A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Apple may owe Ireland 10 YEARS of back-taxes. Notice dickhead CEO isn't wearing jeans here!!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old November 1st 15, 12:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Apple may owe Ireland 10 YEARS of back-taxes. Notice dickhead CEO isn't wearing jeans here!!

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:59:18 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 10:59:26 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:24:28 +0000, sid wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

2% is next to zero when you compare it to the 35% they should be paying in
the US. You'll have to remind me of your answer to the question as you
appear to have written it in invisible ink.

But why should they be paying tax in the US?

Do they not make any profits in the US?


Yes, and they also have expenses in the US. And they do pay tax in the
US.

They didn't make their products in the US.

There are no Apple factories in the US?


There are some, but they are also made in China, Ireland and various
parts of Europe.

They didn't make their profits in the US.

What, none of them?


The profits on which they don't pay tax in the US are not made in the
US.


Wait a minute. If Apple makes a device in China, or has a device made
in China, brings that device into this country, and sells that device,
that revenue becomes part of their taxable income in the US.

It doesn't make any difference if the device is manufactured in the US
or in China if it's sold in the US by Apple.

True, but if China's taxes are lower, I bet that products made in
China will be sold on to the US organisation at a premium price.
Further, a considerable volume of the products made in China will be
sold (and generate profits) in countries other than the US. It is
these products not made in the US and not sold in the US of which I
said "The profits on which they don't pay tax in the US are not made
in the US."
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #102  
Old November 1st 15, 01:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Apple may owe Ireland 10 YEARS of back-taxes. Notice dickhead CEOisn't wearing jeans here!!

On 10/31/2015 6:59 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:


snip


It doesn't make any difference if the device is manufactured in the US
or in China if it's sold in the US by Apple.


Too simplistic,
If a US based company has a widget manufactured in China and sold in
Japan for a gain, some portion of the gain on that sale will be taxable
in the US. The trick is to allocate as much of the gain as possible to
lower tax jurisdictions.
The above is much easier said than done. To properly advise a client,
the individual, in addition to understanding the client's business, the
tax Code and regulations in every jurisdiction in which the client does
business, he must have a good working knowledge of the tax treaties in
effect and each jurisdiction's interpretation of its own code and the
applicable treaties.


--
PeterN
  #103  
Old November 1st 15, 01:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Apple may owe Ireland 10 YEARS of back-taxes. Notice dickhead CEO isn't wearing jeans here!!

On 2015-11-01 00:09:56 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/31/2015 6:59 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
snip

It doesn't make any difference if the device is manufactured in the US
or in China if it's sold in the US by Apple.


Too simplistic,
If a US based company has a widget manufactured in China and sold in
Japan for a gain, some portion of the gain on that sale will be taxable
in the US. The trick is to allocate as much of the gain as possible to
lower tax jurisdictions.
The above is much easier said than done. To properly advise a client,
the individual, in addition to understanding the client's business, the
tax Code and regulations in every jurisdiction in which the client does
business, he must have a good working knowledge of the tax treaties in
effect and each jurisdiction's interpretation of its own code and the
applicable treaties.


How about when a US customer such as Verizon buys Apple products
manufactured in China, and which are delivered directly to Verizon from
China.
Is the profit reflected on the Apple China books, and not taxable in
the US, or does Apple Cupertino act as a broker between Apple China and
Verizon reflecting another trade step taxable by the Feds?
Would the dealings between the Asian Apple and Cupertino be an internal
accounting transaction, or or would there be a taxable profit
calculated for Cupertino?

This all seems somewhat Byzantine.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #104  
Old November 1st 15, 09:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Apple may owe Ireland 10 YEARS of back-taxes. Notice dickhead CEO isn't wearing jeans here!!

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:57 +0000, sid wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:


They haven't moved their profits to the US. As for the 2%, Ireland is
free to set whatever tax rate they like.

Well there's the thing, Ireland are not free to to give state aid to
companies, it's against the law.


Whose law?


EU

You have to realise that the world is a hell of a lot bigger than the
USA.


check the time zone I post from.


Your header is:
--------------------------------------------
Path: not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Message-ID:
From: sid
User-Agent: KNode/4.14.5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Subject: Apple may owe Ireland 10 YEARS of back-taxes. Notice
dickhead CEO isn't wearing jeans here!!
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References:










Lines: 19
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.14.96.137
X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com
X-Trace: 1446333358 82.14.96.137 (Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:58 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:58 UTC
Organization: virginmedia.com
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:57 +0000
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1155285146
X-Received-Bytes: 1905
----------------------------------------------

I may be dumb, but I can't see how to work out your time zone from
that. What am I missing?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #105  
Old November 1st 15, 09:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
sid[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default Apple may owe Ireland 10 YEARS of back-taxes. Notice dickhead CEO isn't wearing jeans here!!

