Slashdot Mirror


Apple Argued That Buildings at Its Headquarters Were Worth $200, Not $1B, To Reduce Its Tax Bill: Report (sfchronicle.com)

Apple argued that buildings it owned around Cupertino, where it is headquartered, were only worth $200 instead of the $1 billion tax assessors deemed in 2015, according to appeals reviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle. From a report: The report characterized the dispute as part of an aggressive strategy by Apple to lower its tax bills. According to the Chronicle, Apple has 489 open appeals in tax disputes over property assessed at $8.5 billion in Santa Clara County, Calif., dating back to 2004. Those appeals include the $1 billion building assessed by tax officials, as well as another $384 million property that Apple also claims is worth $200. Apple is now valued at $1 trillion. It is also the county's biggest taxpayer, paying $56 million in the 2017-2018 tax year.

536 comments

  1. tax frauds by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know a guy who got a dog and called it a company mascot and had his company pay for all the pet supplies. People will try anything, it doesn't make it right.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ok, but nothing about your example sounds wrong. I guess he could have gone about it in a wrong way, but the idea of a company having a mascot and paying for the well-being of said mascot from the company coffers sounds like a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

    2. Re:tax frauds by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      I know a guy who got a dog and called it a company mascot and had his company pay for all the pet supplies. People will try anything, it doesn't make it right.

      Yeah but this is more like your mate having a dog then claiming its a hamster when it comes time to pay the vet bills.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    3. Re:tax frauds by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Except he didn't have a company that needed a mascot for any purpose. He was not publicly facing in any way. He laughed about how it was a scam.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:tax frauds by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      This is more like your buddy owning a zoo and sealife aquarium resort with trillion dollar valuation, and then claiming it's a pet hamster for tax purposes.

      Seriously you can easily spend more than $200/year on a hamster, it's actually taking less piss than Apple is.

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

      The scale of that analogy is all wrong. It's more like having a horse and claiming it's a flea.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The joke will be on him if the company goes under/bought and the mascot is considered company property.

    7. Re: tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what will happen if he is audited. Even in privately held companies converting personal expenses to business expenses carries a significant, sometime criminal, penalty.

    8. Re: tax frauds by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Where I am from, it is fairly unlikely that small players every get audited.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:tax frauds by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Any kind of lying is wrong. I don't care if it is an ant, if you are making things up to save on taxes it's wrong.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    10. Re:tax frauds by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It isn't about being right, it is about being legal.

      Morality and Legality are only loosely correlated.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    11. Re:tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're just looking for a better future.

    12. Re:tax frauds by dahlellama · · Score: 1

      It is more like owning a cruise ship and calling it a bath toy.

    13. Re:tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh God. apple makes a few tech gadgets. Hardly anything very important. Lets see apple pave the streets and run the schools.

    14. Re:tax frauds by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh God. apple makes a few tech gadgets. Hardly anything very important. Lets see apple pave the streets and run the schools.

      I'd bet they could do a better job of it than the Cupertino Town Council.

    15. Re:tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except he didn't have a company that needed a mascot for any purpose.

      Does any company need a mascot?

      He was not publicly facing in any way.

      So?

      He laughed about how it was a scam.

      I fail to see what part actually counts as a scam. But again, like I said originally, I suppose he could have gone about it in a wrong way. IANAL, but as an example, if all he did was literally say the dog was the mascot without filing any paperwork to that effect, then I could see it being at least legally wrong. But as long as he filed whatever paperwork would be necessary to get his dog on the books as the company mascot, then it seems perfectly reasonable to pay for things for the dog from the company coffers.

      Though as my fellow AC brought up, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the company got bought or went into bankruptcy.

    16. Re: tax frauds by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      People can be prosecuted for doing legal things for the intent of circumventing taxes.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    17. Re: tax frauds by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      Intent counts in law.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    18. Re: tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The streets would only be compatible with Apple branded vehicles and shoes.

    19. Re: tax frauds by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Friend of a friend did a scam where he set up a company that was paid his contacting fees, then paid him a nominal amount and gave the rest to him as a loan. He then defaulted on the loan and shut down the company, avoiding paying any income tax.

      Naturally the tax authority wasn't having any of it and now he owes then â80,000.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:tax frauds by Golddess · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is slashdot, so it's actually more like owning a Rolls Royce Sweptail and calling it a Ford Fiesta.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    21. Re: tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are sport teams private companies?

    22. Re:tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they would.. All worship apple. How did society ever survive before apple?
      You are really a fucking IDIOT.

    23. Re:tax frauds by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So you obviously make up things to claim to the government.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    24. Re:tax frauds by fluffernutter · · Score: 0

      When people try to do an end-run around the intent of a law, it makes the system more expensive for all of us. This means we now need lawmakers to spend hours and hours writing documents that close every possible loophole, as well as paying to fight companies that try to challenge those loopholes. It would be much simpler if the intent of the law mattered.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    25. Re:tax frauds by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      They're looking for a better future for them and no one else but them, and that's the problem.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    26. Re:tax frauds by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      What does Cupertino do for Apple?

      It pays the people who respond to Apple's campus when their employees walk into glass walls.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    27. Re: tax frauds by anegg · · Score: 1

      In the US, a loan that is "forgiven" by the lender counts as income to the borrower, generally. https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/1099-c-tax-form-questions-answers-1282.php

    28. Re:tax frauds by lgw · · Score: 2

      ny kind of lying is wrong. I don't care if it is an ant, if you are making things up to save on taxes it's wrong.

      I respect the fact you pay extra taxes; means less to pay for the rest of us.

      But this is a negotiation over assessed value of property. I guess you've never had your house assessed out of the blue for far more than it's worth, and had to challenge it to get it back to something reasonable? Obviously, Apple doesn't expect the $200 to fly, it's just their response to what they see as an equally outrageous opening position by the government. Negotiations will proceed from there. Wish I had lawyers to play that game for me.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    29. Re: tax frauds by lgw · · Score: 1

      The streets would only be compatible with Apple branded vehicles and shoes.

      You'd only be able to use the streets if you had gone to the Apple schools. And you'd have to do it again every few years, when they changed th connectors.

      It's a damn god thing Apple isn't on the coast - they'd remove all the ports!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    30. Re:tax frauds by lgw · · Score: 1

      Easier for the government to imprison anyone they didn't like, to be sure. Intent is subjective. Common law, based on precedent and the text of the law first, limits the ability of the government to just decide the law means whatever it needs to mean to imprison you.

      That being said, intent does certainly matter: judges to try to interpret ambiguity based on the legislative intent - however, that intent must be discerned from what is written in the law, as that's the only objective basis.

      Anyway, Apple isn't trying to avoid the intent of the law, they're just negotiating a price.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    31. Re: tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck getting the fire department to save your house if you dont have an apple homepod spying device.

    32. Re: tax frauds by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Not forgive as such, he just didn't pay it back and didn't sue himself.

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

      I used to work for a guy that ran a lot of the materials to build his new house through the business. Knew of a few others that did similar things.

    34. Re:tax frauds by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I know a guy who got a dog and called it a company mascot and had his company pay for all the pet supplies. People will try anything, it doesn't make it right.

      And, since it was in Cupertino, the city government decided the mascot dog was worth $479,000 dollars, pay your property tax on it.

      The value of the property should be worth closer to what it costs to replace than what it costs when a hot company is existing there. How much is it worth if Apple abandons some buildings and leaves them empty?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    35. Re:tax frauds by Dogtanian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not even close. Given that Apple were claiming that a $384 million building was worth $200 (i.e. a factor of almost two million to one), it's far, *far* more literally close to owning an actual $13m Rolls Royce Sweptail and claiming it's a Hot Wheels toy version of that same Ford Fiesta.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    36. Re: tax frauds by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0

      Doing everything legal to avoid taxes is good behavior, not bad. Skipping this is foolish, if lazy, or generous, if deliberate.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    37. Re:tax frauds by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Hey, if someone's got a cute dog I'm shopping there. There's value there.

    38. Re:tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might also be like having a HQ building and calling it an old, refurbished iPhone.

    39. Re:tax frauds by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Everything about it sounds wrong. The goal of letting company pay for mascot is so that there's additional economic activity.

      What he's doing is called "fraud". It's why tax benefits that could be genuinely useful are either not passed, or revoked.

    40. Re:tax frauds by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I respect the fact you pay extra taxes; means less to pay for the rest of us.

      Everyone knows this is how it works too. There's a big pot and the government keeps collecting money until it fills up and after that no one has to pay anymore.

    41. Re:tax frauds by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Informative

      Off the top of my head, the City of Cupertino responds if there is a fire at Apple's $200 building and prevents it from being a complete loss by employing people to drive fire trucks that the City bought specifically for this purpose.

      But hey, they are only out $200 right?

      They also probably do other things like provide fresh water to that $200 building through convenient pipes, and take away sewage away through other convenient pipes. They have to maintain those pipes somehow, because pipes aren't magic objects that pop into existence where you need them, of the sizes needed.

      Oh, and they maintain these crazy strips of asphalt that allow the workers to get to Apple's $200 building, so that Apple actually has people to design products to sell and make that Scrooge McDuck sized pile of money. Again, roads are not made of magic materials that you can wish into existence for free - it's real material that costs money to produce, and money to put that material in place. And more money to install traffic signals that keep the thousands of workers from that $200 building from having to deal with even worse traffic than they already do. And should a couple of those workers run their cars into each other on the City-owned roads, there's some more City employees that show up in City-owned vehicles (or perhaps from a City-contracted service) to provide emergency medical assistance. I think that one is called an "ambulance".

      Please don't be daft.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    42. Re:tax frauds by fluffernutter · · Score: 0

      But there is no negotiation; the value is the value.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    43. Re:tax frauds by lgw · · Score: 1

      When you buy a house, please remember that the price is, in fact, negotiable, and you don't have to take the first offer.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    44. Re:tax frauds by hawk · · Score: 2

      Oh, kind of like those folks with chihuahuas that think it's a breed of dog rather than rat? :)

      hawk

    45. Re:tax frauds by Kohath · · Score: 0, Troll

      So somewhat more than $200 then. Maybe a few thousand dollars or more. Still a very limited, smallish amount. Cupertino should earn what Apple pays them and shouldn’t be greedy.

    46. Re:tax frauds by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      If I bought a billion dollars worth of property for one dollar, or doesn't change what it's worth.

      It's not sales tax.

    47. Re: tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irony is somebody deflecting a 'greed' accusation away from Apphole and its Chinese slave built greed centric devices.. Apple IS greed.

    48. Re: tax frauds by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Apple earns their revenue by making things that people value. Governments generally can't say the same.

    49. Re: tax frauds by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's ridiculously common. But like everything else, people get greedy and bite off too much.

      Illegal but not immoral, so long as there are no partners getting ripped.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    50. Re: tax frauds by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      In the US that's a 1099 from the company, or that's where the prosecution starts.

      Sucks if it was a CC that ranup at 200% for a year or two anticipating your bankruptcy. Your debt to the IRS can be more than the original balance. But that's just bad planning.

      Also IIRC 'personal holding companies' (where anywhere close to all stock is held by one person) are difficult to keep legal. Annual lawyer bills, for sure.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    51. Re: tax frauds by aybiss · · Score: 1

      The fact you just said that proves you don't know anything about any government except the US government, and you probably don't know much about how that works either.

      Seriously, join civilisation. Things work way better when a country cooperates.

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    52. Re:tax frauds by brian.stinar · · Score: 2

      Do you want the different governments, or you, to be in the business of determining what companies need?

    53. Re:tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. Is the building insured for $200

    54. Re: tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doing everything to avoid amoral taxes is good behaviour, although it may land you in jail.
      Doing everything legal to vote to introduce a system of taxation that you believe to be fair is good behaviour.
      Doing everything legal to ensure you are paying the correct level of tax is good behaviour.

      However, doing everything legal to avoid any and all taxes and weasel out of contributing to society is atrociously bad behaviour.

      Hence proving the original point that legality and morality are only loosely correlated.

    55. Re: tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should have said immoral, not amoral. Although in this case it is certain that Apple isn't doing this to make some kind of moral stand, it's doing it to continue the US corporate mission of "all-consuming greed and fuck everyone and everything else" - in other words douchebaggery of the highest order.

    56. Re: tax frauds by Kohath · · Score: 0

      Seriously, join civilisation. Things work way better when a country cooperates.

      Government in the US doesn't cooperate. Government in the US takes as much as they can and offers little in return (for anyone who works). Government loots and interferes and bullies. And when you tell them to stop, they threaten to take away the very few genuine public services they actually provide.

    57. Re:tax frauds by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I think that one is called an "ambulance".

      When people who actually work for a living use an ambulance, they get billed for it.

    58. Re:tax frauds by lgw · · Score: 1

      All valuation is the result of negotiation, from the explicit negotiation over the price of a house to the simple decision whether an item on a store shelf is worth it at the price. Property tax assessment also a negotiation - the government pulls a number out of its ass, and you complain it's too high. For most of us the negotiation is fairly one-sided, and we have to do a lot of work to get a marginal reduction. Apple has more laywers than most of us, and power implicit in the percentage of property value in the city that they control, so they can negotiate more equitably.

      I know many people have some naive idea of "objective economic value", but the only objective measure of value is sale price (which is a negotiation).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    59. Re:tax frauds by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Oh God. apple makes a few tech gadgets. Hardly anything very important. Lets see apple pave the streets and run the schools.

      I'd bet they could do a better job of it than the Cupertino Town Council.

      The Cupertino Town Council would likely do a better job if Apple paid its fucking taxes based on a realistic valuation of its properties

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    60. Re: tax frauds by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "Government in the US takes as much as they can and offers little in return (for anyone who works). Government loots and interferes and bullies"

      Corporations aren't covering themselves with honor & glory. Whenever Big Bad Government has given them a tax break to repatriate money hoarded overseas, they've pretty much just pocketed all of it.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    61. Re:tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We built that!

    62. Re:tax frauds by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Oh God. apple makes a few tech gadgets. Hardly anything very important. Lets see apple pave the streets and run the schools.

      I'd bet they could do a better job of it than the Cupertino Town Council.

      The Cupertino Town Council would likely do a better job if Apple paid its fucking taxes based on a realistic valuation of its properties

      I think with 56 MEELION dollars coming from Apple ALREADY, the Cupertino Town Council is doing JUST fine...

    63. Re:tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you on the Council? If not your just another tech-ignorant apple worshiping moron.

    64. Re:tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does Cupertino do for Apple?

      It pays the people who respond to Apple's campus when their employees walk into glass walls.

      Of course back in 2015 those buildings had no glass walls. They barely had any walls. And they had pretty much no Apple employees in them either.

    65. Re:tax frauds by SivDotnet · · Score: 2

      I think Apple should pay its tax bills like the rest of us.

      The whole company stinks and you would think that given the trillions of dollars they make they would want to support the city as I am sure if their buildings were to catch fire they would expect the city to provide a fire engine or two and some paramedics for the staff who were burnt. Add the fact that they use the roads and other infrastructure that should make them feel obliged to contribute.

      I think US tech giants need reeling in!

      Siv

      --
      Martley, Near Worcester UK.
    66. Re:tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apple is free to leave Cupertino any time they want. No one is holding a gun to their head are they?

    67. Re: tax frauds by Kohath · · Score: 0

      It was money they earned, so why wouldn't they keep it?

    68. Re:tax frauds by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      And how did the ambulance get purchased?

      You have a chicken-and-egg problem there. If there's no ambulance, you can't bill for ambulance service in order to buy an ambulance.

      Thus, emergency medical services are funded with tax dollars to exist to begin with. And someone has to pay for those EMTs to be on-call in the fire stations ready to come help when someone has fallen and can't get up. They aren't doing that for free.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    69. Re:tax frauds by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      It also goes the other way. If you spent a million dollars to make a home in a crappy community, chances are if you are to sell the building you wouldn't get your money back. Because worth is based on Supply and Demand, not cost of material or purchase price.

      Apple can use this to point out this building it too big for any other company needs to have in this area, so its general worth is much less then what apple paid for it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    70. Re:tax frauds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally! A *car* analogy.

      I was beginning to wonder WTF happened to /. I thought we lost everyone but the zoologists and/or taxidermists

    71. Re: tax frauds by haruchai · · Score: 1

      It was money they earned, so why wouldn't they keep it?

      The intent of giving them a break was for investing in job creation but in the majority of cases the money was used for stock buybacks and executive bonuses

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  2. They don't want to pay taxes by mark_reh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    and then they'll complain that the schools aren't producing the highly educated people they need to fill jobs, so they need more H1B visas. This same crap has been going on in Silicon Valley for decades.

    1. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is also why public transit systems are crumbling.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      To be fair, I don't trust either side. Show me the valuation. Why is it worth $1Bn, or $200?

    3. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      It was evaluated by tax assessors, says so right in the summary.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you stupid? You know how much it cost to construct a building. You know how much they paid for the property.

    5. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by fedos · · Score: 1

      This is a level of obtuseness I've never seen before.

    6. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've won multiple (489) appeals. Sounds like they are right.

    7. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding - $1B for a building sounds crazy, unless it's the new spaceship campus - but that didn't exist to be assessed in 2015. That's almost as much as the Willis (Sears) Tower in Chicago sold for a couple of years ago!

    8. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      Not trusting anybody is just as stupid as trusting everybody.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    9. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by wed128 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Oh, you mean people who's best interests are in generating as much tax as possible?

    10. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by dhawton · · Score: 2

      How much you pay doesn't equal it's value. A seller could sell a 24 karat gold bar weighing 1 kg for $5, does that mean that the gold bar is valued at $5? No, its value is currently just over 38k USD.

    11. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      To be fair, I don't trust either side. Show me the valuation. Why is it worth $1Bn, or $200?

      Keep offering them money until they give you the keys. My bet is you'll be a lot closer to a billion, probably significantly over. I bet they didn't pay less than $200 for a bin that has the apple logo on it.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    12. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Ranbot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If anyone finds information on how Apple calculated that $200 valuation please share. I searched but found nothing. An AppleInsider article did say this though: "It is unclear if the $200 valuations are for hundreds of dollars or are in fact for $200 million." ( https://appleinsider.com/artic... )

    13. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let me see, should I purchase a new iPhone or one of apples buildings. Got it.

      If Apple values the building at $200, I'll give them, all cash, no contingencies, $2000 for that same building, a magnificent tenfold increase. With profit like that on the table, they likely now have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to take that deal.

      What's that you say? You cannot take that deal because you can't purchase another building for anywhere near $2000?

      Gee, well maybe the cities valuation is right after all. Pay your taxes, and you should be fined for wasting taxpayer money with frivolous lawsuits.

    14. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Funny

      No need for a valuation. I'll offer Apple 100 times their own valuation. If what they say is true, they should accept my offer.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    15. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You're obviously not a lawyer.

      Also: I'm working on elections security as a side hobby these days. Do you know why I've designed an integrity model that opens up any and all tampering to discovery by literally anyone in the world, at any time, even long after the election has ended?

      Tax assessors are local government officials. The local government makes revenue from taxes. This is an obvious conflict of interest. Do you trust the government, or do you demand transparency?

    16. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Informative

      So the assessors who collect taxes are able to determine the value w/o any process to appeal if they are wrong? I don't think so. The truth is someplace between $200 and $1B, the question is where that is.

      Apple has their view, the tax collector theirs and what the poster was asking for was independent analysis of the building's true worth for the purposes of the property taxes.

      You can barely get a half decent shed for $200 yet you think that might be a reasonable valuation for a whole fucking campus while google says the median for just a house in san francisco is $1.6million.?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    17. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean people who's best interests are in generating as much tax as possible?

      The public?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    18. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by froggyjojodaddy · · Score: 1

      Can I tell my local municipality that my house is also worth $200 so they will adjust my property tax accordingly?

      I'm assuming Apple didn't insure their office for only $200.

    19. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      How much you pay doesn't equal it's value.

      That's exactly what it equals!

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    20. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truth is someplace between $200 and $1B, the question is where that is.

      You are making a false assumption here.

      It might be worth less than zero, or more than a billion dollars, and yet without any consideration of that, you close off the possibility.

    21. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are not that honest either. My city allows for the tax assessor to increase assessed property values by 7% every year without even reviewing a property, so of course they do it. I appealed mine and found out they were assessing for things I didn't even have, like a hottub, which has never been on my property. Where this came from? No idea.

    22. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tax Collector is always lower than the MLS or sales price. I have never once seen a situation where the assessed value was actually more than the property was worth, except for after a market crash, in which case, it is always easy to demand a reassessment

    23. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apple's appraisal of $200 is wrong of course. Not even a shed is $200. No idea if they city is equally off base but Apple's campus is big, modern and fancy and happens to be located on very very valuable real estate so it could very well be a billion dollars. Its definitely in the millions though.

    24. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yeah I tend to be a bit blunt. Smart people are often more-vulnerable to confidence tricks because they think they can finesse their way around the plot and get reeled in; of course, you can always learn to deal with those little details with all the finesse of a brick instead of trying to show off how very smart you are.

      This is a dispute between two parties who each have a conflict of interest; get the brick.

    25. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Yes and 9-11 was an inside job as well.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    26. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by N1AK · · Score: 1

      It really isn't; the difference should be pretty obvious unless you can't differentiate between the value you are willing to pay and more common or widely accepted definitions.

    27. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by mchall · · Score: 2

      How much you pay doesn't equal it's value.

      That's exactly what it equals!

      Yep. In a free market system the value of goods or services is whatever the buyer is willing to pay and whatever the seller is willing to accept. Economics 101.

    28. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by fluffernutter · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Why would the tax assessor care? It's not like he's going to get a bigger bonus if the property is worth more. Geez, get over mistrust for the government.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    29. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The building itself might be worth only $200 million as real estate (it's a big building, dude); as an operations headquarters, it's worth much more to Apple but not to anyone else. Its property valuation is pointedly not its strategic valuation.

      It's more like have a bunch of people bid on it and see where they stop. It'll probably be less than Apple is willing to take or else Apple would sell the building and move somewhere else.

    30. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that tax assessors are getting a kickback from the government based on the value of Apple property? That's a pretty major conspiracy theory. You should learn more about how government works.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    31. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by cunina · · Score: 1

      To be fair to Apple, there isn't a strong correlation between education spending and education outcomes.

    32. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Worst case of balance fallacy I've ever seen. The $200 valuation is plainly ludicrous (most of the windows in any of those buildings would cost over $200 to replace) and the $1B valuation is likely close to correct judging by the work history of the government tax assessors and the cost of other tech megacorp campuses.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    33. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Dial brand gold seems to be worth $5.97 for 12 bars....

    34. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      It really isn't; the difference should be pretty obvious unless you can't differentiate between the value you are willing to pay and more common or widely accepted definitions.

      My value and your value for a thing might be different and that value might change over time but if money is handed over in exchange for a thing then a value has been agreed.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    35. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Congratulations for using the system properly. That's why they have an appeals process. So if you're defending Apple here, I'm guessing you got your house down to a $10 value?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    36. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      The problem with assessor-based taxes is that the Apple HQ has never been sold, so there's no market quote to work from... Apple's unwilling to give it up at any price, and nobody's willing to buy the building if Apple moves out... sorry, market doesn't have an answer for the price.

      Ineligible for "The Price is Right"... it belongs to "It's Worth What?"

    37. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is apple we are talking about. King of the frivolous lawsuits.

    38. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but under assessing a property and being found out could be the end of his role

    39. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, I'm suggesting the possibility of things like collusion exists. Kickbacks are more the sort of thing you get when dealing with an independent third party (a government official pays the private contractor a little bonus).

      Historically, there has been a lot of elections fraud; that doesn't mean every election is stolen, even if it looks like it might have been, but it sure as hell means you don't trust the board of elections, voting machine manufacturers, political parties, or anyone else to act in good faith. The same is true when a state wants to tax somebody on a property they value at a really high number and there is a dispute over whether it's actually a fair market assessment: show me why that's fair if you want me to believe it.

      It's not one-way, either. Do you know what my tax assessment is? $1,000 on land, $2,000 on my house. The city is artificially lowering cost-of-living in my area by dishonestly assessing our property. Because of certain state laws, I'm actually able to go back and force the city to not charge me property tax for another few decades if they try to raise this, too--which is good, because plenty of my neighbors are too poor to afford sudden water bill and property tax hikes, and they have a defense against that sort of thing if the city tries to run them out.

    40. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. You think a property that's never been sold can't be assessed ?

    41. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      We know the type of property, the size, the cost to rebuild, the usual cost for office space of that size and in that area, and so forth. We can make analogous estimates.

      Estimating is an entire technical field, and is a knowledge area for project managers.

    42. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

      My value and your value for a thing might be different and that value might change over time but if money is handed over in exchange for a thing then a value has been agreed.

      No, a price has been agreed. All you can say about value based on that transaction is that, at the time, the seller valued the thing less than the money while the buyer valued the thing more than the money.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    43. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      It doesn't really matter to the assessor. If he was found to under-assess it would just be corrected later and the government would get the money back retroactively.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    44. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you not think that something bad would happen if you under assessed property year after year?

    45. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The campus is supposed to have cost $5 billion so tax on a $1 billion valuation is getting off cheap

    46. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has the government done to garner our trust?

      Why should we blindly trust anything?

    47. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they have $999,999,800 in office supplies? Apple computers aren't cheap :)

    48. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You shouldn't trust anything, the government doesn't even trust themselves; that's why there is an appeal process. I just find it funny that you won't trust the government yet you are willing to entertain the idea that a building that cost $5B to build is worth $200 on the real estate market.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    49. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      You might want to compare real estate values in Chicago with those in Silicon Valley. There's a smidge of a difference.

    50. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More money will not automatically fix a broken education system. Adding competition to the system will fix it.

    51. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The likely didn't insure it at all. A general rule is to not insure what you can afford to replace as the insurance company always plans to get out ahead.

    52. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Sure, there's a possibility of collusion. But you've got it backwards - if there's collusion, it's going to be between the assessor and the assessed. Any kickback is going to come from someone who gets a lower tax bill than they otherwise would. Who is going to pay a kickback for a higher-than-accurate assessment? Certainly not the assessed - they come out on the short end. Certainly not the assessor's boss - there's no incentive for someone to endanger their job and their freedom to do so.

    53. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Can I tell my local municipality that my house is also worth $200 so they will adjust my property tax accordingly?

      Of course you can, your county assessor will have a dispute process that you can use the dispute the assessed value of your home -- when the market crashes, lots of people ask for reassessments based on current market value. You can always claim that the true market value of your house is $200.

      Of course there's a big difference between telling the assessor that your house is worth $200, and the assessor agreeing with you.

    54. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by hawguy · · Score: 2

      How much you pay doesn't equal it's value.

      That's exactly what it equals!

      How much you pay is *one* value -- but not necessarily the fair market value. You could pay $1M for a home and discover that it's on an unstable hillside and you need to tear it down. Or you could buy a $1M house from your grandma for $200, but that doesn't mean that the house is worth $200.

    55. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, fellow /.'rs, all of the geniuses here have missed one very important detail.
      When you apply (as iApple surely must have) for a building permit, you have to estimate
      the value of the improvement in the permit application. All the town has to do is review
      the permits; can't imagine they're all for $1.00 (for a structure that large, there are many
      permits required). I know we're not dealing with a smart crowd here, though.

      But the iApple fan-boys want to give iApple a pass on this, because Jobs...

      CAP === 'chirping'

    56. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $200 million to replace a window? yeah ok

    57. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I don't trust either side. Show me the valuation. Why is it worth $1Bn, or $200?

      I think there's a typo somewhere. I can imagine Apple claiming $200 million instead of $1 billion, but a measly $200? It costs $200 to construct a 10 foot section of exterior wall. OTOH, there are stuck in one infinitive loop.

    58. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Talderas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I read this and I thought that $200 has to be a misunderstanding. I read the article and it repeats $200. I still think there's an error in reporting here and that Apple is valuing the property and building at $200M. That at least seems within the realm of sensibility because there's no way accountants or assessors at Apple would value the campus at $200.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    59. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

      Oh, you mean people who's best interests are in generating as much tax as possible?

      Exactly.

      Having said that, obviously Apple isn't really serious about the $200 figure; they are just giving themselves the maximum window within which to negotiate.

      And so are the Assessors...

    60. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes he did and the tax rate is $1000 per $1 assessment. Now please move on to something else.

    61. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 0

      Why would the tax assessor care? It's not like he's going to get a bigger bonus if the property is worth more. Geez, get over mistrust for the government.

      Right. Because blind trust of the Government has worked out so well for us ordinary citizens...

    62. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      No, I'm suggesting the possibility of things like collusion exists.

      So? Collusion is not a crime... :^D

    63. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 0

      Congratulations for using the system properly. That's why they have an appeals process. So if you're defending Apple here, I'm guessing you got your house down to a $10 value?

      Oh, get over yourself!

      Apple is just starting way low to allow themselves the maximum-sized difference between their claimed valuation and the county's claimed valuation.

      It's merely a negotiation tactic. Repeated to a lesser or greater extent by every single business large enough to retain a lawyer.

      But when Apple does it, suddenly, it's "News".

    64. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The assessor is a Government official. They work for the Government, and are invested in getting income for the Government.

      It's like having a candidate for office count the ballots, and suggesting they might be bribed by their opponent to miscount a few ballots for them.

    65. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange. Usually one would think "between $200 and $1,000,000,000" would cover the entire $999,999,800 range, and not be concentrated entirely towards the $200 end. I am curious why you think bobbied thinks the value near the $200 end?

    66. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      If anyone finds information on how Apple calculated that $200 valuation please share. I searched but found nothing. An AppleInsider article did say this though: "It is unclear if the $200 valuations are for hundreds of dollars or are in fact for $200 million." ( https://appleinsider.com/artic... )

      That's a VERY interesting point!

    67. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The commonality involved with this type of action? Greed.

      The political leanings of Corporations that actively apply this behavior? No specific outlier found. Appears to apply to all.

      Hmm... I think we found the 1 thing we can regulate on to curb this type of thing...

    68. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by DigressivePoser · · Score: 1

      And because you have no connections, the government will send you a $50 million property tax bill payable in 30 days. What then? You'd better get in touch with fluffnut to find out how government works :-)

    69. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what bluefoxlucid is asking for is a report from both sides defending the value they chose.

    70. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      ...and profits derived from all those education-related sales. Apple is known for special education-only products and pricing. Oh, and it is back to school month BTW. Education is simply another market sector dontcha know?

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    71. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assessment is only half of that equation. The total tax liability of the municipality is divided among property owners and a tax rate is determined. Each property is taxed at the tax rate multiplied by the tax assessment. It is highly doubtful that the assessors are just trying to stick it to Apple over other property oweners. It is much more likely that their buildings are worth a bit more than $200 though.

    72. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the new headquarters building itself cost $5 billion and sits on $160 million of land.

    73. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      still learning how to read, i see.

    74. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The truth is someplace between $200 and $1B, the question is where that is.

      Perhaps price discovery would be helpful. If the assessors produce a valuation, Apple should have a free option to offload the property to the assessors at that price. If Apple produce a valuation, the assessors should be able to buy it from Apple at that price. If the valuations are within a third, the lower wins so that tax assessors cannot relentlessly add to the tax burden by relying on the hassle of moving.

    75. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Strider- · · Score: 1

      This is why you have a system like we have in British Columbia. There is an independent property assessment organization that re-assesses every property in the province each year. They don't collect property taxes, nor do they set rates, they simply collate data based on previous sales in the area immediately surrounding the property, depreciation on the structures on it (plus information from building permits etc...) and come up with an assessed value for the land (and/or strata lot, if in a condo). The cities then take the values from BC Assessment to figure out their mill rate, and that in turn determines your property taxes.

      This also protects you from people complaining about their assessed value going up. If all the property values in the city go up by 10% in a given year, the net change to taxes is nil, because that just drops the mill rate. It's only if your property goes up dramatically compared to your neighbour's that your tax bill would go up, but since all properties are reassessed every year, the probability of that happening is fairly low.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    76. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just the land price of that lot is in the hundreds of millions given the location in silicon valley. Than again, real estate there is expensive because of companies like Apple.

    77. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My laptop might be worth $2k but I'm unlikely to give you it for $3k. My time being worth money, and all.

      Same with a company. The value to a company doesn't need to agree wholly with a specific market price, and specifically they may figure that e.g. employee attrition could be higher if they need to move, even though the cost of recovering from that is nothing to do with the potential price of the current building.

    78. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the assessors who collect taxes are able to determine the value w/o any process to appeal if they are wrong? I don't think so. The truth is someplace between $200 and $1B, the question is where that is.

      Apple has their view, the tax collector theirs and what the poster was asking for was independent analysis of the building's true worth for the purposes of the property taxes.

      You can barely get a half decent shed for $200 yet you think that might be a reasonable valuation for a whole fucking campus while google says the median for just a house in san francisco is $1.6million.?

      Considering that was the evaluation for the buildings at Apple Park in 2015, back when there were no finished buildings at Apple Park - a shed sounds about right.

    79. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by nuckfuts · · Score: 0

      ... most of the windows in any of those buildings would cost over $200 to replace

      I'm not defending Apple's tax shenanigans, but one should not confuse the concepts of replacement value and resale value.

    80. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "I'm actually able to go back and force the city to not charge me property tax for another few decades if they try to raise this, too--which is good, because plenty of my neighbors are too poor to afford sudden water bill and property tax hikes"

      If everyone's assessment on existing construction goes up proportionately, then no one's tax bill increases. What does happen is that you stop disincentivizing new construction, meaning you can broaden the tax bases and *reduce* each homeowner's tax bill.

      Another fun fact about limitiations on how much property assessments can increase: if there is a real estate market crash and market values decrease you still get the limited assessed value increases if assessed value is still less than market value while new construction, if any, will start assessed at the market value and follow any declines.

    81. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      If everyone's assessment on existing construction goes up proportionately, then no one's tax bill increases.

      Not if they keep the same city tax rate and bill you $375 instead of $45/year--which is what actually happens. Back around 2005, this resulted in a bunch of people's property taxes increasing from about $200/year to $4,000 in one year's reassessment. The city had decided the "economic reconstruction" of the area had completed because a bunch of upper-middle-class folks moved into the area as poorer folks moved out, and re-assessed the houses at half a million dollars instead of $20,000.

    82. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we've got the same system in Ontario. Problem is both of these organizations have been hit by bribery scandals over the last decade. Generally with businesses, but occasionally with rich property owners as well. There's also been numerous cases where the organizations have over valued properties that they never visited and increased property taxes by 1000% or more, and of course you have to pay for that appeal as well. I know of two cases in the city I used to live where the property tax on a 150 year old house went from $1500/year to $11,000/year there was no recorded visitation done, no onsite inspection. Some people have been hit with $5000 charges to appeal and other shady shit, especially to elderly homeowners and companies trying to "buy" up valuable land.

      This led to an entire shitshow here in Ontario where it went through the usual legal crap, and now MPAC must prove the valuation with no help of the owner of the property. But these "mistakes" still happen. Don't forget out there in BC, you've also got your on-going investigation with realtors taking a slice out of that property assessment pie as well as triple dipping to sell a property by running the prices up.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    83. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Apple is going back to its roots for its new campus.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    84. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      Are you alleging that Apple knowingly and intentionally made a misleading or false material statement about their finances and assets? Isn't that a crime for a public company?

    85. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by lgw · · Score: 2

      This is also why public transit systems are crumbling.

      The main reason public infrastructure in Cali is crumbling, despite the nations highest taxes, is pension costs. Infrastructure is a small cost by comparison. There are a couple ofcounties in Cali where pension costs are more than 100% of the budget. The cities tend not to be quite so strained, but pension costs are still typically more than half the budget.

      Personally, I think sacrificing infrastructure because the public sector union negotiators were sharks is a bad plan, so I voted with my feet years ago.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    86. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real joke should be on them. The State government should buy the property for $200 with eminent domain and split the property among multiple developers/buyers. I mean clearly if Apple can spend $5B to build a $200 property, they're not doing a good job maximizing their development money in the community, so a lot of other developers would probably do better. More so, if Apple is only paying taxes on a $200 property, clearly the government would be better off for tax purposes if other developers were to make the property worth a lot more.

    87. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true at all

      Budgets are limited because of prop 13.

      Yes pension inflation is a problem, but not as much as limited budgets

    88. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Are you alleging that Apple knowingly and intentionally made a misleading or false material statement about their finances and assets? Isn't that a crime for a public company?

      No. Not at all.

      They just arrived at a different valuation than the County did.

      Did the County disclose their valuation methodology?

    89. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok great idea, I'll cancel the insurance on my 1992 Ford truck

    90. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he said 100 times their valuation. Would you sell your laptop for 2,000,000?

    91. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure you are being sarcastic, but you shouldn't have been. Can you afford to replace a 1992 truck out of pocket? If so, you almost certainly should cancel insurance on the truck itself...the insurance on the truck being the collision and comprehensive coverage. The part that you most likely can't afford is the liability part. If you cripple someone you almost certainly can't afford the 6 or 7 figure medical bills over their life. So you should carry minimum coverage, which pays for the liability but not the vehicle itself. Tons of people do that. Even 16 year olds generally do that with their first $800 beater car.

    92. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah BART needs drastic improvements but its not Apple's job to single handedly fix that cluster

    93. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by sjames · · Score: 1

      Well, surely they'd be willing to sell it off at double their valuation!

    94. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Clearly Apple will learn to drive a much harder bargain to stop predatory taxation, when deciding where to locate more buildings.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    95. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Unless it's a collector's item, lol, or you still owe money, double lol, yes you should have canceled all insurance except liability as required by law.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    96. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by michael.karl.coleman · · Score: 1

      You meant that as a joke, but this is actually a good solution to the problem of bullshit self-valuations: Pass a law allowing anyone to buy a property for (say) 3x the owner's valuation of it, with no recourse by the owner.

      Problem solved.

    97. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not where I live. If the assessor undervalues the property, that assessment determines the tax bill as long as that assessment is in place -- it doesn't matter how wrong the assessment was (this assumes, of course, that there's no fraud involved -- such as non-permitted and non-visible improvements that add greatly to the value of the property). Of course, next year, the assessment could be corrected for future tax bills.

    98. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, if the resale value is plainly unreasonable, they assessor is free to use alternate methods, such as cost analysis or income analysis. Under a cost analysis, you do consider replacement value.

    99. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh... should have Lemons rules - If you declare it to be worth $200, then someone can buy it for twice said valuation within 30 days of the appeal.

    100. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what it equals!

      That's simply not how it works for property assessment and for good reason. I could "sell" my house to my son for $10. Should he pay property taxes on $10?

      Or maybe when I buy a house that's valued at $500,000, the seller sells it to me for $50 and charges me $499,950 to mow the lawn.

      Obviously it can't work like that.

    101. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like your blind trust of Apple?

      Pot meet kettle. You guys will like each other.

    102. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      It'll probably be less than Apple is willing to take or else Apple would sell the building and move somewhere else.

      Except they'd have massive employee turnover, and have massive costs to move operations somewhere else. It's not that simple.

    103. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and Apple should only pay anything once this correlation is solidly proven. Maybe we should wait some more decades to have enough hard data. It's only fair.

    104. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That's part of being willing to take the offer. That's not the market value of the building; it's the value of the building to Apple. The market value is much lower than the value to Apple. It really is that simple; just nobody is willing to pay that much, because the building isn't worth it.

    105. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      There is no negotiating here. The market value is the market value.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    106. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Wow, you really think a government official gives a flying fuck what the government makes? No wonder America is so messed up.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    107. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If Apple moved out (unlikely) it would likely be snatched up by someone and then leased out. Given the size of the place, the prime location, amount of parking, convenience to freeways, and the prestige, they'd get a lot of takers. You could lease an entire building, or just one or two floors.

    108. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's actually 6 buildings in a cluster, if they're talking about Infinite Loop. They're mostly connected to each other with walkways and utilities. If they're just talking about the one building that the CEO sits in then there are 5 more buildings there with similar issues (not acounting off campus buildings that are owned by Apple). If they're counting the complex as a whole then $200m is undervalued for sure.

    109. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      You are insinuating that the property tax has come out against the value of the building and that's how they arrive at $200 but that's not how it works.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    110. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      In fact, if the building is truly worth $200 then the property tax will only be on $200.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    111. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Apple likes to claim the building is old and decrepit, but it really is not. It's a very nice building. Apple has tons of buildings though, most of them leased, because it has more employees than it knows what to do with. Internally Apple may decide it's not worth so much to them because they have a nice new shiny building that they overpaid for. But Apple's own idea of "we don't like the old building much" doesn't mean much to the tax assessors. The property is not undesirable or of low quality, they'd probably be able to sell it for close to the assessed price.

    112. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is something that some European country actually does to keep people from cheating on their taxes (Italy, I believe). You have to pay taxes on artwork that you own, and the government has the right to purchase it at whatever price you claim its value to be. So you can entirely legally lowball the government... at the risk of them walking in and plucking it off your wall for a pittance.

    113. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      That's not the market value of the building; it's the value of the building to Apple.

      Sure. What's your point? You and others here seem to be going on "one billion sound like a lot of money to me, can't be right".

      Please present evidence that the assessors are valuing a property on it's worth to the owner and not the market value. If it is what you say, that'd be a massive conspiracy. I'd want to see some evidence of that, you know? I suspect you aren't versed in valuing commercial property, don't know the Cupertino market, nor have you seen the data that made up the assessor's report. Nor am I. I am just saying $200 is silly and a waste of time.

      To some extent Apple is a victim of it's own success. They've driven the real estate market out of sight by buying up every building in the area and making it a magnet for other tech companies that want to be in the vicinity of Apple. That's just too bad. I don't get to value my home based on if there were 4 vacant homes on my street and my neighbors are all gang members. The market it is what it is, regardless of how it got there.

    114. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well maybe if apple didn't want to appear like the tax cheaters that they are then they should have started with value that is not so ridiculous. Then this story would not even exist and you would not be here making a fool of yourself defending them.

