Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Apple to begin selling iBonds   (wired.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Apple, share repurchase, Fortune Magazine, tax deductions, capital expenditures, Wharton School, prospectus  
•       •       •

1355 clicks; posted to Business » on 01 May 2013 at 9:30 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-05-01 09:39:28 AM  
"And repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law."

This is literally the most disgusting thing I will hear all day.
 
2013-05-01 09:39:38 AM  
t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-01 09:52:55 AM  

Kinek: "And repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law."

This is literally the most disgusting thing I will hear all day.


All multinational corporations do this.  You incorporate your business as a Delaware holding company that owns a US division and another holding company in Belgium or Luxembourg that owns the rest of the offshore divisions.  You make sure the US operation loses money, so that part pays no taxes.  All the profits from the offshore divisions remains basically untaxed, as long as the money doesn't hit the US.

It's all perfectly legal.
 
2013-05-01 10:01:19 AM  
Time to eliminate corporate income taxes, and shift the burden to capital gains. Let the owners of the wealth pay the taxes, instead of passing them on to consumers or using accounting trick to evade them entirely.
 
2013-05-01 10:06:20 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Kinek: "And repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law."

This is literally the most disgusting thing I will hear all day.

All multinational corporations do this.  You incorporate your business as a Delaware holding company that owns a US division and another holding company in Belgium or Luxembourg that owns the rest of the offshore divisions.  You make sure the US operation loses money, so that part pays no taxes.  All the profits from the offshore divisions remains basically untaxed, as long as the money doesn't hit the US.

It's all perfectly legal.


Doesn't make it any less slimey. And coming so blatantly makes me feel like Oppenheimer is just teabagging the US, Apple's primary market.
 
2013-05-01 10:21:38 AM  

Kinek: Marcus Aurelius: Kinek: "And repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law."

This is literally the most disgusting thing I will hear all day.

All multinational corporations do this.  You incorporate your business as a Delaware holding company that owns a US division and another holding company in Belgium or Luxembourg that owns the rest of the offshore divisions.  You make sure the US operation loses money, so that part pays no taxes.  All the profits from the offshore divisions remains basically untaxed, as long as the money doesn't hit the US.

It's all perfectly legal.

Doesn't make it any less slimey. And coming so blatantly makes me feel like Oppenheimer is just teabagging the US, Apple's primary market.


Why should the US get to make a tax grab on money that is earned outside the US and stays outside of the US?
 
2013-05-01 10:25:47 AM  
"It's not hard to do the math there," Blouin says. "I could be off by magnitudes, and it would still make sense."

stream1.gifsoup.com
 
2013-05-01 10:42:45 AM  
because "money is cheap"
 
2013-05-01 10:43:25 AM  

murray208: Kinek: Marcus Aurelius: Kinek: "And repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law."

This is literally the most disgusting thing I will hear all day.

All multinational corporations do this.  You incorporate your business as a Delaware holding company that owns a US division and another holding company in Belgium or Luxembourg that owns the rest of the offshore divisions.  You make sure the US operation loses money, so that part pays no taxes.  All the profits from the offshore divisions remains basically untaxed, as long as the money doesn't hit the US.

It's all perfectly legal.

Doesn't make it any less slimey. And coming so blatantly makes me feel like Oppenheimer is just teabagging the US, Apple's primary market.

Why should the US get to make a tax grab on money that is earned outside the US and stays outside of the US?


Because they manipulated profits and earnings (Through loans, IP transfers, outrageous billing.) between subsidiaries to make sure that the money /was/ earned outside of the US? It's like Hollywood accounting, and one of the reasons why Return of the Jedi has not made a paper profit, even though it's made approximately one metric farkton of money.

Are you seriously suggesting that Apple does not do most of its sales in the US?
 
2013-05-01 10:47:32 AM  

murray208: Kinek: Marcus Aurelius: Kinek: "And repatriating this cash would result in significant tax consequences under current U.S. tax law."

This is literally the most disgusting thing I will hear all day.

All multinational corporations do this.  You incorporate your business as a Delaware holding company that owns a US division and another holding company in Belgium or Luxembourg that owns the rest of the offshore divisions.  You make sure the US operation loses money, so that part pays no taxes.  All the profits from the offshore divisions remains basically untaxed, as long as the money doesn't hit the US.

It's all perfectly legal.

Doesn't make it any less slimey. And coming so blatantly makes me feel like Oppenheimer is just teabagging the US, Apple's primary market.

Why should the US get to make a tax grab on money that is earned outside the US and stays outside of the US?


And not only that (and, if someone knows for sure, please correct me if I'm wrong) wouldn't they be leaving themselves open to lawsuits from investors if they did not make use of these legal moves to save money?
 
2013-05-01 11:05:59 AM  

Kinek: Doesn't make it any less slimey. And coming so blatantly makes me feel like Oppenheimer is just teabagging the US, Apple's primary market.


Following the present tax law is somehow "slimey"?  Blame your legislators.  Don't blame executives who have a fiducially responsibility to its shareholders.

/do you take deductions on your taxes?
//yes?  SLIMEY!
 
2013-05-01 11:12:45 AM  

Kinek: Are you seriously suggesting that Apple does not do most of its sales in the US?


How hard is that to believe?  Since you don't seem to have a clue what Apple does or how much money it makes - let me borrow a quote from last quarters financial results:

Apple today announced financial results for its second fiscal quarter of 2013 which ran from January 1, 2013 until March 31. Apple posted revenue of $43.6 billion and net quarterly profit of $9.5 billion, or $10.09 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $39.2 billion and net profit of $11.6 billion, or $12.30 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 37.5 percent compared to 47.4 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 66 percent of the quarter's revenue.

This has been the case for some time now.  Apple will never make the majority of its revenue in the US ever again.
 
2013-05-01 11:17:25 AM  
What is earned abroad, stays abroad.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-01 11:17:41 AM  

gingerjet: Kinek: Doesn't make it any less slimey. And coming so blatantly makes me feel like Oppenheimer is just teabagging the US, Apple's primary market.

Following the present tax law is somehow "slimey"?  Blame your legislators.  Don't blame executives who have a fiducially responsibility to its shareholders.

/do you take deductions on your taxes?
//yes?  SLIMEY!


I take a standard deduction. I don't offshore all my earnings, take a loan out from my friend so I can post a lower income and then report that lowered income to the IRS.
 
2013-05-01 11:24:41 AM  

gingerjet: Kinek: Are you seriously suggesting that Apple does not do most of its sales in the US?

How hard is that to believe?  Since you don't seem to have a clue what Apple does or how much money it makes - let me borrow a quote from last quarters financial results:

Apple today announced financial results for its second fiscal quarter of 2013 which ran from January 1, 2013 until March 31. Apple posted revenue of $43.6 billion and net quarterly profit of $9.5 billion, or $10.09 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $39.2 billion and net profit of $11.6 billion, or $12.30 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 37.5 percent compared to 47.4 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 66 percent of the quarter's revenue.

This has been the case for some time now.  Apple will never make the majority of its revenue in the US ever again.


And again, how much of this is shifting between subsidiaries?

Take this for example (Numbers made up and significantly reduced).

Apple has 2 branches. A US branch and a foreign branch in a tax favorable country. US Apple sells 1 million dollars worth of stuff and makes a profit of 500,000. Apple then sells an IP property worth 10 dollars to it's foreign branch for 450,000. US Apple posts 50k profit, foreign Apple posts a 450k profit. As pointed out upthread by someone else, this is how tax-shifting is often done. It's called a Delaware Holding company.
 
2013-05-01 11:25:36 AM  

jso2897: Time to eliminate corporate income taxes, and shift the burden to capital gains. Let the owners of the wealth pay the taxes, instead of passing them on to consumers or using accounting trick to evade them entirely.


Why not just subject it to the regular income tax?
 
2013-05-01 11:30:10 AM  

gingerjet: Kinek: Are you seriously suggesting that Apple does not do most of its sales in the US?

How hard is that to believe?  Since you don't seem to have a clue what Apple does or how much money it makes - let me borrow a quote from last quarters financial results:

Apple today announced financial results for its second fiscal quarter of 2013 which ran from January 1, 2013 until March 31. Apple posted revenue of $43.6 billion and net quarterly profit of $9.5 billion, or $10.09 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $39.2 billion and net profit of $11.6 billion, or $12.30 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 37.5 percent compared to 47.4 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 66 percent of the quarter's revenue.

This has been the case for some time now.  Apple will never make the majority of its revenue in the US ever again.


http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/23/apple-international-sales-q2-2013-c hi na/

Overall, international revenues outside of the Americas were $24.3 billion, or 56 percent of the total for the quarter.

Okay, so I was slightly off because I haven't looked at Apple's percentages recently. Still. The US does almost as much Apple Business as the entire rest of the world combined. And more than any other country individually.
 
