Slashdot Mirror


Apple Reaches Deal With France To Pay Estimated $571 Million In Back-Taxes (macrumors.com)

Apple has reached a deal with French authorities to pay an undeclared amount of back-dated tax. While the amount isn't disclosed, French media suggest the sum is around $571 million (500 million euros). MacRumors reports: France has been working diligently to stop tech companies like Apple from exploiting tax loopholes in the country. The loopholes are said to have allowed Apple to "minimize taxes and grab market share" at the expense of Europe-based companies. French President Emmanuel Macron is one of the leaders behind the tax crackdown on international tech companies, with a goal of bringing a more unified corporate tax system across the nineteen euro area states.

As noted by iPhon.fr, Apple and French tax authorities reached the agreement for the payment of several years of unpaid taxes in December, according to French newspaper L'Expansion. The agreement followed a meeting in October between Apple CEO Tim Cook and President Macron, in which both reportedly agreed that a solution would ultimately be enacted by the European Union rather than France.

58 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. good. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These large companies are built on civilisation, which is paid for by taxes. Everybody needs to pay in so success stories like Apple can exist. And it's certainly fair that those that benefit the most pay the most.

    Anything else is fleecing the middle class to pay for the extravagance of the ultra rich. A strong middle class is needed for a strong economy and demand. If the Apple's of this world all actually got what they wanted they'd be screwed since there would be no one to buy their "premium" offerings.

    It's pure hypocrisy. The excuses for doing it are just terrible too and amount to saying it's ok doing something deeply unethical and borderline illegal if you do it for money.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:good. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      So you believe in 100% TAXATION??!?! Communist Fool!

      There's no taxation in communism, since there's no state. :-p

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:good. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      You know, there are other percentages than 0 and 100. I know you try to exaggerate, hoping that people follow your reductio ad absurdum, but in general you'll find few people are dumb enough for this to work.

      If it causes a company to fold if it has to pay the taxes that every other company (ok, ok, only the smaller ones, the others can do the double-Dutch Sandwich trick) do pay, I guess then this company should not do business in such a country. Avoiding taxes this way is actually legal, you know? Simply not paying them and weaseling out of taxes owed is not.

      If you don't want to pay taxes in a country, simply not do business there. Yes, it's actually THAT simple.

      And no, poor people don't create jobs. People buying stuff do. Because if you built a billion iPhones it would not mean a single dime earned if there wasn't anyone around with enough money to buy one of them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:good. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm glad it's Apple too, because they are one of the worst abusers. They invented the Double Irish with Dutch Sandwich tax dodge.

      By tackling the worst one first they set a precedent that will make it much easier to get the rest to pay their fair share too.

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

      Anything else is fleecing the middle class to pay for the extravagance of the ultra rich.

      The people who buy the products are the ones paying for the taxes. They're the ones generating the revenue for Apple, and a portion of that revenue is used to pay for taxes. For OECD nations, the purchasers are predominantly middle class people.

      Your belief isn't entirely wrong. It's true in countries whose development has stalled at around $10k per capita. Those countries typically have a small group of extremely wealthy people who maintain their status not just by creating economic activity, but by preventing (via corruption) others from becoming wealthy. They maintain their big fish in the little pond status. In these countries, the ultra-wealthy can account for 50% or more of total income.

      But the OECD nations (who predominantly have a GDP per capita in excess of $30k) are far beyond this stage. To reach OECD levels of economic efficiency requires you to pay the middle and lower classes more (or rather, pay them closer to the actual productivity they're generating). Henry Ford accidentally stumbled upon this when he paid his workers what was a then-unheard-of $5 per day. His workers were paid well enough that they could afford to buy the cars they were producing, which generated more work for them, which meant more workers were hired, which meant more of them could buy cars. which meant more work, etc. This feedback loop helped turn the U.S. into the world's top economy, and made Ford one of the richest men on earth.

      As a consequence, the income distribution in OECD nations is skewed heavily towards the middle. For example, the ultra-rich in the U.S. (say, everyone making $1 million/yr or more, about 0.4% of the population) only accounts for 13% of total income. Even if you taxed them at 100% as Warren and Ocasio-Cortez would like to do, that would only be $1.36 trillion in tax revenue. Or just 33% of the 2018 Federal budget ($4.094 trillion). The percentage is even smaller if you include state and local government budgets (another $3.85 trillion). The bulk of income in the U.S. actually goes to those making $50k-$500k a year. Those income brackets accounts for 64% of all income in the U.S., or over $6.5 trillion. You have to tax those middle class to lower upper class people heavily if you wish to pay for the levels of government spending we currently have.

    5. Re:good. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Of course, we hold all the power here. As much as we like Apple products, Apple likes our money even more.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:good. by mvdwege · · Score: 2

      I seemed to have missed the news that Apple is pulling out of France. Do you have a link for me? (To a reliable source; Breitbart, Infowars or the Daily Mail will get you pointing and laughing).

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    7. Re:good. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Aside from the first person on the list, who doesn't really beg to differ, why would the remaining people, being totalitarians, be relevant for this issue?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re: good. by reanjr · · Score: 1

      All true communists live in liberal capitalist societies.

    9. Re:good. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      As much as we like Apple products

      Speak for yourself. I've never actively, on purpose given them a single penny, ever.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    10. Re:good. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Anything else is fleecing the middle class to pay for the extravagance of the ultra rich. A strong middle class is needed for a strong economy and demand. If the Apple's of this world all actually got what they wanted they'd be screwed since there would be no one to buy their "premium" offerings.

      Speaking of which, how's all you US folks tax returns looking this year?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    11. Re:good. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Uh, leaders of actual Communist nations...

      What communist nation is Kim the leader of? North Korea isn't communist, it's a Democratic People's Republic.

    12. Re:good. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      "Communist nations", my ass. I'm not even sure that *nations* are supposed to exist under communism.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:good. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      So what?

      All you have is a definition from books full of fallacies. We have history. That makes you _wrong_.

      Totalitarianism is wrapped into all command economies. Marxist economies are command by definition, having no way to self organize, no price signals etc.

      You are like a Hubbardist who cites Dianetics. Circular in reasoning and clueless.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:good. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      All you have is a definition from books full of fallacies.

      There's not a lot of books *without* fallacies, most of them mathematical.

      We have history. That makes you _wrong_.

      You're not the only one to have history. I have history, too. Does that make you wrong?

      Totalitarianism is wrapped into all command economies. Marxist economies are command by definition

      Could you quote Marx' writing on that? I must have missed that part.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:good. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And so was China, and the Soviet Union was socialist.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  2. Re:This is still a drip in the ocean by Freischutz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Compared to what they owe planet wide.

    They and every other megacorp out there.

  3. Re:This will end up being very expensive for Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's a good deal for Apple because they got to keep the money for so long. Meanwhile potential local competition had to pay up from day one and never got to grow to their level.

  4. Complicated issue with no simple solution by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since this is slashdot, where the average IQ is meant to be a little higher, I'll have a go at explaining this issue. While I completely agree that having these companies not pay taxes in the local countries that they operate in is a bad thing, I think that the way everyone is trying to make this equivalent to someone's personal tax situation (and, let's be fair, most people get their employers to calculate, file and pay their taxes, so don't even need to understand the tax code) is not useful. We saw this sort of shallow argument during the whole occupy movement, where everyone knew what the banks were doing was bad, but they couldn't articulate exactly what it was that was wrong and how it could be fixed. The end result is the occupy movement fizzed out and nothing much changed.

    The fundamental issue here is that Apple owns the complete value chain (apart from a small cost of manufacturing that goes to China). Most people would agree that some of that value should be taxable in the country of purchase. But most would also agree that rest of the value should be taxable in the USA (where Apple is based). The question then is, how much should be attributable to each country? To further complicate matters we tax profits, not value, otherwise a high volume low margin product would be disproportionately taxed vs a high margin low volume product. To calculate profits you need to attribute costs. So after you've decided what value add should be taxable, how do you apportion Apple's operating costs to each country? Then you've got intangible assets such as the money spent on R&D for a product.

    At the moment the answer to these questions is 'its complicated'. But 'fortunately' for all these multinationals there are giant loopholes in various EU country's tax laws that allow them to avoid that question by reducing in country profits to zero. So guess, what, that is what they all do.

    The solution then is two fold, and not entirely simple. Firstly, the EU needs to shutdown the loopholes that countries like Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the UK have that are really only there to give those countries a competitive advantage over other EU countries. So far that is taking a very long time (so who's fault then is that?). Secondly, there needs to be some sort of agreement on how much of Apple's profits are attributable to each country in which it operates. This is no easy thing to do, and may not even be possible as the best way to do this would be to reach some sort of agreement with the IRS to have it share tax take. But the US itself has a bunch of tax loopholes that allow these countries to avoid US taxes, so you would first have to get those shutdown (again, why is that taking so long...) and then get the IRS to agree to a profit sharing deal (good luck with that). The whole thing is a huge beauacratic mess, and frankly, Apple and its ilk are simply making the most of rules as they stand.

    I'm not really sure what the solution is. Personally I think the best approach is to go after the ultimate recipients of the profits (the shareholders) and ensure they cannot avoid income taxes as easily as they are currently able to do. Companies themselves can only invest their profits (which ultimately is good for the economy) or distribute them to shareholders, so going after the shareholders (who it is much easier to lock down to a jurisdiction) seems like the better approach, but that would require voters to educate themselves on the loopholes that get introduced to benefit the 0.1%, and given the current state of western democracies I seriously doubt the ability to deal with these issues.

    1. Re:Complicated issue with no simple solution by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

      > Companies themselves can only invest their profits (which ultimately is good for the economy) or distribute them to shareholders

      No, they can also hoard cash. O2 does it in the Czech republic, Apple does it in the US. Or they can use it to inflate their value by buying back stock. Not really sure that counts as investment.

      Even if they hoard cash, the shareholders will want it eventually, or they will use it for investment (see Apple). Hoarding cash does have issues, but avoiding tax directly is not one of them.

      Buying back shares is again just an exploitation of tax loopholes which (in most countries) means that capital gains are taxed less than dividend income. It is why you always see CEOs taking $1 salaries. While they are doing press releases about how noble they are, the reality is that if the company is simultanously running a continous options issue/buyback program, they are just shifting their income to the back door where it is taxed less, and they can benefit from being able to move the shares into different entities (trusts, offshore companies) etc for even more tax savings (particularly things like inheritance tax).

      Again, how do you education the average person in the street on what is going on, when the CEO can get the company to throw a million dollars (that is 100% tax deductible) at a PR company to trumpet how noble they are for working for $1?

    2. Re:Complicated issue with no simple solution by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not that complicated. Apple certainly knows precisely how much profit it is making, and there is a corporate tax rates levied on profits... So the amount they owe is a percentage of the profit made selling hardware and services in each country.

      They try to hide it by paying bullshit licencing fees to a parent company based in Ireland, but we just ignore that. If they have R&D centres in a country they can show the accounts for them.

      The IRS is irrelevant for EU taxation. It's up to the US if it wants to double-tax on profit made in the EU, but either way we are getting what is owed to us. That's the price of doing business in our extremely lucrative market.

      --
      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:Complicated issue with no simple solution by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's not that complicated. Apple certainly knows precisely how much profit it is making, and there is a corporate tax rates levied on profits... So the amount they owe is a percentage of the profit made selling hardware and services in each country.

      You're oversimplifying it again. This is the perennial problem with the issue.

      Your system would attribute 100% of the value add from sales in France to the French tax authorities. Firstly, why is that fair (France did not pay for the infrastructure that supports the workers in California). Secondly, what if Apple just goes back to what everyone did 20-30 years ago, and has a local french distributor who buys from them, adds 30% and sells it on to customers? Should France send a bill for a share of Apple's US profits to the company in the 1 infinite loop? Why would they pay? France can't ban their products or add huge tariffs as they are part of the WTO, and if the company is not directly operating in France they have no force of law to extract taxation. Also, now that you've changed the entire basis for international trade, what do other companies do? What if the US decides to retaliate and sends a bill to French companies for the share of profits that the US thinks was earnt in the US? Perhaps the US adds a cut of global profits based on how many US patents the French company has and the imputed return?

      This is the problem. Your idea sounds great but ignores all the details. It's like saying 'jail the bankers' and after a year of chanting that everyone goes home because nobody knew who was meant to do the jailing, what illegal thing had been done, or even what a 'banker' was exactly.

      The issue of coming up with a fair profit attribution system (not impossible, but not as simple as you are making out) is still there, along with having to get mutiple countries with competiting issues to agree to a system (unless you think starting a trade war will get you what you want). Most countries can barely agree among themselves.

    4. Re:Complicated issue with no simple solution by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The simplest solution would be to put all earnings on the same tax rate and progression, something that the US (IIRC) actually do have.

      Over here in Europe in most countries you're better off, tax-wise, if your income is from stocks and financial gains than from actual salaried work.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Complicated issue with no simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > what if Apple just goes back to what everyone did 20-30 years ago, and has a local french distributor who buys from them, adds 30% and sells it on to customers?

      Fine with me.
      This will hurt their sales (less money flying from France)
      33% benefits tax on 30% (+ benefits) is still 10%. That's better than today (=nothing)

    6. Re:Complicated issue with no simple solution by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The use of Ireland was part of the EU tax system and well understood at the time.
      A new retroactive French tax is not a great way to attract new and much needed US investment into the EU.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Complicated issue with no simple solution by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Firstly, why is that fair

      Because because without those sales Apple would have made $0, so Apple can choose if it wants to make $billions and pay some tax or $0 and pay no tax.

      a local french distributor who buys from them, adds 30% and sells it on to customers

      They actually have that in their home country of Ireland. No Apple Stores at all, just distributors who add their own mark-up.

      That's one reason why they don't sell that many iPhones in Ireland. Clearly they feel that it's worth having a presence in France and I imagine they enjoy higher sales because of it.

      Remember that Apple doesn't just sell physical goods too, they also sell consumer services (servicing and cloud stuff) as well as B2B stuff like advertising and support to French app developers who enhance their ecosystem. Apple's French subsidiary is a profitable business with revenue streams that are taxable in the EU.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Complicated issue with no simple solution by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Your investment is usually in business, which needs to thrive or there are no jobs.

      The US politicians really rage about business being evil while in Europe not so much; they get you on income and sales type taxes.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:Complicated issue with no simple solution by tomhath · · Score: 1

      They don't hoard cash in a mattress; it's always invested somewhere. Whether the company invests in bonds, its own stock, whatever - the money is in the economy creating more jobs and more profits.

    10. Re: Complicated issue with no simple solution by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would argue that the basis of taxation in most countries is flawed. We should get rid of corporation tax and replace it with some form of consumption tax like VAT or sales tax. Everything else encourages a race to the bottom where countries compete on tax (if not the headline tax rate, then by offering inducements and tax breaks).

      Of course, this is an unrealistic simple solution, but I can't help think that the current method of tax does not work in an increasingly globalised world.

    11. Re:Complicated issue with no simple solution by kingbilly · · Score: 1

      This is pretty insightful and if I had mod points I would have bumped you to :5.

      Globalization and the internet have made things more complicated, and convoluted than ever before. Obviously they have brought benefits. But like you said, it is no surprise that companies will take the path of least resistance rather than even attempt to navigate that mess.

      If politicians have the same mentality as some of the people who replied to you, it is no wonder the needle isn't moving forward on tackling this. If you assume you can just caveman smack everything with a mallet, your results will not vary. And good luck getting the public to support anything. The average consumer thinks money grows on trees, or that they know better than FedEx/UPS when closely following their tracking (they expect tractor trailers to get off an exit and deliver, instead of going to a hub... how cost-effective).

    12. Re:Complicated issue with no simple solution by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Which is utterly crazy when you think about it.

      You work three jobs and pull in 100k a year; I sit on my arse whilst my stocks make 100k a year. You pay 34k in taxes and I pay 14k. (Actual numbers from UK this tax year)

      Working for a living is clearly for chumps.

      That's all so well and so good if you have 100k to put on stocks. That's the thing isn't it, the more money you have the easier it is to make more money. Now you may well be the one who started with a 1 pound investment and grew it into a fortune but chances are you inherited that in some form and just put it to work.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    13. Re:Complicated issue with no simple solution by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In Europe, the difference would be that you only pay about 25k a year from your stock revenue instead of 34k.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Complicated issue with no simple solution by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      For a business to thrive, it needs to sell. That only happens if there's someone to sell to. That only happens if people have money to buy stuff.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Complicated issue with no simple solution by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Capital is mobile. If a nation's after tax ROI isn't competitive it gets no investment.

      Most first world nations have about the same effective tax rate on investments. They just split it differently between corporate tax and cap gains tax (plus 'corruption tax' some places e.g. India). Remember it's all multiplying average ROI, so that matters too.

      Lower corporate tax to 0 and treat capital gains as normal income. In the USA you would land (for high earners) at about 45%. Which is about the world wide investment tax rate.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    16. Re: Complicated issue with no simple solution by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Yes, consumption taxes are regressive, but over time, wages will change to compensate. Also, you could theoretically have some sort of flat universal benefit that would reduce the effective tax rate for the lowest earning members of society.

  5. Re:Protectionism by another name NO IT'S NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is NOT a fine.
    And that's the problem.

    This is just legally due taxes that ANY other corp would have paid in time.
    Apple was(*) stealing money from France for years and nobody cared.
    And when Apple finally paid they're not fined for trying to steal.

    * and Apple IS STILL stealig money with help of Ireland.

    And about EU fines against US I think you're all wrong :
    when US levies fines on EU companies those are fined Billions and not Millions.

  6. Re:Protectionism by another name by hazardPPP · · Score: 2

    Funny how the EU always levies fines on American tech companies, and never dares touch Chinese companies.

    Maybe the Chinese companies aren't dodging taxes? Or they haven't been around in the EU market long enough for their dodginess to be uncovered? Non-tech Chinese products have been on the EU market for a long time...and the EU raised quite a big fuss over some of them.

    Also you will be glad to know that besides dishing out fines for American companies, the EU happily does that for it's own companies and those from other countries (like Japan) as well when they break the rules.

  7. Re:This is still a drip in the ocean by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Compared to what they owe planet wide.

    Okay, I'll bite. How much do they owe planet wide? And why do they owe whatever amount you specified?

    And do remember to refer to the relevant sections of the tax codes of each and every country on the planet that will be affected by paying "what they owe the planet"....

    Myself, being something other than a tax lawyer (French or otherwise), I suspect that they pay an SI buttload of tax lawyers to make sure that they pay the absolute minimum they can LEGALLY pay....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  8. Re: Protectionism by another name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can you not read? This is France, not the EU and it concerns payment of taxes Apple had not paid, not a fine.

  9. was this a loophole, or actual unpaid taxes? by v1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    "loophole" usually means finding a legal way to do something that would normally be illegal. "unpaid taxes" usually means illegally underpaying your taxes. So it can't be both.

    I'm curious as to whether this was actually paying taxes they were legally obligated to do, or more of a settlement / concession / bribe to get them to quit harassing Apple for doing something they don't like but were legally able to get away with?

    I could really see it being a case of them arguing "ok Apple, technically you don't have to pay this, but if you refuse to, we're just going to pass some laws that in the end will cost you more than what we're going to call a 'fine', just go get the public off our backs."

