Print 98 comment(s) - last by freedom4556.. on Apr 12 at 6:15 PM

Apple is accused of hording money and dodging taxes.
Corporate tax-dodging: not just a U.S. problem

In America Fortune 500 corporations pay 12.1 percent in taxes, on average, on their profits [source] versus the default rate of 34 to 35 percent that any small-to-midsize business (SMB) making over $335,000 USD per year in profit must pay.  With corporate tax rates plummeting in half over the last three decades, individuals and SMBs in America are increasingly left to shoulder the difference.  

The crippling inequality was highlighted in 2011 when General Electric Corp. (GE) pocketed $14B USD in profit, plus received a "generous" $3B USD tax refund from the federal government.  GE was a key donor to U.S. President Barack Obama and was repaid by its CEO being anointed head of America's "Council on Jobs" which helps advise Congress on corporate tax policy.

I.  Apple Pays Virtually No Taxes in Britain, While it Makes Billions

However, it's important to remember the U.S. isn't the only country struggling with the increasingly parasitic nature of politically active corporations.  Britain is currently grappling with similar issues.

American and domestic companies in Britain and other European Union states have been cleverly positioning their regional headquarters in the handful of member states with the lowest corporate tax rates.

For example Apple, Inc. (AAPL) made an estimated £6B ($9.50B USD) in Britain last year, but paid only £10M ($15.8M USD) in taxes.  That astounding figure, which has many British natives grumbling, comes thanks to the British tax code's rule that largely exempts companies based in Ireland from paying British taxes.

Apple has installed its regional headquarters in Cork, Republic of Ireland.  Thus it enjoys the low Irish 12.5 percent tax rate (which the British newspapers consider "ultra-low", but is ironically in line with the aforementioned current effective American rate for Fortune 500 firms), versus the 24 percent it would pay in Britain.

The Irish branch of Apple -- a subsidiary itself -- runs a series of shell companies that log British sales in "tax haven" regions like Ireland or the British Virgin Islands despite the fact that the physical point of sales is in Britain.  Apple Retail UK Ltd -- one of these shell companies -- made a reported £500M ($791.8M USD) in 2010, but only paid £3.79M ($6.0M USD) in taxes.

Experts cited in a report by The Daily Mail estimate that of the $99.8B USD (£63B) Apple made globally in 2011, 10 percent of it came from the UK.

Apple iPad Launch UK
Apple's loyal legion dutifully lines up for the iPad launch in London.  Apple is estimated to have to have only paid $15M USD in UK taxes, despite earning almost $10B USD from the island nation. [Image Source: Tim Ferguson/]

This figure is hinted at in Apple's U.S. tax filings.  While Apple pays well above the current hyper-evasive rate of the Fortune 500, it only paid an effective rate of 25.3 percent -- below the supposed tax rate of 35 percent.  Apple credits this good fortune to "undistributed foreign earnings", which it plans to hold "indefinitely".  Such commentary might draw greater scrutiny by auditors in the U.S., except that Apple wisely based its U.S. financial operations in Nevada -- a state known for a lax approach to tax enforcement.

Apple, which recently announced a dividend for shareholders, is hoarding $97.6B USD (£60B) in cash -- more money than the entire gross domestic product of Serbia.  Valued at $590B USD (£370B), Apple is the world's most valuable company, and some experts it expect it to soon become the world's first company to be valued at a trillion USD.

The situation for Apple could soon be changing -- the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), has reportedly audited the company's 2007 to 2009 figures and has "suggested" "certain adjustments".  Those adjustments could be in the form of forcing Apple to pay millions in unpaid taxes -- either to Britain's HM Revenue & Customs or to the U.S. IRS.

II. Apple is Not Alone, U.S. Companies Enjoying Field Day of Tax Evasion

While Apple draws the brunt of the scrutiny given that as the world's largest and most valuable corporation it is a beacon of corporatism, other American companies are following in a similar line., Inc. (AMZN) has placed its headquarters in the tiny European Union nation of Luxembourg -- the same nation where deceased North Korean tyrant Kim Jong Il reportedly sheltered his $4B USD fortune. Google Inc. (GOOG) -- makers of the world's most used smartphone operating system and the world's most used search engine -- based itself in Ireland and has subsidiaries in the Caribbean and Luxembourg for more tax dodging gains.

Google told The Daily Mail that this scheme -- which many would call "tax dodging" -- is necessary in today's corporate atmosphere, as responsibility to shareholders.  States a Google spokesperson, "We have an obligation to our shareholders to set up a tax-efficient structure, and our present structure is compliant with the tax rules in all the countries where we operate."

Google Ice Cream Sandwich
Google also successfully dodged British taxes. [Image Source: Main Device]

In the U.S., Britain, and other wealthy nation states, change over such inequity is slow coming.  After all, increasingly corporations are responsible of paying federal candidates' way into office -- regardless of their political affiliation.  In office, these candidates inevitably look to serve their masters -- not the populous, but the corporations.

A recent University of Kansas School of Business study [PDF] found that $1 given to a federal politician was worth $243 USD of tax breaks, if you contributed over $1M USD.

Source: The Daily Mail

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Tax breaks for job providers
By tayb on 4/10/2012 6:24:57 PM , Rating: 0
Listen to Republicans. This low corporate tax rate is to be applauded as it is giving Apple reason to hire more.... slave workers in China.


RE: Tax breaks for job providers
By kjboughton on 4/10/2012 6:34:04 PM , Rating: 3
Derrrrrrrrrrrr.....I still think it's Dem vs Repub. Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

By retrospooty on 4/10/2012 6:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
"Derrrrrrrrrrrr.....I still think it's Dem vs Repub. Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr."

LOL... do true.

us: "its their fault"
them:"its your fault"
both: plug ears,ignore and repeat for at least 50 years

RE: Tax breaks for job providers
By tayb on 4/10/12, Rating: 0
RE: Tax breaks for job providers
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/10/2012 7:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
So long as we are in the two party system it is Democrats and Republicans. I'm not going to NOT mention the stupidity of Republican tax policy because you don't want to hear it. The idiocy continues if people hold their tongues.
Except that both parties have worked to lower corporate taxes and in many cases lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

Sure things jumped up in certain cases here and there, but the overall taxation trend under both parties leadership is downwards, for the fortunate few on top.

Many of the biggest tax breaks were passed in the Clinton era, as were many of the disastrous allowances that allowed the financial collapse. And Obama has passed his fair share of tax loopholes and friendly favors.

Of course, so did Reagan, Bush, and GWB Jr.

At the end of the day, both sides' Presidents have one thing in common -- they are placed into the position of rulership on the backs of wealthy individuals and corporations.

Obama required $750M USD to be elected in 2008:

GWB Jr. required $367M USD to be elected in 2004:

How much did you give? Now how much did the top 1% of companies and individuals give. Now ask yourself who they are going to serve.

(A similar principle can be applied to Congress)

To be clear, I'm not anti-wealth. However, I am pro-competition.

The issue I see is that both parties have been pushed by their wealth corporate and individual donors to put into place both individual and business tax policies that effectively leave the little guy paying more than the big guy, when you take away the curtain of how much the big guy is "supposed" to pay, versus how much they pay when all tax breaks and loopholes are taken into account.

SMBs and 99% of individuals still pay as much or more taxes as they did 50 years ago. Meanwhile jobs in America are shipped overseas and the national debt steadily rises.

I support a flat tax with no exceptions, but I realize the individuals in power would never allow that.

And people comfort themselves with the illusion of choice, fooling themselves into thinking the next guy will somehow be different than the last.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." -- The Who

RE: Tax breaks for job providers
By mcnabney on 4/10/2012 9:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
This might come as a shocker, but unless the Constitution was seriously amended recently the Legislature proposes and passes laws. So when you say 'Clinton' you should really say 'Newt's Congress'. Bill didn't veto much, only lightning-rod issues.

By JasonMick (blog) on 4/10/2012 10:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
True, true. I only phrased it that way in so much as the sitting President is the effective head of his party on a federal level...

RE: Tax breaks for job providers
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/10/2012 6:48:31 PM , Rating: 5
Derrrrrrrrrrrr.....I still think it's Dem vs Repub. Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

How to create an illusion of choice.

Step 1:
Create two pseudo-sides, which both secretly share the same common agenda and are backed by the same owners.

Step 2:
Create minor religious or philosophical pseduo-issues and then assign viewpoints to each side.

Step 3:
Waiver back and forth as a certain side becomes popular, pushes its particular moral-philisophical "views", and then falls out of favor due to mass disenfranchisement created by the two pseudo-sides' shared agenda.

Step 4:
Make sure the public remains apathetic by limiting educational quality, and feeding them an endless stream of brainless hollow mass-produced entertainment.

Step 5:
Rinse and repeat for decades.

Step 6 (Optional):
Spy on the masses, so that if any become to vocal in their dissent, they can be conveniently silenced.

You have a choice in the election -- but when that choice is between to groups working towards a common objective, is that really choice, or is it just an illusion?

RE: Tax breaks for job providers
By Ish718 on 4/10/2012 7:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad the simpletons can't see it...

RE: Tax breaks for job providers
By Reclaimer77 on 4/10/2012 7:17:42 PM , Rating: 1
Jason I think your tin foil hat got loose again :)

This would be the most massive conspiracy theory ever. Only able to be pulled off by a world wide "shadow" government. Or aliens.

Hold on Scully, Mulder is a' coming!!

RE: Tax breaks for job providers
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/10/2012 7:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
This would be the most massive conspiracy theory ever. Only able to be pulled off by a world wide "shadow" government. Or aliens.

Ancient aliens obviously. :)

But, in all seriousness I think you admitted something similar during one of our debates, saying something to the extent that the political system is very broken in terms of campaign finance and neither party is interested in fixing it.

There's a difference between being a conspiracy theorist and being an observer of reality. George Orwell was likely considered a conspiracy theorist by some at his time. But he was just observing how idealistic and seemingly noble goals like nationalism and collectivism can be twisted to support the most foul of ends -- tyrannical plutocracy rebranded under some other name.

*typos in original post:
to pseudo... -> two pseudo...
to vocal -> too vocal

RE: Tax breaks for job providers
By Reclaimer77 on 4/10/2012 7:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
The difference between observation and conspiracy is you've taken a bunch of separate analytical tidbits and arranged them so that there is a directed motive to them. And that it's all coming from the "two sides".

And yes I think the system is broken, but in different ways. We simply need to get back to the limited Government as dictated by the Constitution. In my heart I know this would solve most of our problems.

Campaign finance is a bandaid. If politics have become a power grab, it's only because our Government has become far more powerful than it ever was intended to be. Remove that, and the other issues will solve themselves.

But meah, it's all just words at this point. The only thing that would make a difference in our lifetimes would be a revolution or a civil war. We've gone far past the point of half measures.

By JasonMick (blog) on 4/10/2012 7:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
The difference between observation and conspiracy is you've taken a bunch of separate analytical tidbits and arranged them so that there is a directed motive to them. And that it's all coming from the "two sides".

I think you misunderstand me slightly.

In my comment the "two sides" was clearly referencing the two political parties in America -- Democrats and Republicans.

As for the rest, it's all pretty straightforward. Both parties are pushing the same financial system -- a bloated federal government that benefits the wealthy with waste and competitive barriers via unequal, anti-competitive taxation.

Do they believe the moral/philosophical distinctions between their platforms? Am I suggesting that both parties had some secret meeting and decided "You do this, I do that"?

I have no idea, and I'm absolutely not speculating on that.

I'm simply saying that whether purposeful or simply the consequence of nature, the distinction is immaterial, the net result is the creation of an illusion of choice where there is none.

Nothing paranoid about it. That's what's clearly the case when two political parties with similar financial objectives/motivations, but diametrically opposed, negating views on social issues, rule a country.
And yes I think the system is broken, but in different ways. We simply need to get back to the limited Government as dictated by the Constitution. In my heart I know this would solve most of our problems.
Agreed, a fair solution would be to limit the federal government and return to state-control of spending.

Ultimately there is a need for some government -- maintenance of the roads, education, etc.

But again, the current federal government would never support that, because a big bloated, wasteful federal system, combined with tax barriers where "small guys" are taxed more than bigger players when all the smoke and mirrors are stripped away is the system that best serves a small group of ruling plutocrats.

A thousand individuals can enjoy far greater wealth, by trying to leech and concentrate the fortune of 300 million people via their hired Congressional "Representatives", versus a thousand individuals trying to leach off a mere several million in your average state.

In short we may differ in how we view the federal government, but in some sense we agree on the solution (I think) -- limiting it and campaign finance reform.

RE: Tax breaks for job providers
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/10/2012 8:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
But meah, it's all just words at this point. The only thing that would make a difference in our lifetimes would be a revolution or a civil war. We've gone far past the point of half measures.
P.S. Most of the unwashed masses would label you a conspiracy-theorist tinfoil hat-wearing type for suggesting such a radical brand of political change. ;)

RE: Tax breaks for job providers
By glennco on 4/11/2012 2:15:40 AM , Rating: 2
It is a problem that is slowly being noticed though. the internet has a funny way of doing this. So the media wants to ignore Ron Paul... soon that generation of idiots who do only what they are told to do by the media is being replaced by a generation that is more savvy. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter (that's not the point and besides I'm Australian) but i can see a problem when it is right in front of my face. No matter who wins your next election nothing will change. As of right now the corporations and the media won't let it but things will change when we no longer look to the media to tell us what to think.

People no longer trust a political system that is being funded by corporations. No matter how you look at it it is corruption. The US is just as corrupt as the nations it accuses of being corrupt. Australia is no better, this is not about patriotism, but observation.

RE: Tax breaks for job providers
By Dr of crap on 4/11/2012 9:21:15 AM , Rating: 2
I think you give the average person too much credit. They can't think for themsleves. And I believe the media is still controlling a vast majority. It will take a long time for that to go away.

Your right nothing will change and hasn't for a long time no matter who is in office. No matter which side gets in, it still the same old crap.

And here's the funny part, the media thinks we care about the primary elections, thinks we care about the politicans and their struggle to get elected. Wacth our news and see the crap they spew out over the election coverage. I for one, and there has to be a hugh amount like me, do not care one bit about the election process, nor do I want to see politicans in any parade going around shaking hands, and handing out "stickers" to the kids. ALL CRAP.

And how we let the corporation political contribution stand and not see it as the biggest mistake ever - I'm at a loss!
But the media hasn't told the masses that this is bad, so it continues on.

By Reclaimer77 on 4/11/2012 9:46:40 AM , Rating: 2
Well when it comes to politics the Internet is about 95% radical crap, you have to dig pretty deep for that good 5%.

Ron Paul? Okay I know you aren't American, but I am and even I don't understand Ron Paul supporters. They have such a devotion to one man, they've raised him to demigod status. Capable of single-handed slaying all evils and, in 4 or 8 years, reversing 75 years of bad Federal policy.

That's not really how the political process works. If Ron Paul died tomorrow, who would these people support? Where would they go? Is the ENTIRE movement central to ONE MAN? It sure seems like it.

I don't like the idea of any President being a dictator or king, but it seems like Ron Paul supporters are all about that. They don't believe in the Democratic process, they don't have party affiliations, it's all about HIM. One man.

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki