On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 06:23:13 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Next you will be claiming that swiss bank accounts
have nothing whatever to do with tax fraud.

First, it was Australia, then Italy and now Switzerland. I think
you're only here to try and score points.

So good luck with that!

MM

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 06:10:35 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

MM wrote
newshound wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I have never avoided tax completely like Amazon, Apple etc do all the
time.

They don't do it all the time. They pay VAT,
NIC, Road Tax, and Income Tax for a start.

And they employ large numbers of British workers who pay tax!
And sell to even larger numbers of British consumers who pay VAT!

And operations like Apple and Sky should be paying
corporate income tax on their massive profits as well.

All hail to the Amazons of this world.

You're a fool.

Ooh, that hurt!

MM

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:23:03 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
MM wrote:
How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere to the tax
laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed in such a way that
legal loopholes are created,

It isnt a legal loophole,

Are they breaking any *law*?

Er, no they are NOT! Therefore all they are doing is exploiting a
legal loophole just like you do when you talk to your accountant about
saving tax. No one *donates* tax, which is what that silly woman
Margaret Hodge seems to want from big corporations.

But can you be sure they ain't breaking any law? For that you'd need
access to all their accounts world wide and an army of accountants to
check them.

You reckon HMRC haven't checked already?

It remains a fact that most would expect a company trading in the UK to
pay UK taxes, rather than shift money round the world in some form of
creative accounting. Remember if such companies avoid paying UK tax, the
burden becomes that much greater for those who do pay it.

"creative" accounting simply means sticking to the letter of the law.

MM

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:23:27 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
MM wrote:
How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere to the tax
laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed in such a way that
legal loopholes are created,

It isnt a legal loophole,

Are they breaking any *law*?

Er, no they are NOT! Therefore all they are doing is exploiting a
legal loophole just like you do when you talk to your accountant about
saving tax. No one *donates* tax, which is what that silly woman
Margaret Hodge seems to want from big corporations.

But can you be sure they ain't breaking any law? For that you'd need
access to all their accounts world wide and an army of accountants to
check them.

HMRC can always demand to audit them.

Exactly.

It remains a fact that most would expect a company trading in the UK to
pay UK taxes,

They do pay UK taxes, so what is your problem.

Envy. Sour grapes.

rather than shift money round the world in some form of
creative accounting.

If it's legal, what is your problem.

Exactly.

Remember if such companies avoid paying UK tax, the
burden becomes that much greater for those who do pay it.

That's true for any entity which avoids tax, whether an individual or a
corporation.

I've asked before and I'll ask again, in case one of you smoke-blowers
can enlighten me: if a company submits its tax return and the Revenue
is happy, just what are you expecting to happen? That the company
decides to pay a larger amount than the tax bill says? How much bigger?
In which country? Who decides how much bigger?

That's what Margaret Hodge keeps wittering on about. About how awful
these companies are for not paying their "fair share".

Starbucks even offered to donate tax voluntarily to shut her up, even
though they weren't obliged to.

MM

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 07:30:39 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-01-04, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

[37 lines snipped]

I've asked before and I'll ask again, in case one of you smoke-blowers
can enlighten me: if a company submits its tax return and the Revenue
is happy, just what are you expecting to happen? That the company
decides to pay a larger amount than the tax bill says? How much bigger?
In which country? Who decides how much bigger?

Also bear in mind that such behaviour may well be against the law.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Also ask the smoke-blowers how much extra they sent the Exchequer last
year. I've never had an answer that amounts to anything other than
"none".

Don’t need to send any extra when you haven't been defrauding the tax
system.

Okay, Clever Clogs, tell us, with cites, when Amazon (for example) was
prosecuted for tax fraud.

MM

On 4 Jan 2016 22:55:14 GMT, Mike Lander wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2016-01-04, Mike Lander wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

[21 lines snipped]

HMRC can always demand to audit them.

But can do nothing about the lie Apple tells about what the hardware they
sell costs them.

You can prove this, can't you?

Yep. That's the only way quite literally hundreds of billions of bucks
ended up in Ireland where they sell only a tiny subset of their devices at
the retail level.

You're such a keen advocate of persecution, so why not offer to join
Irish Tax and Customs? You could even move to Ireland,given the
freedom of movement this wonderful EU allows every citizen.

MM

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:53:45 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

If ever the UK is ****ing stupid enough to leave the EU

Don't put it past the braindead kipper fraternity in the UK. They
don't like being "ruled by Brussels", dontcha know!

Oh, for curved bananas again!

MM

MM wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Next you will be claiming that swiss bank accounts
have nothing whatever to do with tax fraud.

First, it was Australia, then Italy and now Switzerland.

Because they have all had the balls to do
something about the tax cheats like Apple.

I think you're only here to try and score points.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

So good luck with that!

Good luck with your desperate attempt to justify tax fraud.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 18:42:44 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

And lets not have any twaddle about how Norway has to implement all the
EU rules anyway. It may have to in order to access the Common Market,
but that's another story.

But it's a pretty significant part of the story if your economy
depends on it.

Our economy will turn to **** if the Farage fan clubbers get their
way.

Oh, and what I heard recently is that Norway doesn't just have to
implement the rules WITHOUT having a voice in Brussels, it also has to
pay a considerable sum to the EU! And that from a nation with only 5
million people. Imagine how much Britain with its 66 million would
still have to contribute.

Note that EEA states have

- No veto in the European Council
- No votes in the Council of Ministers -- where national governments
vote on EU legislation
- No MEPs or votes in the European Parliament
- No European Commissioner and no European Commission staff
- No judges or staff at the European Court of Justice (ECJ)

MM

MM wrote
Rod Speed wrote
MM wrote
newshound wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I have never avoided tax completely like
Amazon, Apple etc do all the time.

They don't do it all the time. They pay VAT,
NIC, Road Tax, and Income Tax for a start.

And they employ large numbers of British workers who pay tax!
And sell to even larger numbers of British consumers who pay VAT!

And operations like Apple and Sky should be paying
corporate income tax on their massive profits as well.

All hail to the Amazons of this world.

You're a fool.

Ooh, that hurt!

Great, do the decent thing and top yourself.

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 20:58:59 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 20:50:28 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

Erm, yes there is. The clue is in the name. That is "European *Union*"
vs. "European *Free* *Trade* *Area*". We didn't sign up to, and don't
want, "ever closer union".

Time will tell on that don't want claim. Bet the majority vote to stay
in the EU.

There's a poll out today. UKIP's highest rating on anything is on
migration - 29% think they're the party best placed to deal with that
subject.

Which, of course, means 71% don't.

Meanwhile, Nigel Farage's "assassination attempt" claims over his car
wheels being "loosened deliberately" is starting to look like something
Volvo recalled V70s for, five years ago.

After his alacrity with which he re-assumed control after resigning in
high dudgeon, I believe that man will say anything for a good
headline. His life revolves around soundbites.

MM

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 06:54:33 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

MM wrote
soup wrote
MM wrote

How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere to the tax
laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed in such a way that
legal loopholes are created, then I would recommend anyone to use
them.

I never stated nor implied that what they were doing was in
anyway illegal. Immoral (in my opinion yes) but not illegal.

You can't be convicted of that! In my opinion, giving extra to the
revenue is immoral.

More fool you.

Despite what Lord Clyde says to avoid tax to that extent is immoral.

I agree that taking advantage of loopholes has been
going on for years^W as long as laws have existed, but
that does not mean people/companies should do it .

Why on earth not?

Because someone else has to pay what those tax cheats
don't given that govt keeps adjusting the tax system to
raise the revenue that needs to be raised or runs up even
bigger deficits that we all have to pay for when they do.

With multinationals that can shift their costs anywhere
they like, its just not possible to have legislation that
forces them to pay the income tax where the profits
are actually produced.

So what's your solution, then? Please tell us so we can pass it on to
HMRC, as they definitely cannot have a clue in your eyes.

MM

MM wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
MM wrote:
Rod Speed wrote

How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere
to the tax laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed
in such a way that legal loopholes are created,

It isnt a legal loophole,

Are they breaking any *law*?

Er, no they are NOT! Therefore all they are doing is exploiting a
legal loophole just like you do when you talk to your accountant
about saving tax. No one *donates* tax, which is what that silly
woman Margaret Hodge seems to want from big corporations.

But can you be sure they ain't breaking any law? For
that you'd need access to all their accounts world
wide and an army of accountants to check them.

You reckon HMRC haven't checked already?

The problem is that they can tell any lie they
like about the cost of their major inputs.

It remains a fact that most would expect a company trading in the UK to
pay UK taxes, rather than shift money round the world in some form of
creative accounting. Remember if such companies avoid paying UK tax,
the burden becomes that much greater for those who do pay it.