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:57 +0000, sid wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:


They haven't moved their profits to the US. As for the 2%, Ireland is
free to set whatever tax rate they like.

Well there's the thing, Ireland are not free to to give state aid to
companies, it's against the law.

Whose law?


EU

You have to realise that the world is a hell of a lot bigger than the
USA.


check the time zone I post from.


Your header is:
--------------------------------------------
Path: not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Message-ID:
From: sid



X-Trace: 1446333358 82.14.96.137 (Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:58 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:58 UTC


Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:57 +0000


----------------------------------------------

I may be dumb, but I can't see how to work out your time zone from
that. What am I missing?


There, I've removed a few lines above to make it a bit clearer.

--
sid
  #106  
Old November 1st 15, 05:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Apple may owe Ireland 10 YEARS of back-taxes. Notice dickhead CEOisn't wearing jeans here!!

On 10/31/2015 8:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-11-01 00:09:56 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/31/2015 6:59 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
snip

It doesn't make any difference if the device is manufactured in the US
or in China if it's sold in the US by Apple.


Too simplistic,
If a US based company has a widget manufactured in China and sold in
Japan for a gain, some portion of the gain on that sale will be
taxable in the US. The trick is to allocate as much of the gain as
possible to lower tax jurisdictions.
The above is much easier said than done. To properly advise a client,
the individual, in addition to understanding the client's business,
the tax Code and regulations in every jurisdiction in which the client
does business, he must have a good working knowledge of the tax
treaties in effect and each jurisdiction's interpretation of its own
code and the applicable treaties.


How about when a US customer such as Verizon buys Apple products
manufactured in China, and which are delivered directly to Verizon from
China.
Is the profit reflected on the Apple China books, and not taxable in the
US, or does Apple Cupertino act as a broker between Apple China and
Verizon reflecting another trade step taxable by the Feds?
Would the dealings between the Asian Apple and Cupertino be an internal
accounting transaction, or or would there be a taxable profit calculated
for Cupertino?

The short answer is that Apple China's profit is not fully taxable in
the US. It may or may not be partially taxable in the US.

Here is a 29 page guide to the issues and resources involved in
answering your question.

NB Not included is the private letter rulings. (A PLR only affects the
applicant. No other entity may rely on it.)

I used to do the US-international tax work for a Swiss company,
privately held by German nationals, that sold products manufactured in
Germany, from components made of materials supplied by wholly and
partially owned subsidiaries located in three different countries. These
German manufactured products were sold in the US through a wholly owned
US subsidiary. All service marks and patents were owned by the German
nationals through a separate, wholly owned entity, located in a tax free
jurisdiction. I should add that the partially owned subsidiaries
mentioned above were in reality wholly owned. The partial ownership was
only to comply with the laws of other jurisdictions, restricting
non-resident ownership.



This all seems somewhat Byzantine.


I would have said bizarre.


--
PeterN
  #107  
Old November 1st 15, 05:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Apple may owe Ireland 10 YEARS of back-taxes. Notice dickhead CEOisn't wearing jeans here!!

On 10/31/2015 9:22 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:09:56 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 10/31/2015 6:59 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:


snip


It doesn't make any difference if the device is manufactured in the US
or in China if it's sold in the US by Apple.


Too simplistic,
If a US based company has a widget manufactured in China and sold in
Japan for a gain, some portion of the gain on that sale will be taxable
in the US. The trick is to allocate as much of the gain as possible to
lower tax jurisdictions.


Wouldn't that depend on the corporate structure of the seller? Let's
say American Widget, Inc, a Delaware corporation, wants to make a
product in China and sell it in Japan. I would think, then, that
American Widget, Inc would then create a corporation based in some
other country with a favorable tax structure to do this. It would be
something like American Widget (Macau),LLC.

It wouldn't make sense to have the parent company doing it.

Yep! That's why we have transfer pricing rules, an why I said your
original statement was too simplistic.


--
PeterN
  #108  
Old November 1st 15, 05:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Apple may owe Ireland 10 YEARS of back-taxes. Notice dickhead CEOisn't wearing jeans here!!

On 11/1/2015 11:12 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 10/31/2015 8:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-11-01 00:09:56 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/31/2015 6:59 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
snip

It doesn't make any difference if the device is manufactured in the US
or in China if it's sold in the US by Apple.

