back to article Paradise Papers reveal Apple moved bits of biz offshore

Apple has continued to avoid the heavier taxes that some countries would like to exact by moving parts of its company to Jersey, the Paradise Papers have revealed. Outlets that have perused the papers – a large scale leak of financial documents from offshore law firm Appleby – say they show how the company used the firm to …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Clearly your taxing it wrong.

  2. Roo
    Windows

    "Cupertino also claims that it remains the world's biggest taxpayer,"

    Dearest Timbo

    I will gladly help Apple out - they can have my earnings and pay much less tax - and in return I'll have theirs. Everyone's a winner.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "I will gladly help Apple out - they can have my earnings and pay much less tax - and in return I'll have theirs."

      In ancient Athens, the richest citizens were selected each year to pay for the theatrical performances. If one of these citizens felt that someone not on the list was richer than he was, he could challenge it; and if the person he nominated disagreed, an asset swap could take place (basically families swapped estates). Apparently it actually happened on more than one occasion.

      1. Eguro
        Thumb Up

        Invest heavily in exterior decorations - check

        Force slaves to mimic merriment on a nightly basis - check

        Haul off wagons of empty pots in the morning to simulate cleaning - check

        Haul in wagons of empty pots in the afternoon to simulate filling your stock - check

        Wait for rich dude to demand an estate swap - check

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Cupertino also claims that it remains the world's biggest taxpayer,"

      That must be why on the recent BBC4 documentary on Silicon Valley they Santa Clara county finance head expalined that they estiamted Apple having $6 billion of assets in the county liable to the 1% county business tax while he explained Apple disagreed and said they only had around $60 million of assets in the county (n.b. he was saying this standing across the road from thew new Apple HQ which is said to have cost $2B to build ... n.b. Apple security were *very* unhappy with the BBCfilming outside the HQ and had to be reminded that it was a public road!)

  3. Dr Mantis Toboggan
    FAIL

    Cupertino denies avoidance

    I'm not entirely sure how they can claim avoidance, when they clearly didn't want anyone to find out what they were up-to.

    "What Information Is Publicly Visible?"

    “Is it possible to obtain an official assurance of tax exemption?”

    https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1112D/production/_98633996_d35a0892-264c-4e47-8945-03f2a4389adb.jpg

  4. Aladdin Sane
    Flame

    EU was trying to steal tax dollars meant for Uncle Sam

    Bullshit.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: EU was trying to steal tax dollars meant for Uncle Sam

      Clearly. If that was their concern then all they had to do was operate solely out of the US, and leave ownership of their IP in a US corporation - easier for them, and Uncle Sam would have got the tax. Or even repatriate their foreign profits, and again pay Uncle Sam his dues. I wonder why they haven't done either of those things?

      1. Aladdin Sane

        Re: I wonder why they haven't done either of those things?

        Alas, I fear the reasons for that may be beyond the understanding of us mere mortals.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Devil

          "I fear the reasons for that may be beyond the understanding "

          Greed?

          1. Captain DaFt

            Re: "I fear the reasons for that may be beyond the understanding "

            Hm, maybe us poor mortals can understand after all! ☺

  5. Zog_but_not_the_first
    Stop

    Shirley...

    ... there can't be anywhere to hide in an organisation with rounded corners?

    1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      Alien

      Re: Shirley...

      Maybe they're trying to avoid the Hounds of Tindalos?

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

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Shirley...

      "... there can't be anywhere to hide in an organisation with rounded corners?"

      At the bottom of the barrel?

  6. TRT Silver badge

    I saw that Paradise Papers programme

    I can't believe they were getting away with it. Unbelievable. That anyone got paid for making that Mrs Brown shite...

    1. MyffyW Silver badge

      Re: I saw that Paradise Papers programme

      Mrs Brown's Boys is surely the living embodiment of Bread and Circuses (well Circuses anyway). Only our bankrupt age could have promoted it to prime time.

  7. Kevin Johnston

    Tax dollars meant for Uncle Sam

    and has that kindly Uncle seen any of them yet?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Tax dollars meant for Uncle Sam

      Uncle Sam is Cook's uncle...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Tax dollars meant for Uncle Sam

      They're meant for Uncle Sam eventually, which could be a mighty long time if Trump's current push for a cut in the corporate tax rate fails like his attempted repeal of Obamacare.

  8. codejunky Silver badge

    meh

    Good on em. As long as they are following the law I see no problem. Apparently all those buyers of apple products seem to have no problem either*.

    The government doesnt own the money, they are not entitled to the money, they have no right to the money. Simple really.

    *I am not an apple product user at all and cannot stand them. But to each their own.

    1. jmch Silver badge

      Re: meh

      "As long as they are following the law I see no problem"

      The problem is that they and other similair megacorps pay millions in lobbying efforts resulting in tax laws beneficial to the megacorps and detrimental to everyone else. "Legal" is very different from "just" or "moral".

      "The government doesnt own the money, they are not entitled to the money"

      "The government" is the one* building and maintaining infrastructure, upholding the rule of law, providing education for future employees and healthcare for current ones.... in other words all the framework that allows a successful company to operate and to have wealthy enough customers to sell to. So yeah, they are entitled to their tax take. If you don't like it go operate exclusively in Jersey - stop pretending that you're making minimal profits in the places with your largest and richest client base and making most of your profits in some backwater that just happens to be tax-friendly to you.

      *to a lesser or greater extent, and not always to a high standard, but well enough for the nations where megacorps are based to have prospered

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: meh

        "Legal" is very different from "just" or "moral".

        Company directors do have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximise the returns made and to be compliant with the law. If there's a problem with what is legal being somehow insufficient, maybe the 650 wastrels with time on their hands in SW1 could sort that out?

        Or are you really proposing to say that companies have to take some undefined "just" or "moral" courses of action, simply because politicians and civil servants are incompetent when preparing a sensible tax code? Who will be the arbiter of what is just and moral? What if something is illegal, but moral AND just? Or what if it is legal and just, but not moral? Can the company perm any two from three?

        All very well criticising the action of the officers of a company in this situation, but if you want them to play by any set of rules, you'll find that they do exactly that. It is what they are paid for. If the outcome of the rules doesn't agree with people, then change the rules, rather than demanding they adhere to some imaginary parallel standards, in the nature of Harriet Harman's "court of public opinion".

        Disclosure: I hate tax dodging US tech companies as much as the next man in the pub. But criticising them for playing by the rules is pointless. If the politicians made the rules much simpler and clearer,

        there wouldn't be the loopholes. They could start off by ending that nonsense of allowing companies to pretend that the IP of software or design in a phone is separable value component representing 99% of the margin, and then shipping that IP and supposed profit to wherever lets them pay least tax.

        1. MrBanana

          Re: meh

          "Company directors do have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximise the returns made"

          Not this again. This is untrue, if you think it is true then please offer up a reference.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: meh

            This was an idea born in the 1980s, although maximizing profits has always been a priority for most. And it increased as companies issues more shares, and the ownership passed from founders and their families to banks and investment groups which have very little interest in what a company actually do, only in what it earns.

            But shareholder nominate the board, and the does what shareholder want. That lead to the current trend of trying to maximize short term gains and "meeting expectations" even when it dooms a company in the long run. Executives are accomplices because their pay is structured around short term gains, not a company long term prosperity.

            That's creating a perfect storm.... and we're seeing only the beginning of it.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: meh@ MrBanana

            "Company directors do have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximise the returns made"

            Not this again. This is untrue, if you think it is true then please offer up a reference.

            Companies Act 2006 sets out directors duties, including a prime duty to promote the company's success.

            By any reasonable interpretation, in a company that exists to generate profits for investors a large part of the company's success is defined by making the most profit that it can do legally and economically sustainably. You would be correct to state that the law doesn't use those words (and that other types of company exist), but in terms of what the directors are required to do, it is about maximising investor returns. That's the only reason the investors put money into a commercial company.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: meh@ MrBanana

              "Companies Act 2006 sets out directors duties, including a prime duty to promote the company's success."

