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.
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.
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.
I'll take them off their hands for $250.
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/
Let people set their own valuations, but the valuation is also a public tender for sale at that price.
That is all.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.