Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I do not have any links, the best I can say is that these pieces usually reward close reading and diagramming of the facts.

My understanding (as a person who has taken a couple tax law classes) is that it isn't an explicit law but a combination of things, all of which are reasonable, which yields what could be said to be a surprising result:

- companies pay taxes on profits

- profits = revenue - expenses

- It is OK to expense licensing of IP

- It is OK to sell IP to a subsidiary

So Apple creates a subsidiary in Jersey, transfers IP to that company, then charges the Irish subsidiary fees which are more or less equal to the revenue for selling the phones. In this way the Irish subsidiary makes no profit, so there is nothing to tax. All the profit goes to Jersey, which happens to have no tax.

It needs to be said that the money is stuck there, if Apple wants to get at the money then it would in fact be taxed depending on where it goes. So it is not even really dodging taxes, but more like delaying when they get paid (hoping for a better tax rate in the future, I suppose).

I am not even sure if US law is to blame here, it seems like the EU is the one that is upset at Apple, and Jersey is under EU law not US law.




This is not an explicit letter of the law. If they are creating a web of complex interactions to avoid paying tax at what point do we throw up our hands and call a spade a spade and say that its clear that they are just avoiding paying a tax.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: