nation is France, Russia, China, Iran, etc.

To be fair, some Americans are usually referring to French politicians and "elites" in such jokes, Most Americans don't know why they're joking about the French except as blind us versus them prejudice ingrained by the popular culture. I spoke to my dad that I was going on a trip to Paris and he and his friends said you couldn't pay them to go to Paris, yet they had no reason beyond "because, freedom fries" for why they harbor such. Even then, our "jokes" about WW2 are usually just taking cheap shots due to political reasons caused post war by De Gaulle and following administrations in pissing over the US, Britain, and NATO in an attempt to prove to the world they were still a greater power than Britain, followed more recently by lack of support in American adventurism in the middle east since the point was to pretty much kick out their oil companies so we could put ours into place in Iraq.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[david_thornley]

There were plenty of badly organized and equipped troops in Britain while the BEF was in France, training and equipping. Combine that with the naval defenses, and the fact that the ports that were threatened were rigged for demolition, and the Germans could not have successfully invaded Britain.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[david_thornley]

It's worth noting that the French army adopted new and better tactics during the six-week battle, which is not something armies resigned to defeat do. The French defeat was because of a single gross miscalculation on the part of the French high command, although there were other weaknesses that contributed also.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[ganjadude]

thats like saying, well I got aids...but at least I still got both legs

sorry voting against someone is retarded. write someone in, dont keep voting for the status quo

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[KGIII]

Yup... We Davids know. *nods*

Even if they'd taken the entire group prisoner, Germany would still have not invaded the UK. Also, the Expeditionary Force was *not* almost all of the Army. They were still very much an empire at that point. Saying that the BEF was the entirety of the army is, well... Let's just say that it's rather disrespectful to the many, many others from India, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. As I recall, they were a part of the "UK" at the time.

I'm really not sure what to say... That's a rarity... However, it's rather disrespectful unless I'm missing something. I'm also pretty sure that there were troops, from Britain - and the Isles in general, all over the place. As in, all over the place - the Sun never set on the UK at that point. The colonies (or whatever they were calling them then) were still in existence and some of those people dedicated a lot of lives to WWII.

I really don't know what to say...

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Malc]

Were all the independents a bunch of crackpots? Why do so many Americans only feel like they can vote for candidates from the two biggest parties?

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Malc]

The OP said "We understand that there is often a great disparity in beliefs and actions between a nation's political/social/economic elites and the ordinary citizen". This isn't true if you live in a democracy and vote for those people, because they don't just miraculously get those jobs.

And incidentally, as one of the other replies points out: that statement is also wholly inaccurate. I've lived in the US (before that whole stupid, ignorant freedom fries thing that soured relations for a while) and heard American's joking about and bashing the French in ways that border on bigotry. How many times did I hear an American describe the French as smelly for instance? Baseless and normally uttered by people who've never known somebody from France or even been to France.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[david_thornley]

Randall Munroe did a What If? recently, and concluded that the Sun still doesn't set on the British Empire, but there's times when the only sunshine is on one small and (IIRC) fairly desolate place.

The Dominions had somewhat uncertain status as part of the UK. Australia didn't declare war on Germany, figuring that the British declaration covered them. Australia did declare war separately on Japan. I think the loss of Australian troops in the fall of Tobruk had something to do with that. The worse the Dominions felt treated, the more they wanted independence, apparently.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[sociocapitalist]

"...my Dad probably would have been captured by the Germans, and the War might have been lost right there."

Your Dad must have been a hell of a fighter !!

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[KGIII]

Yeah, it was kind of odd. I'm not sure if NZ declared war on their own or not. I recall that India did not, they were covered as they were still in the UK. There were a few other (I can't help but call 'em this) colonies that fell into the same line. I want to say that Canada did not declare war on their own either?

As an aside, I'm sure you know this but someone else might come across our conversation, it's impressive to see what was done by Canada and Canadians during WWI and WWII. They're often overlooked in the books and movies. They've really contributed so much. I've had the opportunity to train and serve with them in joint activities. I don't normally have many bad things to say about anyone but I've got nothing bad to say about my experiences in having done so.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[youngone]

I wouldn't be disrespectful to the New Zealanders, My Grandfather fought with the 2nd NZ Division in North Africa and Italy from 1942 until 1945

However, in 1939 the New Zealand Army consisted of about 300 men.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[youngone]

I'm not sure if NZ declared war on their own or not.

I'm sure, (I'm a Kiwi). New Zealand declared war on Germany, and there has always been this legend that we actually declared war before Britain, which would have been embarrassing if they'd backed out, but no

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[youngone]

Your Dad must have been a hell of a fighter !!

Yeah, might have phrased that badly.

He did wind up in the 2nd Parachute Regiment, and definitely killed German soldiers. That's something he had trouble living with.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[KGIII]

To be fair, I think the population of NZ was only like 320 men at that time. ;-) They're not really covered in a lot of media and my memory is pretty fuzzy. So, I'll see what I can remember...

The ANZAC forces were a phenomenal asset. It must have been tough, emotionally, as many of them were brought away from their home soil at the same time Japan was heading their direction. Many people don't know how close Japan got to landing on Oz. Had Japan landed on Oz, things would have been bad. I want to say that Oz had some reservists who fought a rear-guard action off on Papua New Guinea?

Fortunately, the USMC was on the way. They and the USN, depleted though they were, managed to fend them off with a bit of help from some of the island folks who helped keep the Japanese busy. Quite a few Marines ended up in Oz for training and then they did some R&R and some hurry up and wait on Oz later in the war. The first (maybe) island that the Marines landed on was just north of Oz. I don't remember the name of that one either and I'm way too lazy to look.

But, what little there was for ANZAC troops got pulled away to North Africa, India, Hong Kong, Burma, Egypt, Palestine, and even to sit idle (for a spell) in in the British Isles. It was probably a good choice. They were lacking equipment and training. The US was already on the way by the time Japan was really speeding down towards that direction.

It was fairly well known that Japan was starting to spread themselves thin. It was also a bit of a risk that they took because if Japan had managed to land troops on Australia it would have been a pain in the ass to get them out of there and, worse, they'd have continued their abhorrent behaviors. The soldiers were a despicable group of people and it's odd that people try to make excuses for them. (As an aside, my own country and some citizens have done plenty of despicable things and I'm offended by their behavior and call it out when I can.)

Another thing that lots of people don't seem to know is really how close Japan came... I know I already mentioned it but they actually bombed a port and a town in N. Oz. (I forget the name, I think it might begin with the letter M? Port M.?) The citizens had about a dozen rifles or something like that between them. They had few vehicles. They were ordered to run away, as I recall. They'd already dug a bunch of holes and made bomb shelters but they were told to run away - I'm pretty sure. I seem to recall at least one documentary that mentions strafing but I might be conflating it with another attack.

Meh, I'm too lazy to Google. If you're unaware and are curious, I'm sure Google knows the rest of the story and can fix any mistakes in my memory. That should be fairly close to accurate. In all probability, someone knows the rest of the details.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[KGIII]

Thanks. Did they declare war officially on Japan and Italy? And yes, yes it would have been rather unfortunate if the UK hadn't decided to go to war with them. I do think that might have been a history changer - but I've never actually given it any thought as to how that might have played out. Hmm... That's gonna take some pondering.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[Anonymous Coward]

Port Moresby is in Papua New Guinea, technically it was under Australian administration at the time, but I doubt you were thinking of that.

You might be thinking of Darwin.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[KGIII]

Yes, I think your right and it was Darwin. I actually did think that and then I was pretty sure it was wrong because it was too easy and the only town I can remember off the top of my head from that area of Australia. I think the Aussies were doing a retreat from Port Moresby or ended up doing one? I seem to recall that there weren't a whole lot of them and that some of them were particularly heroic.

I watch a lot of documentaries. It's pretty much all I watch and I've been watching them for many, many years. I don't really watch regular television very often - I don't even have it hooked up at my home. Which means that they're for entertainment. It's not a scholarly pursuit. Any learning is incidental and a bonus. I can usually remember the general idea, like geographic region, approximate dates, who was involved, maybe some names. I don't recall the specifics and I'm not a walking trivia book. I do admire the people who can do that. I can not. I am not even a historian.