    115. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by DigressivePoser · · Score: 1

      It's not worth $200. If you bought it for $200, the government is going to come along and asses it for $1B and gleefully give you the property tax bill. You and I cannot afford that nor the lawyers to contest it. The government evicts all the Apple employees and auctions off the property. From the proceeds, they take their back taxes, late penalties, and fees out. You get anything that's left.

      That's just the local government. Who knows what the IRS is gonna do. Probably tax you on the difference between the auction price and $200.

    116. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're that fucking retarded? Typical /.

    117. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      There is no negotiating here. The market value is the market value.

      Right.

      So, if the county you live in records an assessment on your house that you think us way out of line, you believe "that's that"?

    118. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by wagnerer · · Score: 1

      The $200 was written in a way to imply it meant $200 million. Just click bait to say they believed the buildings were only worth $200.00. And is that the assessment for the building, the land or both?

    119. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is also why public transit systems are crumbling.

      "When you think of the word public, think of public toilets!" - Every fucking right-wing cunt ever.

      Do you think this might also have something to do with it?

    120. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the County disclose their valuation methodology?

      Maybe not, but I certainly would like to know Apple's methodology. Probably has something to do with how many inches Cook will take in before feeling anything at all, converted to dollars and multiplied by 10.

    121. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just stop it. The US$200 value Apple claimed is an insult and any arguments trying to defend it are ridiculous and stupid.

    122. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by vyvepe · · Score: 1

      They would not because expenses for moving out fo the property would cost them millions.

    123. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Please present evidence that the assessors are valuing a property on it's worth to the owner and not the market value.

      I'm suggesting the assessors need to provide their methodology to show the building's worth is $1Bn. I'm not taking that on blind faith. Mind you the building they're using now was probably ridiculously-expensive to build--their space ship building cost like $400 million, while that much office space only goes on the market for about 1/4 that.

      I am just saying $200 is silly and a waste of time.

      One party lying does not validate the other party's claims. Both can be full of crap. I want to see how they got their numbers.

    124. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      I'm suggesting the assessors need to provide their methodology to show the building's worth is $1Bn.

      Do you know they didn't? If they just dumped a bill for $1b off at 1 Infinite Circle then I agree. Common sense would lead me to believe that's not the case. And TFA certainly didn't imply that.

      I want to see how they got their numbers.

      Good, because Random Internet Guy will be a good judge of how much taxes Apple should pay. After all, your opinion is as valid as anyone's. Nobody is ever wrong, there's no objective reality at all.

    125. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      After all, your opinion is as valid as anyone's.

      There are no opinions; there are only facts. If they can supply facts, they can prove their assertions.

    126. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      There are no opinions; there are only facts.

      Okay, we know zero facts about evidence provided by the city. So why are you commenting on it? If you want to make up shit about this article let's say that Apple hired a blackops team to burn crosses in the yards of city officials. We don't know it didn't happen. Let's speculate!

      What we do know is Apple submitted a silly, time and money wasting counter offer. That's all I am commenting on. If they'd submitted something within the realm of reason that was supported by data this article wouldn't exist wouldn't exist would it? No one is claiming they don't have the right to dispute the assessed value. The issue is the silly amount.

    127. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      The cost of land appropriation, the cost of materials to replace the building, and the public works investment to bring water, sewer and utilites to their buildings, as well as labor to construct and furnish the site is reasonable. Heaters and air-conditioning are permenant fixtures, adding to the value of the premises.

      Apple wants to treat their customers the way they are treating the city and the governments.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    128. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate this strategy.
      I was once at a garage sale, and a guy was selling a hunting rifle for $150. This was back when you still could do such things.
      My Dad's looking at it.
      Guy walks up and says "I'll give you $10" for it.
      Seller , pissed off refuses him. Tells him it's $150. He's obviously not interested in haggling.
      Guy says "Oh, how about $50".
      Seller says "$150"
      Guy says "$75."
      Seller looks at him and says "for you, $200". Then he looks at my Dad , "For you, $125".
      My dad bought it.

    129. Re:They don't want to pay taxes by sjames · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the facility is worth more than $400 to them?

    130. Re: They don't want to pay taxes by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      The key part was "of the area". Some property assessments changed relative to others, so some of the tax bills changed relative to others.

  3. My house gets taxed higher than $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple can go piss off a wind-swept roof, facing the wind, and pay their property tax bill just like I do.

    1. Re:My house gets taxed higher than $200 by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Apple can go piss off a wind-swept roof, facing the wind, and pay their property tax bill just like I do.

      So you just blindly pay your taxes on the assessed value? I don't. I review my assessed value verses market conditions when they send me their proposed valuation every year and IF I felt the value they had was out of line, I'd be objecting. I suggest all property owners do the same thing.

      So all this really is, is Apple contesting their assessed value. $1B seems a bit steep, and $200 seems very low, but this is just a negotiation in the starting phases. They will reach a value that's in-between the two extremes eventually.

      All we have here is somebody trying to make Apple look bad by releasing their bargaining position so it gets tried in the press, which may be fair, but unfortunate that things get decided like this in the press. The appeals process should run it's course, unhindered by such interference by the likes of the local news paper.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re: My house gets taxed higher than $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did not pay 56 million in property tax.

    3. Re:My house gets taxed higher than $200 by mysidia · · Score: 1

      All we have here is somebody trying to make Apple look bad by releasing their bargaining position so it gets tried in the press, which may be fair, but unfortunate that things get decided like this in the press. The appeals process should run it's course, unhindered by such interference by the likes of the local news paper.

      Right.... Apple has the right to appeal for FAIR UNBIASED due process regarding the assessed value.. The newspapers are unfairly meddling which might result in anti-Apple bias in the process. This is not fair or right.... it seems in the future it might be more prudent for such appeals to be kept confidential --- It should be a matter of public record for the property what the tax disposition is, but they ought to seal the records until there is no longer an active challenge/appeals process in progress.

    4. Re: My house gets taxed higher than $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And cheat a lot more too.

    5. Re:My house gets taxed higher than $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      $200 is not a good-faith bargaining position.

    6. Re:My house gets taxed higher than $200 by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between claiming tax relief for purposes that are truthful and valid, and blatantly trying to cheat the system.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    7. Re:My house gets taxed higher than $200 by bobbied · · Score: 1

      So, based on a news paper report, you are ready to bash Apple for being cheap? We have jumped into this process in the very beginning, not at the end, Apple has gotten away with nothing yet.

      It's like you blasting a car dealer for daring to publish the MSRP as their asking price or bashing the buyer for offering the dealer $100 for that new car. Everybody knows that the actual price is someplace in-between and negotiations are just getting started. Why did the news paper inject itself in this story? To bash Apple as the big money evil corporation trying to skip out on paying it's fair share. The truth here is Apple is trying to reduce it's tax liability, nothing wrong with that. What's going to HAPPEN here is the tax office will hear Apple's appeal, justify their idea of what the buildings are worth and Apple will pay taxes on that. Why drag them though the mud on this, except to bash the evil corporation as a tax cheat, even when it's not.

      From my perspective this is why news papers shouldn't be involved. Taxable values should NOT be argued in the court of public opinion, but by people who actually know how to appraise the actual values of buildings.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:My house gets taxed higher than $200 by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between claiming tax relief for purposes that are truthful and valid, and blatantly trying to cheat the system.

      They aren't trying to cheat the system; they are simply disputing a ridiculous valuation by the system, by using the system's appeals process.

    9. Re:My house gets taxed higher than $200 by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      And they are introducing a ridiculous valuation of their own, thus trying to cheat the system. The building cost $5B to build. It matters not whether $1B is wrong, it is definitely closer to that than it is to $200.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    10. Re:My house gets taxed higher than $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you blatantly perjure yourself when you appeal?

    11. Re: My house gets taxed higher than $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how you bash the assessors for putting a big price tag on it.

      But say NOTHING about Apple blatantly lying and trying to claim $200.

      You are so biased it is sickening. No one even believes anything you write. Hence why more than HALF of your post are modded down. Why you ask? Because you talk out of your ass and go thru obscene mental gymnastics to defend your lord and savior...Apple.

  4. $250 by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll take them off their hands for $250.

    1. Re:$250 by azadrozny · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be funny to have the local municipality come in and take the property though eminent domain using Apple's valuation. I am sure the county or state could use the extra office space.

    2. Re:$250 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be poetic if the govt. invoked eminent domain laws, seized the property and gave Apple $200 for it?

    3. Re:$250 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be awesome. It cost about $5 billion to build so likely the tax value is about right.

      Eminent domain valuations are often based on tax valuations. If Apple feels the complex is worth $200, let the county acquire it, for the good of the people.

    4. Re:$250 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe Netherlands allows one to determine ones own value.
      Mind you if the tax people feel its not right, it is put up for auction. Someone else can explain it.

      But seroiusly dog kennel goes for more than 200 bucks. The sheer cheek - deserves that the valuer or account be professionally disqualified.

      How about the city takes all the carpark space for $200 and lets the trailer trash camp there.

    5. Re:$250 by stealth_finger · · Score: 4, Funny

      It would be funny to have the local municipality come in and take the property though eminent domain using Apple's valuation. I am sure the county or state could use the extra office space.

      They could be extra generous and give apple $400 so they can replace with two!

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    6. Re:$250 by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It would be funny to have the local municipality come in and take the property though eminent domain using Apple's valuation.

      Eminent domain requires justly compensating Apple for the loss of their property: not paying Apple the Proposed Tax Assessment value or the Fair Market value, that's not necessarily sufficient for just compensation. Even if the market considers their property worth only $5, and they might, if for example the property has special value to Apple which all other potential businesses are unable to exploit in any way, because the nature of the property not meeting their needs --- if Apple uses that property to generate $1Billion a year in revenue, then the public has to pay Apple at least enough $$$$ to replace the property that would be lost with an equivalent property that generates the same or more revenue.

    7. Re:$250 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS. Please make this happen.

      "Well gee, since the Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain is permissible if the new owners would generate more taxes than the current owners, and since you're not generating any taxes right now... we're going to pay you TWICE your valuation. Enjoy your $400! Don't spend it all at once!"

    8. Re:$250 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That a great idea. Fuck apple.

    9. Re:$250 by internerdj · · Score: 1

      I had a long conversation Sunday with a former city inspector about just this subject. If for some reason Apple isn't getting away with it because of ins with every municipal politician that would allow this, then it means Apple has ins to all the important state political figures. So if Apple doesn't already own those politicians, then it would be career suicide for one of them to make that move.

    10. Re:$250 by Junta · · Score: 1

      Yeah, while part of me would love to see a corporation called on shenanigans about declaring crazy undervaluation for tax dodging, on the other hand this opens up the ability for my government to vindictively seize my house if I appeal my house value.

      Even if I know I can't get what their assessor says its worth, I still wouldn't want to move just because I declare a different viable price.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    11. Re:$250 by Vulch · · Score: 1

      I think it was a Jack Vance story where part of the background was that you could set whatever value on your property you wanted, but anyone could buy it for three times the amount you set whether you wanted to sell or not.

    12. Re:$250 by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      Eminent domain requires justly compensating Apple for the loss of their property: not paying Apple the Proposed Tax Assessment value or the Fair Market value, that's not necessarily sufficient for just compensation. Even if the market considers their property worth only $5, and they might, if for example the property has special value to Apple

      If both the buyer and seller agree on a valuation, that would be just compensation. Your example is based on the property having special value for Apple. Yet Apple themselves estimated its value as $200, which is their legal admission that it has very little value to them, special or not.

    13. Re:$250 by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      Yes, I think the county should accept their valuation. Take the property based on eminent domain, pay them $500 for it. Then charge them rent :)

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    14. Re:$250 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      250.01

    15. Re:$250 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That can be solved by requiring a factor of 10. If the owner declares a valuation of X, then an offer of 10X is deemed to already be accepted.

      Apple loses their campus for $2000, but someone whose $250k house is suddenly assessed for $400k can argue it back down to $280k, safe in the knowledge that if eminent domain is invoked they will get $2.8mil

    16. Re:$250 by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      It would be funny to have the local municipality come in and take the property though eminent domain using Apple's valuation.

      Eminent domain requires justly compensating Apple for the loss of their property: not paying Apple the Proposed Tax Assessment value or the Fair Market value, that's not necessarily sufficient for just compensation. Even if the market considers their property worth only $5, and they might, if for example the property has special value to Apple which all other potential businesses are unable to exploit in any way, because the nature of the property not meeting their needs --- if Apple uses that property to generate $1Billion a year in revenue, then the public has to pay Apple at least enough $$$$ to replace the property that would be lost with an equivalent property that generates the same or more revenue.

      Quite frankly, there are VERY few companies, even in Silicon Valley, that would be able to effectively utilize such a humongous space. In that case, the buildings might very well sit vacant (and no taxes collected) for YEARS, even possibly DECADES.

      Apple could very well be right, that on the "Market", Apple's campus may actually BE relatively worthless to pretty much anyone you could name.

      And it may very well also cost considerable amounts of money to convert such a complex (especially the main "spaceship" building) to a structure suitable for multiple, independent tenants. It simply wasn't designed that way; quite the opposite, in fact.

      So, I would say that Cupertino should just take their $56 million they are already draining Apple for, come up with a REASONABLE ***MARKET*** Valuation for the new Campus, and STFU.

    17. Re:$250 by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Yeah, while part of me would love to see a corporation called on shenanigans about declaring crazy undervaluation for tax dodging, on the other hand this opens up the ability for my government to vindictively seize my house if I appeal my house value.

      Even if I know I can't get what their assessor says its worth, I still wouldn't want to move just because I declare a different viable price.

      Apple's insanely-low Valuation, just like the County's insanely-high Valuation, just represent the "bookends" of a Negotiation-Window. Neither side is REALLY serious about those figures.

    18. Re:$250 by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      I'll see your $250 offer and raise it by $40.00(!). [holds breathe]

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    19. Re:$250 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, you don't get the land, so you have 30 days to move the building or you have to pay rent.

    20. Re:$250 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, eminent domain in California only requires paying fair market value for the property, nothing more. It doesn't require a municipality to pay for a perceived loss of business activity by taking the property. The fair market value of the property taken is the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by the seller, who would be willing to sell under no particular or urgent necessity of doing so, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available.

      Failing an agreement to sell between the owner and municipality, a trial regarding the eminent domain action takes place before a jury who determines fair market value of the subject property. When the judgment is entered, the government pays compensation within 30 days following entry of judgment and the title to subject property is transferred to the government by the court.

      The municipality may ask the court for possession of the property before the judgement as long as the probable compensation it determines has been deposited with the county or state treasury. The property owner or tenant may ask the court to withdraw the amount which represents its probable compensation.

    21. Re:$250 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if Apple uses that property to generate $1Billion a year in revenue, then the public has to pay Apple at least enough $$$$ to replace the property that would be lost with an equivalent property that generates the same or more revenue.

      If you went to law school you should seek a refund. If you didn't, you should probably shut up because your ideas about Constitutional law are literally ridiculous.

      What you are trying to communicate is the cost approach to valuation, but it doesn't work the way you describe. If the courts accept that the fair market value valuation isn't just (and Apple would have to show that it's buildings are so unique to their corporate function that the only way to realistically continue operating would be to mirror them somewhere else), then the court could require Apple be compensated an amount equal to the market value of the land plus the cost of replicating the seized improvements elsewhere MINUS the depreciation. So if Apple proved its only option was to mirror its facilities, and it's facilities were 40 years old, the government could be required to pay them the cost of building new buildings MINUS 40 years of depreciation.

    22. Re:$250 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There recently was an interesting podcast from Econtalk discussing the idea of a real estate tax based on self-assessment. The owner of a property would list a price at which they would be willing to sell, and they are required to sell if a buyer offers that price. This price would be the tax assessment value. If Apple values their headquarters at $200, they would pay taxes based on that $200 amount. But another party is free to come along and purchase the property for $200. If someone undervalues a property in order to reduce their tax burden, it may be purchased from them.

      There are a number of practical issues addressed in the podcast. It would be disruptive to have one's house perpetually "on the market". Is anyone allowed to come walk through your house to take a tour as a prospective buyer? What are the implications for acquiring large rights-of-way for, say, a railroad? If Railroad A owns a stretch of land measuring 1,000 miles by 20 feet, could Competitor B purchase a random segment of this line, measuring 20 feet by 20 feet, and then block the activity of Railroad A by prohibiting trains from passing over its land? Would this require the Railroad A to value every "unit" of land it owns at an exorbitant price, and thus pay exorbitant taxes, to avoid disruption by spurious purchases? Would Railroad A be allowed to aggregate the entire line into a single "unit" of land, allowing them to undervalue the property (Competitor B would have to put up the money to purchase the entire line)?

    23. Re:$250 by Junta · · Score: 1

      Note that this is in all likelihood misreporting, another source says it means '200 million dollars'.

      This much change due to an alleged isolated *attempt* to lowball value would seem a bit heavy handed.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    24. Re:$250 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But only if they call in the next 15 minutes.

    25. Re:$250 by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Except this isn't for Apple to negotiate, the market value is the market value.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    26. Re:$250 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should seriously happen. i'm no even kidding.

      If these tax cheats want to nitpick every little thing, to over-burden these entities --- then the entity should whole be able to say:
      "okay, i accept your proposed land value -- - and now we will generously eminent domain the property. Based on the value you stated, with of course a fair premium -- so that we can develop this property for better municipal use."

    27. Re:$250 by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Except this isn't for Apple to negotiate, the market value is the market value.

      Prove it.

    28. Re:$250 by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Both links in the summary show $200. Why not link to this other source?
      Who said it was isolated? Apple do this a lot.
      Do you work for Apple?

    29. Re:$250 by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Yet Apple themselves estimated its value as $200, which is their legal admission that it has very little value to them, special or not.

          Those are different things. Apple's tax attorney's assertion of the "fair market value" of their property is not an evaluation of how much value Apple gets from the occupation of this property, nor is it an offer to sell it for that sum, or to sell it at all, and doesn't determine fair compensation for "Eminent domain" purposes.

      If some of Apple's land had to be taken for eminent domain: then they would still have to seek agreement with Apple on value, and if they were in disagreement -- a condemnation proceeding would be required.

      Also, "Eminent domain" has limitations, and the local government doesn't have the power to simply go around forcing people to sell off their buildings decided based on "supposed market value" --- the Eminent domain case can be contested during the proceedings, And the eminent domain case will fail if the government is targeting Apple alone or attempting to condemn too much land, or if its "public purposes" can be accomplished with less intrusion upon private landowner's rights.

  5. to be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The office is shit! The in-house barista doesn't know how to make a proper latte and the masseuse smells.
    So yeah, $200 tops!

  6. apply similar valuations to apple products by sittingnut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    apply a similar steep discounted valuation, to any apple product, to arrive at its true worth as a product.
    rest is hype and manipulation of herd behavior.

    apple product user = herd animal with low agency

    1. Re:apply similar valuations to apple products by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you apply the same discounted valuation to a $1000 iPhone X it is worth $0.02.

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

      No replaceable battery, no headphone jack, and only runs apps from apple store ? Yeah $0.02

    3. Re:apply similar valuations to apple products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But those are "My $0.02"!!

  7. Sounds good to me by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple is clearly making very poor use of the land this lowering it's value to catastrophic levels. I say San Francisco used Eminent domain to take the land and put it to good use (perhaps for public housing). The city will, of course, compensate Apple for the full, fair market value of $200. Heck, I say pay them twice that, an almost unheard of $400 dollars, to cover the expanse of obtaining a new headquarters. I mean, when you put it like that it's a win win

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Sounds good to me by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Don't be stupid. In typical Apple style they'll want a lot more profit from that sale.

      I say offer them 600 dollars just to be sure.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would San Francisco use eminent domain when the property is in Cupertino (Santa Clara County)?

      Slashdot, news for dumb nerds.

    3. Re:Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple is clearly making very poor use of the land this lowering it's value to catastrophic levels. I say San Francisco used Eminent domain to take the land and put it to good use (perhaps for public housing).

      You realize Apple doesn't own the land at all, right?
      It's physically impossible to take something away from them that they do not posses in the first place.

      This tax is purely on the 40 year old buildings they own, on land they do not, and so can't really sell.

      After all who would pay for a building in the middle of someone else's land, where you would be trespassing by simply going near your property?

      Or worst case the land owner may, upon Apple no longer being the tenant, terminate all active leases and then you would need to pay even more money to remove your buildings from their property.
      In that case you just spent money to buy a building, and need to spend more money to tear them all down, or failing that the land owner could sue you for the cost of demolition and removal.

      I wouldn't even pay $200 for them, knowing the millions it would cost me to have them destroyed and still having nothing in the end to show for my purchase.

    4. Re: Sounds good to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. Wonder if the tax lawyers thought of that risking a billion $ of land to save a few million. This where the bloodsuckers need punished for what they are.

  8. There's a simple solution to this crap... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let people set their own valuations, but the valuation is also a public tender for sale at that price.

    --
    That is all.
    1. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by wed128 · · Score: 2

      Here's the problem with that: my house is worth probably less then apple headquarters. I don't want somebody to show up and buy it out from under me against my will at any reasonable price. My house is not for sale: why should it be for sale at all times just for a tax evaluation?

    2. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you set it to a price that you would be happy to sell it for. If someones turns up and offers $100M for your house worth $500k, wouldn't you sell it? Everybody's got a price. I really like parent's suggestion.

    3. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Phat_Tony · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's right. This kind of rule, in effect, would force everyone to grossly overstate the value of everything and pay ludicrous taxes to avoid unnecessary risk of a sudden forced move. However, there may still be a better way to handle this that preserves the idea. For example, if someone makes an offer to buy at twice your valuation or more, you must either sell, or change your valuation to the new offer and pay a few years of back taxes at the new valuation. This would make forced moves always avoidable, but would still provide a reality check between claimed value and market value. In this case, if the real value of a building is $1B and Apple's claiming $200, someone would surely make an offer at $700M or so and then Apple would have to either sell or change the evaluation to $700M and pay several years of back taxes at the $700M price.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    4. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let people set their own valuations, but the valuation is also a public tender for sale at that price.

      Silly as this sounds, it's actually workable, like claim amateur drag races where you drag other cars in the same claim $ class - anyone can buy a car at the claim price. You can then compete with like cars instead of competing on how much you can spend on a car.
      With real estate you could would want to add the provision not to sell by raised your evaluation to 105% of the offered price and making offers bonded with very large penalty for backing out. Tax rates would be automatically adjusted to produce a given total tax burden.
      Never gonna happen as this would ensure the rich actually paid taxes.

    5. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could simply allow those that disagree strongly with the assessment to take that route.

      Assessor: your home is assessed at $400,000
      You: it is only worth $100,000
      Assessor: Ok, sign here, and you will be taxed at that rate instead.
      You: (sucker!)
      Assessor: Here is a check for $100,001, the city now owns your home.

    6. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But *then* you'd have to pay property tax on the $1m valuation. Do you really want to do that??

    7. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem with that: my house is worth probably less then apple headquarters. I don't want somebody to show up and buy it out from under me against my will at any reasonable price. My house is not for sale: why should it be for sale at all times just for a tax evaluation?

      Yeah but you can't really say it's only worth three dollars but its not for sale, it's the reasonable price bit. Also what kind of house do you live in if you think its only 'probably' worth less than apple HQ?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    8. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a great idea until you realize it is politicians that run the government, they will 'pay' some people to go around making offers on everyone's house to drive up taxes. You will also have those that let the outward appearance turn to a dump to avoid having anyone try to buy the property and drive up their taxes.

      Those with fixed incomes, such as retired people that already payed off their mortgage, could suddenly have their property tax double or triple just because someone offered to buy something that is not for sale.

      Housing prices will go so high just to avoid sudden buyouts almost no one will be able to afford a first time home. (although it is headed that way already)

      Now if this only applied to corporate entities? Count me in. Corporate protections got the world into the mess we are in.

    9. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Just because someone else can afford my house and I can't afford the tax on it doesn't mean I should lose my house.

    10. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. It's a great way to keep people poor through a choice between unjustly high property tax and having to routinely pay closing costs.

      Fucking idiots.

    11. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Junta · · Score: 1

      That still empowers people to randomly evict other people or inflict them with an unfair tax bill.

      The current system where a property owner is free to claim ludicrous values and then have that claim rejected seems to work ok eventually. We shouldn't let shock of a potentially incorrect headline (some say it's really 200 *million* dollars, not 200 dollars) make us rethink this whole thing so quickly.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    12. Re: There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't buy something then how much is it worth? Zero dollars? Infinite dollars? To me the value is pretty high but does that mean it should be valued at my value? For the tax man my valuation is also very high because they're incentivized to get as much tax as possible. To a random bystander the value is low unless they really want it. To a grotesque opportunist *all* property is cheap and you throw $1 valuations at everything hoping to find the one owner that got cancer and needs to sell yesterday.

    13. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a great way for a corporation or evil genius to clear out a poor neighborhood for their own purposes. Keep offering owners just enough for their property where they reject or accept. If they reject, some will be forced out eventually for not being able to pay their property taxes as they increase. People losing their homes due to increased property values and the implied property taxes is already a problem. Your suggestion would give a way for evil actors to accelerate that process.

    14. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Let people set their own valuations, but the valuation is also a public tender for sale at that price.

      Forcing someone to sell their home when they aren't planning on moving to a new home is probably not a good idea. You could, however, change your solution to a cap on the allowed sale price when you do sell. If you sell for more than 10% of the assessed value, you get charged back taxes.

      It's an interesting idea, though it certainly has some downsides. In some areas, assessed values can rise more than the owner can afford to pay, especially owners that have owned their home for decades. Forcing assessed values to rise even faster could make that problem worse.

    15. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by swillden · · Score: 1

      That's right. This kind of rule, in effect, would force everyone to grossly overstate the value of everything and pay ludicrous taxes to avoid unnecessary risk of a sudden forced move.

      Taxes wouldn't be any more ludicrous than they are now (you can decide if they're ludicrous now). When imposing this system, you'd just need to lower the property tax rate. This is a normal thing that happens all the time; assessors adjust the property tax mill rate based on the total value of all of the assessed property, specifically so that when they do broad revisions to property values, people don't get hit with big bills.

      So you'd just need to ask everyone to revise their property value, then adjust the mill rate to produce the expected total property tax revenue. It would be the case that people would pay more or less taxes based on their willingness to relocate, but I don't think the differences would be huge and that doesn't seem inherently unfair... in fact it seems to better serve the fundamental reason for having property taxes in the first place.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

      If it was a real offer to buy, then the "ludicrous tax bill" is just what you should have paid already, that you've been dodging by lying about the value of your property.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    17. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aka a "Harberger tax"

      https://medium.com/@simondlr/what-is-harberger-tax-where-does-the-blockchain-fit-in-1329046922c6

    18. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Also what kind of house do you live in if you think its only 'probably' worth less than apple HQ?"

      a house that is somewhere between $199 and $201 dollars.

    19. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Only+Time+Will+Tell · · Score: 1

      I think that might be the answer that twice your assessed amount is the tendered sale price. If your house has a claimed assessed value of $200,000, the minimum someone could offer would be $400K. I love my house, but if someone came around offering twice its value, I'd be taking my house key off its ring before they could finish the sentence.

    20. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      That approach sounds clever at first, but think about it for much longer and it starts to stink.

      Most obviously, it would give the rich a means to punish anyone poorer than them for any reason. For instance, suppose you saw that Paris Hilton was in the news again for doing something you didn't approve of and you decided to say something rude about her. Suppose that she happened to become aware of your comment and decided that she didn't much care for it. With the Hilton fortune at her beck-and-call, she could simply buy your family home out from under your feet for the perfectly reasonable valuation you had placed on it, suddenly leaving you out on the street.

      Or suppose that you're a minor Internet celebrity or have some small amount of authority in a niche on the Internet, such as a moderator on a forum with a few thousand users, a hobbyist tech reviewer on YouTube, or a console gamer who livestreams regularly. Over time, you'll naturally accumulate an odd following of people who are jealous of your success, disagree with something you said, or want revenge for a perceived slight. Eventually, a particularly toxic Internet troll doxxes you or otherwise crosses a boundary that makes them a real life concern. You realize that they may try to buy your house out from under you as a troll tactic, so you increase the valuation. They start filing false bids to claim your home, so you have to keep increasing your valuation. Even if they never take your home from you, they can force you to pay thousands of additional dollars each year that you shouldn't need to pay.

      But, the worst would be large companies swooping in. Zillow and others are already buying homes from sellers who are willing to sell for less than they think the home is worth. Now imagine if the seller didn't need to be willing. Anyone who undervalued their home would quickly find it purchased out from under them by heavily financed companies interested in flipping them quickly for profit.

    21. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great! Then I'll accept their offer and buy two houses. And when they offer double for each of those, I'll get four!

      Your system is ridiculous and would never happen. If someone offered me 200% of my house value, hell, I could leave at the end of the handshake. Hotel for a week while I buy a similar house elsewhere and cash in the bank.

    22. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1
      If the occupants have reasonable assessments, then the only way for the offers to have any effect on the occupants is for the evil actors to offer everybody twice the market value of their house. And it's easy to buy up whole neighborhoods right now by offering everybody twice the value of their house.

      Right now, the evil actors don't want to actually cough up as much money as people want in exchange for moving. They try to buy up homes by offering 10% above market value. When the people refuse, they just bribe government to use eminent domain to kick the people out and let them buy the land at below market value.

      If my proposal could somehow help change the evil company's strategy to instead offer everybody 200% of the value of their house, that would be great. But unfortunately, I think the evil people would still rather use eminent domain than actually pay the money. Houses are expensive - it's cheaper to bribe government than pay what it takes to make people move voluntarily.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    23. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Junta · · Score: 1

      My house is assessed at a certain dollar amount. The government assessment has been accurate.

      If someone offered me that sum of money to move, I still wouldn't want to. I shouldn't be forced to accept my tax estimated value and leave my house.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    24. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because someone else can afford my house and I can't afford the tax on it doesn't mean I should lose my house.

      Yes it does.

    25. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If under that system someone forced me to sell my house for twice its value I would pay of the mortgage, buy another house of similar value and say to them "please do it again"

    26. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      something something commie/job killing/gonna take our guns something

    27. Re: There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It you buy a 500k house for 10m, then yea, your stupid ass gets to pay the property tax on it.

    28. Re: There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm that's how the law works.

      You either pay taxes on your property, or have it taken from you.

    29. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by wed128 · · Score: 1

      I'll admit, the word "probably" was a bit tongue-in-cheek...

    30. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Isn't the whole point of America to reward the rich and punish the poor anyway?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    31. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Italy actually has this policy for artwork; if you place an absurdly low valuation for tax purposes, the government can elect to purchase it at that price.

    32. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, are you saying that a system that forcibly takes people's houses (raising the supply of homes on the market) will somehow drive prices up?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    33. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about if instead of buying it at the valuation price, the involuntary buy out can only take place if the buyer is willing to pay 5 times the amount with 1 year period for moving out? That way even if someone wants to punish someone by buying their house, the person gets paid 5x the market rate which should cover a nice upgrade and easy relocation. So it wouldn't be a very good punishment for anyone who gives reasonable valuation for their property.

    34. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by jezwel · · Score: 1

      You missed the part about offering *double* the valuation forcing a sale, not just the current value price. I'd sell up for twice what I value the place for in a heartbeat. Then I'd go looking for a replacement via normal channels.

    35. Re:There's a simple solution to this crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not? you are failing to meet your obligations, I used to work in Local Government as the Revenue Officer, and after 7 years unpaid Rates and Taxes the land was seized, and auctioned off, with the reserve price the outstanding debt.

    36. Re: There's a simple solution to this crap... by orlanz · · Score: 1

      I am not saying that.

      Think about it in the context of what the original poster said. I buy a house that I can afford because it's price is set high enough that the prior owner can't outbid me. But I now must raise its price up else the second place bidder will eventually take it from me.

      I will raise it to the point where I can barely afford the taxes I pay on that raised value. So if someone who can afford the house at its new price takes it from me, he does so because I can't afford the taxes I myself imposed on it. And I basically did the same thing to the prior owner.

      In this system it's just a loss of property to the richest and increased tax revenues but no real value was actually produced in the transactions.

      That is the problem. One shouldn't lose their home just because someone else can afford the value while they can't afford the tax on the value. Because eventually only one will own everything.

  9. Lie on taxes by nitehawk214 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If an individual lies on taxes, they go to jail.

    If a corporation lies on taxes, they get rewarded.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Lie on taxes by magusxxx · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, because corporations aren't people.

      Wait...didn't the Supreme Court....hmmmm....

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    2. Re:Lie on taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the Supreme Court didn't. Citizen United never stated corporations are people.

      Slashdot, news for dumb nerds.

    3. Re:Lie on taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While you're at it

      An individual pays ~10,000 in taxes (on $50,000 income)
      Apple pays 56 M on 200 B in income

      Individual pays 20%
      Apple pays 0.03%

    4. Re:Lie on taxes by Goglu · · Score: 2

      False! If the individual happens to be rich, they'll also get rewarded.

    5. Re:Lie on taxes by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I sexually identify as a corporation.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    6. Re:Lie on taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If an individual lies on taxes, they go to jail.

      Not if they're rich, then they just pay a penalty. And if they're as rich as Apple then the tax laws will probably be changed to accommodate them.

  10. That's jail for you or me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If I tried to claim a taxable value of $200 for my house (worth far less than any 7+ digit figure) that would be a pretty quick conviction for tax evasion.

    Avoidance is legal, evasion is not. It's like the government and the corporations that own it aren't even trying to pretend they aren't corrupt anymore. This does not end well in any other instance in history, and I can't understand why these people think they will get away with it now.

    1. Re:That's jail for you or me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well thats simple, the people making these terrible choices are being paid so stupidly much to do so that even if the whole system comes crashing down they can just go hide in some well secured private place they bought with last years bonus. which is why they have worked so hard at building a system where they can screw the bulk of the nation to compensate themselves so lavishly. and the only way to fix it is to elect a government that has the balls to tax cash hoarders into the ground.

    2. Re:That's jail for you or me by Junta · · Score: 1

      I don't think you'd get arrested for tax evasion, your valuation would just be rejected.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  11. Jail time for tax fraud,right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jail time is legal for tax fraud, right?
    Send some of Apple's CPAs, Tax Lawyers and CEO to jail and put them on monitored release for 10 yrs.

    Bet they come to a new understanding about tax fraud then.

    1. Re: Jail time for tax fraud,right? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      The whole point of incorporation is to make it so the individuals in the corporation are not liable for this sort of thing. As long as the blame can be spread, no one is to blame.

    2. Re: Jail time for tax fraud,right? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      The whole point of incorporation is to make it so the individuals in the corporation are not liable for this sort of thing. As long as the blame can be spread, no one is to blame.

      Then shut down the company committing the act.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    3. Re: Jail time for tax fraud,right? by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      So the whole point of incorporation is to make it so corporations can break the law and face no repercussions?

    4. Re: Jail time for tax fraud,right? by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      There really needs to be a corporate death penalty whereby a company can lose it's corporate charter protections. The only reason there isn't is because corporations now run the world. We as a people fucked up.

    5. Re: Jail time for tax fraud,right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, what do you think limited liability was for?

      People used to go into prison for individual debts.

    6. Re: Jail time for tax fraud,right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly "no repercussions", but all they face is a fine, and those fines are usually in such a lowball range they make the money back before the ink dries on the legal paperwork. The public sees big corporations paying "huge" fines in six or seven figures and feel vindicated, because to the public it seems like a lot of money, even though to the corporations it's barely even an hour's worth of income lost.

      A corporation can easily do the math on whether or not it's worth it to break the law. If the projected profits exceed the projected fine, they go for it. It also helps that there are mandatory maximums for a lot of these crimes tying the hands of judges, making the math even easier. Think of the narrator's conversation with the passenger on the flight at the beginning of Fight Club, the one about the "major" auto corporation he works for, it's pretty much that.

      Incorporation was supposed to be so that a company would bear the *civil* liability of mistakes and market fluctuations, rather than its proprietor, in the event of some disaster that harmed the company. Instead, it's morphed into what it is today, which is a shield against *criminal* liability to protect the criminals who run these corporations. We really need to start jailing the leaders of these corporations who commit and conspire to criminal activity. The only way to keep corporations responsible is to enforce responsibility in its leaders, just as we would with any other individual in the public.

      In short: How much longer do we have to wait until we see the CEO of Equifax getting his butt turned inside-out by a gang?

    7. Re: Jail time for tax fraud,right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, did no one told you before ? Limited liability and corporate personhood are there to defend rich peoples money.
      As an aspiring middle class guy I did learn myself how such construction makes you not pay taxes and have no liabilities.

  12. $200 seems to be Apple's lucky number by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    "Some claims reflect extreme differences in estimated values. In one appeal filed in 2015, Apple said that a cluster of properties in and around Apple Park in Cupertino that the assessor valued at $1 billion was worth just $200. In another, property that the assessor valued at $384 million was, in Apple's view, worth $200, according to an appeal application."

    What an amazing coincidence that two properties, one assessed at over double the value of the other, are both only worth $200 according to Apple.

    The article continues, with an explanation why:

    "Other assessors say large corporations are using their resources to hire attorneys and expert witnesses to eventually wear down county governments."

    1. Re:$200 seems to be Apple's lucky number by BigDukeSix · · Score: 1

      Expert witnesses have credentials, and that world is pretty small. If someone is seriously arguing in a legal filing that a billion dollar property is worth 200 bucks, they should face professional sanctions or at least ridicule. I would for sure use that nonsense against said "expert" if I ever ran into them again.

    2. Re:$200 seems to be Apple's lucky number by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      "Other assessors say large corporations are using their resources to hire attorneys and expert witnesses to eventually wear down county governments."

      Can't the court bar them from being an expert witness for putting in a $200 valuation on a $1,000,0000,000 building? Doesn't that demonstrate utter incompetence, if not criminal conspiracy to defraud the county of tax revenue?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:$200 seems to be Apple's lucky number by organgtool · · Score: 1

      So they're forcing county governments to waste vast amounts of tax dollars on protracted appeals with intentionally ridiculous claims just to avoid paying their share of society's taxes. I guess they're never going to reach $2 trillion if they have to pay their fair proportion of taxes. Why do we put up this?

  13. Sounds like Apple should hire fewer lawyers by llamalad · · Score: 1

    and more engineers.

  14. Well, property taxes really are bullshit by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They are the single most "regressive" tax we have, to say nothing of the fact that they're the granddaddy of the logic behind civil asset forfeiture.

    I get that the schools and other local services need revenue, but there are better and more moral taxes that can be applied. With modern GIS software, it is perfectly feasible for the state tax agency to build a system that will be able to map taxes owed on income and sales to the right tax authorities so neither the private citizen nor the local government have to do it. They could just impose an extra 3% sales tax and an extra 3-5% income tax and call it a day after abolishing property taxes at the state level.

    Tax on the poor? Sure, but the poor pay property taxes too. You think rental owners don't pass that onto their tenants? The renting poor pay a share of property taxes too and have to do so even in bad times. Switching that to sales and income taxes would at least let the poor to reduce that equivalent tax payment when things get really tough (as you can't tax non-existent income and they can stop spending on non-essentials)

    1. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      School taxes are linked to property taxes because that's how we make sure that the schools with the wealthy people get most of the money. If you "fixed" that, you would have a riot on your hands - most of the upper middle class would lose of ton of home value if their schools were suddenly funded the same as all of the other schools.

    2. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wealthy people usually make more and spend more, it would work out. I always thought taxes on existing property was unfair. It just proves you don't really own what is yours, you still rent it or lose it. As you near retirement and a fixed income you realize how stupid it is.

    3. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Tax on the poor? Sure, but the poor pay property taxes too. You think rental owners don't pass that onto their tenants? The renting poor pay a share of property taxes too and have to do so even in bad times. Switching that to sales and income taxes would at least let the poor to reduce that equivalent tax payment when things get really tough (as you can't tax non-existent income and they can stop spending on non-essentials)

      And you really think that, if property taxes are abolished, landlords will actually drop the prices correspondingly? And stop spending on non-essentials? The reason people argue that sale taxes are regressive is that the poor are already spending less of their money on non-essentials than wealthier people because most of their money already goes towards essentials. increase sales taxes and for a lot of people the situation doesn't become "oh, guess I have to hold onto my iphone for another year", it becomes "can I afford to eat dinner today".

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are the single most "regressive" tax we have

      No, sales taxes are far more regressive.

      Property tax: poor person lives in cheap house, pays little in property taxes (directly or via rent). Rich person lives in expensive mansion, pays lots in property taxes.

      Sales tax: poor person buys a lawnmower, pays sales tax. Rich person hires a lawn service, directly pays $0 in sales tax. The sales tax for the service's much more expensive lawnmower is spread over all of their customers, resulting in less sales tax per customer.

      The poor and middle class tend to buy goods, which are subject to sales tax. The wealthy tend to buy services, which are not subject to sales taxes. Sales tax for the goods that are bought by those services is spread over more people, resulting in an overall lower sales tax rate.

    5. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was really surprised when I found out that Washington state (where I live now but did not grow up) does not do it that way. The taxes for education are redistributed across the state so wealthy areas don't have better education funding. On the other hand, apparently in wealthy school districts, the local PTAs raise money to effectively make the wealthy schools better funded.

    6. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      In our town, you select a list of public schools you'd like each of your kids to go to - three selections. If you were going to school X last year, and you still want to go there, you go there. If you have a brother or sister going to school X and you want the next kid to go there, you get an almost assured in at that school to keep families together. In all other circumstances kids are assigned as well as possible based on their preference. The matching is not 5 nines, but it is way up there. Most parents prefer a local neighborhood school, but for those who are sure school X is a better fit for their kid, they can send them there. Makes every school try harder to be good since they don't have a guaranteed supply of kids.

      For busing, the school district picks kids up and send them to a hub where they then go to the bus to their actual school. At night kids are picked up from school by buses and taken to the hub where they transfer to the bus home.

      Works great. No riots. My property taxes are higher than average. I have no issue at all with helping to support the other schools.

      What we need to do is get rid of all of the other garbage taxes - sales, lodging, "sin", income, and all of their overhead and just do property taxes (which would be passed down as rent for those who don't actually own property). Make one adjustment as needed based on cost of government each year at the state, county, and city level. No reason it can't be done in a revenue neutral way, but get rid of all of the state overhead for all the other taxation mechanisms - reduce expenses for the state - simplify retailers lives - simplify internet sellers lives - kick the crutch of lodging tax out - make people want to shop in your state (no sales taxes). For a revenue neutral change, many wins.

      The property tax assessments are local so you have someone local to go talk to if you think your taxes are too high. Get an appraisal if you need to. Base all taxes on the actual retail price for the property.

    7. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      The poor and middle class tend to buy goods, which are subject to sales tax. The wealthy tend to buy services, which are not subject to sales taxes. Sales tax for the goods that are bought by those services is spread over more people, resulting in an overall lower sales tax rate.

      Services may or may not be subject to sales tax, depending on tax jurisdiction. My mom had to charge GET (General Excise Tax) of 4.5% for the piano lessons she gave in Hawaii. As an aside, Hawaii has a GET instead of a sales tax.

    8. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tax on the homeless.

    9. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      extra 3% sales tax

      Sales tax is more regressive than property tax.

    10. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      [Property taxes] are the single most "regressive" tax we have

      False.

      But what we really need are fees proportional to the land parcel's burden on the city. For example, a property with a long street frontage requires more city money to maintain the street, the sidewalk, the sewers, and the trees, so a street frontage fee would be appropriate and give the poor a new opportunity to save money on their living expenses by living in a building with a narrow front.

      Replacing property taxes with property burden fees would also make apartments more economical because adding the 2nd floor would not significantly increase the fee.

      Property burden fees would also allow more properties to be built in a given land area, satisfying demand for housing and lowering the price of housing.

      It would also make the city more tax-efficient in revenue versus city spending, allowing other taxes to be lowered, such as the much more regressive sales tax.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    11. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police and fire protection are arguably are more valuable the greater the value of one's property.

      Good schools, roads, and parks increase the value of everyone's property. That increase is probably at least partially proportional to the value of each property.

    12. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Canada we tax goods *and* services. Problem solved. :P

    13. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sales tax: poor person buys a lawnmower, pays sales tax. Rich person hires a lawn service, directly pays $0 in sales tax. The sales tax for the service's much more expensive lawnmower is spread over all of their customers, resulting in less sales tax per customer."

      sure but that Rich persons lawn service pays corporate taxes on the money they make mowing lawns. then when they pay their employee who is actually doing the mowing they pay income tax. So a lot more tax is being paid as a result of the rich person using a service then the poor person just paying sales tax and mowing himself.

    14. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      One sewer connection per building regardless of frontage is by far the standard. Sidewalks - responsibility of owner depending on where you live - sometimes there is a split cost of upkeep - sometimes it is on the property owner. Trees on owner's property - responsibility of owner. Streets are public access and used by public unless a strictly private road. They are paid for as part of the initial purchase of the lot, but after that used by everybody. Not everyone drives on the particular road in front of my house, but there's a vast amount of city street mileage I never drive on either that my property taxes help pay upkeep on because I want the fire trucks or ambulances or police or delivery trucks to be able to do their jobs or the sewer to flow under them or the water to be delivered through them - or hey - I just might want to drive over them to go shopping, go to work, or visit a friend.

      Property taxes do virtually nothing in causing a person to choose an apartment or a condo or a free standing house. Do they have some role? Well sure. But it's a small part versus the monthly cost of rent or house payment, desire to live in a community or be more isolated, desire for urban vs suburb, closeness of shopping versus open space.

    15. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      One sewer connection per building...

      The sewers go under the street and are shared among all buildings on the street. More buildings on the street means the sewers cost less per building. Taller buildings means the sewers cost less per housing/retail/office unit.

      Sidewalks... Trees...

      Making the property owner responsible for these and not for the roadway naturally results in fewer trees, narrower sidewalks, and wider roads, an environment hostile to life. Unless, of course, you are a car!

      [Streets] are paid for as part of the initial purchase of the lot...

      Only if you ignore the opportunity cost of that land!

      Not everyone drives on the particular road in front of my house, but there's a vast amount of city street mileage I never drive on...

      The street benefits the owner of the adjacent property. For example, a restaurant needs some way to bring customers in. A house needs a way for the owner to get in and out. So it makes sense to pay for these with property taxes.

      Non-street roads benefit people traveling from A to B, so it makes sense to pay for these with some kind of user fee (gas tax, tolls, etc.) the same way transit is (partially) funded with transit fares.

      But the first step is to make a distinction between streets and roads!

      Property taxes do virtually nothing in causing a person to choose an apartment or a condo or a free standing house...

      Yes, let's eliminate the regressive sales tax, make up the difference with other taxes and fees, and give people more opportunities to economize when faced with a choice between an apartment or a house. The sales tax does not give them that choice. Freedom is a good thing, right?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    16. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to be poor to understand the poor. The people who I know who are poor have generally and consistently made poor financial decisions. That's a broad generalization, but I distinctly remember one couple who legitimately thought that having a child would help them out financially because of the tax breaks. I and a few other people managed to help them avoid making a critical mistake by showing them various bits of information on the matter and they listened to reason and good advice but lots of other people do the same thing, have a child, and wind up in worse financial shape than before.

      And several of my friends who are poor are poor simply because they don't understand nor set basic savings goals, instead opting to spend every penny they make. Then when tough times hit unexpectedly, and they inevitably do for everyone, they suddenly find themselves in a serious bind. They'll nod when given sound financial advice, maybe save for a week or two, but then go back to spending every penny they have. The cycle then repeats ad nauseam. This goes to show that you can pour all money in the world into some people and they will somehow manage to go flat broke.

      Then there are the highly predatory organizations such as lotteries and Payday Loans that specifically target the poor. I see poor people pouring their limited, usually hard-earned, meager incomes into these organizations not understanding that there are many, many, better alternatives.

    17. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose we get rid of sales tax before property tax. Further, I propose we fund local services based upon need not upon collected taxes from an area. This inherently means raising income tax because only the wealth have sufficient funds to pay for the local services that clearly the poor can't fund themselves. Property tax being abolished or not is really a side issue to the more pressing problems. Certainly, any argument that a move away from property taxes to some combination of sales taxes and income taxes is absurd precisely because the poor can avoid sales taxes and may pay little to no income tax which severally cripple actual funding for local services and would be nothing but a downward spiral of ghetto lawlessness.

      But then, maybe that's the plan? Perhaps you think it's better and more moral for people to only have services they paid for themselves? The only way you can have that without a downward spiral is heavily regressive, unavoidable taxes. Do you think it wise to effectively have the poor give all their money* to the government?

      * Just a frame of reference, but just the Federal Budget for 2015 was $12,666/person. So a family of three would owe $38,000+. Even radically shrinking the Federal Budget and you still have major issues on everyone paying their "moral" share when you include State and Local services.

    18. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      Sewers??? Taller buildings equals larger sewer taps and bigger pipes under the streets to handle those bigger taps in a dense apartment building scenario equals bigger cost and higher cost to build and repair.

      Zoning standards specify what is required for street width, sidewalk style and size. If you think the property owner has anything to do with that you're crazy. The initial builder planning a subdivision might have some sway, but after those things are built everyone else lives with them. Trees are the only thing you can make a valid point on. Personally, I'm not a fan. Their roots destroy sewer lines or other buried utilities, heave and break up sidewalks and streets, they dump tons of leaves, they destroy views, they interfere with line of site wireless or laser networks, and they make it easier for fires to spread. That's why we have parks in towns. Hostile to life? Hardly.

      There is really no difference between streets and roads as you imply. When an 18-wheeler delivers parcels or mail between the towns on what you call roads - the driver doesn't dump everything where the road ends. They travel on streets. There are really no streets that are never used as roads to use your terminology. Even residential streets are used by delivery trucks, moving trucks, utility vehicles and the like. They are all public access regardless of where they are located and everyone should pay for them. There are different ways to account for the cost of their upkeep - the cyclists would like to get a free ride and free bike lanes since they don't use gas - the people who commute would like to get a free ride because they pay other drivers and don't use gas - the people who walk don't want to think about what the crosswalks cost or feel like they should contribute anything and really - moving only happens occasionally so why should I pay for roads for that either - but upkeep has to be paid for somehow. The people who live in big cities are used to how they can get around and think that cars are an abomination... but you have to have a fairly significant population density to make any of the alternatives to cars viable.

    19. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Taller buildings equals...bigger pipes under the streets...a dense apartment building scenario equals bigger cost and higher cost to build and repair.

      Not that much higher. Have you ever had to fix an underground pipe? Most of the cost is digging the trench. Otherwise the Flint water crises would have been solved almost as soon as it started.

      Zoning standards specify what is required for street width, sidewalk style and size. If you think the property owner has anything to do with that you're crazy.

      That's true, most city's zoning standards are copied from another city's zoning standards, because the city thinks a formula in a book knows better than you and your neighbors about how wide your sidewalk should be. Wouldn't it be better if these things could be decided on a street by street basis?

      There are really no streets that are never used as roads to use your terminology.

      I never said there are non-road streets, I said there are non-street roads. For example, a freeway is a type of road that isn't a street.

      Streets are the endpoints, the destinations. The places. Roads (including streets) connect these places to each other.

      you have to have a fairly significant population density to make any of the alternatives to cars viable.

      Cars aren't viable either, not without massive subsidies (cars pay less than half the cost of the roads) and zoning laws that force property owners to build more parking than the market thinks is optimal. Would you drive everywhere if the gas tax were $2.22 per gallon and you weren't guaranteed free parking at your destination?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    20. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm mixed on this. On the one hand, it seems crazy that if I buy a piece of land and build a house on it, that I will have to pay a tax to continue living on it for the rest of my life. Which means it is impossible to ever opt-out of society and just live by yourself. You will always (at a bare minimum) work the land and sell some goods to generate money in order to pay taxes.

      On the flip side of this, can you imagine if there were no property taxes, and some family just kept slowly buying up properties over time and never did anything with it? Since there is no cost to owning them, it doesn't matter if they get any use out of them -- they can just buy and hold them. At least with a property tax, you are incentivised to do something productive with the land. If you aren't going to do something productive with it, we (the people/government) will take it away from you and sell it to someone that will.

      It really kind of bothers me that in the land of the free, you can't just drop out of society and live off of the land and your own labor.

    21. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      Street by street - absolutely not. Zoning codes exist so that some developer who doesn't want to pay for wide sidewalks can't get by with putting in what he thinks is reasonable.

      Cars shouldn't pay all the cost of roads. Why should bikes pay nothing? Why should people who walk pay nothing? Why should trucks not pay more since they do more damage? Seems you're just anti-car. Electric cars will need to pay a mileage tax as well since they don't pay fuel subsidies.

      In my area there are no real options to cars - call a taxi? Still a car. Call uber? Still a car. Ride a bike? Have really strong legs to battle 30 mph continuous headwinds with 70 mph gusts in the winter with total elevation differences between downtown and where people live that make San Francisco look tame. There are some extremely limited service route buses that run - and for some times of the day you need to reserve a spot on them a couple of weeks in advance. There just aren't enough people going from any particular point A to B to make mass transit economical. Should cities have been laid out differently in some vast utopian fantasy where that were possible? Sure. But that isn't the world we live in. We're talking an hour at 80mph to get to another place where people live - and sometimes not many people at that. Very limited bus services between towns, passenger rail - never covered much and is history anyway.

    22. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Zoning codes exist so that some developer who doesn't want to pay for wide sidewalks can't get by with putting in what he thinks is reasonable.

      Do you honestly think developers are not greedy enough to put in sidewalks as wide as their customers demand?

      Why should bikes pay nothing? Why should people who walk pay nothing? Why should trucks not pay more since they do more damage? ... Electric cars will need to pay a mileage tax as well...

      Sure, make them all pay a weight-mile tax. For bicycles, the easiest way is to tax their tires. But also keep fuel taxes to pay for the nonzero cost of air pollution and other environmental damage caused by burning the fuel.

      In my area there are no real options to cars

      Yes, when you build your town around the car, you suddenly have no choice but to drive everywhere. You've painted yourself into a corner. It's bad strategy to have only one way to get around, because it makes you a slave to your car, Big Oil, and so on. But look on the bright side: the oil companies love you!

      Should cities have been laid out differently in some vast utopian fantasy where that were possible? Sure. But that isn't the world we live in.

      How many of the buildings around you do you think will be still be there 200 years from now?

      The sooner we end the subsidies and government meddling in the market for transportation, the sooner people can start making choices that save themselves money and make our cities more financially productive.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    23. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honest question since I don't live in the US and the states sales tax seems complicated in a 10 second google search: Don't you have any differentiation between essential items (food, water, milk, tissue paper, sanitary products, medical supplies, textbooks, etc) and luxury products for sales taxes?

      A lot of countries do this where essential items get 0 or much lower sales tax. That way you can increase sales tax but not make things more difficult for the poor.

    24. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the better states are just fine with only property taxes. We don't have sales taxes nor income taxes, only property taxes. Far easier to manage and fraud is more difficult (how often have you paid use taxes for everything you bought online?).

      As a landlord, all costs are passed through to the tenants, just like your grocery store passing along all costs to make, receive, mist, and sell each green pepper. That's what businesses do. An increase in sales tax would mean all the repairs would cost more and an increase in income tax would just move the spreadsheet calculation from an property tax entry to an estimated income tax entry. It would have no net effect on the landlords (especially when businesses have so many more ways to reduce their income tax % than standard workers do).

      Property taxes are based on the value of the property. The poor pay less property taxes when they live in worse areas and the rich pay substantially more when they live in excellent houses. It is one the fairest ways to apply taxes when you take into account all the loopholes, ways to create income, and the ways people spend. In general people can only eat so much, but the rich can end up owning tons more land than a poor person.

      As a landlord, I actually want to maximize my property taxes as that effectively means my property is worth more. I can use it to take out bigger loans, a bigger line of credit, and sell it at a higher price to another property investor. In what other category do people try to increase their tax burden on purpose?

    25. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you honestly think developers are not greedy enough to put in sidewalks as wide as their customers demand?

      I know developers are cheats enough to claim they put in grade-A sidewalks when they really just painted the dirt.

      They're really very dirty people. I wouldn't expect them to install sewer hook-ups on their own.

      The sooner we end the subsidies and government meddling in the market for transportation, the sooner people can start making choices that save themselves money and make our cities more financially productive.

      Not possible, people make choices for themselves that include running over anybody in their way.

      Which would not be financially productive in the long run, but worse yet, it would ultimately be morally destructive.

      Sorry, your libertarian anarchy dreams are just inane.

    26. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      I know developers are cheats enough to claim they put in grade-A sidewalks when they really just painted the dirt.

      I see, when decisions are made at the street level instead of the city level, developers suddenly start committing fraud. Do you have any examples of fraud happening when decisions are made at the street level but not the city level? I would like to investigate the psychology that causes this and try to find a solution.

      people make choices for themselves that include running over anybody in their way... Sorry, your libertarian anarchy dreams are just inane.

      Have you ever been to Europe? They have such charming little towns that were built without zoning laws. In fact, modern zoning laws make those towns illegal to build today. (Cobblestones? Narrow, winding streets? You can't drive a 35 foot fire truck down that street, better make the street illegal!) Instead, all we can build are neighborhoods devoid of character; pristine, sanitized little boxes all the same, reminiscent of communist architecture but decorated with stone facades to break up the monotony a little and make the houses more palatable. Don't be fooled, that is what zoning laws and central planning give us!

      What you call "anarchy" I call "organic". Why is what worked so well for us in the past now considered "inane"?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    27. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the better states are just fine with only property taxes. We don't have sales taxes nor income taxes, only property taxes. Far easier to manage and fraud is more difficult.

      Nice fantasy. Unfortunately, there is a long history of fraud involving property taxes. Also, they have been used many times to drive poor minorities off their land, so that rich non-minority developers can get richer.

      Illegal collusion with corrupt local government is almost always present in these situations - but almost never does anybody go to jail. The lesson that our society is effectively teaching our children is that crime does pay.

      Typically the way this works is that local governments agree to raise the property taxes in general, and overvalue the properties in those particular areas where the developers want to operate. In turn, they give the developers a special deal where they don't have to pay the full value of the tax in return for the development. It's a lot like the deals they use to bring in companies (in return for creating jobs, we won't tax you for X years, that sort of thing). Even in the absence of bribes, this works out well for the local government officials since they get much wealthier people moving in to the newly developed properties, which in turn translates to higher pay, benefits, prestige, and so forth.

      There are lawsuits ongoing on this very issue right now, but generally the poor don't have the money to win in court. The US legal system is not about justice, it's about serving the interests of the lawyers and the rich.

      In some places, such as a certain big Mid-West metropolis, the corrupt government is in collusion with the unethical legal profession. They run an interesting scam, where the government raises property taxes to artificially high levels every year, forcing people to hire lawyers to appeal the raise and lower the tax. The whole system ends up being a tax that goes to the lawyers. It's enormously unethical for both government and lawyers, but they do it anyway. Welcome to America where the corruption is deeply entrenched, and the lawyers are one of the worst special interest groups.

      Property taxes are also linked to huge injustice involving disparity of opportunity, especially in education. Though probably not as regressive as sales taxes, property taxes are regressive, and they force many lower and middle class people to live far from their work, imposing a substantial commute on them. The wealthy tend to pay more in property taxes, but in practice the difference is only weakly linked to wealth or income, so there just isn't enough incentive for the wealthy to sell property.

      There are also other violations of fundamental rights associated with property tax systems, such as California's Proposition 13.

      Property taxes are just another form of rent: in a legal system with these taxes, nobody is free to actually own property, all they can do is rent it from the government. So much for the "land of the free": the freedom to own property is a fundamental freedom - and it doesn't exist in most places in the USA. People can't even own their homes.

      In an place with an ethical government and legal system there wouldn't be property taxes or sales taxes. Everything government does can be paid for by income tax, or excise taxes.

    28. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police and fire protection are arguably are more valuable the greater the value of one's property.

      And these services can be paid for by taxes on income or wealth. Your reasoning doesn't justify the existence of property tax.

      Good schools, roads, and parks increase the value of everyone's property. That increase is probably at least partially proportional to the value of each property.

      This doesn't justify property taxes either. In fact, it does the opposite, you are effectively saying the rich should get better roads, schools, and parks. In practice, that's almost always what happens, in large part due to property taxes.

      We have an enormous problem in the USA with the lack of opportunity provided to many people, which in turn leads to all sorts of expensive and difficult social problems (such as over-use of narcotics, and gang warfare, and the highest incarceration rate in the world). Property taxes are not the only cause, but they play a role: they ensure that large amounts of money aren't going where it is actually needed.

      If you study this issue in detail, you will find that property taxes are far more strongly linked to corruption and incompetence in government than to the long term interests of society. Often they work against the interests of many property owners (and society), being used to drive poor people - especially minorities - off their land so that rich developers can get even richer from developing it. It's not just the poor getting screwed: the middle class pays far more then their fair share of these taxes. There are lots of other negative effects, many of them subtle.

      That police protection doesn't do you much good when the government forces you off your land, somebody else gets rich by stealing it, and nobody goes to jail. Just who are they protecting? That fire protection doesn't do you much good when you lose your land, but it's sure nice for that rich developer to have - lowers their insurance rates and allows them to get even richer.

    29. Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Property taxes] are the single most "regressive" tax we have

      False [itep.org].

      We need to be extremely cautious about accepting the conclusions of the ITEP study. They are correct in stating that both property and sales taxes are regressive. They do not, however, have a good methodology for measuring which is more regressive.

      Property taxes are associated with large amounts of lost opportunity costs, as well as well direct costs, that are hard to quantify - but clearly affect the poor and the middle class far more than the rich.

      For example, the USA has the worst incarceration rate in the world - and it's mostly poor people that are affected by this. This isn't solely caused by property tax, but it's a big factor. Rich districts get better roads, better police, better schools, better fire departments, better parks, better emergency planning (things like flood control) and so forth - and these all have long term consequences. Yet at the same time, the rich have less need of these things - they have newer cars and homes, better insurance, better health care, they can spend more time with their kids, and so forth. This creates a huge disparity between rich and poor - and that in turn translates to lost significant opportunity costs for the poor.

      When the poor have land, it's worth less - and because of property taxes they might be forced to sell it right before a big increase in value (which probably goes instead to rich developer - the rich get richer). When the poor leave school, they have less lifetime income. When the poor operate a business, it makes less income because of being located in a poorer district. When the bad roads cause an accident, the poor have more trouble paying for health care. When a disaster strikes, the poor are more affected - with many people losing everything because they can't afford insurance.

      Poor people see that the whole system is skewed against them - and deeply corrupt - so they turn to crime, and high crime rates in poor areas affect local business and property owners, creating negative feedback that makes everything worse for the mostly poor owners and workforce. It's a huge mess.

      There is also evidence of property tax being used as a tool to take land away from the poor, with collusion between corrupt government and rich developers - who then develop the land and make large amounts of money from it.