2013-05-01 11:31:33 AM  

feanorn: And not only that (and, if someone knows for sure, please correct me if I'm wrong) wouldn't they be leaving themselves open to lawsuits from investors if they did not make use of these legal moves to save money?


You are not wrong.  Apple's primary responsibility is to its shareholders.  Agree or disagree with the tax laws, but yes, if Apple did something resulting in more taxes being paid than necessary, there would be a lawsuit filed in about 0.003 seconds.
 
2013-05-01 11:42:35 AM  

Kinek: gingerjet: Kinek: Are you seriously suggesting that Apple does not do most of its sales in the US?

How hard is that to believe?  Since you don't seem to have a clue what Apple does or how much money it makes - let me borrow a quote from last quarters financial results:

Apple today announced financial results for its second fiscal quarter of 2013 which ran from January 1, 2013 until March 31. Apple posted revenue of $43.6 billion and net quarterly profit of $9.5 billion, or $10.09 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $39.2 billion and net profit of $11.6 billion, or $12.30 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 37.5 percent compared to 47.4 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 66 percent of the quarter's revenue.


I'm sure that Apple's operating expenses are higher in the US

This has been the case for some time now.  Apple will never make the majority of its revenue in the US ever again.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/23/apple-international-sales-q2-2013-c hi na/

Overall, international revenues outside of the Americas were $24.3 billion, or 56 percent of the total for the quarter.

Okay, so I was slightly off because I haven't looked at Apple's percentages recently. Still. The US does almost as much Apple Business as the entire rest of the world combined. And more than any other country individually.


Okay.. But Apple has lots of operating expenses in America, of course -- Apple HQ is there. Apple could still be very much on the level and yet their profits come to them in foreign countries.
 
2013-05-01 11:57:09 AM  

RumsfeldsReplacement: feanorn: And not only that (and, if someone knows for sure, please correct me if I'm wrong) wouldn't they be leaving themselves open to lawsuits from investors if they did not make use of these legal moves to save money?

You are not wrong.  Apple's primary responsibility is to its shareholders.  Agree or disagree with the tax laws, but yes, if Apple did something resulting in more taxes being paid than necessary, there would be a lawsuit filed in about 0.003 seconds.


Charge the Stockholders with Tax Evasion.

/Execute them.
 
2013-05-01 11:58:03 AM  
Its also worth noting that if I were to work overseas and earn money overseas, as a US citizen I'm still expected to pay taxes on it.  Apple should be no different.
 
2013-05-01 01:07:42 PM  

Arkanaut: jso2897: Time to eliminate corporate income taxes, and shift the burden to capital gains. Let the owners of the wealth pay the taxes, instead of passing them on to consumers or using accounting trick to evade them entirely.

Why not just subject it to the regular income tax?


Lolwut
 
2013-05-01 01:18:43 PM  

jso2897: Arkanaut: jso2897: Time to eliminate corporate income taxes, and shift the burden to capital gains. Let the owners of the wealth pay the taxes, instead of passing them on to consumers or using accounting trick to evade them entirely.

Why not just subject it to the regular income tax?

Lolwut


I mean, drop the corporate tax and pull capital gains / dividends into the adjusted gross income.
 
2013-05-01 01:58:13 PM  

jso2897: Time to eliminate corporate income taxes, and shift the burden to capital gains. Let the owners of the wealth pay the taxes, instead of passing them on to consumers or using accounting trick to evade them entirely.


You know who this will actually hurt? You and your neighbors with IRAs and 401ks.
 
2013-05-01 02:48:43 PM  

Kinek: gingerjet: Kinek: Doesn't make it any less slimey. And coming so blatantly makes me feel like Oppenheimer is just teabagging the US, Apple's primary market.

Following the present tax law is somehow "slimey"?  Blame your legislators.  Don't blame executives who have a fiducially responsibility to its shareholders.

/do you take deductions on your taxes?
//yes?  SLIMEY!

I take a standard deduction. I don't offshore all my earnings, take a loan out from my friend so I can post a lower income and then report that lowered income to the IRS.


Why don't you itemize your deductions? Could it be that you don't own a home, don't own your own business and don't make enough off of investments to invoke AMT, which makes the standard deduction HIGHER than if you'd itemized your deductions? SLIMEY!
 
2013-05-01 03:49:10 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Kinek: gingerjet: Kinek: Doesn't make it any less slimey. And coming so blatantly makes me feel like Oppenheimer is just teabagging the US, Apple's primary market.

Following the present tax law is somehow "slimey"?  Blame your legislators.  Don't blame executives who have a fiducially responsibility to its shareholders.

/do you take deductions on your taxes?
//yes?  SLIMEY!

I take a standard deduction. I don't offshore all my earnings, take a loan out from my friend so I can post a lower income and then report that lowered income to the IRS.

Why don't you itemize your deductions? Could it be that you don't own a home, don't own your own business and don't make enough off of investments to invoke AMT, which makes the standard deduction HIGHER than if you'd itemized your deductions? SLIMEY!


You're right. I can hear my dog calling a civil action lawyer right now because I didn't claim my car as a business expense, even though I don't actually have a business. I also claimed the pallet of Ramen as student expenses. I'm fiscally irresponsible to my shareholders.

/Take me to jail now.
 
2013-05-01 04:18:21 PM  

Kinek: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Kinek: gingerjet: Kinek: Doesn't make it any less slimey. And coming so blatantly makes me feel like Oppenheimer is just teabagging the US, Apple's primary market.

Following the present tax law is somehow "slimey"?  Blame your legislators.  Don't blame executives who have a fiducially responsibility to its shareholders.

/do you take deductions on your taxes?
//yes?  SLIMEY!

I take a standard deduction. I don't offshore all my earnings, take a loan out from my friend so I can post a lower income and then report that lowered income to the IRS.

Why don't you itemize your deductions? Could it be that you don't own a home, don't own your own business and don't make enough off of investments to invoke AMT, which makes the standard deduction HIGHER than if you'd itemized your deductions? SLIMEY!

You're right. I can hear my dog calling a civil action lawyer right now because I didn't claim my car as a business expense, even though I don't actually have a business. I also claimed the pallet of Ramen as student expenses. I'm fiscally irresponsible to my shareholders.

/Take me to jail now.


You could be Bernie Madoff's biatch!
 
2013-05-01 05:31:51 PM  

FishyFred: jso2897: Time to eliminate corporate income taxes, and shift the burden to capital gains. Let the owners of the wealth pay the taxes, instead of passing them on to consumers or using accounting trick to evade them entirely.

You know who this will actually hurt? You and your neighbors with IRAs and 401ks.


...but we learned yesterday that management fees can eat up most of the earnings in those anyway by the time you retire.

And really, your exposure to capital gains taxes are limited in a  tax shielded account.
 
2013-05-01 06:39:06 PM  

gingerjet: Kinek: Doesn't make it any less slimey. And coming so blatantly makes me feel like Oppenheimer is just teabagging the US, Apple's primary market.

Following the present tax law is somehow "slimey"?  Blame your legislators.  Don't blame executives who have a fiducially responsibility to its shareholders.


How did fiduciary become the word that corporate tax apologists use to make themselves feel smarter?

See also Amazon, if I'm not (could be) mistaken.
 
2013-05-01 07:13:26 PM  
I always saw Bond as more of a Windows guy, but okay.
 
2013-05-01 07:42:01 PM  

Flying Code Monkey: gingerjet: Kinek: Doesn't make it any less slimey. And coming so blatantly makes me feel like Oppenheimer is just teabagging the US, Apple's primary market.

Following the present tax law is somehow "slimey"?  Blame your legislators.  Don't blame executives who have a fiducially responsibility to its shareholders.

How did fiduciary become the word that corporate tax apologists use to make themselves feel smarter?



I've wondered the same thing many times when I see fiduciary duties thrown around in such a manner.  Apparently, the business judgment rule is a bit more of a foreign concept.
 
2013-05-02 01:28:31 AM  

LemSkroob: because "money is cheap"


Borrowing it, yes.

It seems pretty simple: Apple is borrowing at 3I% rather than brining money back into the country and paying 35% in taxes.
 
2013-05-02 07:03:28 AM  

FishyFred: You know who this will actually hurt? You and your neighbors with IRAs and 401ks.


Uh, no. It will "hurt" the non-rich to about the same extent that wealth from the soaring stock market is trickling down.
 
2013-05-02 10:21:26 PM  

jso2897: Time to eliminate corporate income taxes, and shift the burden to capital gains. Let the owners of the wealth pay the taxes, instead of passing them on to consumers or using accounting trick to evade them entirely.



Corporate taxes aren't the issue, it's taxing foreign profits.  The US is fairly unique in that regard and the results speak for themselves, once capital is invested offshore, it's profits stay off shores forever.  This hurts the US economy.  Join the 20th century and don't tax foreign profits and capital will flood back stateside.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report