              "By any reasonable interpretation, in a company that exists to generate profits for investors a large part of the company's success is defined by making the most profit that it can do legally and economically sustainably. "

              Bullshit, it can equally mean public profile, brand value, ethics, adhering to a mission statement and a thousand other things. Ask yourself this, many companies, including Apple have run with losses and very low shareholder (if any) returns, for decades, yet not a single director has been found in breach of the rules.

              Why is that?

              1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                Re: meh@ MrBanana

                "Ask yourself this, many companies, including Apple have run with losses and very low shareholder (if any) returns, for decades, yet not a single director has been found in breach of the rules. Why is that?"
                Most likely because Apple were maximising share price. Capital gains are taxed differently to share dividends. My investment strategy over the last few decades has been to go for capital gains rather than income because tax issues.

          3. anothercynic Silver badge

            Re: meh

            @MrBanana, I suggest you read this section in UK legislation (although this does not apply to Apple):

            https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/172

            Although, that said, it can be argued that company directors could still ensure a company's success *and* be socially responsible (and thereby making it more successful as its reputation grows as being socially responsible and hence a better company to be purchasing products from).

            US law is generally defined (depending on the state in the US), but here's a snippet from Thomson Reuters Practical Law: Duties and liabilities of directors and specifically this set:

            Duty of loyalty. This generally requires that a director make decisions based on the corporation’s best interest, and not on any personal interest.

            What a corporation's best interest is is another question. But in US case law it's generally seen as what a corporation does... sell product and make money, i.e. anything that's lawful (note: lawful, not 'morally appropriate and lawful').

            You make up your own mind...

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "Company directors do have a legal duty to their shareholders"

          The French nobility thought something alike. Then heads started rolling...

          It's always very risky to lose the Big Picture. It's true that corporations are built to make money. But there's a threshold trespassed which some ways of making money becomes detrimental to the society, and in the long run to the shareholder themselves.

          Good company owners and shareholders can understand that, especially since they also need customers able to buy the product or services they sell, and the services and employees to keep the company working.

          Just asking people to make debts is sustainable for a while, then, like in the subprime crisis, it crumbles - and the system needs to be bailed out using taxpayers money. But keep on on this path, and one day there could be not enough taxpayers money to save the system.

          And heads may start to roll again...

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: "Company directors do have a legal duty to their shareholders"

            @ LDS

            "It's true that corporations are built to make money. But there's a threshold trespassed which some ways of making money becomes detrimental to the society, and in the long run to the shareholder themselves."

            Is that what is happening though? Governments are taking in vastly more money than ever before and spending even more than that especially in wealthy countries which have vastly grown. For all this we see them taking and making their lives cushy, we see the greatest boom in history be used not for long term improvement but for short term vote buying. We see govs consuming so much and yet services complaining, suffering or in some cases ungrateful of benefits unavailable to the private workers.

            Compare that with products we want at low prices and even fighting the fight to protect the population from freedom grabbing government (I am not naive enough to think it is altruism). While governments wage pointless wars while under-equipping the troops and building white elephants and fighting each other for control and power the citizen wants to be able to afford to live and wants jobs available for that purpose.

            It looks like the people are rebelling and are decapitating the nobility which in this case is the gov.

            1. strum

              Re: "Company directors do have a legal duty to their shareholders"

              >Governments are taking in vastly more money than ever before

              Bullshit.

              Worldwide, corporate lobbyists are driving the race to the bottom.

        3. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: meh

          But criticising them for playing by the rules is pointless.

          Err that is the problem, according to the Paradise Papers disclosures, some companies such as those identified by BBC Panarama, are not playing by the rules and instead are using the rules and non-public communications to abuse the rules, namely to set up offshore options for the sole purpose of avoiding tax, which is illegal.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: meh

            @ Roland6

            "namely to set up offshore options for the sole purpose of avoiding tax, which is illegal."

            Actually it is not. Evasion is illegal. Avoidance is following the law and not paying more than you owe.

            "according to the Paradise Papers disclosures, some companies such as those identified by BBC Panarama, are not playing by the rules"

            Has anyone yet been shown to be breaking the law in those papers? or is it again all above board and legal (following the rules)?

