Hacker News Reader

Comment by codesuela | Hacker News Reader

The question is: what's the new scheme? It's not like these tech megacorps will just start paying regular taxes

The new scheme is called “Capital Allowances for Intangible Assets”, and in practice it’s the same as “Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich”. They were both very intentionally put in place by the Irish government, to allow (mostly) giant US firms to pay nearly zero tax on non-US profits, as long as they open Irish offices and employ a decent number of Irish people.

The closing of the Double Irish tax evasion scheme is indeed largely useless, as Ireland ensured that there’s a good replacement. They don’t want to lose the jobs that come with these tax evasion schemes.

> tax evasion scheme

Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is not

The EC considers the scheme illegal (though it's still being appealed in court).

If they can't find a legal loophole, they will indeed just start paying regular taxes. As many companies do around the world.

That initial 'if' is extremely unlikely. There are hundreds of jurisdictions that would love to be persuaded to pass favorable laws.

Yes, but that takes time, and it involves the company trusting their money to a third party that is trustworthy in inverse proportion to how much tax leniency they are willing to grant.

"You can't stop us from dodging taxes so don't even try" is what they want us to believe, because if we believe it then they can dodge taxes every year without inconvenience.

Do you think that the accountants at Google, Apple, et al. have failed to foresee this sort of pushback? I personally don't doubt they've been planning alternative tax-avoidance scenarios for years. That would include lobbying other jurisdictions for favorable tax treatment in any rational scenario.

To date, they have suffered no serious financial or reputational consequences for tax evasion, so there's no reason to think they won't continue to avoid taxes as part of their overall financial strategy.

> Do you think that (strawman)

No, I do not.

The correct move is to push harder, not roll over.

And even Ireland still remains one of those jurisdictions: while they were successfully pressured into passing this new general legislation, Ireland have refused to accept Apple's unpaid taxes and are spending millions fighting the EU ruling in court[0]

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabeltogoh/2019/09/16/apple-an...

Or rather, if they can't find a legal loophole they'll use billions of dollars they have in their pockets because of previous tax avoidance efforts to lobby for new legal loopholes.

The EU is increasingly fining and cracking down on tax avoidance. Seems like things are headed in a good direction, if slowly.

The DAC-6 legislation should help with this.

> legal loophole

I side with you regarding tax debates for large companies. However what is a "legal loophole"? There is no loophole. What Google did is not illegal.

Of course what they did is legal.

A loophole is legal, that's the point. It's a way around the intent of the law legally.

I am pretty sure the lawmakers intended it exactly as it was used. I'd give them benefit of doubt if they closed the hole within a year after discovery, but this is the most well known tax loophole of which even children know the name, used for several decades.

"A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system." [1]

A loophole is by definition legal, otherwise it would be fraud.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole

> What Google did is not illegal.

That's why it's called a 'loophole' - when the letter of the law is followed, but the intent is subverted (or what people imagine what the intent should have been).

I guess nothing it's illegal if you are not prosecuted/convicted for the said activities. Not even if you are a war criminal (see the recent Trump saga). The tax rules are confusing and complex enough so that only the wealthy can benefit(i.e. use loopholes).

"What Google did is not illegal."

Sure. Now try to funnel your consulting income through Irish corp. Tax man will quickly explain what is legal what is not.

Individuals can (and do) use similar transfer pricing schemes. They're just really expensive to set up and maintain.

Maybe they are starting to see the writing on the wall: if they keep hiding their profit away, governments are eventually going to tax them on their revenues, regardless of profit. Or based on worldwide profit rather than local profit. That's what France is starting to do, and what the EU is looking very closely at.

I could imagine the US following through: the idea that rich megacorps should pay taxes is not particularly unpopular. And if you can't tax profit, then you have to tax something else...

Google actually does this a lot already. It's a very minor thing, but pay attention to the text when signing up for Google services in various countries (cloud, ads, play, etc...), and who you are actually paying your money to. Much of the time, you aren't paying to Google Inc.

You can poke around this page to see the different companies (at least around taxes for Ads): https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2375370?hl=en

Ex: Australia is "Google Australia Pty Limited". Japan is "Google Japan G.K.".

>12 October 2017: Ireland announces changes to capital allowances for intangible assets

https://www.ey.com/gl/en/services/tax/international-tax/aler...

There are plenty of zero-tax jurisdictions that they can still use like the Cayman Islands.

Don't worry, you'll find out in the 2029 after its been used for ten years just like the rest of us :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com