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.

Comments

Apple didn't exactly say it's HQ was worth $200

[UnknowingFool]

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.

Re:They don't want to pay taxes

[stealth_finger]

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.?

Re:$250

[Solandri]

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.

Re:Well, property taxes really are bullshit

[Nidi62]

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".