"creative" accounting simply means sticking to the letter of the law.

It actually means telling bare faced lies about the cost of their major
inputs with operations like Apple and Amazon so they show no profit
in the jurisdictions that have the higher income tax rates and claim to
make all their profits in some pimple on the arse of the first world like
Ireland and Luxemburg where they actually do **** all business.

And you are actually stupid enough to see nothing wrong with that.

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 07:30:39 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-01-04, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

[37 lines snipped]

I've asked before and I'll ask again, in case one of you smoke-blowers
can enlighten me: if a company submits its tax return and the Revenue
is happy, just what are you expecting to happen? That the company
decides to pay a larger amount than the tax bill says? How much bigger?
In which country? Who decides how much bigger?

Also bear in mind that such behaviour may well be against the law.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Also ask the smoke-blowers how much extra they sent the Exchequer last
year. I've never had an answer that amounts to anything other than
"none".

Don't need to send any extra when you haven't been defrauding the tax
system.

Okay, Clever Clogs, tell us, with cites, when
Amazon (for example) was prosecuted for tax fraud.

No point, you'll just claim that is totally
irrelevant like you did with Apple and Italy.

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 07:50:23 -0800 (PST), RobertL
wrote:

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:12:06 AM UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
The AA seem to be the experts at opening vehicles without expensive damage
as they have a database of keys and how to create one.


When the AA opened my car (keys locked inside) he asked me to look away as he did it. It took him about 15 seconds.

That's when a Seebackroscope could come in handy.

"Wait a mo, Mr AA Man, I've got something in my eye."

MM

MM wrote
Adrian wrote

If ever the UK is ****ing stupid enough to leave the EU

Don't put it past the braindead kipper fraternity in the UK.

There aren't anything like enough of those to get that result.

They don't like being "ruled by Brussels", dontcha know!

Oh, for curved bananas again!

MM wrote
Tim Streater wrote

And lets not have any twaddle about how Norway
has to implement all the EU rules anyway. It may
have to in order to access the Common Market,

No it does not.

but that's another story.

But it's a pretty significant part of the
story if your economy depends on it.

Norway's doesn't.

Our economy will turn to **** if the
Farage fan clubbers get their way.

Odd that Norway's hasn't.

Oh, and what I heard recently is that Norway
doesn't just have to implement the rules

It doesn't have to do that either.

WITHOUT having a voice in Brussels, it also
has to pay a considerable sum to the EU!

That is a bare faced lie.
http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financia.../#.VouBGWcVjb0

And that from a nation with only 5 million people.
Imagine how much Britain with its 66 million would
still have to contribute.

Norway doesn't HAVE to contribute a cent.

Note that EEA states have

- No veto in the European Council
- No votes in the Council of Ministers -- where
national governments vote on EU legislation
- No MEPs or votes in the European Parliament
- No European Commissioner and no European Commission staff
- No judges or staff at the European Court of Justice (ECJ)

They have clearly decide that they don't
care enough about that stuff to join the EU.

Their choice.

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 06:54:33 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

MM wrote
soup wrote
MM wrote

How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere to the tax
laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed in such a way that
legal loopholes are created, then I would recommend anyone to use
them.

I never stated nor implied that what they were doing was in
anyway illegal. Immoral (in my opinion yes) but not illegal.

You can't be convicted of that! In my opinion, giving extra to the
revenue is immoral.

More fool you.

Despite what Lord Clyde says to avoid tax to that extent is immoral.

I agree that taking advantage of loopholes has been
going on for years^W as long as laws have existed, but
that does not mean people/companies should do it .

Why on earth not?

Because someone else has to pay what those tax cheats
don't given that govt keeps adjusting the tax system to
raise the revenue that needs to be raised or runs up even
bigger deficits that we all have to pay for when they do.

With multinationals that can shift their costs anywhere
they like, its just not possible to have legislation that
forces them to pay the income tax where the profits
are actually produced.

So what's your solution, then?

There is no solution. If there was, it would have been adopted.

Please tell us so we can pass it on to HMRC, as
they definitely cannot have a clue in your eyes.

There is nothing they can do when operations like Apple
and Starbucks can claim any costs they like on their main
costs to shift their profit to low corporate tax countrys
where they actually do **** all retail business.

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:08:04 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

HMRC can always demand to audit them.

But can do nothing about the lie Apple tells about what the hardware
they sell costs them.

You can prove this, can't you?

Yep. That's the only way quite literally hundreds of billions of bucks
ended up in Ireland where they sell only a tiny subset of their
devices at the retail level.

sigh It's really not a very hard concept,

Yep, clearly too much for you tho. Look up profit shifting some time.

One of us clearly understands the reality far better than the other here.

Clue: It's not you.

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 08:34:23 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

And they lie about what the hardware costs them.

Got any evidence for your scurrilous allegation?

There is no other was for Apple to end with quite literally hundreds of
billions of bucks in Ireland.

Ohfertheloveofgawd

Not even possible when they can claim anything they like about their
main costs.

So how do YOU know what their costs are? Are you their auditor?

Don't need to be when we know their stuff is made in China.

OK, let's go through this slowly...

Nice and simple pared-down version:
A company makes something for a global brand.
That global brand sells it to regional distributors.
Those regional distributors sell it directly to customers through their
own shops and mail-order.

Is there anything, anywhere in the world, apart from the basic laws of
supply and demand, which governs what price is charged at any of those
steps? No.

If the regional distributor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the global
company, then the price at that step can be higher - and more profit will
be made by the parent - or lower - and more profit can be made by the
subsidiary. Is that illegal? No.

Profit is made by the regional distributor, it is taxed in that
distributor's home country.
Profit is made by the global brand, it is taxed in that brand's home
country.

So - where, in any of that, do "lies" and illegality come in?

"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...

**** off jack

Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 08:34:23 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

And they lie about what the hardware costs them.

Got any evidence for your scurrilous allegation?

There is no other was for Apple to end with quite literally hundreds of
billions of bucks in Ireland.

Ohfertheloveofgawd

Not even possible when they can claim anything they like about their
main costs.

So how do YOU know what their costs are? Are you their auditor?

Don't need to be when we know their stuff is made in China.

OK, let's go through this slowly...

Nice and simple pared-down version:
A company makes something for a global brand.
That global brand sells it to regional distributors.
Those regional distributors sell it directly to customers through their
own shops and mail-order.

Is there anything, anywhere in the world, apart from the basic laws of
supply and demand, which governs what price is charged at any of those
steps? No.

And that is how they profit shift to the country with the lowest tax rates
and show no profit in the countries with the highest tax rates.

And that is why no tax collection authority can do anything about that tax
fraud.

If the regional distributor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the global
company, then the price at that step can be higher - and more profit will
be made by the parent - or lower - and more profit can be made by the
subsidiary. Is that illegal? No.

Profit is made by the regional distributor, it is taxed in that
distributor's home country.
Profit is made by the global brand, it is taxed in that brand's home
country.

So - where, in any of that, do "lies" and illegality come in?

The lie is that an operation like News operates out of the Bahamas and
Starbucks out of Luxembourg.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-01-05, MM wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 07:30:39 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-01-04, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

[37 lines snipped]

I've asked before and I'll ask again, in case one of you smoke-blowers
can enlighten me: if a company submits its tax return and the Revenue
is happy, just what are you expecting to happen? That the company
decides to pay a larger amount than the tax bill says? How much
bigger?
In which country? Who decides how much bigger?

Also bear in mind that such behaviour may well be against the law.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

**** off and die screaming, wodders. You do realise (you don't, of course
because you're an idiotic ****) that company directors are under a legal
obligation to "to promote the success of the company for the benefit
of its members" (Companies Act 2006). Note; "for its members". Not for
the Revenue.

Have fun listing even a single example of any company director
successfully prosecuted for not doing aggressive enough tax fraud.

Also ask the smoke-blowers how much extra they sent the Exchequer last
year. I've never had an answer that amounts to anything other than
"none".

Dont need to send any extra when you haven't been defrauding the tax
system.

No-one's defrauding anyone.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

That's evasion, which is already illegal. What we're
talking about is "avoidance" which is perfectly legal.

Must be why Italy has just slapped Apple with an immense fine for doing it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35197547

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:29:29 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

And that is how they profit shift to the country with the lowest tax
rates and show no profit in the countries with the highest tax rates.

Yep. Without any "lying" or illegality involved.

And that is why no tax collection authority can do anything about that
tax fraud.

Well, yes, they can.

They can make it attractive for businesses to base themselves in that
country. Have a little google for the Laffer curve.