      Equality of outcomes is impossible - and undesirable - but there are substantial biases in the system caused in large part by property tax policy. The opportunity costs caused by the property tax system make the property tax system extremely regressive - far above and beyond that actual amounts being paid directly in taxes, and this, ultimately, is the fundamental problem with the ITEP study.

      "After the Civil War, separate and racialized tax structures were set up to enable segregated schooling in the South and North. Astonishingly, nearly 150 years later, despite a few superficial adjustments ... those same systems of property-tax funding continue in most U.S. school districts" - Camille Walsh, Racial Taxation, 2018,

  15. Apple didn't exactly say it's HQ was worth $200 by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read the article, Apple didn't say that its HQ was worth $200. From SF Chronicle article:

    Some claims reflect extreme differences in estimated values. In one appeal filed in 2015, Apple said that a cluster of properties in and around Apple Park

    in Cupertino that the assessor valued at $1 billion was worth just $200. In another, property that the assessor valued at $384 million was, in Appleâ(TM)s view, worth $200, according to an appeal application

    What are these properties? I don't know. I'd have to look at the appeal. It could be that the dispute is not over the HQ.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Apple didn't exactly say it's HQ was worth $200 by MytQuinn · · Score: 1

      Considering the location, the property in question must be roughly 1 square meter in size to be valued at $200.

    2. Re:Apple didn't exactly say it's HQ was worth $200 by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      From that it looks like Apple's go to value on all their property is $200. You would think they could be at least a bit more creative than saying a property assessed at $1b and a property assessed at $384m are both worth only $200. At the very least say that the $1bil is worth $201.

    3. Re:Apple didn't exactly say it's HQ was worth $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, a single square foot covered in feces and granulated asbestos is worth far more than $200 in the San Francisco area. Run down houses on well under a 1/4 acre go for a million dollars. This is a ridiculous attempt at avoiding the property taxes they owe.

    4. Re:Apple didn't exactly say it's HQ was worth $200 by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It appears that they think all buildings are worth $200.

      If a "cluster of buildings" on the periphery of Apple Park are worth $1bn, what is the main HQ worth? Oh right, $200.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Apple didn't exactly say it's HQ was worth $200 by willy_me · · Score: 1

      This was probably with respect to building value - not total property value. No one can argue the value of the land is worth $200 but a half assembled or disassembled building might be worth a lot less then the default evaluation - especially if services are not available due to construction. Once all the construction is done it will be difficult to make the same argument so I assume the $200 only applies for the tax year in question. It sounds like the lawyers at Apple have too much free time on their hands.

    6. Re:Apple didn't exactly say it's HQ was worth $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard from a source that it was a couple of porta-potty. Tax assessor fucked up big time.

      One time, my cousin bought some vacant land. Got a big tax bill because there was a "house" on it. That "house" was a lean-to -- a a few 2x4s and some used sheet metal hooked up to a couple of trees. He tore it down. Next year, same big tax bill. He complained and oops, they were actually billing him for somebody else's house on an adjacent plot of land.

    7. Re:Apple didn't exactly say it's HQ was worth $200 by edjs · · Score: 1

      And note "buildings, land, lab equipment, computers and other items" are included in assessments. I'm guessing Apple (and Genentech) are arguing the values of the latter items have depreciated per some accounting rule, rather than using the real-world resale value.

    8. Re:Apple didn't exactly say it's HQ was worth $200 by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      What are these properties? I don't know.

      An apt username if there ever was one.

    9. Re:Apple didn't exactly say it's HQ was worth $200 by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      And do you know for certain? I don't about your tax assessor but where I live, we have to repeal the assessments every year. For example, after the housing bubble burst, my valuation went up by a significant amount.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  16. #clickbait by Aero77 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Arguing that your property is worth less than what the government is estimating, for the purpose of trying to lower your property taxes, is standard procedure everywhere. Apple doing it doesn't make this tech news.

    1. Re:#clickbait by froggyjojodaddy · · Score: 2

      Doing it on this grand a scale is breathtaking. Look at this way - if you're otherwise paying your fair ( NOT legally obligated, but FAIR) share of taxes and if you claim your 5,000 sq ft house is worth $1.2M when it's really worth $1.21M, you get a pass in my eyes.

      If you're the richest company in the world and are claiming an entire office is worth $200, and you don't see a problem with that, I'm not sure I can do anything to convince you otherwise.

    2. Re:#clickbait by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Arguing that your property is worth less than what the government is estimating, for the purpose of trying to lower your property taxes, is standard procedure everywhere. Apple doing it doesn't make this tech news.

      Arguing that a building appraised at $1m is really only worth $750-800k, ok. Fair enough. Arguing a set of properties appraised at $1b is only really worth $200? That's tax fraud. A couple percent off is fine, but not 99.99998%

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:#clickbait by orlanz · · Score: 1

      The "richness" of the company/entity shouldn't matter. I mean why do all the complicated math. Just have a cap on earnings. Its 100% tax after X earnings. That is simple.

      It is every tax payer's right to dispute a tax assessment. And companies have an obligation to their shareholders to do so. But just because they dispute it doesn't mean it will be accepted by the taxing body. If the taxing body does accept it, then it isn't fair to blame the one disputing. Put the blame on the politicians and law makers who clearly aren't doing their job.

    4. Re:#clickbait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to guess your actual authority on this issue is close to zero. I work in real estate and this is NOT a common practice. This is Apple (who has massive pecuniary and political holdings) taking advantage of their position. End of story.

  17. There is only one real law in the world. by Larsen+E+Whipsnade · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What you can and can't get away with.

    Everything else is just talk.

  18. Capital Depreciation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Story is click-bait. Please lookup capital depreciation. Taxable value as calculated by the state is a part of Apple's balance sheets. This author and several people here need to take some accounting courses.

    1. Re:Capital Depreciation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capital depreciation does not cover LAND, you dope, maybe you should go back to school.
      Even if Apple's property was a decapitated dump the land itself would be worth far more than this.
      Apple fanboy much?

    2. Re:Capital Depreciation by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It's called DEPRECIATION. So next year the building will be worth, what, $100? The point behind capital depreciation is so an old building is worth the value of an old building. This is a new building that should not have depreciated much yet.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  19. Cool by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    Apple argued that buildings it owned around Cupertino, where it is headquartered, were only worth $200 instead of the $1 billion tax assessors deemed in 2015,

    If that's the case, I'd be willing to buy it from them at double the value they're claiming it to be worth. That should make them happy as they'll make double what it's worth to them.

  20. But ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    But ... but ... Steve Jobs! Looking thoughtful! Memes!

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

      It takes true courage to try to claim your HQ is only worth $200 after a $1,000,000,000 appraisal.

  21. Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blame the local government for putting up with this.

  22. Pay your taxes Apple by MytQuinn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Given a corporate tax of 21% I'm led to believe Apple took in about $280 million in profit last year from the $56 million in taxes. Oh wait they made closer to $10 billion. Maybe they should pay their damn taxes or get the hell out of the US. It's appalling we let corporations get away with this, even more we seem to encourage it. Given Apples ample reserve cash there is absolutely no excuse for this, this should be enough for people to wake up and boycott their products, as if the consumer gouging on excessively marked up products in the first place wasn't enough.

    1. Re:Pay your taxes Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given a corporate tax of 21% I'm led to believe Apple took in about $280 million in profit last year from the $56 million in taxes. Oh wait they made closer to $10 billion. Maybe they should pay their damn taxes or get the hell out of the US. It's appalling we let corporations get away with this, even more we seem to encourage it. Given Apples ample reserve cash there is absolutely no excuse for this, this should be enough for people to wake up and boycott their products, as if the consumer gouging on excessively marked up products in the first place wasn't enough.

      County not Country

    2. Re:Pay your taxes Apple by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      $56 Million to the COUNTY, not total.

  23. Expropriation by dskoll · · Score: 1

    Cupertino to Apple: "We are expropriating your property and will pay you $200,000 which is 1000 times market value, so you have no basis for a complaint."

  24. Re:Good for Apple by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Companies and people have a sole duty to lower there tax bill as much as possible. If it isn't written in law do not give Uncle Sam anymore than the law says.

    Yeah, you're going to need to save all that money to pay the toll for every road you need to use. Extend your medical insurance to cover police and fire, pay the electric, water, gas and every other service that relies on public utilities etc etc. But if people did pay what the law says things would mostly be fine but when they lie, cheat and steal to reduce that bill, especially when you're literally one of the richest companies in the world and are doing nothing but hoarding wealth. Also I think you need to be aware of what sole means.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  25. Shareholder value by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

    So, if these are valued at $200, it should benefit the shareholders if I was to make them the lucrative offer of $500 per building, correct?

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    1. Re:Shareholder value by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Google might bid you up to $550.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  26. My house asssessed for 50% more than it sold for by raymorris · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Two months ago I bought my house, at the price the market determined was fair. A few months later I received the tax assessment at over 50% more than what it actually sold for on the open market, and over $100,000 more than I would have paid for it. That shows you how accurate tax assessments are.

    I appealed, exactly as Apple is doing, and got the value set correctly. Each of the last two years, the government has assessed it as increasing in value 10% every year, the maximum amount they legally can. Home values in my area are not increasing 10% per year. They just want to tax me as much as possible.

    The assessment was that far off on an ordinary house, that is basically just like all the neighboring houses, though larger than most. It should be an easy assessment since my house and others in the neighborhood have sold recently. The Apple buildings aren't just like all of the other buildings around them, so there isn't that easy comparison. Determining the value it might sell for is difficult and subjective. Maybe it would only sell for $200 million for the building (vs the land). Maybe it would sell for a billion. I don't know, but I sure don't assume that the county's first try is right and fair.

  27. Eminant Domain by Frank+Burly · · Score: 1

    The county should take it via eminent domain and pay Apple the claimed value. The public good underlying the taking would be discouraging this sort of BS.

  28. Re:My house asssessed for 50% more than it sold fo by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Same question as the last guy, your house is worth $10? When you appealed, they accepted that?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  29. Pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because if they don't bring in a certain amount of money they'll be fired?

    We bought a house in an OK neighborhood. It hadn't been lived in in a year, needed a new garage door, front door, new carpet, new windows, the yard was overgrown and it had one giant elm tree and six ash trees that had to be taken down.

    A week after we closed it was assessed for 25% over the sale price. That would have made it the most expensive piece of property on the street, which it certainly was not, and one of the most expensive houses in the entire neighborhood, which it *definitely* wasn't.

    When we complained to the board they couldn't come up with a good reason why it was valued so high, or explain the reasoning behind the valuation. The assessor never even left his car, he eyeballed the property from the street.

    The same thing happened to our friends. Apparently their old 2,000ft^2 ranch was worth more than the brand new 3,000ft^2 colonial on a larger lot that had sold the year before across the street. Turns out the city's pension fund had taken a hit and all of a sudden assessments were coming in WAY over the selling price.

    1. Re:Pressure by fluffernutter · · Score: 0

      Holy shit you have no idea how government works.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Pressure by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      Because if they don't bring in a certain amount of money they'll be fired?

      We bought a house in an OK neighborhood. It hadn't been lived in in a year, needed a new garage door, front door, new carpet, new windows, the yard was overgrown and it had one giant elm tree and six ash trees that had to be taken down.

      A week after we closed it was assessed for 25% over the sale price. That would have made it the most expensive piece of property on the street, which it certainly was not, and one of the most expensive houses in the entire neighborhood, which it *definitely* wasn't.

      When we complained to the board they couldn't come up with a good reason why it was valued so high, or explain the reasoning behind the valuation. The assessor never even left his car, he eyeballed the property from the street.

      The same thing happened to our friends. Apparently their old 2,000ft^2 ranch was worth more than the brand new 3,000ft^2 colonial on a larger lot that had sold the year before across the street. Turns out the city's pension fund had taken a hit and all of a sudden assessments were coming in WAY over the selling price.

      My property taxes are due in November. I just barely got a new valuation from the city which upped last year's by 20%. No inspector came to my house; I believe they had a formula with lot size and finished square footage as inputs. To be fair, this year's assessment roughly matches last year's market value.

    3. Re:Pressure by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you're not in a best use area for assessments?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    4. Re:Pressure by anegg · · Score: 1

      In the two US states in which I have resided as a property owner, the tax records record the size of your lot, the square footage of your house, the quality of the construction, and some other parameters that are then used in a formula to calculate the "assessed value" of your property. Comparable property sales are used to establish how and how much the parameters contribute to the value. The assessor only makes an in person visit every few years, to confirm that the parameters appear to be correct. You can appeal an assessment based on errors in fact (square footage is wrong, for example) or reasons why the comparable properties used for valuation are not valid indicators of the value of your property. Recent sales carry more weight than older sales. Standard houses (in a subdivision of similar houses) have more direct comparables than more unique, custom one-of-a-kind houses or houses in unique locations (either good unique or bad unique).

      All of this leaves open the question of whether the assessor picks a value first, then seeks comparables to justify the value, or finds comparables first, then sees what the impact on the assessed value is. And there can be a lot of wiggle room in what is "comparable", and how non-exact matches are adjusted up or down to get a comparable value.

    5. Re:Pressure by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      From you...That is irony.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  30. never mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jobs himself is a bad person with low moral standards. not surprising at all.

  31. Not Biggest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is also the county's biggest taxpayer, paying $56 million in the 2017-2018 tax year.

    This is a meaningless metric it only indicates that it is the largest company by revenue, per dollar it is likely the smallest tax payer.

  32. Shocking!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am shocked, shocked that the company that was once best known for the personal computer revolution in the 1970s, and then in 2007 for starting the most devastating personal computer counter-revolution to undo all the freedoms that people had gained, has turned out to be tax fraud! Who knew this organization, once maker of premium PCs but who now looks up to the likes of Sony and Nintendo for inspiration on how to keep users compliant, would have gone bad?

  33. Depreciation of building vs. land by tepples · · Score: 1

    My first guess was that the building had depreciated but the land on which it was built had not.

    1. Re:Depreciation of building vs. land by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, it isn't entirely insane, assuming this is talking about the Infinite Loop campus. Apple does not own the land under the building. It is owned by Sobrato, the development company on the corner. Apple merely has a 100-year lease on it. So if Apple decided to sell the buildings, absent some agreement by the landowner to allow the lease to be transferred, they would not be able to do so. Arguably, then, the buildings have zero value beyond what the landowner is willing to give them for them.

      And even if the landowner agreed to a lease transfer, the buildings would still only have value if somebody else wants them as-is. The problem is, IL1's lobby area had serious mold problems fifteen years ago, particularly on the upper floors. I can't imagine it has gotten any better since then. If Apple ever left, there's a nonzero chance that the next company would decide to tear those buildings down rather than fix them.

      It could well be that the expected amount of money that they could get for transferring the lease would not significantly exceed the amount of money they would have to spend bulldozing the old campus to make it ready for whatever company would take it over.

      Mind you, I do think that $200 is a gross underestimate, but if the city valued it at a billion dollars, that's a laughable overestimate. There's no way you'd get anywhere close to that for a bunch of forty-year-old buildings, no matter how much history they might have.

      And given that the original 100-year lease is almost halfway up, and at the end of that 100 years, the buildings potentially become a giant teardown liability unless the lessee is willing to move them somewhere else, the value of those buildings is at least arguably going to go *negative* at some point.

      So really, the only reasonable way to value the property is to determine how much Apple would have to pay to move the employees that are currently in the Loop to other, rented office space, multiplied over the expected remaining life of the building — maybe ten years on the high side. If we assume that they stopped doubling and tripling up in IL offices after Apple Park opened, that's probably only a couple of thousand people. And assume that any new space would be high-density, open plan office space at 175 square feet per employee. Assuming about $4 per square foot per month times ten years, that's about $168 million. At $8 per square foot for demolition times 850,000 square feet, the buildings themselves are a $6.8 million liability, so its value is really closer to $160 million. Seems like a much more plausible number than a billion, which would basically require assuming that Apple will continue using those buildings as-is for the remainder of the hundred-year lease.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Depreciation of building vs. land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, apple could easily sublease the IL campus, if it wanted to.

    3. Re:Depreciation of building vs. land by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'b bet the copper pipes and HVAC are worth more than $200 as salvage.

    4. Re:Depreciation of building vs. land by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Interesting points. If the buidings are on leased land (and it isn't a triple-net lease where land property taxes are passed on to the tenant), then it isn't entirely unreasonable to depreciate the original construction down to almost zero, and just pay taxes on the depreciated value of the improvements since original construction.

      Add in the Prop 13 effect. and it doesn't sound nearly as absurd.

    5. Re:Depreciation of building vs. land by Serge_Tomiko · · Score: 1

      You really have no idea how to appraise real estate. Your understanding of ground leases is particularly strange and rather bizarre. You make it sound like they are a big deal when, really, they are not.

      Considering the value of the land (and yes, ground that is leased has value) you are saying an 850,000 SF building in one of the highest rent places in the world should be worth $235 per square foot. And you are basing this on - the relocation costs for Apple?

      $235/SF is less than a piece of shit warehouse in the Bronx.

      You're crazy bro!

    6. Re:Depreciation of building vs. land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't how this works. The assessed value of the building is completely independent of the specific location. It is the
        Fair Market Value of the physical building at its "highest and best use," if placed on an average parcel of land in the market area that is owned Fee Simple by a Willing Seller to a Willing buyer. Furthermore, if such assessment fails, due to a failure to find comparable sales, whether due to uniqueness or distortion (from sales to immediate family of the seller, foreclosure or other forced sales, contract sales, discounted purchase transactions or purchase of adjoining land or other land to be operated as a unit, etc.), then they will use any other generally accepted appraisal method, which is usually either Cost Analysis or Income Analysis.

      Taken together, yes $200 is absurd. At a minimum, under a cost analysis, A/C units alone are worth more than that.

    7. Re:Depreciation of building vs. land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid that's all irrelevant, what might happen in 50 years, or next year for that matter. Assessment is what the land and buildings are worth right now.

      Large entities like condo complexes, businesses will grieve (contest) their assessment every year, it doesn't cost much, and if market conditions really have changed, they could save millions. $200 or $200 million, whatever it might be, is low but the grievance process (and small claims I think) won't reduce an assessment below what is asked, so the best strategy is to go low. I have heard of judges that wanted to lower an assessment below what was asked, but they can't by law here in NY.

      Also bear in mind there are people and judges every step of the way that know EXACTLY what Apple is doing and will (a) settle for an independent valuation, or (b) deny it/throw it out, better luck next year. Despite Apple's enormous wealth, they are entitled to a fair assessment.

    8. Re:Depreciation of building vs. land by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Considering the value of the land (and yes, ground that is leased has value) you are saying an 850,000 SF building in one of the highest rent places in the world should be worth $235 per square foot. And you are basing this on - the relocation costs for Apple?

      I'm basing this on the fact that buildings depreciate over 40 years for a reason. That's the expected life of the building. The buildings in question are now forty years old. So from a value perspective, these buildings are bulldozer fodder. They're not worth anything per square foot at that age. Anybody who buys them will be buying them solely for the right to lease the land for ~55 years. Mind you, if that lease is way below market value (and it may be), then the lease might have significant value, but either way, that value isn't in the building, but rather in the land use rights.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:Depreciation of building vs. land by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Mind you, I do think that $200 is a gross underestimate, but if the city valued it at a billion dollars, that's a laughable overestimate. There's no way you'd get anywhere close to that for a bunch of forty-year-old buildings, no matter how much history they might have.

      Oops. I have to correct myself. The IL campus is only 25 years old, not 40. So it still has some life left in it. It's the Mariani buildings that are almost 40 years old.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re: Depreciation of building vs. land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      40 years? Why do only the first two little pigs build buildings in America? I live in a fairly new building (post-victorian) and the floorboards underneath me are over a hundred years old. I only have 115 years left on my lease but that would not prevent me selling it on almost as if it were freehold (i pay a token $100 ground rent each year)

    11. Re: Depreciation of building vs. land by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's just a tax dodge. Buildings are sold and a new 40 year depreciation starts while the building appreciates in value.

      Which isn't to say any tract houses built in the last 20 years will last more than 40.

      I know where you can get a house in Germany for significantly less than the value of the lot. Small town, near the old E/W border (W side though). It's a teardown, about 50-60 years old, made of crete. 10 grand, easy, to bring it down, if they don't find asbestos.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:Depreciation of building vs. land by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Tax dodges are not reality. 40 year amortization schedules on real estate are just the duration between real estate sales for tax purposes. They have nothing to do with the actual service life of buildings. Legal fiction that have to do with corporate costing of capital costs, not local real estate taxes.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re: Depreciation of building vs. land by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Construction is only part of it. Yes, they often build commercial buildings cheaply, under the assumption that after twenty or thirty years, they will be so dated that nobody will want to rent them. But the bigger problem is that many building owners do minimal maintenance, under the assumption that any maintenance beyond what is critical — maintenance that could extend the buildings' life for decades — would probably not be cost-effective, because they'll be tearing them down to build something new after two to four decades anyway.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    14. Re:Depreciation of building vs. land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reality warp of Apple Fanboi-ism just reached new heights, where valuing $200 for a building that cost $5B is reasonable.

      The scrap value of the building is worth more.

