Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Doesn't the IRS check for these kinds of things when companies file every year? Considering how money hungry the government is, you'd expect them to pay closer attention to large international public companies such as Apple.

But they're loopholes, not violations. Like others have said, the loopholes have to be found and closed so that corporations, even beloved ones, can't take advantage of them.
 
But they're loopholes, not violations. Like others have said, the loopholes have to be found and closed so that corporations, even beloved ones, can't take advantage of them.

Right, so if they are legal loopholes then why parade Cook into the Senate for questioning?
 
I don't think Apple's going to get dinged for this because it all seems absurdly legal, but it's certainly going to have a huge ripple effect and lead to changes in corporate tax laws. Apple can effectively say goodbye to not paying taxes. It's going to certainly lead to a drop in profits.

----------

Right, so if they are legal loopholes then why parade Cook into the Senate for questioning?

Cook and co are not being indicted here. Congress likely just wants to know exactly how Apple is doing all this so they can close these loopholes. As much as I think Apple is a bunch of greedy bastards, I don't think they were breaking any laws.
 
I say if Apple broke no laws in doing this, then good for them.

Bottom line is taxes are too high on everyone as it is. It is our responsibility (both corporate and personally) to avoid them (legally) as much as we can.

Also, if Apple didn't do this, then the stock holders would be up in arms. So really, if no laws were broken, what did Apple do wrong?

Now, there is a simple way to fix this, abolish the entire tax code as it stands and charge a flat sales tax on everything sold (the sales tax not to exceed 15% for state and federal tax combined, once the national debt is pad off, this drops to 10% and it would require that it be paid off within 10 years or all elected officials will receive no pay until it is). Part of the new tax code would also state that the government cannot spend more than they brought in, in other words no borrowing anymore.

That's far too sensible. Instead, we'll just keep raising taxes and then complain when the highest earners move more of their money out of the country.
 
But they're loopholes, not violations. Like others have said, the loopholes have to be found and closed so that corporations, even beloved ones, can't take advantage of them.


For those following along at home, a loophole is the failure of the lawmakers, not an illegal activity of tax payer.

----------

Right, so if they are legal loopholes then why parade Cook into the Senate for questioning?

For the same reason all the BS Apple stories posted on blogs…eyeballs/publicity.
 
For those following along at home, a loophole is the failure of the lawmakers, not an illegal activity of tax payer.

----------



For the same reason all the BS Apple stories posted on blogs…eyeballs/publicity.

I wasn't trying to imply wrongdoing on any one individual or corporation for taking advantage of the loophole. I was saying that they need to be shored up if the IRS is going to try and penalize corps for not paying enough taxes. I certainly do not think Apple was wrong here at all. If you can find a way to not pay the maximum tax rate then by all means, do it. Taxes are a suck and frankly, I would do the same thing.
 
I wasn't trying to imply wrongdoing on any one individual or corporation for taking advantage of the loophole. I was saying that they need to be shored up if the IRS is going to try and penalize corps for not paying enough taxes. I certainly do not think Apple was wrong here at all. If you can find a way to not pay the maximum tax rate then by all means, do it. Taxes are a suck and frankly, I would do the same thing.


I know, I was just expanding on your post.
 
Note to senators: Do your job first. Close the loopholes that Apple and the others are LEGALLY using to their advantage. Until then, you haven't earned the right to whine and moan.

Well said and I agree completely. Politicians are the ones who have set up such Byzantine tax laws. As long as Apple isn't breaking the law, I have no problem with them using the tax code to their advantage.
 
They get tax breaks for investing in green energy.

That is a loophole right there. A way to pay less taxes. A way to pay less than their "fair share".

Tax loopholes are LAW. If they are not following the law, they will pay for it. If they are taking advantage of loopholes, then good on them.

I think charity is a tax loophole too.

Shall we put an end to all the green energy and charity so everyone pays their "fair share"?

----------

The real question is:

Why do we burden our corporations so much?

We know businesses are important. We know that they provide employment and create goods. They build, the manufacture, they invent. They produce products that can make our lives better. They give people opportunity.

Shouldn't we be treating our corporations and businesses a little better and pave their road for success and not bleed them dry like some parasite?
 
well, if it's all done legally, i don't see how can they say apple has been avoiding paying taxes. it is only logical for anyone to make as much money as possible (legally) and if the law allows certain practices that are frowned upon, the law has to be updated.
 
The investigators are still not claiming that Apple broke any laws - just that they took advantage of tax loopholes. There's an easy way to "fix" this problem: fix the tax code. Expecting companies to not take advantage of loopholes and blaming them for exploiting them is just ridiculous and doesn't actually solve anything.

In a sense it feels like "damage control" for US Senators, Apple out smarted them, now they've got to close all the doors before election time. :D
 
Excuse me guys, am I the only one taking issue with the grammar here, wtf is that:



Wtf is the main verb and the object?

The sentence preceding is:

What was the tax scheme, it certainly wasn't "apple's claim".



As far as the topic goes, this is not solely about apple, multinationals have repeatedly pocketed governments worldwide (their bribing ELECTED officials is only comparable to what big booze and drug rackets are paying them) so they could create laws with plenty of loopholes for them to dodge enormous amounts in tax. Not only in the states, the world over. Speculating on the economy worldwide by the financial institutions, aka institutionalized casinos almost destructed the world in 2008 and it's after effects in terms of unemployment and poverty are felt until now and they aren't going away. Another problem is that of big companies avoiding the right share of tax.

