“Apple may once again come under the spotlight over taxes, as the iPhone maker’s latest filings reveal that it paid no corporate taxes in the United Kingdom last year, despite having pulled in billions of dollars from its European operations,” Kevin Bostic reports for AppleInsider.
“Deductions from share awards to employees essentially negated Apple’s corporate tax liabilities in the UK through September of last year, The Financial Times reported this week,” Bostic reports. “Apple’s U.K. subsidiaries — Apple (U.K.), Apple Europe, and Apple Retail U.K. — reported pre-tax profits of £68 million in the year through September 2012, with some £27.7 million in taxes deducted due to [tax deductions from share awards to employees which helped wipe out the corporate tax liabilities of the UK subsidiaries in the year to September 2012].”
Bostic reports, “Apple has recently come under fire in the U.S. and abroad for what many have called tax avoidance. Most recently, Apple chief Tim Cook and a number of other Apple executives were called to testify before a Senate subcommittee to defend the low tax rate Apple pays on its overseas earnings. Cook maintained that Apple had done nothing wrong. ‘We pay all of the taxes we owe,’ Cook said, ‘every single dollar. We not only comply with the laws, but we comply with the spirit of the laws.'”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Last autumn, Tim Worstall wrote an interesting article for The Register. In case you missed it:
Google, Apple, eBay shouldn’t pay taxes – people should pay taxes.
Related articles:
Bloomberg News’ awful reporting on Apple’s U.S. corporate taxes – May 30, 2013
Thomas Sowell on Apple, corporate taxes, and ‘the road to serfdom’ – May 28, 2013
Former Senator Sununu: Congress wrote the tax laws, so why blame Apple for obeying them? – May 28, 2013
Taxing Apple just taxes you – May 24, 2013
Don’t tax Apple, tax its shareholders – May 24, 2013
If Apple paid more tax, we might pay less or something – May 22, 2013
Apple CEO Tim Cook pounds another nail into the Keynesian coffin – May 22, 2013
Apple CEO Cook makes no apology for company’s tax strategy – May 22, 2013
Apple CEO Tim Cook charms Capitol Hill – May 22, 2013
Rush Limbaugh: ‘High-tech lynching: Senate attempts to crucify Apple’ – May 21, 2013
Nobody on U.S. Senate committee laid a glove on Apple CEO Tim Cook – May 21, 2013
Senator Rand Paul: Senate committee ‘should apologize to Apple for bullying one of America’s greatest success stories’ (with video) – May 21, 2013
Ireland: We have no special tax rate deal with Apple – May 21, 2013
Apple prepares for Washington onslaught: CEO Tim Cook isn’t taking any chances with senators looking to grandstand – May 21, 2013
Watch Apple CEO Tim Cook’s live testimony before U.S. Senate, starting at 9:30am EDT – May 21, 2013
U.S. Senate investigation found no evidence that Apple did anything illegal in avoiding taxes – May 20, 2013
Apple pays under 2% on overseas profits and it’s entirely legal – November 5, 2012
Google, Apple, eBay shouldn’t pay taxes – people should pay taxes – November 25, 2012
So how much did Apple really pay in taxes? – November 1, 2012
Apple’s showdown with the U.S. government over taxes on offshore cash – July 13, 2012
Apple‘s $74 billion tops list of U.S. tech companies’ overseas cash – July 9, 2012
Apple’s dividend move puts spotlight on foreign cash holdings, repatriation tax reform – March 20, 2012
Apple: Good start; and what about the overseas cash? – March 19, 2012
Apple’s foreign cash hoard piles up: $54 billion and rapidly growing – January 11, 2012
Senator John McCain eyes Apple’s $54 billion overseas cash pile – November 3, 2011
Google joins Apple in push for U.S. repatriation tax holiday – October 3, 2011
Apple lobbies Obama for tax holiday, wants to bring overseas bounty home – August 24, 2011
U.S Senate Democrat Schumer allies with Apple, other multinationals on repatriation tax talks – June 21, 2011
U.S. companies push for tax break on foreign cash – June 20, 2011
Apple, Oracle, Duke Energy, others organize lobbying blitz for tax holiday – February 17, 2011
I got a better idea, should just buy the UK and sink it in the goddamned North Sea.
no, keep the Republic Of Ireland for new location of their new spaceship HQ.
Lots of vitriol. No actual substance.
well, a guy has cam dream, can’t he?
jeez, wtf happened to that post?