So - where, in any of that, do "lies" and illegality come in?

The lie is that an operation like News operates out of the Bahamas and
Starbucks out of Luxembourg.

I don't think the word "lie" means what you think it does.

Anyway... facts. I know, they're so inconvenient...

If by "News" you mean Murdoch's News Corp, then the parent is based in
the US and reports global profits in the US ($8.5bn in 2015), while the
European subsidiary is based in the UK and reports profits in the UK
(£50m in 2013, £3.5m loss in 2014).

And you might like to note that Starbucks parent is based in the US and
reports profits in the US ($3bn in 2014), while the European subsidiary
is based in NL - and the Dutch tax office has been found to be giving
them illegal state aid by cutting them a deal on their corptax rate
(along with Fiat-Chrysler's Luxembourg base, which is probably what
you're thinking of)

On 05/01/2016 08:17, MM wrote:
Oh, and what I heard recently is that Norway doesn't just have to
implement the rules WITHOUT having a voice in Brussels, it also has to
pay a considerable sum to the EU! And that from a nation with only 5
million people. Imagine how much Britain with its 66 million would
still have to contribute.

I don't know. Would it be more or less than Britain currently
contributes? We need numbers.

Andy

Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:29:29 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

And that is how they profit shift to the country with the lowest tax
rates and show no profit in the countries with the highest tax rates.

Yep. Without any "lying" or illegality involved.

You seriously believe that Apple makes no profit in Australia and that News
is only profitable in the Bahamas ?

And that is why no tax collection authority can do anything about that
tax fraud.

Well, yes, they can.

They can make it attractive for businesses to base themselves in that
country.

Just not possible to make Britain as attractive to News as the Bahamas.


Have a little google for the Laffer curve.

So - where, in any of that, do "lies" and illegality come in?

The lie is that an operation like News operates out of the Bahamas and
Starbucks out of Luxembourg.

I don't think the word "lie" means what you think it does.

Anyway... facts. I know, they're so inconvenient...

If by "News" you mean Murdoch's News Corp, then the parent is based in
the US and reports global profits in the US ($8.5bn in 2015), while the
European subsidiary is based in the UK and reports profits in the UK
(£50m in 2013, £3.5m loss in 2014).

And you might like to note that Starbucks parent is based in the US and
reports profits in the US ($3bn in 2014), while the European subsidiary
is based in NL - and the Dutch tax office has been found to be giving
them illegal state aid by cutting them a deal on their corptax rate
(along with Fiat-Chrysler's Luxembourg base, which is probably what
you're thinking of)

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 21:25:43 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

Oh, and what I heard recently is that Norway doesn't just have to
implement the rules WITHOUT having a voice in Brussels, it also has to
pay a considerable sum to the EU! And that from a nation with only 5
million people. Imagine how much Britain with its 66 million would
still have to contribute.

I don't know. Would it be more or less than Britain currently
contributes? We need numbers.

UK net contribution is £8.6bn/yr, or about £134 per capita, 0.47% of per
capita GDP.
Norwegian contribution to EEA and in EU-related grants is not easily and
directly comparable (and might easily be more, since it seems there are
some "unpublished" elements), but is around ‚¬1.6bn, or about £234 per
capita, 0.51% of per capita GDP.

So it's about 108% ours in terms of GDP share per capita, or about 175%
of ours in terms of actual cash per capita.

Yes, Norway pays more...

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 21:50:21 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

You seriously believe that Apple makes no profit in Australia

Apple appear to have paid AU$80m in Australian corptax on AU$170m after-
tax profits in 2014.

Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 21:25:43 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

Oh, and what I heard recently is that Norway doesn't just have to
implement the rules WITHOUT having a voice in Brussels, it also has to
pay a considerable sum to the EU! And that from a nation with only 5
million people. Imagine how much Britain with its 66 million would
still have to contribute.

I don't know. Would it be more or less than Britain currently
contributes? We need numbers.

UK net contribution is £8.6bn/yr, or about £134 per capita, 0.47% of per
capita GDP.
Norwegian contribution to EEA and in EU-related grants is not easily and
directly comparable (and might easily be more, since it seems there are
some "unpublished" elements), but is around ‚¬1.6bn, or about £234 per
capita, 0.51% of per capita GDP.

So it's about 108% ours in terms of GDP share per capita, or about 175%
of ours in terms of actual cash per capita.

Yes, Norway pays more...


