Google low taxes

femur61

Google has paid only 2m in tax here despite 10bn turnover

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/google-paid-only-euro2m-tax-despite-euro10bn-turnover-2900130.html

This has reported on sky news. We are going to get a name internationally as a tax haven if something is not done. The money moved through a Bermuda bank is totally legit but wrong at the same time.

I know jobs are being created here but a lot of the money that is profited is not paid in taxes here.

ei.sdraob

femur61 wrote: »

Google has paid only 2m in tax here despite 10bn turnover

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/google-paid-only-euro2m-tax-despite-euro10bn-turnover-2900130.html

This has reported on sky news. We are going to get a name internationally as a tax haven if something is not done. The money moved through a Bermuda bank is totally legit but wrong at the same time.

I know jobs are being created here but a lot of the money that is profited is not paid in taxes here.

Rock the boat some more and the will pay 0 in taxes here and leave 0 jobs :rolleyes:

We are one of the most open economies in the world (if not the most open again, we moved to 2nd last year from what I remember) with being so open comes its pros and cons.

Anyways the amount of tax a company pays is not based on the turnover, if you start taxing by turnover most of the business in this country would close overnight.

Nody

Welcome to the world of corporate taxes; as a FYI Holland has similar thing for musicians (there is a reason why Bono runs his money through there after all while talking about saving the world).

FreudianSlippers

femur61 wrote: »

We are going to get a name internationally as a tax haven if something is not done.

I think it's a bit too late for that.

Pete_Cavan

femur61 wrote: »

Google has paid only 2m in tax here despite 10bn turnover

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/google-paid-only-euro2m-tax-despite-euro10bn-turnover-2900130.html

This has reported on sky news. We are going to get a name internationally as a tax haven if something is not done. The money moved through a Bermuda bank is totally legit but wrong at the same time.

I know jobs are being created here but a lot of the money that is profited is not paid in taxes here.

First of all, as ei.sdaorb says, turnover is irrelevant as we dont (and should not) tax companies based on turnover.

They spoke about this on PrimeTime last week, Googles Intelectual Property rights are held in Bermuda and their operations here pay for the use of these rights. We can only tax their profits once fees for use of IP rights (which are quite large) have been paid. This would be the case wherever Google operated and AFAIK there is very little we can do about this. Berumda is the tax haven, not here.

Nody

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

First of all, as ei.sdaorb says, turnover is irrelevant as we dont (and should not) tax companies based on turnover.

They spoke about this on PrimeTime last week, Googles Intelectual Property rights are held in Bermuda and their operations here pay for the use of these rights. We can only tax their profits once fees for use of IP rights (which are quite large) have been paid. This would be the case wherever Google operated and AFAIK there is very little we can do about this. Berumda is the tax haven, not here.

Not really, there are plenty of different legislation regarding intercompany recharges and to what countries they would be allowed to recharge that would stop it in many other countries.

FreudianSlippers

It's a real catch-22, basically if we don't entice these multinationals someone else will... we need the jobs and they're supplying them. A small price to pay for these companies basing their European HQs here.

dunphy3

please can i pay 2percent tax

Duke Leonal Felmet

femur61 wrote: »

Google has paid only 2m in tax here despite 10bn turnover

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/google-paid-only-euro2m-tax-despite-euro10bn-turnover-2900130.html

This has reported on sky news. We are going to get a name internationally as a tax haven if something is not done. The money moved through a Bermuda bank is totally legit but wrong at the same time.

I know jobs are being created here but a lot of the money that is profited is not paid in taxes here.

If it were up to me, corporate taxes would be zero.

Kadongy

dunphy3 wrote: »

please can i pay 2percent tax

0.02%

Chucky the tree

Very mis-leading artice. A companies turnover has nothing to do with what tax it should be paying.

halkar

How much tax and prsi google employees payed during the period of time here?

You get the point. Corp tax should be 0%

Nody

halkar wrote: »

How much tax and prsi google employees payed during the period of time here?

You get the point. Corp tax should be 0%

Corp tax has nothing to do with how much prsi etc. you pay though; I can set up a shell company in Ireland who has the rights to "X" who in turn pay a licence fee to my Bermuda company for it with out anyone paying PRSI to do what Google does with the same effect.