“well, a guy can dream, can’t he?”
fuck off and die, colonist
I’ve got a better idea: I won’t denigrate your country and you extend me the same courtesy. m’kay?
Meanwhile, let’s go after Murdoch: that arsehole hasn’t paid UK corporation tax for years.
=:~)
fair enough. apologies.
I got a better idea, lets collapse some more buildings in New York.
I’m guessing you haven’t seen the news. PRISM has just logged your ass!
People should pay taxes.
Corporations are people.
Therefore, corporations should pay taxes.
My opinion? Either corporations should pay taxes like people, or lose the rights, privileges, and protections afforded to them that should only go to people. One or the other. Can’t have it both ways.
you forgot, “corporations are people that have already paid taxes.”
Doc, your Logic 101 teacher in college must have been Joan Rivers.
…by extension:
People should pay taxes.
Countries are people.
Therefore, countries should pay taxes.
your logic: if a=b and b=c, therefore c must = Anita Bryant’s bone dry panties at a Gay Rights Parade.
Don’t be dense. I’m referring specifically to the concept of “corporate personhood,” which is the legal justification for bestowing upon corporations the same rights as individual persons. I think that corporate personhood is an absolute crock, but so long as corporations are given the same rights as individuals (or, as the Citizens United decision allows, rights far exceeding those of individual persons), they should be forced to endure the same responsibilities as individual persons.
So long as corporations are considered persons under the law, they should be treated as persons. As soon as corporations are no longer considered persons under the law, they should no longer be treated as persons. It’s that simple.
“corporate personhood” doesn’t exist, similar to your logic. And yes, you are that simple.
Hmm, that’s funny. I thought “corporate personhood” has been a legal reality in the United States at least since 1819, with the Supreme Court case Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, with that concept expanding steadily ever since in a great many Supreme Court decisions. Silly me!
Hmm. Denies history … has no concept of law or legal precedent … can’t understand basic logic … defends the rights of corporations no matter the situation … Hmm. You’re one of those people who give Republicans a bad name, aren’t you?
no, it does not exist, it is simply your interpretation of it. And, wrong again, I am not a republican. Nice try.
…you’re just a twat
please cite “corporate personhood” in any Supreme Court decision. Good luck with that.
…waiting for Godot.
“The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”
Stated by Chief Justice Morrison Waite during the opening oral argument in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886).
One of many Supreme Court decisions that establish that corporations are extended the same legal status and protections as natural persons under US law.
I don’t see “corporate personhood”…I only see your interpretation in your last paragraph.
Well, you can lead a mentally challenged horse to water, but you can’t make that sucker drink, I guess.
Here’s a good starting point. You can go from there and do your own research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
yet another flaw in your pathetic, baseless argument: in 1886, the date that decision was made, there was no income tax on either corporations or individuals. Had you been the legal wizard you consider yourself, you would know that the passage of Income Tax coincided with the creation of its whore sister, the Federal Reserve Act.
and that was in 1913, for your edification.
Oh, so I’ve proven that “corporate personhood” exists to everyone living in the real world, but rather than admit that, you try to change the argument.
My argument was thus: if we accept that corporations are people (corporate personhood, which exists no matter how hard you try to deny it), that should extend to their responsibilities as well as their rights. I didn’t say the Supreme Court has RULED on that. Not even once did I say, or imply, that.
But, rather than admit that I was right about an established legal concept that anyone could look up, you try to change the argument so you can convince yourself you’ve somehow won and look smart to whoever shares your views.
Good job.
you have “proven” a proposition that didn’t exist in the time frame that you quote as legal precedent when there was no tax, either corporate or individual. Your argument is like saying “The earth is flat because Columbus wasn’t around in 200 bc.”
incidentally, if your premise was “if we accept corporations are people who already have paid taxes” then your argument may have some validation. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, and quit quoting Supreme Court decisions that were made before there were income taxes on either corporations or individuals.
So what you’re saying is that legal precedent should only apply to the context in which it was established, and NOT apply to new situations even if the same legal precedent applies?
By that logic, electronic documents are not protected by the Fourth Amendment because the Fourth Amendment mentions “papers,” and electronic documents did not exist in the late 1700s.
Legal precedent gives guidelines for future cases that are similar in nature to past cases, even if the facts are not identical. That’s why it’s called legal “precedent.” And, if corporations have been treated as natural persons in EVERY SINGLE OTHER INSTANCE over the course of the last 190-some years, why wouldn’t the same legal precedent apply?
(Also, by your logic, electronic documents are not protected by the Fourth Amendment because electronic documents are not “papers” and did not exist in the late 1700s.)
I’m saying what is obvious to anyone who can read: our argument is over whether “corporation personhood” exists as a legal precedent regarding taxation. I posit that your argument is invalid because the Supreme Court precedents you quote were before corporate and individual income taxes existed. I cannot make English anymore cogent and lucid. If you want to continue to debate an argument you have already lost, please go buy a six pack of cheap beer and go to your local bar and continue there with the locals. Thanks.
I apologize in advance for including the electronic documents comment twice. I thought I’d removed it, and didn’t proof read. Whoopsie!
maybe Joan Rivers will buy you a drink.
botvinnik is apparently right about ONE thing. (Not about the corporate personhood part.)
Apparently there was no personal income tax betwen 1873 and 1894, when
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson-Gorman_tariff
passed.
correction: between 1789 and 1913…corporate “personhood” cannot exist based on arguments cited by Supreme Court decisions made before those taxes ever existed. Also, the moon is not made of cheese as witnessed by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.
If, in ALL OTHER CASES, a corporation is treated as a person, with the same rights as a natural person, then why would the legal precedent set in the 1800s and built upon by dozens of other cases in the intervening years, not be valid just because income tax wasn’t passed until the 1900s?
Your argument is that legal precedent shouldn’t create a natural extension to include an aspect of personhood that did not exist. Your argument, in essence, is to disregard the entire CONCEPT of legal precedent because YOU don’t like it.
My argument is that, if in ALL OTHER CASES A = B, then A = B in this case as well. Your argument has been:
First, that the legal concept doesn’t exist (which it clearly does).
Second, that because ONE case I cited to prove a longstanding legal precedent regarding corporate personhood (the concept which you, at first, claimed does not exist in any form) took place before income tax, somehow that has bearing on this argument.
Third, that legal precedent doesn’t apply in this one case the way it would to any other.
Fourth and finally, that if you attack me enough as a person, it will somehow make you right.
For the record, if you go alllllll the way back to my first post, I was saying that either corporations should be taxed under corporate personhood, or that we should do away with corporate personhood as it exists today. I would be fine with corporations not having to pay taxes–if they were to be stripped of the legal rights that should be exclusive to natural persons.
shut up.
You’re a very mature, intelligent individual. It has been a pleasure debating with you in such a rational manner, with both sides presenting facts to support their claims and treating each other with respect.
I wish you the best in your future endeavors, worthy adversary.
thanks, back at ya’.
I enjoyed whoopin’ your ass.
You are just wasting your time arguing with botvinnik, Doc. He just wants to argue for the sake of arguing. He has a closed mind and is not interested in learning. People who can read and comprehend logic understand your position on corporations. Corporations were intended to be simply legal entities established for the purpose of defining legal liability for an organization owned by multiple owners – shareholders. The modern interpretation of corporations as people was one of the stupidest rulings by the SCOTUS ever.
As far as taxation goes, I would be willing to consider ending taxation of corporations. But workers would have to be paid more in order to cover the additional taxes inevitably levied on individuals in order to compensate for the loss of corporate taxes. There is no such thing as a free lunch. It appears to me that botvinnik clings to a variety of positions without fully understanding the consequences of those changes.
Building on the idea of focusing taxes on the individual, a value-added tax of some type would b preferable to the current tax system.
Thanks for your insightful contribution, Mr. Class Act.
anytime, stupidest motherfucker that ever lived.
Your name-calling post does not expect illustrate that you are a hate-filled jerk, who has NO respect for anything or anybody that doesn’t fit with your current opinions.
hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|
noun ( pl. hypocrisies )
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.
ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French ypocrisie, via ecclesiastical Latin, from Greek hupokrisis ‘acting of a theatrical part,’ from hupokrinesthai ‘play a part, pretend,’ from hupo ‘under’ + krinein ‘decide, judge.’
Botvinnik sucks donkey dicks.
That is a comment botvinnik can comprehend.
Corporations are NOT people. They are legal entities.
People have the right to vote.
Corporations do not.
Besides, Corporations DO NOT PAY taxes…ever. The money necessary to “pay taxes” comes from the PEOPLE that buy its products.
Anybody that thinks otherwise are victims of a class war instigated by politicians that make hay over the issue.
right.
Except in the case of counterfeiters, the money that natural persons use to pay income taxes also comes from the PEOPLE who buy their products, labor, or the use of their capital. It is no different in the case of non-biological entities/persons like corporations. To claim that corporations don’t pay taxes because they charge extra to their consumers to cover the cost of taxation makes as much sense as to say that pipefitters don’t pay taxes because they negotiate wages high enough to pay their taxes along with their other expenses.
In both cases, somebody is contributing to the cost of providing necessary social services like national defense, police, infrastructure, and so forth. The only countries without taxes are places like Somalia that have no social services or public order. I don’t fancy living under anarchy.
In a fair taxation system, everybody pays a fair share. To do that, the government taxes profits earned by each person (natural or not) active in the economy. The people who paid the taxpayer and the people the taxpayer pays should (and usually do) pay taxes themselves on their individual profits. So, if I invest in a sole proprietorship owned by a natural person, both the business owner and I expect to pay taxes on our income. Why should it be different if the business is owned by a corporate person? The whole point of a corporation is to create a separate entity that will shield the stockholders from liability for corporate debts and torts. Why should they get the advantage of claiming that the entity is separate for liability purposes but not for tax purposes?
That is not to say that Apple UK should be paying income taxes, not because they are a corporation that should be exempt from taxation, but because that particular corporation has no profits to tax. In essence, it buys products from Apple Europe and then sells them in Britain at cost + expenses. I will note that Apple UK does pay Value Added Tax, property taxes, and payroll taxes on the same basis as any other company in its line of business, so it is not accurate to say that it pays no taxes or that it is a freeloader on British social services.
boy, British social services…there’s something that people all around the world get up at 4am to get in line because they cannot WAIT for their next gem of genius.
hey dickhead, you want more income for “British social services”?…first get rid of that Queen bitch and her useless progeny that suck the British working man dry.
if she wasn’t so goddamn ugly, perhaps she could get a job at McDonald’s…wake the hell up, even the French have figured that out.
One of the single greatest achievements of the UK has been it’s social services, primarily the NHS. (National Health Service). And yes pal, people from all over the world come to this country for treatment, because they cannot get treated at home.
fuck off, serf.
My suggestion is that you move to Somalia–no government, no taxes, and no electricity, so you won’t be exposed to the wicked ideas circulating in civilized places.
Think of the UK in the same way Apple thinks of its iTunes store. For everything sold in the market place created by iTunes, Apple expects its cut of 30% of the sale price. The UK is a market from which Apple makes a lot of money, so they should pay for using that marketplace in the same way.
Should the artists and programmers who make 70% of the profits on iTunes pay The Goddamn Fucking Parasite Queen And Her Gene-Shallow Progeny taxes too?
The Queens does not really have any real world power, nor does she have any say in UK tax affairs. The Royal family, as much as they live on the wealth of the nation, do in fact contribute greatly to the UK economy.
Pretty good gig.
Apple, as well as others, sell their goods through Europe via Ireland, which has low taxes.
And Apple does not pay corporate taxes as it is paid from profits. Obviously, if Apple Ireland sells its goods with high margins to Apple UK, and Apple UK margins only big enough to cover direct Apple UK expenses, there is no base to collect corporate tax in UK as there is no free profit left once you deducted expenses.
There is nothing wrong with this practice, and there is no way how UK could possibly forbid it — not feasible.
Companies have the right to buy goods at any price they want, and they have the right to sell the goods at any price they want.
cue George Harrison, track one, Revolver.
Who here doesn’t avail himself of all the available deductions when he completes his tax return? It’s legal for you and it’s legal for Apple. If the government doesn’t like it, it should change the way the tax system works and NOT complain that someone (you or a corporation) is using the very deductions the government allows. So, STFU!
How about a sales tax holiday for a week for apple gear. Can you imagine the chaos?
Law cuts both ways. If you abide by criminal law you’re a good citizen. If you abide by tax law you should BURN in HELL for NOT PAYING MORE than the LAW REQUIRES YOU TO!
Laws apply irrespective of political climate. If politicians don’t like it they should change the law or quit bitching.
It was only a few short years ago that politicians were entirely comfortable with tax avoidance.
How things change when the credit boom bubble bursts.
Just pay a little taxes and get over with it.