Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjtheblunt | Hacker News Reader

Insulted? Apple paid taxes on foreign earnings by foreign branches in the countries where earnings occurred. What nonsense is being dismissed is the idea of then paying duplicate income taxes, on the same earnings, to a second foreign government: in this case the United States. It's obscene to think it makes sense. The fallacy in perception is a political slight of hand to fury fund a way too hungry big government many would say.

View on HN

This is naive.

Apple US sells Apple Ireland a macbook pro for 1000$. 1000$ is what it costs Apple US to get it from China, so no taxes as there is no profit.

Apple Ireland sells that same macbook to Apple UK for 2000$. Apple Ireland realizes 1000$ in profit, and pays the Irish rate on that profit. Apple UK pays no tax, because they bought the machine for 2k and sold it to consumers for 2k, giving them 0 profit on the sale of a new macbook.

Using this shell game i can realize 100% of my profits in any particular tax jurisdiction that I want; regardless of where sales are actually made.

I now pay 0 taxes in the UK regardless of whether I sell 1 unit or 1 billion units in the UK.

Do you think this is above board?

Do you believe that the company selling 1 billion units and paying 0 taxes represents an equivalent burden on society to the company selling 1 unit and paying 0 tax?

Does this company not use the publicly maintained roads? Airports? Are its UK workers not kept healthy by the publicly available health services?

Sure apple paid all of its legal obligations on its 0$ of profit in the UK - how they ended up with a reported 0$ profit in the UK is something worth having a conversation about.

No they don't - in Europe they managed to cut a deal with Ireland such that only their Irish generated revenue was taxed in Irleand but all other European revenue was booked against their Ireland business so was completely untaxed

Apple have not just followed the law as written - they have carved out specific tax exemptions for themselves.

> Apple have not just followed the law as written

I think they have followed the law as written. Some people just don't like how it was written and some of the effects caused by how it was written.

You missed the word "just".

It's unclear what "just following the law" is as distinct from "following the law".

Can you help me understand the difference?

What law(s) have they violated? Have they "just violated them" or just "violated them"?

The sentence means that Apple haven't simply / only / just followed the law as written, they have gone further than that and carved out specific exemptions in the law for themselves.

When you said, "I think they have followed the law as written." it sounds like you are challenging a claim that they haven't followed the law as written, but that wasn't the intent of the sentence. More clear? No laws were violated.

A) I have not hit you, I have given you a hug. -> you did not get hit, you got a hug

B) I have not just hit you, I have given you a hug. -> you got hit AND you got a hug

Apple didn't just follow the existing law, they wrote their own addendum.

That's not correct. Apple do not pay income tax here in Norway even though they obviously sell a lot through the Apple Store. They "pay" tax in Ireland, which I assume is next to nothing. The argument is not about paying duplicate income taxes. It is about Apple and others using loopholes to get income in countries with low/zero tax rate instead of the country they sell in or actually operate in.

"Apple do not pay income tax here in Norway even though they obviously sell a lot through the Apple Store."

Corporation taxes are levied on income, i.e. profit. Yes, Apple sells a lot through the Apple Store in Norway, but do those stores make any profit?

The retail margins on Apple products are tiny. Try negotiating a discount on an iPhone from an Apple reseller. Would the Apple Store (which probably has a much higher cost base than a normal Apple reseller) make any profit? If not, why should they pay corporation tax?

> Would the Apple Store (which probably has a much higher cost base than a normal Apple reseller) make any profit? If not, why should they pay corporation tax?

You're joking, isn't?

> Yes, Apple sells a lot through the Apple Store in Norway, but do those stores make any profit?

My mistake: I meant the App Store not a physical Apple Store. We are not worthy of that yet here.

Is the App Store based in Norway? If not, why would it be subject to corporation taxes in Norway? Just because it has customers in Norway? Would you expect a SaaS provider in Norway to pay corporation taxes in the US just because it has customers there?

This is exactly what the discussion regarding digital sales is about. Apple has set up their store in Ireland even though it is an American company. They have people employed in Norway and sell to Norwegian customers but pay no taxes as sales are made through Ireland.

I expect that a company pay taxes where they realistically operate. I don't think it's fair to set up shell companies in countries where they have no real operations. A company uses a lot of state resources that are paid through taxes. Without contributing they are cheating the rest of the people in a country.

"I expect that a company pay taxes where they realistically operate."

Would you expect a SaaS provider in Norway to pay corporation taxes (i.e. a tax on company profits) in the US just because it has customers there?

What about state and federal sales taxes?

Would your answer change if the company were to have a single marketing employee based in the US?

What if none of the company's customers are in Norway, but all are in the US? Should the company pay profits taxes in Norway, the US, both, or neither?

To say it is a loophole makes it sound like only a few use it or that it's some obscure detail that allows for this. As far as I know, this applies to every foreign company and is very clear from tax law.

It's quite a deliberate international network of companies purely set up for the purpose of not paying tax. I would say it's a loophole even though it also consists of obviously legal and locally encouraged practices such as setting up a company in Ireland with a low tax rate. But yes it's an issue with lack of international agreements to avoid situations like this with huge corporations not paying tax locally and small businesses in the same area paying high local taxes.

So the double Irish is cool?

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

> Insulted? Apple paid taxes on foreign earnings by foreign branches in the countries where earnings occurred

Apple some year has declared losses in Spain, so they have have tax benefits.

They didn't paid any tax but they have received money form the Government because they lost money.

Really?

> in the countries where earnings occurred.

Do you really think Apple makes the majority of their income in Ireland? On paper they do, if you follow the twisted winding path of tax codes from the United States through Denmark to Ireland.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com