            1. Roland6 Silver badge

              Re: meh

              @codejunky - you are right the word I should of used was 'evasion' and yes from confidential emails disclosed in the Paradise papers, there is evidence of both attempted evasion and evasion - the only question is whether there is sufficient evidence to commence court proceedings and in which country. Specifically in the case of the UK, do the Paradise papers provide evidence of evasion of UK taxes - this is perhaps the more tricky question to answer.

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: meh

                @ Roland6

                "you are right the word I should of used was 'evasion'"

                Cool no problem.

                "Specifically in the case of the UK, do the Paradise papers provide evidence of evasion of UK taxes"

                As we are in the UK that is about all we can and should care about as other countries can concern themselves with their jurisdictions. However unless there is any proof of evaded UK tax there isnt a problem. If not then it is a damp squib like previous revelations.

                1. Roland6 Silver badge

                  Re: meh

                  @codejunky

                  "As we are in the UK that is about all we can and should care about as other countries can concern themselves with their jurisdictions. "

                  Well as the problem is with the internationally agreed rules of how monies can be legitimately moved around in a tax efficient way for mutual benefit. So to solve the problem, we will need to get international agreement.

                  I think the extent of the revelations will mean that governments will have to be seen to review the current agreements, however, more importantly, expect tax authorities to exchange notes and to be more investigative about offshore arrangements and the operation of the offshore corporate entities.

                  What I found interesting with the various UK TV programs is that not one company propositioned was prepared to standup and say yes we use an offshore company because it is tax efficient and the reason for this is... Because as HMG itself uses offshore financial services (the "Help to Buy" fund is operated out of Jersey), there must be good and legitimate reasons for using tax-havens.

                  Aside: As the 'overseer' of a number of major tax havens, the British government has a vested interest in them being seen to operate above board, as hopefully they generate sufficient revenues to mean they are largely self-supporting and not in need of handouts from London. So your point about ensuring they pay UK taxes isn't quite as clear cut as some would like to believe - I suspect HMRC allow some leeway where monies are being sent to a crown dependency because of this consideration.

        4. jmch Silver badge

          Re: meh

          " are you really proposing to say that companies have to take some undefined "just" or "moral" courses of action, simply because politicians and civil servants are incompetent"

          No, not at all proposing that companies have to take any course of action beyond "Legal". Just pointing out that politicians and civil services are not only incompetent but also corrupt* because in many cases they allow large corporations and/or their lobbyists to have a disproportionate influence on the tax code.

          So Apple et al are basically writing the rules to their advantage, so thgem going "see, we;re doing nothing wrong" is rather disingenious.

          *again, not necessarily in the legal sense because certain types of influence-peddling and lobbying are legal

        5. strum

          Re: meh

          >Company directors do have a legal duty to their shareholders to maximise the returns made

          This is a fiction, often repeated. It isn't true. Company directors cannot operate against their shareholders' interests - but they are not enjoined to do anything and everything, short of law-breaking, to enrich them.

      2. anothercynic Silver badge

        Re: meh

        The problem is that they and other similair megacorps pay millions in lobbying efforts resulting in tax laws beneficial to the megacorps and detrimental to everyone else. "Legal" is very different from "just" or "moral".

        Morality and justness is in the eye of the beholder. What is moral for one is not necessarily moral to another, ditto for what is just. Which is why the letter of the law *has* to be precise that there is no ambiguity what is meant. Claiming "surely people will know what is meant when we write this" is not good enough. Mean what you write, write what you mean. Which makes writing laws a very finicky piece of business.

        And yeah, the evidence presented in Apple's case is now bordering on the ridiculous (in isolation anyway, if there's a broader context surrounding this, it would be good to know, but short of seeing the full Appleby stash, that's virtually impossible and we'll have to take the ICIJ journalists at their word), although Ireland *has* cashed in on the so-called IP transfer... The taxes due on that (artificial) transaction sit in their bank account.

      3. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: meh

        @ jmch

        "The problem is that they and other similair megacorps pay millions in lobbying efforts resulting in tax laws beneficial to the megacorps and detrimental to everyone else"

        The question there is if this is a problem with the corps or the gov. The corps dont write the laws the gov does. However it is the people who buy the product and if the people would like to pay much more because it is being made too cheaply they can refuse to buy it. And as the corp changes its behaviour and so put up the price of its product people can then buy it. Not normally how it works however.

        ""The government" is the one* building and maintaining infrastructure, upholding the rule of law, providing education for future employees and healthcare for current ones"

        Not according to the above. Apparently the gov is writing laws it is told to instead of laws to do that. Although a few % of something is worth more than 0% of a lot, and of course people want jobs and the gov tend to get the blame for that.

        "in other words all the framework that allows a successful company to operate and to have wealthy enough customers to sell to."

        Also included in that framework is not sapping the economy dry through overtaxing. Otherwise people wouldnt afford the items from the businesses that cannot afford to exist.

        "So yeah, they are entitled to their tax take"

        Why? Why is the gov entitled to take away more and more? It isnt. If they do that we lose businesses, jobs and even people along with all that money they dream of. Or they can take some money for the infrastructure (and bloat that comes with entitlement mentality) without bleeding the country dry.

        "stop pretending that you're making minimal profits in the places with your largest and richest client base and making most of your profits in some backwater that just happens to be tax-friendly to you"

        Since it is an internationally agreed tax system designed to allow countries to compete and thereby keep each other from ripping off its people/businesses (without them leaving of course) and as a result severely punishes thieving regimes it is a good and friendly system that keeps money in the economy.

        ""Legal" is very different from "just" or "moral"."

        Legal is defined. The other 2 are not. That is the difference. Also watch out for the word fair which is equally as meaningless.

        1. jmch Silver badge

          Re: meh

          "Also included in that framework is not sapping the economy dry through overtaxing."

          "Why is the gov entitled to take away more and more?"

          You're giving my words meaning that they don't have. I hold that governments are tasked by the collective to provide a certain level of public goods and services to enable a better quality of life for all. As part of this agreement, government are entitled to collect taxes, as collectively agreed by the governed.

          Certainly no part of that implies overtaxing.

          Now one can argue as to levels of taxation/service provided as well as distribution of tax collected, but what you seem to be arguing is that ANY taxation is wrong. If that is indeed your argument, it is Randian bullshit

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: meh

            @ jmch

            "You're giving my words meaning that they don't have."

            I am sorry for that it is not intentional. But government is not entitled to the money and that is where the consent aspect of elections and even lobbying play their part. Governments would happily tax 100% and spend more if they could, it is only the competence of the people to hold that in check that stops it from happening (something vanishing swiftly I fear).

            Your comment seemed to oppose the lobbying to lower tax but that is an important part of keeping an entitled feeling government in check. Arguing against a restraint on government taxation is to allow governments to (as in the past) increase all manner of tax to fleece the people without actually providing a commensurate service.

            "Certainly no part of that implies overtaxing."

            What is overtaxing? Labour increased income tax on higher earners before leaving and got less money. The tories brought it back down and people demanded it higher even though the reduction brought in more money. People tend to use fair and moral when they want more but what is fair and moral apart from undefined? Increasing tax reduces jobs, increases costs on consumers and puts people out of business. How do we balance the moral and fair against the moral and fair?

            "Now one can argue as to levels of taxation/service provided as well as distribution of tax collected, but what you seem to be arguing is that ANY taxation is wrong."

            Not at all. Tax is an unfortunate necessity for actual services we do need. But the collectors of such tax need outside restraints to keep them from feeling entitled to more and more money as they are not the ones to suffer from it. But when people demand more to be taxed they need to ask themselves if the reward is greater than their job, because tax is a cost, government is a cost, public sector is a cost. When people look at it like that we see our money being ineffectually spent and demands for more.

            1. jmch Silver badge

              Re: meh

              "Not at all. Tax is an unfortunate necessity for actual services we do need."

              Excellent! We seem to be finding some common ground :)

              "Your comment seemed to oppose the lobbying to lower tax but that is an important part of keeping an entitled feeling government in check. Arguing against a restraint on government taxation is to allow governments to (as in the past) increase all manner of tax to fleece the people without actually providing a commensurate service."