Too simplistic,
If a US based company has a widget manufactured in China and sold in
Japan for a gain, some portion of the gain on that sale will be
taxable in the US. The trick is to allocate as much of the gain as
possible to lower tax jurisdictions.
The above is much easier said than done. To properly advise a client,
the individual, in addition to understanding the client's business,
the tax Code and regulations in every jurisdiction in which the client
does business, he must have a good working knowledge of the tax
treaties in effect and each jurisdiction's interpretation of its own
code and the applicable treaties.


How about when a US customer such as Verizon buys Apple products
manufactured in China, and which are delivered directly to Verizon from
China.
Is the profit reflected on the Apple China books, and not taxable in the
US, or does Apple Cupertino act as a broker between Apple China and
Verizon reflecting another trade step taxable by the Feds?
Would the dealings between the Asian Apple and Cupertino be an internal
accounting transaction, or or would there be a taxable profit calculated
for Cupertino?

The short answer is that Apple China's profit is not fully taxable in
the US. It may or may not be partially taxable in the US.

Here is a 29 page guide to the issues and resources involved in
answering your question.

NB Not included is the private letter rulings. (A PLR only affects the
applicant. No other entity may rely on it.)

I used to do the US-international tax work for a Swiss company,
privately held by German nationals, that sold products manufactured in
Germany, from components made of materials supplied by wholly and
partially owned subsidiaries located in three different countries. These
German manufactured products were sold in the US through a wholly owned
US subsidiary. All service marks and patents were owned by the German
nationals through a separate, wholly owned entity, located in a tax free
jurisdiction. I should add that the partially owned subsidiaries
mentioned above were in reality wholly owned. The partial ownership was
only to comply with the laws of other jurisdictions, restricting
non-resident ownership.



This all seems somewhat Byzantine.


I would have said bizarre.


I forgot to include the link.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/int_practice_units/ISO9411_02_01.pdf

--
PeterN
  #109  
Old November 1st 15, 08:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Apple may owe Ireland 10 YEARS of back-taxes. Notice dickhead CEO isn't wearing jeans here!!

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 08:50:16 +0000, sid wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:57 +0000, sid wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:


They haven't moved their profits to the US. As for the 2%, Ireland is
free to set whatever tax rate they like.

Well there's the thing, Ireland are not free to to give state aid to
companies, it's against the law.

Whose law?

EU

You have to realise that the world is a hell of a lot bigger than the
USA.

check the time zone I post from.


Your header is:
--------------------------------------------
Path: not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Message-ID:
From: sid



X-Trace: 1446333358 82.14.96.137 (Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:58 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:58 UTC


Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:57 +0000


----------------------------------------------

I may be dumb, but I can't see how to work out your time zone from
that. What am I missing?


There, I've removed a few lines above to make it a bit clearer.


Yes, I have studied the date and time information but came to no
definitively useful conclusion.

How about an explanation?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #110  
Old November 1st 15, 09:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Apple may owe Ireland 10 YEARS of back-taxes. Notice dickhead CEO isn't wearing jeans here!!

On 2015-11-01 19:48:26 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 08:50:16 +0000, sid wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:57 +0000, sid wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

They haven't moved their profits to the US. As for the 2%, Ireland is
free to set whatever tax rate they like.

Well there's the thing, Ireland are not free to to give state aid to
companies, it's against the law.

Whose law?

EU

You have to realise that the world is a hell of a lot bigger than the
USA.

check the time zone I post from.

Your header is:
--------------------------------------------
Path: not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Message-ID:
From: sid



X-Trace: 1446333358 82.14.96.137 (Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:58 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:58 UTC


Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:15:57 +0000


----------------------------------------------

I may be dumb, but I can't see how to work out your time zone from
that. What am I missing?


There, I've removed a few lines above to make it a bit clearer.


Yes, I have studied the date and time information but came to no
definitively useful conclusion.

How about an explanation?


I think the answer is, neither one of you lives in the USA, or is a US
citizen, and familiarity with the US tax code for both of you is based
on online reading, hearsay, and speculation.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
***Save money on your taxes**** mailjob1 Digital Photography 0 February 13th 07 02:37 AM
***Save money on your taxes**** mailjob1 Digital Photography 0 February 11th 07 04:20 AM
The New Crime: Wearing Syndrome Survival Kit marika Other Photographic Equipment 0 October 1st 06 06:19 PM
Taxes & Customs [email protected] Digital Photography 5 January 26th 06 12:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.