  34. Claim of Eminant domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since these buildings are worthless, they are depressing the surrounding property values, and an area where even the glitzy office buildings are only $200 must be in dire need of economic development.

    I propose the city of Cupertino immediately foreclose upon the worthless properties for the purpose of improving economic activity (a permissible purpose according to the supreme court) and cut Apple a check for $200 per building in full and total compensation.

  35. biggest taxpayer wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The country's biggest taxpayer only paid 56 million? And how exactly do we spend trillions every year?

    And why is a company that makes a trillion dollars only pay 56 million, but my company makes $100k and I have to pay almost alll of it to tax?

    1. Re:biggest taxpayer wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The country's biggest taxpayer only paid 56 million? And how exactly do we spend trillions every year?

      And why is a company that makes a trillion dollars only pay 56 million, but my company makes $100k and I have to pay almost alll of it to tax?

      No, they're Santa Clara county's biggest taxpayer. Not the USA's biggest taxpayer.

  36. offer them $400 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Offer apple $400 for the buildings and then sue them for not doubling their worth for investors when they decline.

  37. Didn't they just start running their own buses? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Can't remember if that was Apple or somebody else, but I know one of the big tech companies was running it's own bus company.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Didn't they just start running their own buses? by MyrddinBach · · Score: 2

      Microsoft in Redmond now runs their own fleet of buses that go all over the greater seattle area for their workers. With built in WiFi even if IIRC so you can work on the bus during your commute and have it counted towards your hours or whatever.

    2. Re:Didn't they just start running their own buses? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Seems more efficient to just give that money to the public for the good of everyone.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Didn't they just start running their own buses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand there's a few companies in San Francisco doing that (I think I remember Google and Twitter being mentioned, at least, probably others, too). I commute on the ones Microsoft runs in Seattle. As convenient as those buses may be, it seems absurd that they are run as private buses instead of the companies working with the public buses to add commuter routes heavily subsidized by the company.

    4. Re:Didn't they just start running their own buses? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Can't remember if that was Apple or somebody else, but I know one of the big tech companies was running it's own bus company.

      I'm pretty sure it was Google, actually.

    5. Re:Didn't they just start running their own buses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google ran its own buses which some idiots decided to protest because they used city bus stops (which they paid some fee to use). While complaining about corporate overreach has its place, I think this exceeded the bounds of all reason considering it helped alleviate traffic.

    6. Re:Didn't they just start running their own buses? by mikael · · Score: 2

      Back around 2000, many companies (Sun, Google) had their own shuttle services that went between the different corporate buildings and Caltrain stations. They were needed to allow employees to get between buildings for meetings and many didn't want to drive along freeways each day.
      Google now runs luxury coach buses through San Francisco.

      There was a big hoo-hah about how these buses were using bus-stops but not actually making any payments to the cities, so there was a deal made that involved Google making a $7 million donation for free childrens rides on public buses:

      http://time.com/10315/google-b...

      https://www.wired.com/2015/11/...

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    7. Re:Didn't they just start running their own buses? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Given the size of the Bay Area, it can take three hours for a bus to get from San Jose to San Francisco if it were to go through all the residential streets in a space filling curve. A shuttle bus service goes on a direct route between pick-up points and a campus building.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    8. Re:Didn't they just start running their own buses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They you have crazy people ranting and mumbling to themselves on the buses, tourists who don't speak English, alcoholics urinating in the doorwells, plus routes that meander everywhere rather than going directly to the destination.

    9. Re:Didn't they just start running their own buses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Cyberpunk society in building: 1. Crumble the public facilities and the society by paying as little taxes as possible. 2. Offer superior infrastructure services to the chosen few. 3. Replenish the ranks from the yet unconverted countries and economic areas that still have public services and infrastructure. 4. Gain global sovereignty.

    10. Re:Didn't they just start running their own buses? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Seems more efficient to just give that money to the public for the good of everyone.

      Which you've done with all your own money, to lead by example, to be sure. There's no way you're some asshole who's only generous with other people's money, right?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Didn't they just start running their own buses? by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      I feel good about paying taxes, yes. because I know it helps everyone. I don't make up untruths to save money.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re:Didn't they just start running their own buses? by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      I feel great, every time I starve the beast with any sort of tax angle or outright dodge. So many angles, so many dodges.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  38. Picking on Apple? by PPH · · Score: 1

    Where were the Santa Clara County assessors while this was going on? It's one thing for Apple to be overly aggressive in their tax avoidance. But the fact that they even tried this means that they knew the county officials were asleep at the switch. Time for some housecleaning at the local gov't.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  39. How are they depreciating it? by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Commercial buildings are depreciated over 39 years. That is, the building's construction cost is a business expense, and thus tax deductible (you don't pay tax on the money you spent on expenses). But because it's a purchase that's used for so long, you're not allowed to deduct the whole thing in a single year. Instead, you take the building's construction cost, and divide it (depreciate it) over 39 years, and use that as your annual tax deduction.

    If Apple says the building is only worth $200, then their tax deduction for building depreciation over the next 39 years can only be a maximum of $5.13 per year. So either they pay the property tax on a $1 billion building (which at Prop 13's 1% cap and utilities of about 1% works out to about $20 million/yr in taxes), or they lose an annual tax deduction of ($1 billion) / (39 years) = $25.6 million (which at the 35% corporate tax rate would be $8.96 million/yr).

    I suspect what's going on is some accountant did this math and decided it would be cheaper to give up building depreciation in exchange for a lower tax assessment. But now their gig has been discovered and they're at risk of both losing the building depreciation tax deduction, while having it assessed at its full value for property taxes. If that's not what they're doing, and they're audaciously depreciating the building by $25.6 million on this year's taxes while simultaneously claiming it's only worth $200 for property tax assessment, then this is simple. They've legally admitted to the IRS that the building is worth $1 billion. Claiming to the assessor that it's only worth $200 constitutes fraud and possibly perjury.

    1. Re:How are they depreciating it? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Commercial buildings are depreciated over 39 years.

      If this is their actual headquarters (Infinite Loop), then based on forty-year depreciation, a forty-year-old building is worth basically zero, so $200 seems about right. If this is Apple Park, then yeah, this is fraud.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:How are they depreciating it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference, however. Capital expense value. If I buy a building for $1 million and let it sit there and get destroyed by vandals and squatters, it could easily be worth $1 before the 39 years is up. See Detroit in 2009.

    3. Re:How are they depreciating it? by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      Commercial buildings are depreciated over 39 years.

      If this is their actual headquarters (Infinite Loop), then based on forty-year depreciation, a forty-year-old building is worth basically zero, so $200 seems about right. .

      No, because you're not counting the land it sits on.

    4. Re:How are they depreciating it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple to an IRS Auditor:

      "Er, officer, there was an error in my comments earlier, a missing word. I said the Apple campus was worth $200. What I meant to say was that the Apple campus was not worth $200. So it's not $200. I'm not saying what I think it's worth, only that it's not worth $200. I think that clears that up."

    5. Re:How are they depreciating it? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Which they don't own.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  40. Pressure2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then maybe you can explain how valuations can go from 25% over sale price (at the very top of the market) to roughly 5% after we contested the valuation? House prices were increasing at the time, but not by double digit percentages. Our house sold for just under asking price. It was a probate sale, so the agent was required by law to list at fair market value, which was determined by a specialist at the firm and approved by the court (keeping in mind that it's in the agent's best interest to sell for as much as possible as he gets a cut)

    Do you understand how real estate works?

    1. Re:Pressure2 by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Your adjuster made a mistake, obviously. It happens. In this case it doesn't matter whether the adjuster made a mistake or not, the campus is not worth $200. What do you think would have happened if, when you appealed your assessment, you tried to claim your house was worth $5?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Pressure2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your adjuster made a mistake, obviously. It happens.

      In our town it happened A LOT. This was during the housing crash. Somehow everyone's real estate assessments kept increasing in value, even though the cost of new houses kept going down (which is how we got our house for below asking, prices were collapsing.) Gotta keep those pensions funded!

      In this case it doesn't matter whether the adjuster made a mistake or not, the campus is not worth $200.

      Absolutely. The question is if it's worth $1 billion. I'm guessing the figure is so ludicrous, Apple countered with an equally ludicrous figure. Seeing as how property values more than doubled in the area around Apple Park since they announced construction (you can look it up on Zillow - from $800,000 for a 1,200 foot ranch in 2011 to $1,900,000 in 2017) I'm guessing the valuation was inflated quite a bit.

    3. Re:Pressure2 by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It cost $5B to build, $1B isn't out of line at all.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  41. .1% tax rate??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, so Apple made about $56 billion last year (with a B) based on a quick google search of 2017 profits.

    They paid about $56 million last year in taxes (with a M) based on that article.

    56M/56000M = .001, or .1% taxes.

    No wonder they are worth $1T (with a T), when you don't have to pay taxes its easy to be 30%-50% more profitable..... and that is cumulative.

    System..... is..... broken...

    1. Re:.1% tax rate??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try reading the whole summary next time. They paid about $56 million last year in taxes to Santa Clara county. They paid billions in taxes to other city, county, state, and national governments.

  42. right.... by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    That's just blatant fraude, no building (except maybe some wooden outhouse toilet) is worth $200, especially not one owned by Apple. Why aren't these people in jail? If I were to do it, I would have been in jail immediately, but Apple can do whatever it wants.. If you circumvent paying taxes, well yes, then your bankaccount can accumulate a lot of money..

  43. Re: Didn't they just start running their own buses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My hometown ourside US decided it couldn't run public transit entirely from city budget so they authorized private owned bus companies to participate. Another private company takes care of ticket sales and distributes income to all the participants. Private bus companies complained their maintenance costs are too high because of bad roads, and forced city to repair roads. City took another loan to pay for it. Ticket company put video panels with ads all over the buses. Don't know what to think of it, just saying. Maybe Apple will repair the roads when their bus maintenance costs get too high.

  44. Let Apple claim it's worth $200... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...then have the government confiscate it and reimburse apple for triple its claimed value.

  45. Re:My house asssessed for 50% more than it sold fo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just going to assume you read $200M, but Apple is claiming these buildings are valued at $200 not $200 million. There is no way this could be true. This isn't a reasonable appeal. The tax assessment could be off, but not by 99.99999999999999999999%.

  46. Re: Apple didn't exactly say it's HQ was worth $20 by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Again I don't what know exact property is being appealed. For example the assessor thinks the green space in the center of the HQ is worth $1B while Apple disagrees.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  47. Re: Didn't they just start running their own buses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some non tech companies in Chicago such as McDonaldâ(TM)s run their own buses to shuttle people back and forth from the main train stations to their new campus. Itâ(TM)s pretty absurd as we already have a fairly good public transportation service and thereâ(TM)s already a bus line that goes past it. My guess is that the suburb people that come in every day are too scared of the urban peoples.

  48. Building Contents? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    If the tax evaluation of the building is supposed to include its contents as well then it should be easy to prove tax fraud. If there is literally any Apple computer in that building then the contents are, using Apple's own valuations, at least about ten times higher than they state.

    1. Re:Building Contents? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 2
      (forgoing my mod points in order to reply)

      As far as I know, no tax authority anywhere includes the chattels stored or used in a building when assessing that buildings value for municipal tax purposes. The idea being to make an estimate of the buildings likely value if sold on the open real estate market. The tax rate that then gets applied depends on the function (aka zoning) of that building. The tax rates a municipality comes up with depends on numerous factors, but one of the largest is how much of a burden on the municipality that property represents. e.g. Farms and empty lots are typically given the lowest rates because they use the least amount of municipal services, while high density housing gets taxed higher. The municipality needs to make sure that they have sufficient income to cover the garbage, fire, infrastructure, schooling and so on for the given property. For industrial and manufacturing zones, a prudent municipality will also have an earmarked contingency fund to do environmental remediation in the event that the company goes under and abandons a contaminated site.

      In Apples case, they have a huge campus and a pretty new multi-million dollar building that they were publicly bragging about when it went up. As far as I know, the only way that building could be valued so cheaply was if the building was so heavily specialized that any hypothetical purchaser would only be buying it for the land, intending to demolish the existing building and put up there own. Since the Infinite Loop building is just a very pretty office building, I can't see Apple getting away with claiming it is virtually worthless. Even the value of the building aside, tax rates are also based on the zoning of the land it sits on and its size. Trying to argue the land it sits on it virtually worthless would be even harder to pull off.

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    2. Re: Building Contents? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      If we go by your assertion that the valuation is based on the impact of the property to the city with farm land having the least value, what is your valuation on a building under construction? I suppose that if Apple appealed it in 2015, it was for 2014 taxes. In 2014, the building was only 1 year after ground was broke and 3 years before Apple officially moved in.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Building Contents? by ewibble · · Score: 5, Funny

      The solution is obvious, the government pays apple $400 for the building and says look you are doubling your money. If anyone complains arrest them for tax fraud.

    4. Re:Building Contents? by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd eminent domain that shit for $200 and build a homeless shelter there.

      --

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

    5. Re: Building Contents? by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      The Heaven's Gate cult could move into the new building.

      Some might say they already have.

    6. Re: Building Contents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farm land doesn't necessarily have the least value, it's just usually granted the lowest tax rates in most municipalities. Also, the land was no longer considered farm land by the time construction commenced. If I acquire a large parcel of land that is currently farm or undeveloped land with the intent to develop it into something else. (a suburb, apartment build, factory...) then the very first thing I have to do is apply to the municipality to have that parcel re-zoned to match the nature of my intended development.

      Depending on the municipality, the nature of the intended development and the local environmental laws, doing an environmental impact study might also required. I can't speak for Cupertino, but in my municipality and every municipality I've done construction in requires a tax assessment done as soon as the structure is finished. The tax assessment doesn't consider occupancy. If the owner or tenant has moved in yet or not doesn't matter.

  49. Re:Good for Apple by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

    Companies and people have a sole duty to lower there tax bill as much as possible. If it isn't written in law do not give Uncle Sam anymore than the law says.

    Here's the quote you were fishing-for:

    http://intltax.typepad.com/int...

  50. Imminent domain - $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The state should declare imminent domain and pay them $200.

  51. I don't want to pay Apple Prices by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    I realize that they do not want to pay taxes. I also don't want to pay Apple prices for their laptops. However, if I take a laptop from one of their stores and give them $1 in exchange I would get arrested for theft. The same should apply to whoever in Apple valued the building at $200, only the charge should be deliberate tax fraud...and if by some chance this is even vaguely legal then the US government needs to do some very serious overhauling of its corporate tax laws.

  52. EMINENT DOMAIN by gurps_npc · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Apple wants to claim the building is worth $200, fine.

    Write them a check for $600 and declare the government is using Eminent Domain to take the property after paying 3 times what they valued it for.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  53. Slight typo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks to me that if Apply were to only pay $56 million in taxes for 2017-2018 they would have committed tax fraud indeed... I think this probably needs to be $56 Billion (that is billion with a B)... Still on the low side at 25.8%, but a pretty large sum of money... [source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2017/04/18/what-americas-biggest-companies-pay-in-taxes/#7b723b132f51 ]

    1. Re:Slight typo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks to me that if Apply were to only pay $56 million in taxes for 2017-2018 they would have committed tax fraud indeed... I think this probably needs to be $56 Billion (that is billion with a B)... Still on the low side at 25.8%, but a pretty large sum of money... [source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/c... ]

      No, that's how much they paid in taxes to Santa Clara county. You could try readying the whole summary where it says Apple is the largest tax payer in the county, not country.

  54. Real estate is a shortages market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Property taxes have their issues, e.g. elderly people living on $1000/month in a property valued at 1 million dollars, and what not.
    But everyone wants land. Used to be that they wanted land to grow food but now $1 grants you potatoes and $100,000 grants you space for you to grow potatoes.
    Abolish property taxes, and a $400,000 property will be now worth $450,000 (whatever). Poor or renting working class or middle class will still pay.

  55. You mean by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

    Like a people try to undervalue their house through out the nation so that they can have lower taxes. And only get their homes asses when they try selling them? Oh wait, it's a big company. Only individuals should be able to run scams like that. Never a big company.

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    1. Re: You mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read?

      We aren't mad that apple is questioning the tax assessor. We are mad that apple is trying to claim their building they have to pay taxes on is ONLY WORTH $200.

      Yea lrn2read before you post.

  56. How much would you pay for the building? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not fraud--it's arguing that the city got its valuations wrong. Have you EVER seen property taxes where buildings were assessed fairly, except for a short period after they're sold when the assessments may get set to whatever they sold for? There's always politics involved, usually designed to help local people by making a select group of non-local people pay as much of the taxes as possible. Wealthy out-of-towners is the usual target, but it can also just be people wealthy enough that you don't think they'll care: you over-assess their property and under-assess everyone else. That helps the town leadership come re-election time. You also always under-assess if you're going to take property via eminent domain.

    It's not tax fraud to argue that the tax man is wrong.

    1. Re:How much would you pay for the building? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Well it isn't $200 for sure. Not with California's property prices.

    2. Re:How much would you pay for the building? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You also always under-assess if you're going to take property via eminent domain.

      That's actually the right response for the council to make.

      "Your building is worth only $200? Ok, here's $300, keep the change."

  57. A simple legislative solution by Fencepost · · Score: 2

    (rephrased slightly from my comment on the article)

    A simple legislative solution to address some egregious property tax assessment appeals would be to mandate that when submitting a proposed valuation, the taxing body has the right to immediately purchase the property for some TBD multiplier of your submitted valuation. I suspect that multiplier should be in the 3-5x range.

    Obviously there'd need to be reasonable allowances for time to move out, but the cost of moving should be covered by the multiplier.

    If Apple wants to contend that a chunk of property is only worth $200, great! I'm sure the city can find $1000 to properly compensate them for that property and the cost of vacating it. Perhaps the city can find something more beneficial to do with that property that might provide more tax revenue.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
    1. Re:A simple legislative solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting idea, the problem is the rich would have strong sway.

      Example: say duck duck go declare their land building and assets at 100mil. Its atcually 150mil but everyone fudges.
      Along comes google, heres 450 million, ill take everything if u sell it to me.

      Now duck duck go will habe to rebuy everything (new not at depreciated cost) and their operations are effected.

  58. An offer Apple can't refuse by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    Heck, if Apple thinks they are only sitting on $200 worth of real estate at One Infinity Loop I'll be glad to buy it at triple that value, cash in hand!

  59. Re:Good for Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If its not in the law then they broke no law. Would you voluntarily write a check to Uncle Sam? Would you decide to not take any deductions or tax credits? Would you be willing to add an extra 0 on to your tax payment check? I wouldn't. I make sure I get 100% of my deductions. I make sure I donate the max I can to charity so I can get as many write offs as possible and that money goes to a good purpose and not in Uncle Sams pocket book. I make sure I put the max I can into any tax deferred retirement accounts I can. I have broke no law nor abused the system. This is exactly what corporations do and there is nothing wrong with it.

  60. Simple solution... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    State files an eminent domain against the buildings on the basis that it is high value land. And as such, will be re-developed in in a fashion to ensure that the utilization of said land exceeds $200.
    [This has been done repeatedly across the nation. While eminent domain was once relegated exclusively toward public projects, it has since been expanded to private economic development.]

    Recognizing that eminent domain is seldom popular with land holders, the state of California will be generously offering 500% of the stated values provided by Apple, Inc. Or... $1,000 for the buildings upon the land.

    Let's see how quickly they back up on that one...

  61. Dongle by jwymanm · · Score: 1

    There you go. These buildings are just dongles to the larger building. And nobody charges more than $200 for a dongle. That is how they evaluate at the $200.

  62. I will buy it for $500 by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    And then turn it into a commercial work life experience building

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:I will buy it for $500 by haruchai · · Score: 1

      And then turn it into a commercial work life experience building

      I'd go there and smash the front door then throw a penny and say, "that should more than cover the damages and you can keep the change"

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  63. Correction: 2 years, not 2 months. Doesn't matter by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Wrote:
    Two months ago I bought my house,

    That should be:
    Two years ago I bought my house,

  64. $200 in 1918 maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is fucking California. Tell me... or show me... when the last time *any* piece of property in California sold for ..or was valued at... fucking $200, nevermind property in the desireable silicon valley area.

    Apple should start spreading out that shit they're smoking.

  65. Funny the article leaves out the result when attac by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is about a property evaluation 2015, three years ago. I find it interesting that the Chronicle article this is based on, and all of the articles parroting the Chronicle, conveniently leave out the result. When reporting on "Apple appealed the county's assessment three years ago", wouldn't it make sense to tell us how the appeal turned out?

    I see that the current tax assessment for the Apple headquarters building is $398,600,000. It may be that Apple's value is closer to correct than the number the county initially tried to get them for.

  66. Re:My house asssessed for 50% more than it sold fo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well apple did think the Ireland .05% tax was totally legit.

  67. Re:My house asssessed for 50% more than it sold fo by sjames · · Score: 1

    But I'll bet you didn't claim it was only worth $200 either.

  68. utter crap.. !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amaxzing how companies forget the hands that feed them, the counties that house their offices and employees..
    Apple is a TRILLION dollar company, and yet they complain about paying in the low millions..
    I find it interesting how, big companies loose sight of their humble beginings.

    Hell. why cannt they charge and tax them like their constituents?
    What's the poverty level in San Mateo county again??

  69. Gee, that can't be right... by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

    It is also the county's biggest taxpayer, paying $56 million in the 2017-2018 tax year.

    On 2017 net income of $48.35 billion ($48350 million), that's a tax rate of 0.116%. Tell me again why we needed another corporate tax rate cut....

    --
    ~Idarubicin
    1. Re:Gee, that can't be right... by zioncat · · Score: 1

      It is also the county's biggest taxpayer, paying $56 million in the 2017-2018 tax year.

      On 2017 net income of $48.35 billion ($48350 million), that's a tax rate of 0.116%. Tell me again why we needed another corporate tax rate cut....

      I heard Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, on 2017 net income of $45.6 billion, paid $0 to Santa Clara County, that's a tax rate of 0.000%. Man, these mega corporations are evil. But I also heard some mom & pop store in Portland paid $0 to Santa Clara County, that is also a tax rate of 0.000%. So maybe all business are evil?

      Or maybe Apple's $48.35 billion net income is a result of doing business all over the globe and as a result don't pay all of its taxes in Santa Clara County?

    2. Re:Gee, that can't be right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And apple has pretty much managed to not pay the appropriate taxes to any country it does business in.

  70. Re: Didn't they just start running their own buses by morethanapapercert · · Score: 2

    I think the solution used by your home town is ultimately a bad thing for the citizens. First is that this is clearly yet another case of companies privatizing profits while socializing costs. Second; in theory, a number of private companies collectively providing a service is good for the people because it encourages competition. Yet time after time where a commodity service or product is being provided by a small number of closely cooperating companies, we end up seeing collusion and price fixing. It's simply easier to ensure high profits through price fixing than through efficient cost management.

    --
    I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
  71. Should be a law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that says that any government can force the sale of a property for the tax assessment + 20%. So if you argue that your $1 billion building is actually worth only $200 the local government can take it off your hands for $240.

    Hell, even if the law says you have to sell it for twice the assessed value then most of these shenanigans could be stopped.

  72. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taxation is theft.

  73. Apple HQ now assessed at $386M. Who is unreasonabl by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I suspect Apple may have actually said $200 million.
    All articles on the topic cite a single SF Chronicle article that said $200, so the author of the only article originating that number may have easily missed typing the M in $200M. Also, I see the Chronicle writer was careful to leave out important information about what happened with the appeal.

    The assessment appeal the article was based on was in 2015, three years ago.

    The Apple HQ building is currently assessed at $386 million.
    Given the $386M number is the result after both sides presented their evidence and arguments, it's the most accurate / objective number available.

    Given the actual value of $386M, that's closer to $200 than it is to a billion. The county was off by $614M, Apple was off by $386M. Meaning the original assessment was twice as ridiculous as Apple's (sarcastic?) response of $200, if in fact they said $200 as opposed to $200M.

  74. Re: Didn't they just start running their own buses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes we do, when we pay our taxes.

    Something Apple tries to get out of.

  75. Like Russian roulette. People suck at odds by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > fairly unlikely that small players every get audited

    If you play Russian roulette with a 6-gun, it's fairly unlikely that you'll blow your brains out.

    Let's guesstimate an income tax rate of 25% and suppose the dog costs $200 / month. That number may be high, but it'll do. The tax (fraud) savings would be $600 / year. So he's hoping for a gain of $600.

    Tax fraud has a five year sentence. Risking prison time trying to save $600 isn't what I'd call a good idea.

    The chance of an audit is probably much higher than he thinks, as well. First, x% of companies get audited EACH year. Ten times as many companies get audited each decade. Your odds of eventually getting caught are much higher than the odds each time. Criminalsis and keep committing crime over and over until they get caught.

    Compounding that, audits aren't completely random. Those who cheat significantly on their taxes do so in order to claim little to no income every year. Tax authorities know this, and it's an easy pattern to spot. "Home based business with over $100,000 in revenue with less than $7K in profit for three years running" is an obvious group to do some audits on.

    In short, people suck at evaluating risk.

    1. Re: Like Russian roulette. People suck at odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The chances a small taxpayer will be taken to court let alone be convicted for $600 with of fraud are so small to be approaching zero. Why? Thereâ(TM)s nothing to gain. Unless youâ(TM)re out to make an example of someone, the cost of the trial will be many many times more than the cost of the fraud. Itâ(TM)s so much easier and infinitely less expensive to send mean and nasty letters, garnish wages and or bank accounts.

  76. Re: Apple HQ now assessed at $386M. Who is unreaso by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything I've read says 200$, except you. You somehow magically came to the $200m conclusion because IT FITS YOUR NARRATIVE.

  77. Location location location by The+Snazster · · Score: 1

    Lot's of less expensive locations in this country than around San Francisco, in point of fact, aside from putting it in downtown Manhattan, it's hard to see how they could have done much worse. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. And look at all those parking lots! How much land could they have spared if they just put up a parking garage? Pretty sure they could find the funding . . .

  78. Seize it with Imminent Domain laws! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And pay Apple exactly what they say it's worth, the fuckers.

    Fuck those thieving cunts. THIS is class warfare, time you Amerikuks get serious about the fight.

  79. Re: Apple didn't exactly say it's HQ was worth $20 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea because the government treats citizens and corporations the same.

    So you have an inside source, but don't even hint at what it is. And you post as anon. Big fail.

  80. Re:My house asssessed for 50% more than it sold fo by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    You don't seem to get how city taxes work. If a city collect, say $1 billion from property taxes one year. If they collect $1 billion the next year, it means they didn't raise taxes. If every building in the city appreciated by 10% (which is never the case, some gain more value than others), then they should (and often do) lower the taxation rate to collect $1 billion instead of 1.1 billion.

    Just because your house appreciate by 10% doesn't mean your taxes should increase. If the other houses got a 20% raise in value, your taxes should even go down.

  81. Embarrassing read Apple by duden · · Score: 1

    I believe it was Tim Cook who stated âoeWe pay all the taxes we oweâ. As a long term Apple shareholder (1997), I think itâ(TM)s time Apple actually commits to the sentiment in that statement. Letâ(TM)s see some corporate responsibility and have Apple pay taxes back to the society that is fair and reasonable; stop letting the tax advisors silly games ruin your reputation.

  82. Re:Suck me off for $ but you're totes not a whore! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut your whore mouth.

  83. And everything you've read says by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Everything I've found says "the Chronicle reports that Apple replied with a $200 valuation". So "everything" is a single article in the Chronicle. A one-letter typo in that one article is entirely possible. I tried to find the actual appeal document but it doesn't seem to be available on line.

    As I said, either way, in thr end they came up with a valuation around $387M. Which means the county's assessment was nearly three times the actual value.

    Had this been Google rather Apple, they would have replied with a proposed valuation of Pi dollars.

  84. Eminent domain by MooseTick · · Score: 1

    If I were on the city counsel I'd claim Eminent domain on the property and offer 200% of their declared value for the property and then see what number they provide. It seems easy enough for a city to always offer that to anyone who doesn't like their assessment.

  85. Re:yer such a cocksucker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how do you sleep at night with your face all covered in cum??

  86. Hand Tim Cook $200 and then.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blow the shit out of the headquarters buildings.

  87. if thats true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then they should be happy to sell it to me for $300 and make a 50% profit, amiright?

  88. Let Apple appraise their own buildings - YES! by drstevep · · Score: 1

    Someone once proposed letting companies and people appraise their own buildings and houses for tax purposes.

    The caveat is that this appraisal is now a for-sale price. If Apple appraised their HQ at $200 and I walked in with a pair of Franklins, I now own the building.

  89. Does the tax bill exist? by k6mfw · · Score: 2

    I was curious of online property tax for the new Apple campus in Cupertino, I found APN for that location 316-07-049 SCCtax webpage returns "No bills found for property 31607049 in fiscal year 2019." I did find this from https://www.sccassessor.org/in...

    Current Information
    Document No: 21115138 Document Type: GRANT DEED
    Transfer Date: 3/18/2011 Tax Default Date: N/A
    VALUE INFORMATION (Assessed Information as of 6/30/2018)
    Real Property
    Land: $439,402,436
    Improvements: $398,600,000
    Total: $838,002,436
    Business
    Fixtures: $0
    Structure: $0
    Personal Property: $0
    Total: $0
    Exemptions
    Homeowner:$0
    Other: $0
    Total: $0
    Net Assessed Value
    Total: $838,002,436

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:Does the tax bill exist? by k6mfw · · Score: 2

      I forgot to look at payment history, here it is for 19400 HOMESTEAD RD CUPERTINO

      My Payments Payment Posted
      $4,794,797.44 03/23/2018
      $4,794,797.44 12/11/2017
      $4,020,990.67 03/22/2017
      $4,020,990.67 11/30/2016
      $6,082,296.32 03/10/2016
      $6,082,296.32 11/24/2015

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  90. In the old days.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

    "Other assessors say large corporations are using their resources to hire attorneys and expert witnesses to eventually wear down county governments."

    The sheriff would just padlock the doors til the tax bill was paid. Sometimes the old ways were better.

  91. They Use Windows in the Apple Building? by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    And if they're paying more than $200 per license, they're getting hosed!

  92. Trivially Solvable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you need to do is make a new law: The US government can buy any building for its assessed price in eminent domain, or a price offered by the tax filer. You say your building is worth $200? Fine. It's now CA's building and you owe rent. FFS, just stick this shit back at them.

  93. SJW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Apple is our poster company for SJW. Typical corp leftist... hypocrisy. How much money is overseas in limbo waiting to be repatrioted?

  94. likely not worth a billion either by lusid1 · · Score: 1

    The taxing authority is highballing with a lofty valuation to maximize revenue. This is just part of the negotiations you have to do over property taxes every couple of years in California to avoid getting screwed over.
     

  95. Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple, just check the value of the building on the insurance policy, then if the numbers dont match up it could be either tax fraud or insurance fraud.

  96. Man, look at that tax rate! by Prien715 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is also the county's biggest taxpayer, paying $56 million in the 2017-2018 tax year.

    Let's see. Revenue of $229 billion for 2017 $.056 billion/ $229.23 billion = 0.02446% tax rate. Most individuals pay between 20-50% of their income (depending on the country). This is even more loony than the $200 campus. Can I buy your campus for $300 Apple -- you can make a 50% profit!

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:Man, look at that tax rate! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quoted figure was the amount they paid in county taxes, not their total tax burden. Notice that says "county," not "country."

  97. As always by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    OK then. My house is worth $10. Now reduce my taxes! Also, as always: Fuck Apple

  98. I'll double it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well then they should be happy to accept my generous offer of $400. I know I know. I'm a fool.

  99. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was an exercise in dgatwood bending his/herself into knots, trying to say that the Apple campus is worth nothing. You make it sound like the Apple buildings are made out of cardboard and string, and that no one but hobos have been inside since 1984.

    Your "reasonable way to value the property" is just a bunch of made-up nonsense. Do you really think that the value of such buildings can only be determined by Apple, and that methodology would be what Apple would pay to move??

    I used to work with property assessors. Government property assessors. They have the tools and processes to value a property. They don't need your bogus, made-up methodology, and wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. All that stuff is highly political and therefore property assessments will only follow a government approved procedure.

    The reason that this stuff is political? Property assessments cost the citizens money, so the citizens are highly sensitive to changes in assessment methods.

  100. Sweet, I'll buy for double that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll gladly give them $400; that's 100% increase.

  101. What city are YOU in? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    What the hell city are YOU in?

    I heard that city manager of Plano, TX once proposed a rate decrease from 47.86 to 46.86.

  102. Let them claim it's worth $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take it by imminent domain the next tax period to build the roads and train stations the Bay Area needs. We need more cheap brownfields to build missing infrastructure.

  103. Simple solution - take buildings, pay them $200 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all that must be the going rate for the properties according to Apple. The government office drones can upgrade their digs and Apple can invest more in the community. Everybody wins.

  104. Fact checking by Ensign_Expendable · · Score: 1

    Iâ(TM)ve contacted the author of SF Chronical article to ask what tax year and what buildings were involved. We donâ(TM)t have enough info on this to make an informed judgment.

  105. Re:tax fraudsn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every place I've ever lived charged for the convenient water delivery pipes, and the useful disposal pipes. I made the tax argument for not paying my utility bills. It didn't go well with the public utilities, but at least I got an, “Interest free loan.” I see your argument frequently, and parts of it are completely detached from the real world.

    Anecdotally, I've known 911 to dispatch the incorrect fire departments, whom then basically allow the house outside their jurisdiction to burn to the ground. Any reasonable person or business should try to cheap out on taxes, and government obligations in any way they can. You can be sure they'll return the favor on the flip side.

  106. Re: Didn't they just start running their own buses by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Bus wheels are much larger than car wheels. If it was beating up the busses it was destroying cars.

    The city roads were no doubt a joy. It took concrete economic power (the bus companies) for get the city government to put their faces out of all the free 'cocaine motor boats' they were getting and do their damn jobs.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  107. Apple is stealing through fraud. by thesupraman · · Score: 1

    No.

    Apple convinces people to give it money in return for products and services, thats fine.
    The government takes a certain total amount of money to fund shared infrastructure in general, and that money needs to come from somewhere.
    Every corporate using the lawyers to avoid paying such taxes means the general population in that area has to pay that money instead.

    So that means Apple is directly using their legal muscle to force the other land owners in that area to pay more money to fund the additional
    infrastructure that Apple enjoys the use of. Apple is in effect stealing from its neighbors.

    Simple really, isnt it.

    1. Re:Apple is stealing through fraud. by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The government takes a certain total amount of money to fund shared infrastructure in general, and that money needs to come from somewhere.

      And that's about 40% of what governments do. No complaints about that.

      The other 60% (in the US) is looting and bullying, mostly for the benefit of government officials and government employees. It doesn't serve the public much at all.

  108. Not fraud. They have to argue. by piojo · · Score: 1

    I know a couple landlords, and in their city, they describe property assessment as a big, corrupt game. The tax assessor always over-assesses. Property owners are compelled to fight the unreasonable assessment, generally using property lawyers. The tax fee is then reduced. The lawyers get paid, and donate heavily to the reelection campaigns of the tax officials.

    Apple must contest, but the question is whether they should make an absurd lowball claim or a realistic one. I would say that depends on how reasonable the tax assessors are in Cupertino.

    By the way, the article the summary linked is just tripe. The original article is here: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bu...

    --
    A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
  109. Great by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Then instead of taxing Apple, the government should force them to sell the buildings to the IRS for $200. This shouldn't be a problem for them if the building is truly only worth $200...

    In fact, make a law making it compulsory to offer anything for sale to the IRS at 20% more than its declared value for tax purposes. If people make honest declarations it won't be worth buying, but if the declaration is fraudulently low the IRS can buy the item and sell it for its true market value.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  110. Tried? SUCCESS! by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

    This sounds like he tried, and SUCCEEDED! Unless you forgot to tell how he was subsequently audited, and had to pay a bunch of fines.

  111. Pay Up! by WindowsStar · · Score: 1

    Worth 1 trillion dollars, then they need to be paying 1 billion in taxes. Even at that they are still not taxed very high! Holy Crap, pay up!

  112. Apple thieves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as I can tell, Al Capone was put in prison for way less than that.

  113. Pension costs are deferred pay by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    As a (former) public sector worker I accepted a lower rate of pay in exchange for very good pension when I retire. To suggest that tax payers have the right to rate on that contract because it is now inconvenient is evil; it's a breach of promise. If we're free to tear up our promises when they are no longer convenient, then the basis for society is largely gone, and certainly you can't expect your spouse to be faithful to you. Yes, going forward, public sector employers may be wise to alter the terms of their wage contract - but let's do it honestly, with pay rises for those losing pension rights.

    OTOH I accept that unions have got legislators to agree pension rises as a way to pay their members more but without it appears on the books in the current financial year. However the idea that it's therefore right to claw that generosity back is to undermine any commitment to states being bound by contracts freely entered into. Yes, future pensions can be capped - but don't expect public sector workers not to strike to mark their resistance to a pay cut.

  114. Re:tax fraudsn by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Every place I've ever lived charged for the convenient water delivery pipes, and the useful disposal pipes. I made the tax argument for not paying my utility bills.

    Utility bills for water and sewer are in addition to taxes. Taxes don't fund that service at all.

  115. valuation fraud by aurizon · · Score: 1

    Apple has a valid case. Municipalities in many areas have created a form of fraud via appraisal that they use to milk companies this way because they have been milking the public via overpaid politicians, employees, pensions, benefits etc.

    One day it will collapse, Detroit fashion

  116. When they were building it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they touted it as a $5 Billion 'Space Ship' (https://www.buzzworthy.com/apples-new-5-billion-spaceship-campus-looks-world/).

    It's been open for what, a couple years? That is one heck of a deprecation schedule they are using.

  117. AT is by redlemming · · Score: 1

    Honest question since I don't live in the US and the states sales tax seems complicated in a 10 second google search: Don't you have any differentiation between essential items (food, water, milk, tissue paper, sanitary products, medical supplies, textbooks, etc) and luxury products for sales taxes?

    A lot of countries do this where essential items get 0 or much lower sales tax. That way you can increase sales tax but not make things more difficult for the poor.

    Sales tax policy varies enormously across the USA. It's not set at the federal level (not sure about US territories), but rather at state and local level. A few US states have no sales taxes, and some do not allow local modifications to sales tax, but many do allow these modifications. There are over 89,000 local and state governments in the USA (including counties, municipalities, townships and special districts such as school districts). Not all of these can tax independently, but many of them can so there still ends up being a lot of variation in sales taxes from place to place.

    Worse, the sales tax rates and rules are not always set by zip code. You can also have multiple counties in a single zip code, each with their own sales tax policy. Or, you can be something like "everyone in the region bounded by the intersections of these n roads" pays this special sales tax for the next k years (in addition to any other state and local tax) as a result of some local referendum.

    Sometimes services are taxed, sometimes they are not.

    Dealing with sales tax can be a major pain for businesses, especially the ones that involve a lot of travel. For example, consider those businesses that travel to conventions or county fairs and sell goods. Also, there are many forms of work (like construction) that inherently tend to involve going where the work is. Most small business people who travel a lot - in my experience - really hate sales taxes.

    In general, the sales tax problem not something that can be easily solved even with software. There are all kinds of special cases and exceptions written into the laws - the rules can get incredibly detailed and complicated. As most technical people know, natural language is ambiguous - and it often requires human judgement to decide what the rules actually say and whether or they are applicable in a given case. The rules often change from year to year, and attempts to simplify often run into opposition from special interest groups.

    Many of the rich definitely make up one such special interest group - some are adversely affected by sales tax policy, but many LOVE having sales taxes, because every dollar in the government's budget that comes from a regressive tax is a dollar that doesn't come from a progressive tax - and thus a sales tax is effectively a tax break for the rich. In the USA the rich have a lot of influence, which is part of the reason why state and local taxes have gotten more regressive over the last few decades, which in turn has created problems with concentration of wealth.

    Unfortunately, it is a fallacy that you can get "0 or lower sales tax" on "essential items" and "not make things more difficult for the poor". There is a fundamental problem here in defining what constitutes an essential item. For example, if you want social mobility, you need to give the poor access to educational materials, not just textbooks, but tools and other items needed to develop and practice skills (both in and out of school). That includes older-style tools such as carpentry tools or cooking supplies or power tools or welding equipment, and also modern tools such as computers, DVD players, televisions.

    Once you start thinking this way, you begin to realize that many things that might be considered luxuries really aren't - something that might be a luxury might be a necessity to another. A boat, for example, can be a luxury to a rich person, or a necessity to a poor fisherman.

    Another fundamental problem that you run into is the issue of

  118. Re:tax fraudsn by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    You pay for your usage, but the usage fee doesn't cover the pipes and equipment that actually get the water to your building, or the sewage away from it; much less the processing plant for the sewage to not just dump it into an otherwise clean waterway.

    Maybe the usage fee should have all of that rolled into it; I have a feeling we'd just hear bitching and griping at that point about how much the water department is overcharging.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  119. Not So Hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Commercial real estate is valued in terms of $/square foot. Substitute in different currencies and metric if that suits you better. Market values for commercial real estate are very well known and no great mystery.

    If you have a premium property, you add on some value to the going rate. Conversely, an older building, or a poorly maintained property, you adjust downwards. However the range of values themselves are generally known.

    Therefore an actual sale is always the ultimate sanity check, but you don't need that to establish a valuation.

    Look, if a sale were always required, then every landmark or signature property would be un-assessable (unless it had recently been sold). Take a look at the PETRONAS Towers, or 101 Taipei Centre, or the Empire State Building, or any similar building. Do you really think that local assessors are completely unable to put a valuation on these buildings?

    There is always an assessment possible. The owners own financial statements require it. The insurance companies require it. And the local municipal body requires it.

  120. Re: Apple didn't exactly say it's HQ was worth $20 by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Well in 2015, Apple would not have any completed buildings or labs or equipment at Apple Park as their HQ and surrounding land was still under construction. For insurance purposes there is value in these things complete or not. For tax purposes, maybe the value is defaulted to a really low price.

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