              I completely agree that government tax-and-spend needs to be restrained. I do believe however that currently middle-class earners are paying an overproportionate amount of tax because low earners don't have enough money to tax and high earners can find loopholes to pay low effective tax rates*. I am not against lobbying to lower tax per se, but against the incestual churn between high-level corporate and governmental bureaucracies that allow obscure codicils in tax laws that seem innocuous to an outsider but are carefully designed to allow corporations to artificially lower their tax rates. I have long held that a severe trimming of allowances, rebates and exemptions (that are mostly accessible to those with an army of tax lawyers at their behest) would allow governments to lower tax rates across the board while still having enough revenue to provide essential services.

              *For example while it is true that the richest 1% pay 27% of INCOME tax in UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/616441/Table_2.4.pdf#page=2), income tax is less than 40% of gov revenue, most of which is VAT and duties (which is therefore mostly paid by the poorest 90% through sheer volume). So top 1% are paying maybe 15%-ish of gov total revenue, while they own almost a quarter of wealth: (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-richest-people-own-uk-wealth-inequality-credit-suisse-oxfam-a7432076.html)

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: meh

                @ jmch

                "Excellent! We seem to be finding some common ground :)"

                It does make for a good starting point even if we have different views and still part that way.

                "I do believe however that currently middle-class earners are paying an overproportionate amount of tax because low earners don't have enough money to tax and high earners can find loopholes to pay low effective tax rates"

                The lower paid can also pay less tax. First the tax threshold gets raised and second the ISA + S&S ISA. The middle class has become increasingly wealthy and with the increasing demands for more socialist leanings (aka tax and spend) the cost is going to be spread out more because it has to. The rich cannot afford to pay for all our wants and desires nor are they typically stupid enough to freely give more than they have to to a wasteful government.

                "carefully designed to allow corporations to artificially lower their tax rates"

                But this is the counter weight to stop the gov fleecing people. Simply this is brought about because the gov tax's too much. If it didnt it wouldnt need to make complication and complication costs more to run (more tax cost). Suggest lowering them across the board and you end up with idiots and other governments crying about tax havens (see EU when May suggested it). But if we want businesses taxed more then ok, but we dont have them providing jobs in an area and suddenly people complain again.

                "I have long held that a severe trimming of allowances, rebates and exemptions"

                I am all for a simplified tax code. To do what you suggest would necessitate a reduction in tax's which the allowances, rebates and exemptions make up for though otherwise businesses and people would surely leave for being overtaxed (the reason for those in the first place). I think reducing the public sector considerably would also be useful at reducing the tax requirements.

                "richest 1% pay 27% of INCOME tax " and "while they own almost a quarter of wealth"

                Income and wealth are totally different things. Something you identified in that little note is the large part of tax income is from broad tax's on the many, and VAT is a consumption tax so the more consumed the more taxed. The richer are also less likely to use public services while paying vastly more than the rest of us in income tax. If people desire the more socialist models of government the tax money cannot be raised from just the rich but would require all of us to have higher tax as nordic countries discovered.

      4. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: meh

        Lobbyists do not vote on tax or any other legislation. That is the province of the legislators, whom the voters can turn out at the next election; in most cases of interest here, there will be a "next election in two to six years or so.

        As for the pejorative "lobbyist," it should be said that in the US that sort of activity clearly falls into the category of first amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That the "grievances" in question may consist entirely of greed driven whining is immaterial. The legislators or executive branch bureaucrats are responsible for sorting that. They may or may not, and may take bribes or engage in other corrupt activities, but that is one of the reasons for periodic elections.

    2. Dr Mantis Toboggan
      Stop

      Re: meh

      Apple owners didn't care their phones were being built with child slave labour, as long as they still got their Apple fix to fill their sad empty lives, who cares.. They certainly won't care about tax avoidance.

    3. strum

      Re: meh

      >The government doesnt own the money,

      Without government, no-one owns money. Without government, there is no money (worth a damn).

      Flawed argument, codejunky.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: meh

        @ strum

        "Without government, no-one owns money. Without government, there is no money (worth a damn)."

        Which government issues bitcoin? Or in poorer countries the items to barter with? Or for example India and gold? Money is a token of exchange and yes a gov theoretically owns it, until it doesnt. When a gov abuses its currency it gets ignored in favour of others such as the USD even in countries outside the US.