So, yes... I think you're right. I'm way too lazy to go look. ;-) There's a good series called War in the Pacific. I imagine that goes over it. There are a few, not many, documentaries about the ANZAC involvement in WWII and *just* about their involvement. I've only come across a few of them in my travels. I'd like to see some more about the ANZAC, Indians, Polish, and Canada.

Tangentially related...

My current series is "The First World War." That's actually really good. I've seen it a bunch of times. The good thing about not remembering all the dates, names, times, and places? I can watch that series a dozen times and enjoy it and learn something new every time I watch it. If I knew everything, I'd have nothing left to live for. More or less, learning really isn't the goal. Yeah, I try to learn a little but it's really just to entertain myself. I also read a lot so I do learn quite a bit and I retain some of it.

Which leads me to this: If you're curious, I'm sure there's some documentaries on the subject at YouTube. I've bumped into a few of them but not many. There are probably more out there and I've just not found them. They changed the format in TV when the laws changed, sometime around 1986 or 87. I was never big on it before but they went to something like 12 minutes of commercials per hour long program. These days, even a trimmed PBS documentary is only 52 minutes.

Anyhow, I stopped watching much TV around that time (not a hipster, not on a moral crusade - kids still watched it. So, the internet has been a virtual cornucopia of goodness for me. I can find documentaries and even just pick one and let YouTube pick the next one for me and automatically play it. I can search and tick the playlist filter and get a bunch of playlists with similar content. That's something that I really appreciate. I pay for both Netflix and Hulu+ but I've seen all the good ones at Netflix, I only pay for Hulu+ because I keep forgetting to cancel it, and I'm almost always just happy with YouTube.

So, if you're curious about more of the history, just hit YouTube to find a good documentary. I put the subject in and then filter it for long results. That usually will find me something. I often just take that title name, search for that, and then filter the results for playlists. So, first long and then name and then playlist. *nods* There's bound to be something out there. I should probably do the same. I'll put it on my mental list, I've got to finish this series before I move on to the next one.

Re:"the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay"

[sociocapitalist]

Your Dad must have been a hell of a fighter !!

Yeah, might have phrased that badly.

He did wind up in the 2nd Parachute Regiment, and definitely killed German soldiers. That's something he had trouble living with.

Not easy, I'm sure. I think we can all agree that it would have been better all around if the Germans had stayed home to start with.

As I'm sure your Dad knew, sometimes we do what needs to be done because there is no reasonable choice.

Good for France

[Anonymous Coward]

I really do hope they get their money. These corporations play all manner of shell company games, offshore trickery, you name it just to avoid paying taxes. If you owe it, pay it. Give unto Caesar what is Caesars. I will never again eat at Burger King in large part because of their tax inversion. More and more companies are doing this. I realize companies are beholden to the shareholders (sadly), but pay what you really owe. Stop with the tax tricks which are basically legal fraud.

Re:Good for France

[Austerity Empowers]

avoid .... owe ... legal fraud

If you can avoid it, you do not owe it. It is legal. It is not fraud, however unjust you may think it is.

If you owe it, try to hide it, and do not pay it, it's called "Tax Evasion". That's against the law, you don't pay back taxes you pay back taxes and go to jail.

If there is a dispute between what you think you owe, and what the government thinks you owe, it's called a lawsuit. If France wins, google owes back taxes (presumably with interest). If Google wins they still pay nothing.

France is asserting that Google does in fact owe money that Google does not believe it owes. It's a lawsuit. This distinction is incredibly important in many countries, as what these companies are doing is usually LEGAL. It is our own governments that are screwing up in tax law, and our governments that need to fix the problem. Of course the second you talk about "fixing" tax law, you end up with all sorts of barnyard noises in congress (in the US, but I imagine we don't have the market cornered on this). It's easier in this case to wage a war of public opinion (similar to FBI and keys to the city) than to actually try to get these sorts of laws changed against a hostile congress. But, as a people, we need to understand this: the government is complicit. The only reason these lawsuits even happen is that there is debate, there shouldn't be debate.

Also when you go do lawsuit stuff, you always exaggerate your claims. It's part of the game.

Re:Good for France

[Anonymous Coward]

These corporations play all manner of shell company games, offshore trickery, you name it just to avoid paying taxes. If you owe it, pay it.

This isn't as much about paying taxes on the business they do in France, as it is France trying to get a piece of the action from the business they do everywhere else.
Apple is another example. The people shouting about them 'dodging taxes' are pissed because Apple is only paying US Taxes on the money they make in the US, and are whining about Apple keeping money made in other countries in those other countries.

Give unto Caesar what is Caesars.

I agree with this sentiment, and am not defending companies which use trickery to actually dodge taxes. But the point here is that this is a case of Caesar asking not only for what is 'due unto Caesar', but also what is due unto all the other governments. If companies had to pay tax to each country on all the money they make everywhere, most of them would end up with a tax rate in excess of 100%.

Re:Good for France

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> I will never again eat at Burger King in large part because of their tax inversion

Oddly enough, I stopped eating there because of intestinal inversion.

Re:Good for France

[bloodhawk]

avoid .... owe ... legal fraud

If you can avoid it, you do not owe it. It is legal. It is not fraud, however unjust you may think it is.

If you owe it, try to hide it, and do not pay it, it's called "Tax Evasion". That's against the law, you don't pay back taxes you pay back taxes and go to jail.

If there is a dispute between what you think you owe, and what the government thinks you owe, it's called a lawsuit. If France wins, google owes back taxes (presumably with interest). If Google wins they still pay nothing.

France is asserting that Google does in fact owe money that Google does not believe it owes. It's a lawsuit. This distinction is incredibly important in many countries, as what these companies are doing is usually LEGAL. It is our own governments that are screwing up in tax law, and our governments that need to fix the problem. Of course the second you talk about "fixing" tax law, you end up with all sorts of barnyard noises in congress (in the US, but I imagine we don't have the market cornered on this). It's easier in this case to wage a war of public opinion (similar to FBI and keys to the city) than to actually try to get these sorts of laws changed against a hostile congress. But, as a people, we need to understand this: the government is complicit. The only reason these lawsuits even happen is that there is debate, there shouldn't be debate.

Also when you go do lawsuit stuff, you always exaggerate your claims. It's part of the game.

I think the problem here is NOT that it is illegal or legal. They are using tricks to evade the laws or go in areas where the laws haven't explicitly forbidden. Companies are actively seeking loopholes in the wording or in international tax treaties, they are then abusing these holes. It may be legal by the letter of the law (or at least not illegal), but it was certainly not the intention of the law to allow it. It is like someone finding a way to steal or kill someone with some new technology and then finding the law doesn't cover it, it is obvious it is wrong and should be illegal but it hasn't been made explicitly illegal so they get away with it.

Re:Good for France

[Tablizer]

Perhaps it's time to tax companies based on revenues and expenses (purchases) that happen in a given country rather than on "profits", because profits are too convoluted to track in international companies.

Re:Good for France

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason these lawsuits even happen is that there is debate, there shouldn't be debate.

The forming of a law should always come with debate. The implementation of a law should be so obvious that anyone with conversational fluency in the official language should be able to understand it without further explanation.

Lawyers make things more complicated. They present themselves as highly intelligent, but actively insist on parsing language in a manner completely alien to that of all non-lawyers fluent in the same base language. Through manipulative wordcraft and the illusion of ability, they infest governments and force laws to be written according to their dialects. As creatures of deception and doublespeak, the laws they craft often carry mutually exclusive demands and physical impossibilities.

Few laws are so heavily guided by lawyers as tax codes. Tax codes tend to be vicious collections of special case exceptions from typically hostile generalities. If you imagine a game crossover of Flux, Uno, and Munchkin where each player also brings in a Magic the Gathering deck except that one guy at the end of the table who brought Yu-gi-oh cards instead, you are starting to imagine close to the oppressive inconsistency of many tax laws.

Re:Good for France

[Anonymous Coward]

I really do hope they get their money. These corporations play all manner of shell company games, offshore trickery, you name it just to avoid paying taxes. If you owe it, pay it. Give unto Caesar what is Caesars. I will never again eat at Burger King in large part because of their tax inversion. More and more companies are doing this. I realize companies are beholden to the shareholders (sadly), but pay what you really owe. Stop with the tax tricks which are basically legal fraud.

