Hacker News Reader

Comment by tw04 | Hacker News Reader

This summarizes the deal:

>As of 2014, Broadcom had $3.13 billion of cash and cash equivalents held by its foreign subsidiaries, and it deferred about $4.85 billion in tax on un-repatriated foreign earnings, according to SEC filings. Selling to a Singapore-based firm will free the foreign cash and help eliminate potential U.S. tax liabilities.

F. You. The deal is predicated on avoiding paying US taxes. "I know we built our business on the luxury of a developed western nation that provided ample education for our founders, but we'd like to avoid actually paying for that luxury now, because we no longer benefit from it." I hope the USJD bends them over a barrel on the taxation before this is allowed to close. But who am I kidding, green light baby! Let it burn!

View on HN

It is extremely disappointing that this is the top comment on Hacker News.

Why? Is tax evasion not relevant?

Tax avoidance, perfectly legal and one of the duties of company management.

Tax evasion is illegal. This isn't it.

Tax evasion is lying in order to reduce your tax burden. Tax avoidance is following the letter but not spirit of tax laws. The lawyers behind those schemes claim they're legal, but it's important to remember that tax authorities often close schemes and claw back the avoided tax. UK tax authorities tend to avoid going to court if possible so a lot of tax avoidance actually probably is illegal, it just hasn't been tested in the courts.

You're mistaken about tax avoidance being a duty of management by the way. "Fiduciary Duty" doesn't give companies a free pass to be assholes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/09/h...

It may be legal, but it can still be considered anti-social and short-sighted.

It's not just legal, it is a fiduciary responsibility of the management of a publicly traded company to minimize its tax burden. To not do so is negligent.

If they feel that they can maximize shareholder value by headquartering in a high tax location then they do so. Part of that may include fostering an image of social responsibility and vision.

On the other hand, if they feel that the company should pay more taxes than required just because, then instead of negligently continuing to operate in an unfavorable tax environment they should bring it before the shareholders and if they support it set up a foundation or charity to do so. Make it explicit that they are paying more than required to the US government because 'merica.

As far as I can tell, the tax avoidance is a bonus, but not the primary driver of this deal or most any deal that gets accused of being such.

I feel the same way. Came to the comments hoping to see some good commentary of chip industry consolidation from HNers.

I'm assuming that quote is from:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2015/05/28/could-ava...

Did the link originally point to Forbes? Why was it changed to the press release (it doesn't seem to hold as much information?)?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com