Now where the hell is that mac pro apple? :D
Aww give the editor a break.... He's a rookie.
 
Why is it hard to understand that if you make a device in China and then sell it to someone in France that this transaction does not result in taxes owed to the US Government?

Apple is doing the same stuff that all international Companies are doing. The media needs to stop reporting this like it is some sort of scandal.
 
In the US case, their laws say "if you make profits outside the USA, then you have to pay US taxes when you move the profits into the USA". In that case, leaving the money where it is isn't "exploiting a loophole". It is obviously intended that you don't pay tax if you don't move the money, and you do pay tax if you move it.

(Apple does other things that could be called "exploiting a loophole", but this one isn't. )

I was replying to this post:

OK, let's get this "legally" nonsense out of the way. Apple is exploiting a loophole.

It reminds me of my friend's mom who is "legally" blind. She does not have a drivers license, but she does have a handicap placard and uses it quite often just for the sole purpose of getting a more favorable parking spot. Is what she is doing legal? Yes. Is it fair to others who are handicap and now have to park further because of one less handicap spot? No!

If the law allows it, then the problem is the law, not the action. And I also disagree with the handicap placard analogy. I know people who don't drive that have handicaps that most certainly deserve a handicap placard that the law allows.
 
Why should we believe Sen Levin? I don't trust anyone in Washington. Of course these days it's fashionable to hate on Apple so not surprised to see people assuming what the senate is alleging to be the gospel truth.

Cook didn't contest Sen Levin's claims. So unless you have better information, it seems like these were reasonable facts.


According to Senator Levin, Apple doesn't have any employees in Ireland.

And doesn't have any premises in Ireland.

And you just made this up.



And this is a real winner. In the last 5 years Apple had about $380B in revenue and 45,000 employees.

Given that apparently some $102B in revenue is attributed to Irish holding companies, (wow they really were going to hire 350 people there!), it's nutty to think this isn't going to be a problem.

This is more or less the same nonsense that leads to the collapse in places like Cyprus. A bunch of companies do questionable (i.e. not definitively illegal activities, but we don't know because they haven't gone to court yet) and then rather than go through the courts, some government goes in for a big cash grab, screwing over all the little people. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the reason Apple stock has been runnning down.

----------

The most annoying thing about all this is while some of you are defending apple and crapping on the US government, the big concern is that there are buckets of US (apple) money in broke-ass Ireland, that is waiting to be grabbed by the French and the Germans.
 
Companies, following capitalism, are under no obligation to be "ethical" or follow any other vague subjective rules for how to conduct business. They are only responsible for one thing, to make money, and follow the law. If you don't like what a company does, you can either implement a law for them to follow, or not buy from them. Those are the only two ways to effect the way a capitalist company does business, because those are the only two things they are responsible for caring about.

And trust you me, when I filed my taxes I didn't say "Sure, keep what you have, I'm sure you need it Mr. IRS". No, I filed my taxes and looked at all reasonable ways to lower the amount I gave the feds, within the laws that exist. You say I don't have to pay taxes on student loan interest? Great! I'm going to take that, and I'm not about to voluntarily give it up just because someone else who doesn't have loans says that it's unethical.

Now, do I think the laws should be changed? I do indeed. I think that the types of loopholes being discussed should be closed, but that is for the Federal Government and its citizens to close, not for a company to voluntarily guess at.

Parting shot: If someone approached me next tax season with an odd ball obscure way to keep another 5% of my money, and it was legal, I'd take it. If I'd take it, I'm not about to hold someone else to a different standard.

Your example isn't apt at all, unless of course you have 150 billion dollars in the bank to pocket politicians and influence legislation worldwide.

The problem isn't that governments (some small minority portions of them that are not on the payroll of lobbies that is) or individuals don't attempt to close loopholes, it's that they don't have the clout at the end of the day to implement these changes, unless some big **** up by the big corporations and big capital happens (see worldwide financial crises in 2008 and it's terrible after effects (aka recession) in the west) and only THEN and MAYBE is something going to be done about it.

It's one thing to say, hey I abide by the law when you are the one responsible for influencing legislature to go your way, and quite another when you are in the vast majority of people whose hands are tied when it comes to voicing, let alone implementing their opinion on what the laws should be.
 
I agree, but the IRS always seems to miss stuff and then cry about it later.

Or take opposite stances on identical issues depending on the tax outcome.

----------

I have no idea where their obligations end. But I am certain that their obligations extend at least as far as paying their fair share of taxes.

And I guess you get to decide what that amount is.
 
What most people do is to take straight forward deductions based upon the clear intent of the tax code.

What Apple does is to make complex, bizarre money transfers and to employ convoluted business structures in order to skirt the clear intent of the tax code.

This comment couldn't be any more wrong. People pay lots of money every year to have professionals do their taxes and get the most deductions. People make huge purchases and enter into complex transactions on December 31 just to reduce their tax bill.

Edit: also, go read the tax court case from earlier this year involving Sergio Garcia and tell me individuals don't do crazy things.
 
Last edited:
This comment couldn't be any more wrong. People pay lots of money every year to have professionals do their taxes and get the most deductions. People make huge purchases and enter into complex transactions on December 31 just to reduce their tax bill.

Edit: also, go read the tax court case from earlier this year involving Sergio Garcia and tell me individuals don't do crazy things.


I said "most people". Therefore, the best you are doing is citing an exception that proves the rule.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.