I should preface this by first saying that on the moral front, I agree with you 110%.

That said, If it is a legal loophole they are taking advantage of, then who's fault is it really? Root cause analysis points blame at the institution who knows the loopholes exist but refuses to fix them.

I also put blame on corporate boards and major shareholders. If you want to short-circuit immoral tax fuckery, then convince Mr. Unadulterated Greed at the top who only listens with their wallet, for they are the one practically demanding immoral tax fuckery.

Re:Good for France

[Anonymous Coward]

In most countries the tax laws are the way they are because each nation's government has created loopholes for its own big corporations and businesses. England, for example, has a terrible rate on taxation of its own companies. Rolls-Royce clears £1.1B in profits every year and only pays £2M in taxes. It's just easier for them to point fingers at American corporations and scream in outrage than to admit they are hypocrites. Old news.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287216/Revealed-One-UKs-companies-pay-tax.html

Meanwhile, the same happens in France. Special benefits for French corporations only. Again, far easier to anger citizens and rally them against the US than admit the truth.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/09/02/french-corporate-tax-loophole-ruled-illegal.htm

Re:Good for France

[shaitand]

"If you can avoid it, you do not owe it. It is legal. It is not fraud, however unjust you may think it is.

If you owe it, try to hide it, and do not pay it, it's called "Tax Evasion". That's against the law, you don't pay back taxes you pay back taxes and go to jail."

In the US where these terms are routinely applied in this manner the difference is in fact what the IRS says it is with individuals who have exploited tax loopholes often categorized as "Tax Evasion" whether in code or not, since most of the code is ambiguous and at the discretion of the auditor. While large corporations tend to be given the benefit of the doubt.

In fact, many things that are perfectly legal for corporations are explicitly outlawed for individuals. For instance, I know of one massive corporation that would silo off portions of it's operation that cost money, incorporate separately, then charge the original company exactly $1 over costs for services each year. Because that business made $1 instead of taking a multi-year loss it would not trigger any kind of review or audit. As an individual you would be hammered in multiple ways for doing this. For starters because you own more than 60% interest, for another because the entire cost center corporation is not actually intended to generate substantial profit and would be declared a "hobby", for another it evades deduction limits.

On the flip side, incorporated entities that are small really get burned with double taxation. You have to pay tax on the corporations income and then turn around and pay again when the corporation pays income to you. This double taxation is the justification for many of the corporate tax write offs that individuals don't get and they make sense or are even too restrictive to avoid double taxation for these small incorporated businesses while allowing billions in dodged taxes for massive public entities.

Re:Good for France

[shaitand]

"If there is a dispute between what you think you owe, and what the government thinks you owe, it's called a lawsuit."

That may be true in France. Here in the US you actually have to appeal to the revenue service and they judge the dispute. This is similar to if you are denied a claim by Social Security for disability. Of course, eventually if it goes far enough up the chain you can eventually appeal to an actual court but you can't go straight away and in the meantime there is nothing you can do for a period of years about them garnishing wages, freezing/seizing assets, or for SS simply not having money to live in the meantime.

Re:Good for France

[shaitand]

Just tax everyone based on wealth. Sure, google might just lease everything in the UK but they have to lease it from someone in the UK and that someone has to pay taxes.

If Google is based in the US and making money from people in the UK they should pay the taxes in the US. They should not be paying taxes on the same income in both countries, that is ridiculous.

Re:Good for France

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't as much about paying taxes on the business they do in France, as it is France trying to get a piece of the action from the business they do everywhere else.

You have a funny definition of "elsewhere". Alice meets Bob in a Cafe in Paris. Alice agrees 100,000 Euros to Bob's company to buy advertsing. Bob, an employee of "big Ads France", goes back to his office in La Defence and enters the deal into a computer. 100,000 Euros worth of Ads are shown to Alices customers in France. The servers are based in a data centre in France, maintained by engineers which work in

Despite this, because Malory is the directory of virtual company in Ireland, "big Ads Ireland", and that company's name is on the contract, Malory charges "big Ads France" so much that "big Ads France" seems to actually lose money on the deal. Thus the whole deal is part of the business they do everywhere else.

This is a lie; this is fraud. This is only legal in the sense that the judges, politicians and tax authorities are on the take. The real business being taxed here is the business in France. They are still being taxed at about 2%. Show me an honest country (not some tax haven keptocracy) where you can get away with that level of taxation.

Re:Good for France

[Keruo]

France needs the money to bail out Areva from the Olkiluoto 3 case.

Re:Good for France

[Austerity Empowers]

I think the problem here is NOT that it is illegal or legal. They are using tricks to evade the laws or go in areas where the laws haven't explicitly forbidden.

And those tricks and gaps, you think they were accidents? That Google, et. al are the only people who scrutinize tax laws?

I don't believe it for a second. That scrutiny is a prerequisite for the laws to have passed to begin with. The only people who cannot afford that scrutiny are the people being hurt. What has happened is that the general public, not just in France but everywhere, has caught on to this and is crying foul. And so we have this charade.

What is lost when people blame Google or Apple or Microsoft for these things is the message: your government sold you out. The outcome of this is, for the continued peace of France, is they're going to find something Google did wrong and Google is going to pay a nominal sum that sounds big to make it go away. The people will be happy that evil Google had to pay the piper but the laws won't change. Google will continue to pay less than what was intended, and a hundred other multinats will continue doing what they've always done.

Re:Good for France

[David_Hart]

avoid .... owe ... legal fraud

If you can avoid it, you do not owe it. It is legal. It is not fraud, however unjust you may think it is.

If you owe it, try to hide it, and do not pay it, it's called "Tax Evasion". That's against the law, you don't pay back taxes you pay back taxes and go to jail.

If there is a dispute between what you think you owe, and what the government thinks you owe, it's called a lawsuit. If France wins, google owes back taxes (presumably with interest). If Google wins they still pay nothing.

France is asserting that Google does in fact owe money that Google does not believe it owes. It's a lawsuit. This distinction is incredibly important in many countries, as what these companies are doing is usually LEGAL. It is our own governments that are screwing up in tax law, and our governments that need to fix the problem. Of course the second you talk about "fixing" tax law, you end up with all sorts of barnyard noises in congress (in the US, but I imagine we don't have the market cornered on this). It's easier in this case to wage a war of public opinion (similar to FBI and keys to the city) than to actually try to get these sorts of laws changed against a hostile congress. But, as a people, we need to understand this: the government is complicit. The only reason these lawsuits even happen is that there is debate, there shouldn't be debate.

Also when you go do lawsuit stuff, you always exaggerate your claims. It's part of the game.

I think the problem here is NOT that it is illegal or legal. They are using tricks to evade the laws or go in areas where the laws haven't explicitly forbidden. Companies are actively seeking loopholes in the wording or in international tax treaties, they are then abusing these holes. It may be legal by the letter of the law (or at least not illegal), but it was certainly not the intention of the law to allow it. It is like someone finding a way to steal or kill someone with some new technology and then finding the law doesn't cover it, it is obvious it is wrong and should be illegal but it hasn't been made explicitly illegal so they get away with it.

No, the problem is EXACTLY whether it is legal or illegal.

The definition of something being illegal is that there is a law that prohibits that behavior. If there isn't a law against it then it is legal. Argue all you want whether loopholes are just or unjust and whether the use of a loophole for non-intended use is moral or immoral but the point is that poorly crafted tax laws results in the legal reduction in tax burden for companies and rich people who can hire smart tax accountants.

As for your comparison, it's completely stupid. We have laws against murder and theft, full stop. Doesn't matter how you do it or if you use a proxy. The laws even cover being a party or conspiracy to murder. The only loophole, if you want to call it that, for murder is self-defense.

There is no law that says that you have to pay a specific amount of taxes. For example, if there was a law that all companies must pay a minimum of 10% in taxes with no qualifications and Google used loopholes as justification to pay less then your argument would make sense. There is no such law as far as I know.

