Author Topic: How Apple scores its lower tax bill  (Read 491 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 263,256
How Apple scores its lower tax bill
« on: May 22, 2013, 10:03:12 AM »

How Apple scores its lower tax bill
By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney May 22, 2013: 5:59 AM ET

Apple is one of America's most profitable companies. And it pays a substantial income tax bill to the U.S. government -- by its own account, $6 billion in 2012 and an estimated $7 billion this year.

But many tax experts and lawmakers say Apple's tax bill should be bigger. A lot bigger.

The concern is that Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500), while complying with U.S. laws, is nevertheless taking advantage of loopholes in the tax code to shift a substantial amount of income to offshore subsidiaries in low-tax countries. The result is billions of dollars in profits every year that go untaxed.

Apple is hardly the only American company to minimize its offshore tax bite. But it has become a poster child for it.

continued at link

Support the USO

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 49,274
  • TBR Illuminati
Re: How Apple scores its lower tax bill
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2013, 07:46:37 PM »
Give me a break.  If Apple is complying with the law, then it is complying with the law and that is all that can be asked of it.  To quote one of the most celebrated jurists of the 20th Century, Judge Learned Hand:

Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.

Gregory v. Helvering, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934)

And again:
Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.

Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F.2d 848, 851 (2d Cir. 1947)(dissenting opinion)
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 07:46:58 PM by Oceander »

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo