Apple Paid $0 in Taxes to New Zealand, Despite Sales of $4.2B
nzherald.co.nz
nzherald.co.nz
> That 0$ is their NZ income tax. Obviously they pay all other taxes for their properties and employees. It is just that New Zealand and Australia have an income tax deal
>> Apple's New Zealand operations are wholly owned by an Australian parent and appear to be run from there. A tax treaty between the two countries sees dual claims on income tax default to where the company is controlled.
>> Russell, recently selected as the Labour Party candidate for the safe New Lynn electorate for September's general election, said Apple's tax arrangements were totally consistent with the law.
> So Apples NZ income tax is paid to Australia. All other NZ taxes are paid to NZ. Hilariously the tax rate in Australia is higher than in NZ
>> The accounts for Apple's New Zealand subsidiary disclose in notes that income tax is paid at 30% - the rate in Australia - not the 28% charged in New Zealand. This reference has been in every financial statement filed by Apple with the Companies Office since at least 2007.
It provides [1] as its source.
[1]: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3515916-Apple-2016.ht...
Would NZ really be better off if it got to tax the NZ revenue of Australian companies operating in NZ but gave up being able to tax the Australian revenue of NZ companies operating in Australia?
Given that Australia both NZ's largest trade partner and much larger (and somewhat wealthier) than NZ, isn't it likely that quite a lot of NZ companies earn significant amounts of revenue in Australia?
Would NZ even come out ahead from such a change, even ignoring the (very significant) costs of a massive change to the tax code? Because offhand it doesn't look like it.
Right?
Meanwhile, companies based in NZ are paying no taxes in Australia. WHEN WILL THIS MADNESS END?
Its a vast oversimplification to say that all corporate taxes are just paid by the customers anyways.
Income taxes are a little different, one business may be more profitable than a competitor, and they may have different profit margin requirements to justify building/selling their products, so the adjustments are going to be different per company. But essentially prices are adjusted fir tax levels within what demand allows.
Imagine income tax is increased from 0% to 50%, any business that was already making marginal profits needs to increase prices or go out of business. Assume Dell makes 4% profit margins on pcs, and Apple 20%, Dell can increase prices 2% to retain its after tax profit levels, Apple needs to increase prices 10%, but may not be able to given its competitor Dell did not.
You seem to be assuming that, if GST was zero instead of 15%, the prices consumers paid for Apple products would be 13% lower than they are now, and that despite these lower prices no additional purchases would occur. Why?
As to what you intended, perhaps. Perhaps not. I'm not an expert in sales of Apple products, you'd need market research to see if a 13% discount would result in an appreciable amount of sales.
"There are so many areas where Apple does enormous good - far, far more good than any other electronics giant"
Any idea what is being referred to there?
I've never noticed Apple being particularly "good"?
This is the event (probably not the best article, but top google hit and reasonably covers it) that's usually used as an example: http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-versus-a-conservativ...
And slightly more recently, privacy (FBI desiring an encryption bypass).
>> Apple's New Zealand operations are wholly owned by an Australian parent and appear to be run from there. A tax treaty between the two countries sees dual claims on income tax default to where the company is controlled.
Sales taxes are a different issue.
In addition, take off the Apple brand, and you're left with a phone you can't sell for a premium anymore.
I guess I'm supporting Uncle Sam ?
And then take into account that they have stores and employees and have to pay taxes accordingly. And then there's the investment poured in to generate those entities.
Pretty soon, it looks pretty reasonable that the goverment allows things like this to be structured because otherwise, taxes would be a deterrent for companies looking to enter the market.
Corporations with the advent of the WTO and other globalization efforts have essentially made it impossible for nations to actually tax them.
How does this change and if such taxation doesn't hold, will the states also eventually become antiquated?
That said, I don't really expect major changes. Corporate taxes are a lot less unpopular than individual taxes. So the fact that they're avoided a lot of the time is just how it is.
Nothing to see here, move along.
On the other hand, if it's legal why would they not do it.
Apple go to great lengths to make their taxes 0, doing things that small businesses would never be able to do. If they didn't their taxes would be hundreds of millions. This—alongside depriving California and the States of money that could be used for the community—makes it unethical IMHO.
Agreed.
> ... and misuse of a word for personal gain is a morally questionable at best.
Again, agreed, but where's the personal gain? How many additional people buy Macs because they call these people "evangelists"? Or, how many people are willing to work for Apple for lower pay because they're going to get the title of "evangelist"? I don't see the personal gain aspect of this.
And that leaves me thinking that it's just a word that conveys enthusiasm, or possibly the bringing of good news, but it's just getting cute with a job title, with no moral dimensions.
Since all prices have the 15% added most people don't pay attention to it.