I agree with you that in a just world corporations would shoulder more of the tax and infrastructure burden than they do. But it's up to us to vote in and lobby people who can change the laws.

Re:Good for France

[Zaelath]

If the French courts find the accounting methodology Google are using is not legal, it may well be tax evasion.

At that point you're talking punitive fines, not just interest assessments.

Google have good lawyers though, I'm sure they'll be fine...

Re:Good for France

[AmiMoJo]

We don't use lawsuits for everything in Europe. The government has an agency that handles tax. It decided Google had not paid the correct amount, after some investigation. Google can appeal via the courts (not a lawsuit, it's asking the court to decide a matter of tax law).

It's up to companies to make sure they declare their earnings correctly and pay the right amount of tax. Honest mistakes are usually accepted, but here Google tried to avoid paying â1.6bn by misinterpreting the rules and not bothering to ask the tax authority for an opinion.

Re:Good for France

[dissy]

Just wait until the government comes after you for using the "loophole" of only paying what the tax table they provided you claimed you owe.

"What, you used our tax table to pay what we said you owe? Well THERE'S your problem! No wonder you under paid us. Now give us the rest of our money."

As you say, just because the law as written says you must only pay what the tax table says you should be paying, doesn't mean you not paying enough is right or legal.

Re:Good for France

[SvnLyrBrto]

And let's not forget that the laws are not set up the way they are by accident. Those "loopholes" were bought and paid for with bribes (Sorry... lobbying and gifts) to the the politicians who wrote the tax code. Here in the US, it was outfits like Halliburton, Exxon, Bechtel, and Arthur Andersen (Sorry... Accenture). In France, it's probably the likes of EADS (Airbus), Credit Agricole, GDF, and Dassault.

The only reason they're all so butthurt over the tax strategy of Apple and Google and other tech companies, is that somebody in those companies realized one day that, once passed and on the books; the law applies to *everybody*, not just to the ones who paid for them. Tech as not "paid their dues" by greasing the palms of the right politicians; that's all.

Re:Good for France

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Politicians do not want flat, loophole-free taxes. They sought power to hand out favors in exchange for donations legal and illegal.

That is why they are there. This theory has the exact same solid, predictive capability of relativity and quantum mechanics.

If anything, a simplified tax code allows them to re-start handing out the loopholes all over again.

Re:Good for France

[bloodhawk]

They aren't accidents. Tax laws for the most part were designed when globalisation was just a glimmer in the eyes of most corporations and most large companies were not mobile like they are today, they were written so that companies could legitimately operate across international borders without finding they would be taxed multiple times. today companies can literally be just an office anywhere, especially software companies this allows them to easily jump from country to country and shift costs and profits with ease. This problem simply didn't exist last century (or at least not to any significant degree where it was a problem worth pursuing) and has only really escalated to ridiculous levels in the last 20 years when mobility for a company is simple.

Re:Good for France

[Tablizer]

Doesn't that require different countries to agree to the same practice? That's not realistic in my opinion. Country A will likely have a different taxing philosophy than country B.

I'm trying to approach it from the perspective of a country only having to care what happens inside its own borders (or at transfers in and out). There would be no such thing as a "tax haven" within that country. That way computations of tax don't depend on what a co. does or earns in different lands (outside of a given country).

Re:Good for France

[Jack Griffin]

avoid .... owe ... legal fraud

If you can avoid it, you do not owe it. It is legal.

And if it turns out they can't avoid it, then they did indeed owe it, and it was fraud.
Good thing we have courts to decide these things, rather than what you (not you personally, the collective you) happen to believe on any given day.

Re: Good for France

[Anonymous Coward]

You typed a lot of paragraphs trying to argue what corporations do is technically legal.

To a normal person, what they do looks like money laundering. American companies devalue their IP, sell it to child shell companies in other countries, then let those shell companies charge the parent company big money. Same shit movie companies do so that they technically made no money on blockbuster films.

I propose that if a patent company wants to sell their IP to child companies at low prices, those IP and stuff should be auctioned off instead.

Re: Good for France

[Austerity Empowers]

I propose that if a patent company wants to...

First, your idea is too limited in scope. I will instead develop the IP in the child country, using offshore labor working directly for their western counterpart, and it will never be owned by me. This is actually not far from what is already going on in many companies. You are just adding a small stone in front of a river.

Second, you are trying to fix the problem, rather than fix the blame. That is a somewhat novel approach these days.

Re:Good for France

[Anonymous Coward]

The English heritage of following letter of law rather than spirit is not followed in all jurisdictions. Fortunately.

In particular, continental Europeans following Roman/civil/whatever-you-wanna-call-it systems will take a very different approach to writing and interpreting rules that make it much harder to say, "But if you think carefully about it, it the words could be construed to mean THIS rather than THAT!" If THAT is obviously what was intended, THIS is you trying to be a smartarse to evade the social contract you entered into when deciding to do business in the country, and nobody gives a fuck.

This is quite confusing to Englishmen and Americans, who regard laws as disconnected from lawmakers - a thoroughly intellectually dishonest position.

Re:Good for France

[Jack Griffin]

What is lost when people blame Google or Apple or Microsoft for these things is the message: your government sold you out.

What a load of shit. The tax laws are a culmination of hundreds of years of add-ons, concessions, modifications etc for whatever was required on the day, with the intent to create a fair system. "The government" is just people like you trying to do the best they can, and corporations are also just people doing whatever they can.
This situation is because corporations now spend far more resources looking for holes in these laws than any public office could ever hope to to counter them. So they have an unfair advantage. The only real solution is to allocate more funds to the public service to allow them to address these issues correctly, or impose harsh penalties as a deterrent. Either way you you'll just bitch and moan that "The government" is stealing all your money...

Re:Good for France

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you that in a just world corporations would shoulder more of the tax and infrastructure burden than they do. But it's up to us to vote in and lobby people who can change the laws.

In a just world corporations would shoulder less tax as would individuals. In fact, in a just world there would be no taxation. Taxation itself is unjust.

Re:Good for France

[Anonymous Coward]

If THAT is obviously what was intended, THIS is you trying to be a smartarse to evade the social contract you entered into when deciding to do business in the country, and nobody gives a fuck.

Sadly our courts can fall-back to the letter of the law. For example the German law against software patents was completely neutered by a single clause meant to support patents of mechanical devices that include software as a part. The courts ruled that mentioning a device ( your run of the mill computer) and alluding to finite resources ( RAM, CPU time, etc. ) was enough to make a software patent valid.

Re:Good for France

[jandersen]

I will never again eat at Burger King in large part because of their tax inversion

Oddly enough, I stopped eating there because of intestinal inversion.

Another odd fact: Your mouth and your anus are directly connected by a rather short tube. Eating at places like Burger King and MacDonalds brings that fact into renewed focus, I think.

Re:Good for France

[Anonymous Coward]

How is a nuclear plant in Finland related to the legality of Google's tax avoidance schemes?

Re:Good for France

[AmiMoJo]

That's now how it works in France, or most European countries. If there is a loophole or ambiguity you can try to exploit it, but courts are unlikely to support you if you didn't even ask the tax authority for their opinion first. See, when there is ambiguity in the law most European systems expect you to see clarification, not milk it for all it's worth*. If you act in obviously bad faith that way, don't expect courts to agree with your interpretation unless you have a damn good case.

* Is it "all its worth" or "all it is worth"? Maybe it's both.

Re:Good for France

[shaitand]

Well if Country A taxes wealth and country B does not a company can try to keep most of their wealth in country B but operating in Country A to get at that wealth is going to require using some infrastructure in Country A. Whether the company buys it, leases it, or simply pays for the use of it. In all cases that infrastructure will be in Country A and someone will own it and therefore be taxed for it. Whether or not Country B does the same is irrelevant.

In this case where it is all beginning to get a bit silly is that individual EU member states are taxing when the whole thing should really be a pool.

Re:Good for France

[Eunuchswear]

Another odd fact: Your mouth and your anus are directly connected by a rather short tube. Eating at places like Burger King and MacDonalds brings that fact into renewed focus, I think.

I don't think 22 feet is "short".

22 feet of gas filled discomfort and pain after eating in some "restaurants".