        Money makes trade quicker and easier. If a gov messes it up people dont just roll over and die, they ignore the gov and trade with other things be it another currency, commodities, barter, etc. Cuba even proposed paying off its foreign debt in alcohol (rum I think?) as it was a more stable commodity than their currency.

        "Bullshit.

        Worldwide, corporate lobbyists are driving the race to the bottom."

        I am going to need to see some kind of proof for that. Tax rates have come down some, and the tax take has increased. World trade has increased, tax take has increased. Another good measure is the increase of a public sectors size, which has vastly inflated and is only so possible with the money to do so without crippling the economy in the process.

        And what is this race to the bottom? Lower prices? Higher employment? More R&D providing a massive leap in technologies and services. A global reduction in absolute poverty. Taking a 1930's style crash and weathering it much better (excluding parts of the EU who didnt learn from the past).

        1. strum

          Re: meh

          Not surprisingly, you are dazzled by the shiny stuff - ignoring the key issue; ownership.

          Who says you 'own' anything? The law does. Who creates the law? who enforces it? who amends it when scrotes like Apple take the piss?

          Government, that's who.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: meh

            @ strum

            "Who says you 'own' anything? The law does. Who creates the law? who enforces it? who amends it when scrotes like Apple take the piss?

            Government, that's who."

            Actually the police and justice system enforce it. The all powerful government model has been tried and is still attempted in the world but none of them work out well. Same with the ownership problem of people owning vs state owning. In places where the state owns everything they own the people and places like that seem to have quite a high death toll.

            As to the point I made about money and other trade items, the gov could steal this by force which tends to result in rebellions by people who are robbed blind by an entitled ruler. The gov can print as much paper as it likes for itself with whatever pretty pictures on it. But without the people willing to use it for trade the currency is irrelevant and people will trade with something else.

  9. Clive Galway

    "was not intended nor has in fact created a tax benefit for the firm"

    Very slippery language.

    No, it did not result in them paying less tax than they were CURRENTLY paying (Fuck All), it just meant that they could carry on paying fuck all.

    So whilst it did not result in them paying less tax, it DID result in them NOT paying more tax.

    1. nematoad

      Re: "was not intended nor has in fact created a tax benefit for the firm"

      Whilst I agree with your analysis I do disagree with your characterisation of the message as "slippery language".

      It is not slippery at all, it plain and simple says what it means. Cook and Co. don't give a monkeys about what we think. They are in it for the money, ethics and morality be damned. If that upsets some people then so be it, there are plenty of consumers willing and eager to buy their overpriced products and that is all that Apple care about. It's a stunning display of contempt for public opinion and hubris and I sincerely hope that Nemesis does eventually strike.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "was not intended nor has in fact created a tax benefit for the firm"

      That statement could have meant "we end up paying less to non-US entities today, but because of the way US tax law works in the long run it doesn't change our worldwide tax bill".

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I imagine the next issue of Private Eye will be the size of a telephone directory

    Government sleaze AND tax avoidance AND Donald invading Nor...erm... South Korea

  11. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    "Apple denied avoidance, saying in a statement the problem was that the EU was trying to steal tax dollars meant for Uncle Sam. Since the majority of its design work and engineering is carried out in the US, the majority of its tax bill should be owed to the US Treasury, which is itself concerned about the EU's attempt to take money destined for its own coffers."

    Wow. I knever knew Apple was so altruistic. Maybe I should buy the new iPhone after all?

  12. Jtom

    My word, I certainly hope they were positioning the company to minimize taxes. Every taxpayer I know considers taxes when making financial decisions. Roth Account or traditional IRA? Give more to charity? Standard deduction or itemize? Sell now or wait until it's a long-term capital gain? Should I retire here, or move to a state with lower income and property taxes? Buy a Tesla and get a huge tax credit?

    Many people routinely relocate because of high taxes. It's a significant incentive for politicians to keep taxes reasonable, or at least competitive with other tax districts. Companies often incorporate in New Jersey, because of a favorable tax structure.

    Minimizing costs is incumbant upon corporations. No apology needed. If a country objects, perhaps they should look at what they are doing that is driving businesses off-shore.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like