    Tax loopholes are nothing shocking or new. Any person, group, or company with money uses them extensively to hang onto as much of their money as possible. This should surprise no one. "International tax havens" are very similar to your retirement account, they're both designed to entice you to invest your money somewhere in exchange for low property taxes. The investors aren't the ones that made the loopholes, they were created by the people that want to make money off YOUR money while they hang onto and protect it for you. (could be a bank, could be an investment group, could be a country) If you're getting mad at the investors because you can't legally tax them as much as you want to, you're focusing on the wrong party.

    When the public gets upset over international tax havens, it's basically coming down to a problem of the benefit of they money being there having been shifted from taxes to something else in the country. They set up the loopholes in the first place to benefit the country in some way, be it increasing forein investments or something else. Wanting to have those benefits AND still tax the money the same is double-dipping, on a country-size scale. There's only one pie, and two different groups within the country both want the same slices. The loophole just changes the distribution of a few of the slices. In other words, it comes down to a problem created by the greed of a country.

    And because you can't "fix" greed, this issue will never go away.

    Imagine senators saying "hey, Merrill Lynch, our voters are mad at us since we created these tax shelters to increase your investments here, but the public is only looking at the lost tax revenue and thinks it's unfair they can't have their cake and eat it too. So if you don't pay us these token 'fines' so we look like we're 'addressing the problem', we're going to change the laws in a way that hurts your bottom line a lot more than the 'fines' would." Is this basically what's happening here?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:was this a loophole, or actual unpaid taxes? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      I think you're right. Notice how they are paying a "back-dated tax", rather than, "unpaid" or "owed". So, back-dated as in, "you didn't owe it then, but now we want more."

    2. Re:was this a loophole, or actual unpaid taxes? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      You are correct that what Apple did was to exploit the loophole of the tax laws in Europe. You could also be correct about how France forced Apple to pay.

      However, the way you write sounds like it is OK to look for a loophole and exploit it. Your attitude sounds like it is the other's fault to leave the door open, so if the laws don't forbid(see the differences from the laws allow?), you will do whatever you want that benefit yourself. You completely separate ethics from laws. In this case, it is unethical (exploit) but lawful (not forbid but doesn't say it is allowed).

      The thing is that if you are on the side of being exploited, I'm not sure whether your attitude is still the same as now. I know that a few people could accept the losses and move on (not just talk). However, I highly doubt that in reality most people would be able to accept the losses when the situation really happens to them.

  10. Re:Protectionism by another name NO IT'S NOT by Muckluck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is just legally due taxes that ANY other corp would have paid in time.

    Tax evasion is illegally not paying due taxes, tax avoidance (tax avoidance being the legal use of tax laws to reduce one's tax burden) is legal and encouraged.

    Did they avoid taxation or evade taxation?

    --


    --I like turtles...
  11. Re: Treason by another name by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

    Calm the fuck down, McCarthy.

    --
    "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
  12. Re:Protectionism by another name NO IT'S NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    being that the agreed to a payment it seems they evaded. Why would they pay back taxes that the legally avoided and do not owe.

  13. Re:More EU nations taxes by roskakori · · Score: 1

    Investing in the EU is a trap.

    Nobody forces Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook etc to offer their products and services in the EU.

  14. Re:Protectionism by another name NO IT'S NOT by Muckluck · · Score: 1

    being that the agreed to a payment it seems they evaded. Why would they pay back taxes that the legally avoided and do not owe.

    Sometimes you pay for other reasons than "being guilty". It may be cheaper (or more profitable) to get the issue behind you and move on.

    This is the equivalent of punishing a company because France regulators suck at writing tax code. If Apple is using loopholes, that is tax avoidance. Using the tax laws to your advantage is encouraged in the accounting field. So much so, that a quote about this was on the cover of my tax accounting book in college. The philosophy stuck with me...

    --


    --I like turtles...
  15. Re:Protectionism by another name NO IT'S NOT by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Part of the problem with our complex tax situation and why any attempt to simplify the tax plan fails, is because taxes are used more then just revenue for the governments, but a tool to help manage behaviors especially towards large organizations.
    Economist both liberal and conservative in general know corporate taxes are a net negative on the economy on the whole, which creates higher priced goods, slows down growth, and requires an expensive labor force to manage all the taxes correctly. which slows down the economy more then what the revenue will bring in.
    But we also have billionaires who gets paid a dollar a year. But their wealth is tied into the company. So he needs a new car the company gives him a car. The company writes this off as a business expense and the CEO gets a fancy car with a net less money spent, then if I normal Joe bought the same car with my hard earned money, because I would need to spend full tax as well on it.
    So we get such shenanigans which the general population doesn't like, so the tax laws gets more complex, trying to reward good behavior, and discourage bad behavior without having to outwardly make it illegal.
    So the government wants you to follow the spirit of the tax laws that will lower your taxes, because that means you are doing actions they want you to be doing.
    However if a company is caught "hacking" the laws so they are paying less taxes without trying to perform the goal of the law. Then the government gets annoyed, and less forgiving of minor mistakes.
    In general France wants a portion of the billions of dollars Apple sells to that country. Because an issue is Apple doesn't need a big Brick and Mortar store front to sell its products. Thus billions of sales where Frances money leaves the country without supporting local jobs or economy.

    In short it is all very complicated without a simple fix. And I havn't heard any leader (Government or Business) willing to really deal with the complexity, but just throw a cheap fix get a few bucks out of it, until the other side finds a cheap fix to make it pointless.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  16. Re:Protectionism by another name by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Funny how the EU always levies fines on American tech companies, and never dares touch Chinese companies.

    Not paying taxes isn't a cornerstone of chinese business. They have their own set of problems to be sure but that doesn't seem to be one of them.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  17. Re: This will end up being very expensive for Appl by reanjr · · Score: 1

    Local competition to Apple in Europe?

    Bwahahaha!

  18. Strategy by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

    You don't get to be (one of) the richest company in the world by paying your taxes and dues. Just ask Amazon et al.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  19. Re:exploiting"loopholes" ??? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    So you admit they owe nothing?

    If your law allows for something, then it isn't illegal. Why would you write a law allowing for a loophole and then get pissed that someone simply did that thing?

    Not wanting to side with tyrannical mega corporations, but I don't see how theyre wrong to do this.

    This new thing that is "assumed law" needs to end quickly, you don't get to say "well you knew what we wanted you to do" just because you can't control something, but want to control it

    You don't allow for loopholes, they exist from mistakes/oversights and then you notice then exploit them. Loopholes that can be closed usually are.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  20. Re:More EU nations taxes by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    On innovative US brands. Investing in the EU is a trap.

    Apple? Innovative?....HAHAHAHA good one +1 funny

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  21. Re: More EU nations taxes by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    You think its intended for company to sell their own name to another company (they own) then rent that name back at oh would you look at that just the amount that would put you into certain tax margins because you're just not making any money because you spend it all renting your name from yourself? And that's just one of the tricks.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  22. Re:Protectionism by another name NO IT'S NOT by dryeo · · Score: 1

    There's a grey fuzzy area between avoidance and evasion which takes a court case to decide. Due to the uncertainty, they reach a settlement. If it is clear cut avoidance, the company would go to court, and likewise for the government. I'd guess the settlement depends on likelihood of one side winning.
    Probably depends on amount as well. If the government claimed I owed another $100, I'd just pay it rather then arguing.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  23. Re: Protectionism by another name NO IT'S NOT by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    How convenient. They can arrest anybody any time they want under that code. I'd move ASAP.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  24. Re: Protectionism by another name NO IT'S NOT by aybiss · · Score: 1

    Or, they could use that tax money to create a universal healthcare system any time they want.

    I'd move ASAP.

    --
    It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
  25. Amount isn't disclosed? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

    I'm not a tax guy, so could someone explain why the amount owed to the public (taxes) hasn't actually been disclosed to the public? I assume it has to be made public at some point, given that both parties have agreed to a deal and the amount isn't likely to change.

    Also, I'm not sure this is to be celebrated, because it's rather likely that a negotiation took place, and Apple is likely paying less than it was originally supposed to. That's the way "deals" work, as opposed to "orders."