Re:Good for France

[ganjadude]

why should one ask the authority? if one can read the laws, and follows them why do i need extra approval from those in charge???

Re:Good for France

[david_thornley]

The problem with following the spirit of the law is that it's harder to know what the law actually is, and there's nothing to stop it from being inconsistently applied. In the common law system, it's harder to know all the applicable law, but once you do the more common ambiguities have typically been resolved already, and more consistency introduced. (Not that this always works. It surprised me to find out that US Federal law differs from place to place, because different appeals courts had ruled differently and the Supreme Court hadn't clarified things.)

There is no perfect legal system, any more than a perfect form of government. They all suck in some ways.

Re:Good for France

[david_thornley]

It's not necessarily fraud. It could theoretically be a good-faith different interpretation, although that's not what instantly comes to mind when talking about multinational corporate taxes.

France should try innovating...

[Anonymous Coward]

France should try innovating instead of just being a leech on silicon valley revenue.

Re:France should try innovating...

[Anonymous Coward]

Silicon Valley should try finding customers in Silicon Valley instead of just being a leech on France.

Re:France should try innovating...

[bloodhawk]

in this case silicon valley has been a leech on many of the world's societies. Perhaps silicon valley should actually try paying what it legitimately owes instead of trying to use tax havens to leech off society.

Re:France should try innovating...

[Shatrat]

All of Google's advertising and services customers are paying sales tax. All of their employees are paying income tax. Google's owners are paying capital gains tax if they sell the stock. I think that's probably plenty.

Re:France should try innovating...

[bloodhawk]

You may think it is plenty. The rest of the world has had a gutful of large companies hiding profits in tax havens to leech money out of countries. The taxes they pay are a tiny fraction of what they should be paying and no this isn't just a google problem.

Re:France should try innovating...

[Jack Griffin]

Funny isn't it. For years Slashdot has been bashing the 1%ers and their parasitic ways, but when now it's one of theirs, suddenly it's everyone else's fault.
Fuck Apple, Google, Facebook etc. These leeches need to start contributing like the rest of us.

Re:France should try innovating...

[Anonymous Coward]

if silicon Valley don't like the laws then perhaps they should stop doing business in the countries that don't give them a free pass, I am sure the governments won't mind. Got a feeling the google execs losing the 10's of billions of income might though.

Re:France should try innovating...

[ooloorie]

"Leeching money out of France" makes no sense. Foreign companies provide valuable and useful services to France, services that the French obviously want and are willing to pay money for. If those services become unavailable, France will be worse off, not better off.

France has serious economic problems This kind of stupidity on the part of the French government will only discourage investment in the country further and hurt them even more.

Re:France should try innovating...

[Anonymous Coward]

> All of Google's advertising and services customers are paying sales tax.

So you think because I'm paying taxes my boss shouldn't? Pfeh.

Re:France should try innovating...

[bloodhawk]

of course people all around the world prefer to buy from them, They can undercut all the local companies driving them out of business as they don't pay taxes and hence have a competitive advantage. yep I am sure that is what is best for everyone, a few rich companies collecting money without paying tax while all the local companies go broke putting everyone out of work. Your short sighted view of the world is sad, I am sure we would all be better off if none of us payed any tax and I am sure the governments would still be able to provide all the esential services.

Re:France should try innovating...

[Anonymous Coward]

you need to learn some basics of economics and taxation before making such moronic posts. France being better off with their services is an extremely narrow short term thing. the net effect is a jobs and a economic drain on the country, This is usually somewhat countered by taxation those companies pay and of course exports. As companies likegoogle don't pay tax they are actually a burden on society in many countries as they are funnelling money out of the economy and overseas.

Re:France should try innovating...

[Anonymous Coward]

France has produced many more innovations than Silicon Valley.

Re:France should try innovating...

[Schmorgluck]

It's not the only thing that factors in, but Google profits from using French infrastructures, that cost money to be in the state they are.

Re:France should try innovating...

[ooloorie]

Google's use of infrastructure is already accounted for through real estate, sales, and income tax.

Re:France should try innovating...

[ooloorie]

Google is paying plenty of local taxes, including sales tax. That pays for the infrastructure and essential services that Google actually relies on. That is, France already gets billions in taxes from Google. Their remaining profit, however, is largely derived from stuff that France has no part in creating, namely the software and inventions that actually run Google. France is trying to take money that doesn't belong to them, and they are lying to do so.

Re:France should try innovating...

[dave420]

And the companies can't operate in France without all the infrastructure and civilisation paid for by taxes. If France stops getting taxes from companies which operate there, then those companies can't continue to operate, and France falls apart. This is the same for every single country on the face of the planet which collects taxes. That's how it works. It's amazing this has to be explained to you.

Re:France should try innovating...

[ooloorie]

The infrastructure is already paid for through sales taxes, real estate taxes, and income taxes, all of which Google pays. The remaining profits are derived from Google's software and inventions, which France contributed nothing to. It's amazing that this needs to be explained to you.

And France is already falling apart. French civilization? Don't make me laugh.

Re:France should try innovating...

[Schmorgluck]

The very point of the process is that Google has avoided paying the equivalent of its income tax.

Re:France should try innovating...

[Anonymous Coward]

google pay a fraction of the tax other local companies pay. how hard is to see that that is not fair? why are there so many google shills?

Re:France should try innovating...

[ooloorie]

The very point of the process is that Google has avoided paying the equivalent of its income tax.

Google has already paid the equivalent of its income tax, namely in sales tax. In any case, you argued that Google "profits from French infrastructure", and you have failed to justify that assertion. All the infrastructure Google uses in France is more than paid off by other taxes besides corporate income tax.

In fact, Google's high profits are due to Google's software and innovation, and France has done nothing to contribute to that. Objectively, the French government is already stealing from Americans and Google's investors (and that means largely people's retirement funds).

Re:France should try innovating...

[Schmorgluck]

Google payed sales tax? Weird, sales tax is ultimately paid by consumers, not companies.

Re:France should try innovating...

[Schmorgluck]

Granted, Google's customers (sorry for the mistake) can be companies, but it's still not Google paying the tax. That's simply not how sales tax works.

Re:France should try innovating...

[ooloorie]

Google payed sales tax? Weird, sales tax is ultimately paid by consumers, not companies.

That's why I wrote:

Google's use of infrastructure is already accounted for through real estate, sales, and income tax.

I wrote that before you tried to hijack this discussion by turning it into an irrelevant semantic debate whether corporate tax is the equivalent of income tax or not. I repeat: Google's use of infrastructure is already accounted for through other taxes.

If we look at this objectively in terms of rights, duties, and responsibilities, the French government is taking money away from the people who actually paid for the infrastructure that allowed Google to make these profits, namely the American people and Google's investors. Don't try to dress up French greed, arrogance, and selfishness as anything other than what it is. France can get away with this, just like they could get away with raping their colonies, but that doesn't mean other people need to buy in to the fiction that it is morally justified.

Re:France should try innovating...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google wants to do business in France, then it should pay French taxes, whether or not you and they think it is fair, it is that simple. Now, however much Google complains about it, they'll pay the tax and continue to do business in France as it will still be worthwhile for them to do so.

By not paying all the taxes in France that they should they are stealing from the French people, is that moral?

You're calling France arrogant, greedy and selfish, but you can just as easily turn it around and apply those words to Google.

The problem with looking at it objectively in terms of rights, duties and responsibilities, is that you can't, those are all subjective.

Re:France should try innovating...

[Schmorgluck]

Google's use of infrastructure is already accounted for through other taxes.

Nope. You'll have to back that up with credible figures for me to consider it. My statement stands: the taxes due by Google based on the profit it makes through its French customer base has to be paid in France following French tax laws. There's absolutely no getting out of it. It's not even a matter of morals, it's a matter of equality before the law. Google decides to do business in France, following French tax laws is part of doing the business. Doing otherwise would be a attack on free market.

Re:France should try innovating...

[ooloorie]

Saying that they must obey French tax laws is a tautology. Obviously, as a practical matter, they have to follow the laws of the country they are doing business in.