But that is entirely voluntary with Norway so if Britain did leave the EU
it wouldn't have to do that.

Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 21:50:21 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

You seriously believe that Apple makes no profit in Australia

Apple appear to have paid AU$80m in Australian corptax on AU$170m after-
tax profits in 2014.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-0...evenue/5303426

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:19:24 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

You seriously believe that Apple makes no profit in Australia

Apple appear to have paid AU$80m in Australian corptax on AU$170m
after-tax profits in 2014.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-0...ins-how-apple-
pays-193m-tax-on-27b-revenue/5303426

sigh Revenue is not taxed. Profit is taxed.

Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:19:24 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

You seriously believe that Apple makes no profit in Australia

Apple appear to have paid AU$80m in Australian corptax on AU$170m
after-tax profits in 2014.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-0...ins-how-apple-
pays-193m-tax-on-27b-revenue/5303426

sigh Revenue is not taxed. Profit is taxed.


They clearly lied through their teeth about what profit they made on that
revenue. Their real costs were nothing like what they claimed.

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 19:31:15 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

sigh Revenue is not taxed. Profit is taxed.

They clearly lied through their teeth about what profit they made on
that revenue.

You do, I hope, realise that you're making a very serious claim of very
serious criminal offences?

Their real costs were nothing like what they claimed.

And you know this... how?

Remember, the "real costs" for the Australian subsidiary are those
charged to them by the global parent, _not_ what the parent pays for
manufacturing.

So all they need to do to disprove your claims is produce invoices. Which
will, of course, have already been done to the auditors.

Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 19:31:15 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

sigh Revenue is not taxed. Profit is taxed.

They clearly lied through their teeth about what profit they made on
that revenue.

You do, I hope, realise that you're making a very serious claim of very
serious criminal offences?

That Australian equivalent of the Financial Times did that and oddly enough
saw no legal action from Apple when they did.

Their real costs were nothing like what they claimed.

And you know this... how?

There is no other way to get a profit that sees them pay only 0.7% of
revenue at tax in that situation.


Remember, the "real costs" for the Australian subsidiary are those
charged to them by the global parent, _not_ what the parent pays for
manufacturing.

So all they need to do to disprove your claims is produce invoices. Which
will, of course, have already been done to the auditors.

Doesn't alter the fact that it's just another flagrant tax fraud.

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 23:45:51 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:


That Australian equivalent of the Financial Times did that and oddly
enough saw no legal action from Apple when they did.

Read that article. It's very long on waffle and supposition and
implication, but doesn't make half the claims you're doing.

Their real costs were nothing like what they claimed.

And you know this... how?

There is no other way to get a profit that sees them pay only 0.7% of
revenue at tax in that situation.

Once again, you DO NOT PAY TAX ON REVENUE. They are totally unrelated
numbers.

It's entirely possible to have a ****load of revenue - Amazon, a fine
example - and pay absolutely zero tax, because you make a loss.

Remember, the "real costs" for the Australian subsidiary are those
charged to them by the global parent, _not_ what the parent pays for
manufacturing.

So all they need to do to disprove your claims is produce invoices.
Which will, of course, have already been done to the auditors.

Doesn't alter the fact that it's just another flagrant tax fraud.

OK, glad that we've got to the bottom of it. You don't like it, so it
must be iffy. And you're quite happy to deny and bend reality to
demonstrate why.

Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 23:45:51 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:


That Australian equivalent of the Financial Times did that and oddly
enough saw no legal action from Apple when they did.

Read that article.

Already did that.

It's very long on waffle and supposition and
implication,

But makes the point that Apple claims a profit that sees them owe just 0.7%
of revenue in income tax. There is only one way to do that in that
situation, lie through their teeth about their costs.

but doesn't make half the claims you're doing.

Yes they do, using more careful language for what should be obvious
reasons.

Their real costs were nothing like what they claimed.

And you know this... how?

There is no other way to get a profit that sees them pay only 0.7% of
revenue at tax in that situation.

Once again, you DO NOT PAY TAX ON REVENUE. They are totally unrelated
numbers.

Like hell they are. The profit they pay tax on is the revenue less the
deductible costs of doing business.

It's entirely possible to have a ****load of revenue - Amazon, a fine
example - and pay absolutely zero tax, because you make a loss.

Apple doesn't make a loss on it's operations in Australia and is in fact
one of the most profitable operations in the entire world. There's a reason
they have quite literally hundreds of BILLIONS of cash in Ireland and
borrow in the US to pay dividends.

