EDIT: to clarify: apple is playing with one subsidiary being resident "nowhere", whereas other companies have subsidiaries being resident in tax havens. The reform will forbid the former, not the latter.
'Police catch one thief but leave all others on the street'
There are ways this can be worked around (quite easily as pointed)
Nothing changes in practice
"Made in China. Designed in California. Taxed in Bermuda."
"Let me be crystal clear. Ireland wants to be part of the solution to this global tax challenge, not part of the problem," he said.
People now think the double Irish is closed when it isn't.
And when another country publicly condemns Ireland, the finance minister can say "we've already closed one, we're working on it!".
$4.9 billion of sales occur in the UK, which is 10% of global revenue. However, only $29 million of corporation tax is payable to the UK - that's 0.3% - because Google lies and says that UK sales are actually Irish sales.
This deception occurs because basically 99.9% of the work is done in the UK, but the final signature on the sales contract is made in Ireland. This is from a Google whistleblower who was featured in the UK press.
Of course, the Irish subsidiary doesn't pay low corporate taxes on all this revenue, because it happens to have HUGE expenses in the form of intellectual property royalty payments, which need to be made to Google Bermuda (or whatever other tax haven they are using to hold the IP).
So really, Ireland is getting shafted too, just like the UK.
Microsoft and Google and a ton of other huge corporations quickly followed suit so certainly they are just as much to blame, but I guess this loop-hole is attributed to Apple as they 'invented' it (but forgot to patent it, what gives!?).
As to the 'closing' of this loophole, allow me to chuckle. The insane amount of money these corporations can avoid in taxes due to these loopholes means that they will remain in one form or another.
Corporations are controlling governments these days, might aswell accept that the dystopian corporate controlled future of William Gibson is pretty much upon us.
[1] http://www.ge.com/ie/ [2]http://www.ge.com/uk/company/leadership/bios/Mark_Elborne.ht...
If this was 1999 it would have been Microsoft. If this was 1960 it would have been GE.
Apple get's the headline because it's generating the most profits.
And that includes: Google, Apple, Microsoft, Skype, Yahoo, Paltalk, and the rest of them on these slides.
They are letting us down and we should treat them the exact same way.
But we don't know if that's actually what they're legally obliged to pay, because it's weird and borderline and hasn't been tested by courts.
Vodafone didn't think they were evading tax, but ended up making a deal with UK tax authorities to avoid court.
(http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/aug/18/vodafone-tax...)
It means that issues or actors are given favourable coverage in proportion to their ability to muster or manufacture complaints. In important cases (e.g. around Israel/Palestine), this is not strongly related to the merits of the arguments.
> It means that issues or actors are given favourable coverage in proportion to their ability to muster or manufacture complaints.
Only if they use this to alter their output. It's more of a contrast to the other situation where you get lots of complaints on one side and none on the other, which suggests (but doesn't mean) you're treating things badly.
If they responded to just the complaints (rather than trying to think about how likely people are to complain/praise each side) then they'd never allow a gay kiss on screen (the responses are phenomenal when something like that happens).
And Google, and Microsoft, and Adobe, and Facebook, and Oracle, and Pfizer, and Starbucks, and General Electric.
But Apple makes the headline. Normally this would be headline whoring by the predictable media, except that this is the BBC, and I thought Starbucks was made the whipping boy for tax evasion in the UK.