What we are talking about is whether French taxes are justified. Your argument was that Google receives infrastructure in France that it needs to do business, I'm saying that is bullshit. The only infrastructure Google is using in France for its business is infrastructure that France already taxes other people to provide or that are paid for privately: roads for employees, Internet access for its employees and customers.

If you want to make an argument that taxing Google beyond that is reasonable, you have to explain what that money is supposed to be for. Right now, France is just behaving like highway robbers: they try to take money because they can.

Re:France should try innovating...

[Schmorgluck]

We weren't, at any point, discussing if French taxes are justified. If you want to discuss the workings of French taxation, how fair it is, and such things, I'm open for that. For example, I tend to think French taxation is excessively heavy on small businesses and too lenient towards big companies, while being weirdly quirky in between - and is overall exceedingly complicated. But that doesn't change much about the matter at hand because, guess what? Google doesn't fall into the "small business" category.

Ultimately, though, the question at hand, relevant to the subject matter, is if Google is entitled to exempt itself from tax laws that apply to other companies. And the answer is clearly "no". The answer will be the same regardless of country.

By the way, I'm not trying to make an argument that taxing Google beyond "that" is reasonable, because I don't understand what you mean by "that".

Re:France should try innovating...

[ooloorie]

We weren't, at any point, discussing if French taxes are justified.

That is exactly what we are discussing:

in this case silicon valley has been a leech on many of the world's societies. Perhaps silicon valley should actually try paying what it legitimately owes instead of trying to use tax havens to leech off society.

Ultimately, though, the question at hand, relevant to the subject matter, is if Google is entitled to exempt itself from tax laws that apply to other companies.

You're getting it backwards: other companies with the same relationships to each other as Google's subsidiaries do not have to pay these taxes. The French government going after Google is politically motivated. Furthermore, it's penny wise and pound foolish, because this kind of arbitrary government sends companies packing (France already isn't a very desirable place for international corporations to begin with due to the language and the culture).

Aren't the people who run google

[Anonymous Coward]

part of the leftist 'pay your fair share' crowd? They get what they deserve.

Re:Aren't the people who run google

[Anonymous Coward]

part of the leftist 'pay your fair share' crowd? They get what they deserve.

You forget that the leftist elite are about spending other people's money, i.e. taxing other people's income.

Bad Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual, bad summary. The United Kingdom did not agree to pay anything. Google agreed to pay back taxes to the UK. The summary basically is saying that the UK agreed to pay back taxes to France. Way to go submitter and editor. That is clearly NOT what was meant.

Doesn't add up, greater than 100% tax!

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google took in about 17 billion euros in revenue for 2015, how can all these countries demand a percentage of that total. Eventually it's going to add up to more than 100%. Why does France deserve 10% of it, will every other 27 EU members demand 10% too. Will Google have to pay 47.6 B in taxes on the 17 B revenue? It's madness

Re:Doesn't add up, greater than 100% tax!

[Harlequin80]

Your numbers are out more than just a little.... Google took in 74.15 billion in revenue in 2015. France isn't looking for 10% of Google's revenue. They are looking for back taxes over the period in which Google operated in France which looks to have averaged 1.2 billion euro over the past 5 years.

They're already lowering it!

[wonkey_monkey]

France Seeking $1.76 Billion In Back Taxes From Google

According to a Reuters insider, France is seeking 1.6 billion euros in back taxes from Google

Blimey. If it's slid that far between headline and summary, it'll be down to 0 by the morning.

Re:They're already lowering it!

[athmanb]

The fine wasn't lowered, that's just the change in the Euro exchange rate.

Re:They're already lowering it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Durr

1.6 Euro equals 1.76 US Dollar

Reading his tough.

Re:They're already lowering it!

[PhrostyMcByte]

Well, almost. 1.76 usd = 1.6 eur

Re:They're already lowering it!

[Jack Griffin]

Do you work at NASA?

Re:They're already lowering it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you an idiot, a moron, or just plain stupid?

Re:They're already lowering it!

[Anonymous Coward]

whooosh!

later, after every businessman left France...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm.

I have a business.

Where do I want to go more, now? England or France?

Hmm :-)

Re:later, after every businessman left France...

[Opportunist]

Wait, what? Every businessman left France?

Wow, talk about an opportunity! No matter what market I want, I'd have a monopoly! Sure, tax is high, but hey, pass it on to the customer, who gives a shit about taxes?

Re:later, after every businessman left France...

[Jack Griffin]

Judging by the amount of English people moving to France, and not many going the other way, I think you have your answer.

Re:later, after every businessman left France...

[Eunuchswear]

Judging by the amount of English people moving to France, and not many going the other way, I think you have your answer.

Uh, there are hundreds of thousands of French people in the UK -- London is France's sixth biggest city.

(Written by an Englishman who moved to France).

Re:later, after every businessman left France...

[Jack Griffin]

Are you sure?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
I couldn't find any reliable figures, but appears to be similar both ways (around 200k). Perhaps more interesting is that there are 1.2million!!! Brits in Australia.

Re:later, after every businessman left France...

[Eunuchswear]

200k is hundreds of thousands.

Yes, it's possible the "6th biggest city" thing is bollocks, and you can argue endlessly about whether there are more brits outside the UK or frogs outside France but the initial claim "not many [French] going the other way [from France to the UK]" is obvious rubbish. Like I say, I say this as a Brit who moved (permanently) to France.

pump your brakes, slashdotters.

[nimbius]

I know the site has a pretty staunch libertarian lean, but its important to rememember: Google rakes in around 17 billion dollars per quarter.

france wants backtaxes for multiple years totalling ~2% of an entire years revenue.

Re:pump your brakes, slashdotters.

[Anonymous Coward]

France should get a job

Re:pump your brakes, slashdotters.

[Anonymous Coward]

How much does Google rake in in France per quarter? Not $17 billion. The US accounts for about half of that; French revenue not likely to be a big chunk. Why should Google be taxed by the French on the money they make in the US or elsewhere?

Re:pump your brakes, slashdotters.

[Solandri]

That's revenue. You have to subtract operating expenses. Google's profit per quarter is about $4 billion.

France has a population of 66 million people. Assume 2/3 of those use Google (the rest being too young or luddites) and you get 44 million users. Figure Google has a billion users, so France accounts for 4.4% of that.

If you look at Google's growth profile, it more or less forms a triangle going back to about 2005. So assuming constant profit margin, total Google profit has been about $4 billion * 4 quarters * 11 years / 2 = $88 billion.

4.4% of $88 billion is $3.87 billion. So France wants to tax Google at a $1.76 / $3.87 = 45.5% tax rate.

Re:pump your brakes, slashdotters.

[rtb61]

The taxes need to paid where the revenue is generated and not be scammed as inflated costs in order to shift the profit to tax havens.

My only thought it, hey wait the fuck up, what is going on here. As an individual if I had cheated that much in taxes I would not only be forced to pay it, but interest and a fine on top, but wait, theres more, I would also be not enjoying an extended custodial sentence. So seriously France WTF is going on and why are not a bunch of google bean counters going to prison, seriously why the fuck not!?!

Re:pump your brakes, slashdotters.

[Malc]

Only 45.5%? That's pretty good by France's standards!

Re:pump your brakes, slashdotters.

[AmiMoJo]

That's now how tax works, at least not in France. They have a tax rate, they look at the amount of profit generated in France and apply it to that. Nothing to do with population, it's purely the amount of profit Google.fr has made over the past decade in their country.

The French corporation tax rate is 33%. So if that is 45.5% on the global scale, it means that France is making more money for Google than the average of all other countries it operates in. That's hardly surprising.

Re:pump your brakes, slashdotters.

[AmiMoJo]

This is only the preliminary figure set by the tax authority. They usually issue a preliminary number that the corporation can challenge in court. If they don't challenge or they lose, they pay that PLUS interest and any applicable files.

Unfortunately prison would be hard to arrange because the bean counters will claim that they genuinely misinterpreted the tax laws. It would be hard to prosecute, although I think they should still try because it would set an example for anyone else thinking of trying it on.

Re:pump your brakes, slashdotters.

[sociocapitalist]

4.4% of $88 billion is $3.87 billion. So France wants to tax Google at a $1.76 / $3.87 = 45.5% tax rate.