Remember, the "real costs" for the Australian subsidiary are those
charged to them by the global parent, _not_ what the parent pays for
manufacturing.

So all they need to do to disprove your claims is produce invoices.
Which will, of course, have already been done to the auditors.

Doesn't alter the fact that it's just another flagrant tax fraud.

OK, glad that we've got to the bottom of it. You don't like it, so it
must be iffy.

It's tax fraud because an operation like Apple doesn't end up with a profit
that sees them pay just 0.7% of revenue in income tax.

And you're quite happy to deny and bend reality to
demonstrate why.

You're the only one doing that.

Next you will be claiming that Swiss bank accounts are purely to protect
the privacy of the individuals who have them and they all declare all the
money in them to their tax authorities.

On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 09:33:27 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

But makes the point that Apple claims a profit that sees them owe just
0.7% of revenue in income tax.

Exactly.

There is only one way to do that in that situation, lie through their
teeth about their costs.

No. Unless, of course, you think every business that makes a loss is
fraudulent?

Once again, you DO NOT PAY TAX ON REVENUE. They are totally unrelated
numbers.

Like hell they are. The profit they pay tax on is the revenue less the
deductible costs of doing business.

You've never, ever run a business, have you?

Apple doesn't make a loss on it's operations in Australia and is in fact
one of the most profitable operations in the entire world.

And they paid AU$80m tax on AU$170m profit.

Once again, I ask you - you are either wilfully misrepresenting reality,
or you are utterly ****ing clueless. Which is it?

OK, so let's try a different tack.
What is the Australian corporation tax rate, as a percentage of revenue?
I think it's a flat 30% of _profit_, but you seem determined to view it
as a percentage of revenue, so I'm sure you can come up with that
calculation.

Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 09:33:27 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

But makes the point that Apple claims a profit that sees them owe just
0.7% of revenue in income tax.

Exactly.

There is only one way to do that in that situation, lie through their
teeth about their costs.

No. Unless, of course, you think every business that makes a loss is
fraudulent?

Apple doesn't make a loss in a place like Australia.

Once again, you DO NOT PAY TAX ON REVENUE. They are totally unrelated
numbers.

Like hell they are. The profit they pay tax on is the revenue less the
deductible costs of doing business.

You've never, ever run a business, have you?

I have actually.

Apple doesn't make a loss on it's operations in Australia and is in fact
one of the most profitable operations in the entire world.

And they paid AU$80m tax on AU$170m profit.

On a revenue of $27B

Once again, I ask you - you are either wilfully misrepresenting reality,
or you are utterly ****ing clueless. Which is it?

OK, so let's try a different tack.
What is the Australian corporation tax rate, as a percentage of revenue?

28.5-30%

I think it's a flat 30% of _profit_, but you seem determined to view it
as a percentage of revenue,

You're lying now.

so I'm sure you can come up with that
calculation.

On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 10:14:48 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

Once again, you DO NOT PAY TAX ON REVENUE. They are totally unrelated
numbers.

Like hell they are. The profit they pay tax on is the revenue less the
deductible costs of doing business.

You've never, ever run a business, have you?

I have actually.

Not very well, clearly.

OK, so let's try a different tack.
What is the Australian corporation tax rate, as a percentage of
revenue?

28.5-30%

Riiiight. So you don't actually know the difference between revenue and
profit...

I think it's a flat 30% of _profit_, but you seem determined to view it
as a percentage of revenue,

You're lying now.

Well, that's answered one question, anyway. You are terminally stupid.

Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 10:14:48 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

Once again, you DO NOT PAY TAX ON REVENUE. They are totally unrelated
numbers.

Like hell they are. The profit they pay tax on is the revenue less the
deductible costs of doing business.

You've never, ever run a business, have you?

I have actually.

Not very well, clearly.

Very well indeed actually.

OK, so let's try a different tack.
What is the Australian corporation tax rate, as a percentage of
revenue?

28.5-30%

Riiiight. So you don't actually know the difference between revenue and
profit...

You're lying, again.

I think it's a flat 30% of _profit_, but you seem determined to view it
as a percentage of revenue,

You're lying now.

Well, that's answered one question, anyway. You are terminally stupid.

All the governments that say that Apple, Amazon, Starbucks, News etc are
profit shifting to low tax regimes are too eh ?