Shouldn't forget interest and penalties. Penalties in France go up to 300% of the actual tax amount due.

Re:pump your brakes, slashdotters.

[rtb61]

Lets be clear here Ignorantia juris non excusat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... You fuck up, lie cheat and steal, ignorance means a slightly reduced sentence not no fucking sentence at all. So either Google bean counters go to prison for that level of tax fraud or the entire system is utterly corrupt and the Google bean counters go to prison as well as a bunch of corrupt prosecutors and politicians. They can spend years learning the rules of the tax code in prison, they will have nothing else on their minds, excellent study opportunity.

Danegeld

[roman_mir]

This is a clear cut case of Danegeld. Google should have never paid a single cent to UK government, now every vulture out there will be after them. AFAIC Google should hire hitmen to get rid of these officials making these demands.

Re:Danegeld

[Opportunist]

Careful, ponder who you're dealing with. Governments tend to already HAVE hitmen. And they even operate legally within their borders.

Re:Danegeld

[roman_mir]

Sure, but those are 'governments'. On the other hand individual politicians who are pushing for this type of thing can be made an example of so that others would think twice.

Re:Danegeld

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, once you start paying for stuff, nobody lets you just get it for free anymore.

We should never have allowed government to get the idea that it deserved to be paid for any of the services it provides, they should be obligated to do it without compensation.

Then once we get the public entities used to this, it'll be simple to transfer this logic to the private.

And thus we will all be FREE again. After all, how can you be FREE if you have to PAY for ANYTHING at ALL?

So to be FREE, we must give up PAYMENT!

Re:Danegeld

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple, create something called a Non Taxable Entity. i.e. a business that pays ZERO taxes.

HOWEVER

Any money coming into the country to that entity is taxed at 100%, that stops it being a tax haven harming other countries.
That entity has ZERO protection under law, i.e. no copyright/patent protection, no legal protection against theft, vandalism or other crimes against property, is uninsurable , and can not own property in that country. No payments made to that company are tax deductible, and contracts are unenforcible.

i.e. you pay no taxes, but from a legal POV, you do not legally exist either.
And that rule applies to ALL subsidiaries and other spin off companies, world wide.

And you have the the choice ONCE, it is permanently binding.

Business will be happier to pay taxes.

Re:Danegeld

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, good idea, Google starts the Cold Cash War.

roman_mir, I think you're getting more demented by the day.

Re:Danegeld

[Opportunist]

So can individual corporations that try to sidestep governmental demands. Google is a big player, no doubt about that, but in none of its business areas it holds a monopoly. Not even a de facto one.

Re:Danegeld

[KGIII]

The person you replied to is an Anaco-capitalist. (No, that does not mean Libertarian. They're diametrically opposed views, in all actuality.)

What they said, including the violence, is in-line with their beliefs. If nothing else, they're consistent and you've gotta respect that. They're sincere held beliefs which is a lot better than many have. Don't get me wrong, I think they're insane (but probably not retarded or stupid) and I think that anarchy will never reach the plateau that is assumed. I also think that capitalism doesn't reach a state of equilibrium on its own, much like all pure political or economic ideologies. (Government, like life, finds a way and there will be governance, even if just at the end of a barrel.)

So, yes... Yes I think they're horribly misguided and don't realize the horrible failure their ideology will result in - if implemented (we've seen it on small scales, it seldom works well). But... I do respect their consistency and that they're truly held beliefs - and that they're willing to take the guff that comes along with holding those beliefs. However, trying to reason with them is an exercise in futility.

Re: Danegeld

[Anonymous Coward]

However, trying to reason with them is an exercise in futility.

I am aware of that, hence the flippancy of my own response.

Apologies if it was not clear.

Re:Danegeld

[Anonymous Coward]

The person you replied to is an Anaco-capitalist. (No, that does not mean Libertarian. They're diametrically opposed views, in all actuality.)

I'm afraid you're still wrong. You're right that roman - in spite of his claims to the contrary - is absolutely not a libertarian. However, he isn't an anarchist, either. In reality, he is actually a closet fascist.

He shared a little more of his inner views on Saturday, when he came out plainly in favor of slavery:

Black slaves were slaves because under law they could be owned not because capitalism somehow allowed some people to own others. It is a rational decision to put signs like that out if most of your profits come from a class of people that have much more money and power. Catering to the laws (implicit and explicit) and to the sentiment of the majority makes business sense.

 

slaves who only work enough not to be beaten and killed and who will not participate in the business, will not offer creativity and any particular interest (nor should they) vs free work force, free as in liberty

There is no anarchy in slavery. What is in slavery is fascism. Roman is a big fan of fascism, just not smart enough to realize that it will lead to his own destruction.

Re:Danegeld

[Anonymous Coward]

Google should have never paid a single cent to UK government

That is absolutely correct. We use pounds and pence over here in the UK, and that is what they should be paying their taxes to the UK government in.

CAPTCHA: "Evasion"

American's future entrepreneurs are watching

[davidwr]

2025, boardroom of a start-up company looking on where to invest, where to find customers, and where to set up offices:

Chris: Hey Jo, I've been looking at our European customer base. We haven't really been targeting them but there seems to be a lot of interest. You think we should look into setting up offices there?

Jo: It's worth a look, but we need to play this conservative. Remember how France and the UK squeezed huge tax settlements out of Google and other tech companies back when we were in high school?

Chris: Yeah, we'll have to go really slow on this and hire a tax advisor before we ever set foot in Europe. In the meantime, let's not target European customers and make sure that if we allow any third-party advertisements on our products that they are clearly NOT aimed at European customers.

Jo: *sigh* Well, hopefully we can work out something with the governments over there so we know ahead of time what the tax bill will be. We should pay our fair share of taxes, but there's no way we should set ourselves up for being blind-sided.

Chris: Well, you know, the nominal tax rate over there is pretty high. If we can't get some kind of up-front discount, we may just have to forgo that market entirely.

Jo: Agreed.

Re:American's future entrepreneurs are watching

[roman_mir]

All good except this part:

We should pay our fair share of taxes, but there's no way we should set ourselves up for being blind-sided.

- AFAIC the only fair share of income taxes collected from anybody is 0.

Re:American's future entrepreneurs are watching

[Harlequin80]

Please tell me you are joking.

2025, boardroom of a start-up company looking on where to invest, where to find customers, and where to set up offices:

Chris: Hey Jo, I've been looking at our European customer base. We haven't really been targeting them but there seems to be a lot of interest. You think we should look into setting up offices there?

Jo: Really, we should have been doing it earlier. If we don't get a significant percentage of the worlds population using our system we can be too easily displaced.

Chris: You know tax rates are higher there don't you?

Jo: Yeah they are. But if we don't try to avoid taxes in those regions we can easily budget for them. Of course we could do what Google did and walk the grey line and then negotiate hard when they come after us.

Chris: Hmmmm I'll give that some thought. It could be good to have the extra cash early but we will need to budget for settlements and the risk associated with that.

There is NO WAY that an international company will ignore the second largest consumer population block in the world. None. Not a chance. Christ companies bend over backwards to operate in China and the Eurozone is bigger financially in total.

Re:American's future entrepreneurs are watching

[Eunuchswear]

There is NO WAY that an international company will ignore the second largest consumer population block in the world.

Bugger the population (330 million in the eurozone), you're talking about 21% of the world economy!

Think about that. What idiot would ignore 1 dollar (pound, Euro) in every 5!

30% rev from France * 33% tax = 10% total rev

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google took in about 17 billion euros in revenue for 2015 ... Why does France deserve 10% of it ...

France and Germany are the economic power houses of Europe. France, and presumably the others, are only taxing google on revenue earned in their respective jurisdictions. For the sake of argument, if 30% of Google's revenue is from French territory and France wants 33% of that then we get about 10% of google's total EU revenue.

But...

[penguinoid]

How much does it add up to, when you include late fees, compound interest, inflation, punitive damages, and the megacorp discount?

Re:But...

[Schmorgluck]

Well, for one thing, in France, you can strike punitive damages in all cases. Fines, however...

Confusing first sentence.

[seven of five]

France is seeking 1.6 billion euros in back taxes from Google, dwarfing what the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay.

The UK owed France taxes? What's that got to do with Google?

Re:Confusing first sentence.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot, where the posts are submitted by Anonymous Readers, and edited by 2nd graders.

Re:Confusing first sentence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah, you think they're edited.

Re:Confusing first sentence.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot, where the posts are submitted by Anonymous Readers, and edited by 2nd graders.

I think the context makes it obvious, as these are taxes, not tariffs.

It's not lowering the price,

[mimino]

... it's converting to metric system.

You just can't satisfy corporations

[Opportunist]

First they want to be treated like people and now that they are...

Yaay go France

[JustNiz]

Yaay go France. I wish the UK had more balls.
Alternatively maybe I can now "agree to pay" about 100th of my UK tax bill. and If not, why not?

Re:Yaay go France

[JazzLad]

only 130 million pounds of tax, a $181.18 million settlement

Yaay go France. I wish the UK had more balls. Alternatively maybe I can now "agree to pay" about 100th of my UK tax bill. and If not, why not?

$181.18M settlement tells me they wanted $311.18M and got $130M ... I'n no economist, but it looks like they got 42% of the ask, not 1% ... did I miss something or are you more valuable to the UK than Google?

Re:Yaay go France

[JustNiz]

Whatever. My point wasn't about the figures, but the whole notion that Google can somehow tell the UK Inland Revenue Service how much tax it feels like paying, rather than like the rest of us, have to follow established rules.
Furthermore even 311.18m sounds already massively compromised, given France are apparently legitimately asking for billions.

Neil.

Re:Yaay go France

[sociocapitalist]

Yaay go France. I wish the UK had more balls.
Alternatively maybe I can now "agree to pay" about 100th of my UK tax bill. and If not, why not?

Because you probably don't have a bunch of 'lords' or whoever it is that makes your laws and legal rulings with a vested interest in you making a nice profit for them to get a share of.

corporate welfare

[Smiddi]

"IF" companies like this payed their fair share of tax the stock market wouldn't look as bloated plus that money would be injected into each countries economies, meaning better education, roads, welfare (not corporate welfare), health care, etc. There really is no excuse for "laws" that allow this type of tax avoidance and is the best thing for any country.

Re:corporate welfare

[MerlynEmrys67]

Please define fair share.
Please define bloated.
How would money being taken from profit generating entities be used to "Inject" money into the economy more efficiently than the entity making money doing it?

If your idea of fair share is everyone paying a larger percentage of taxes than you do - you just don't get it. If Warren Buffet believes he is paying too little in taxes, he is free to mail the IRS a check for the surplus taxes he believes he owes. Since he doesn't send this check in, he is basically saying everyone ELSE needs to pay more in taxes. Now everyone feels like that, no one wants to pay more in taxes - but wants everyone else to pay more so there are more benefits to go around.

Re:corporate welfare

[Maxo-Texas]

It's like art. Hard to define but when a company is making 88 billion dollars and paying a few hundred million in taxes, you know something is wrong.

I hope france nails google hard.

Not because google- but because all the other companies and corporations that are externalizing their costs on host countries and then refusing to pay revenue to the countries.

Re:corporate welfare

[Maxo-Texas]

I think we can look at two particular definitions for fair as a start

Fair: adverb:
        1. without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage.
        "no one could say he played fair"

I think it's clear that google (and many other companies) are cheating and trying to achieve an unjust advantage by using features of globalism to artificially shift revenue around.

Two primary methods are

a) setting up a shell company in another country and making a sham loan with interest payments greater than the profits of the sheltered company.

b) setting up a shell company in another country and paying license, franchise or other fees greater than the profits of the sheltered company.

I think the IRS and corresponding agencies are just about done with both those methods. I anticipate them declaring such excessive fees and such loans to be fraudulent tax shelters. And coming after the money. Like with SYSCO who tried something similar and ended up paying close to a billion dollars in taxes.

The other is
Fair: Adjective
1. in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate.

Pretty much the same thing. The people elect a government which sets up standard methods of taxing and standard tax rates. Those who avoid paying taxes by using non-standard setups are not being fair. Likewise by this standard, I think they will only make it so far. And I think like all greedy individuals, they pushed this one too far. And so there will be a reckoning. And once one country does it and makes it stick... I pity the shareholders of these cheating companies.

Re:corporate welfare

[Anonymous Coward]

When you assert that tax avoidance is an attempt to achieve an unjust advantage you are assuming that taxation itself is a just system. You may think it is clear that google et al are cheating but they are really just trying to avoid being victims of theft.

If a few children managed to survive a school shooting by hiding in utility cupboards I suppose you'd consider this unfair and demand their deaths.

Re:corporate welfare

[lucien86]

If you don't like Socialism - then go and try the lifestyle in somewhere with true unfettered capitalism - like Somalia. No pesky bureaucrats or police or justice system or teachers or medical help or anything else - unless you pay for it. Human life worth a dollar, human death slightly cheaper.

Re:corporate welfare

[Maxo-Texas]

They are making billions of dollars because of the way the system is set up. If it had been set up differently, they would have never made a dime.

We can disagree on what's a fair amount to take, but Google's tax rate was so low it was embarrassing and they volunteered to pay more when first caught. It was like Romney refusing to share his tax returns because the 13% rate he paid was lower than just about anyone in the country and he knew it would come across very badly.

If you are rich- I salute you defending your self interests. If you are not rich- you are stupid. Not ignorant. Stupid.

double taxation sure, but your arithmetic. ..?

[raymorris]

I'm with you on the double taxation, and for many small businesses some of the money is even triple-taxed, after this owner spends WAY too much time dealing with way too much paperwork for many different kinds of taxes.

This part doesn't make sense to me, though:

> would silo off portions of it's operation that cost money, incorporate separately, then charge the original company exactly $1 over costs for services each year. Because that business made $1 instead of taking a multi-year loss it would not trigger any kind of review or audit

Suppose by before splitting, company A has $100 in revenue, and $80 in expenses, with the expenses attributable to division B. The company has $20 profit/ income, so they pay income tax on $20.

Suppose you split off department B into company B.
Company A still has $100 in sales and pays $80 to company B, so they still have a profit of $20 on which they pay income tax. Company B has no profit and thus pays no income tax. The income tax is the same either way.

Moreoever, with one company, they franchise tax and sales tax on the $100 in sales. By splitting, company A pays sales and franchise taxes on their $100 of sales AND company B has $80 of sales (to company A), which company B would then have to pay franchise and sales tax on. Splitting the company means they would pay MORE taxes, because they've created more taxable transactions.

Re:double taxation sure, but your arithmetic. ..?

[shaitand]

"Suppose by before splitting, company A has $100 in revenue, and $80 in expenses, with the expenses attributable to division B. The company has $20 profit/ income, so they pay income tax on $20.

Suppose you split off department B into company B.
Company A still has $100 in sales and pays $80 to company B, so they still have a profit of $20 on which they pay income tax. Company B has no profit and thus pays no income tax. The income tax is the same either way."

It doesn't make sense because you are oversimplifying a bit. Not all expenses are deductible and some types of income are taxed differently depending on how you are organized and how profits are disposed of. Siloing into different companies allows for lots of tricks jumping around the tax code, like company A and company B using different "standard" accounting practices. Any and all deductions and credits with caps are also reset since each company A and B can hit the cap. Corporate taxation works very differently from personal taxation.

Additionally, it greatly simplifies things on your balance sheet because if a third party can provide company A the service company B provides at lower cost you can simply fold or sell company B and take a big loss on paper.

Right to be forgotten

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Google removes France from the Internet does it mean France would cease to exist

That's odd

[SuperKendall]

I just tried Googling "France", and I got back a full page of Goatse links.

For one I was REALLY glad I wasn't feeling lucky.

How long were the Google exec jail terms again?

[WillAffleckUW]

(waits)

Fines won't help you
Praying won't do you no good
Fines won't stop them
Paying won't avoid further theft
When the Google steals, you must jail them now

Oh oh woah

Come back when you're serious.

equitability

[micahraleigh]

Perhaps France should pay back the US for protecting them under the US nuclear umbrella during the Cold War while they were eating crepes.