If you want to have a connection between local tax/prsi etc. and corp tax then I'd suggest a discount basis (i.e. you get Z% of local taxes A, B & C discounted towards your corporate taxes in Ireland).

JoeGil

The problem is in the US. With 50 million + Americans living below the poverty line Obama needs to ensure that Corporations pay 30%+ CT on their worldwide profits. Then there's no more tax havens.

ei.sdraob

JoeGil wrote: »

The problem is in the US. With 50 million + Americans living below the poverty line Obama needs to ensure that Corporations pay 30%+ CT on their worldwide profits. Then there's no more tax havens.

If Obama does that then there be no more Obama 2.0 term in office

Tho the threat is very real and not to be dismissed lightly since it would plunge this economy into a bottomless pit as the only non rotten part of the economy is sucked out.

JoeGil

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If Obama does that then there be no more Obama 2.0 term in office

Tho the threat is very real and not to be dismissed lightly since it would plunge this economy into a bottomless pit as the only non rotten part of the economy is sucked out.

If such a move prevented Obama 2.0 then it’s only because large Corporations who are benefiting would use their financial muscle to stop him This is not democracy. The present system just allows a small number of individuals to amass wealth they can never while others don’t have enough to eat.

ei.sdraob

JoeGil wrote: »

If such a move prevented Obama 2.0 then it’s only because large Corporations who are benefiting would use their financial muscle to stop him This is not democracy. The present system just allows a small number of individuals to amass wealth they can never while others don’t have enough to eat.

Obama is no saint now

these very same corporations (including Google and Goldman Sachs of Squid fame) donated his campaign alot of money...

I don't remember any complaints about "this is not democracy" back then

doc_17

I don't look at it as Google only paid a bit of tax themseleves.....What about all the tax their employees pay to the exchequer?

FreudianSlippers

JoeGil wrote: »

The problem is in the US. With 50 million + Americans living below the poverty line Obama needs to ensure that Corporations pay 30%+ CT on their worldwide profits. Then there's no more tax havens.

The other issue is that the US taxes the living shít out of the middle class while 40% of the country pays no tax because they either make not enough money or they make millions.

Blowfish

JoeGil wrote: »

The problem is in the US. With 50 million + Americans living below the poverty line Obama needs to ensure that Corporations pay 30%+ CT on their worldwide profits. Then there's no more tax havens.

Wouldn't that just cause the companies to shift their HQ's out of the US to somewhere which doesn't tax their global profits?

WalterMitty

Google, for example shouldnt be able to be taxed on ALL worldwide profits in US. I dont know if Google is registered in USA but why should USA have a claim on profits derived from activities outside the USA?
Eventually there will be enough global consenus on where/how to tax profits but all IReland can do is stay within law and attract as much investment as possible here, If laws are changed in future they are changed for everyone and most of these companies will still require presence in EU and once they are established here they are less likely to move from here than potential investors are to avoid here in light of new tax laws.

JoeGil

Blowfish wrote: »

Wouldn't that just cause the companies to shift their HQ's out of the US to somewhere which doesn't tax their global profits?

Theoretically yes but in reality most or all will stay. They are quoted on the stock exchange and the board members will not want to relocate. They will also be careful not to antagonise the US government who can draft legislation as required.

JoeGil

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Obama is no saint now

these very same corporations (including Google and Goldman Sachs of Squid fame) donated his campaign alot of money...

I don't remember any complaints about "this is not democracy" back then

My point wasn't specific to Obama. The fact that his campaign was also funded by big business illustrates the point that politician are limited in their ability to legislate for the people. However as the pressure grows from within society the politicians will be forced to find new solutions.

Yahew

JoeGil wrote: »

Theoretically yes but in reality most or all will stay. They are quoted on the stock exchange and the board members will not want to relocate. They will also be careful not to antagonise the US government who can draft legislation as required.

Google is not really an American corporation. It merely started there. It might be mostly owned by non-Americans, for all we know. If they move out of the US, what is the US going to do. Block the search engine? Be like China?

FreudianSlippers

Yahew wrote: »

Google is not really an American corporation. It merely started there. It might be mostly owned by non-Americans, for all we know. If they move out of the US, what is the US going to do. Block the search engine? Be like China?

Google still owns the vast majority of its shares, with Yahoo! I think being the second biggest owner; with 2.7million of 271million shares.
AFAIK just under 20million shares traded total.

Hal Emmerich

Google founders to sell stock, cede majority control by 2014

By 2014, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin will have sold enough of their stock to give up majority control of the company, Google announced Friday evening.
In November, Page and Brin entered long-term stock disposal agreements, a very common move designed to give uber-rich executives the ability to diversify their portfolios over time without scaring the stock market. But what's significant about this particular plan is that by the end of it--assuming that everything goes as planned--Page and Brin will control less than half of the voting power of Google shares, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.



"Today, we disclosed that Larry and Sergey have entered into plans to sell 5 million Google shares, each over the next five years--these shares represent about 17 of their overall Google holdings," Google said in an e-mailed statement. "They are both as committed as ever to Google and are integrally involved in our day-to-day management and product strategy. The majority of their net worth remains with Google. These pre-arranged stock-trading plans were adopted in order to allow Larry and Sergey to sell a portion of their Google stock over time as part of their respective long-term strategies for individual asset diversification and liquidity."


Google created a dual-class stock structure when it filed for an initial public offering in 2004. Class A shares are the ones that were offered to the public, granting the owner the value of one vote for one share. Class B shares, owned by Brin, Page, CEO Eric Schmidt, directors, early investors, and key managers, grant their owners 10 votes per share.
Page and Brin currently control 59 percent of the voting power of Google's stock, according to Friday's filing. By the time they have disposed of all the shares involved in the plan, they will control 48 percent of the voting power of Google's stock.


Now, according to Google's 2009 proxy statement, Schmidt owns enough Class B shares to control 9.5 percent of the voting power, so the triumvirate that runs Google still controls more than 50 percent of the voting rights. And when you add up directors and key managers, Google insiders currently own enough stock to control 70.9 percent of the voting rights associated with Google's stock, according to the same proxy statement.


Still, the voting rights currently possessed by the founders could theoretically allow the two to push through basically any corporate policy that regular shareholders might not like, such as the company's decision to present the Chinese government with an ultimatum over censorship two weeks ago.


In fact, Google warned prospective shareholders of that intention in 2004, saying in their IPO letter that "new investors will fully share in Google's long-term economic future but will have little ability to influence its strategic decisions through their voting rights."
In the real world, such a showdown between shareholders almost never happens. But should all go according to plan, by 2014, it will still be a milestone for Google.

WalterMitty

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-13/irs-auditing-how-google-shifted-profits-offshore-to-avoid-taxes.html

liammur

THE US Internal Revenue Service is auditing how Google avoided federal income taxes by shifting profit into offshore subsidiaries, including Irish-registered companies, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.
The revenue service is looking at how Google valued software rights and other intellectual property it licensed to its international units, according to a source who spoke to Bloomberg. It has requested information from Google about its offshore deals after three acquisitions, including that of YouTube for $1.65 billion. The transfer overseas of these kinds of rights has enabled Google to attribute earnings to foreign units that pay lower taxes.
While Google’s potential liability isn’t clear, similar deals between companies and offshore arms are often the subject of disputes over hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, according to Daniel Frisch, an economist at Horst Frisch which advises businesses on transfer pricing – the allocation of income between units in different countries.
In 2006, the service settled a case with drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline for $3.4 billion. “The very biggest transfer-pricing tax disputes are over transfers of intangibles to offshore subsidiaries,” Frisch said.

ChRoMe

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

If it were up to me, corporate taxes would be zero.

Whats you reasoning for that?

liammur

ChRoMe wrote: »

Whats you reasoning for that?

Lol, we'll all be interested in hearing this reply.

ei.sdraob

low corporate taxes lead to more companies wanting to be here and more jobs, we sort of need jobs

ChRoMe

ei.sdraob wrote: »

low corporate taxes lead to more companies wanting to be here and more jobs, we sort of need jobs

They also allow companies to consume resources here without paying the taxes appropriate to their usage. Which in itself can cause damage.

ei.sdraob

ChRoMe wrote: »

They also allow companies to consume resources here without paying the taxes appropriate to their usage. Which in itself can cause damage.

What resources would that be??

they still have to pay VAT btw :rolleyes:

ChRoMe

ei.sdraob wrote: »

What resources would that be??

they still have to pay VAT btw :rolleyes:

Anything relating to operating the business in the country in obvious addition to their obligation to pay taxes for merely operating in the country itself.

One of the main issues being taken with the google situation is that as the company chooses Ireland for purely tax dodging purposes, the employment it provides in the country is only based on this fact. Its not the long term sustainable employment that the country needs. While it is a short term boost... well we all know what short term views have done to the country.

Stopped reading when you compared corporation tax figures to turnover.

ChRoMe

AdamD wrote: »

Stopped reading when you compared corporation tax figures to turnover.

Where?

ChRoMe

ChRoMe wrote: »

Where?

First line?

mossyc123

These Marquee MNC's (Google, Facebook,etc) who base their EMEA operations in Ireland do provide a good few thousand jobs here.

What i'd be interested to find out is how many of their employees are actually Irish.

From my experience the majority seem to be from other EU countries and beyond.

Our weakness in foreign languages seems to be a big factor in this.

ei.sdraob

ChRoMe wrote: »

Anything relating to operating the business in the country in obvious addition to their obligation to pay taxes for merely operating in the country itself.

What is this is "anything"? if you think I will let you off with making throw away remarks, then you are mistaken.

They have to pay for electricity, premises (that large building from nama from bought recently), bandwidth, datacenter space, equipment and so on, all of these have VAT and other taxes and thats before we get to employer taxes

so once again what resources are they using and "not paying appropriate taxation" for

and what about companies which depend and work with Google, like this site?

ChRoMe wrote: »

One of the main issues being taken with the google situation is that as the company chooses Ireland for purely tax dodging purposes, the employment it provides in the country is only based on this fact. Its not the long term sustainable employment that the country needs. While it is a short term boost... well we all know what short term views have done to the country.

Its better than nothing, which is what this country had for a long time with a history of isolationism

mossyc123 wrote: »

From my experience the majority seem to be from other EU countries and beyond.

Our weakness in foreign languages seems to be a big factor in this.

Math, Science and Languages are ignored and shunned by students (the state is also to blame) here to their loss may I add...

ChRoMe

They should be taxed on the basis that they use Ireland to funnel vast amounts of money through our system and then back out. We should get a cut of the huge amount of taxes their are ****ing the american tax payer on


The better than nothing argument.. is short sighted and means you are just delaying the inevitable, it doesn't go towards any long term stability. The minute they find a better deal somewhere they will be gone. That doesn't appear to hold an issue for you while I dont agree with it, thats your right.

Tigger

i doubt they pay vat they may charge a bit on irish ads but thats it
forgein ads are vat exempt btw

i don't have to and my turnover is a lot lower

ei.sdraob

ChRoMe wrote: »

They should be taxed on the basis that they use Ireland to funnel vast amounts of money through our system and then back out. We should get a cut of the huge amount of taxes their are ****ing the american tax payer on
.

Ah taxing their turnover nonsense again
what do you think would happen to just about every business in this country if you implement your braindead taxation proposal
or do you propose we make a law just for google, what happens when they say "feck it" and leave? sure whats few more thousands more people on the dole

Tigger wrote: »

i doubt they pay vat they may charge a bit on irish ads but thats it
forgein ads are vat exempt btw

i don't have to and my turnover is a lot lower

would your business survive if you were taxed in your turnover

Nody

ChRoMe wrote: »

They should be taxed on the basis that they use Ireland to funnel vast amounts of money through our system and then back out. We should get a cut of the huge amount of taxes their are ****ing the american tax payer on

And do you think they would:

a) Move to a new country allowing said throughput style at a slightly higher local tax rate or,
b) Stay in Ireland and pay more taxes because they like Ireland and want to pay more taxes here

ei.sdraob

Sure they wont be able to leave Ireland
our resident socialists would keep Google et al "contained" within the Irish equivalent of Berlin Wall



:eek:

liammur

ei.sdraob wrote: »

low corporate taxes lead to more companies wanting to be here and more jobs, we sort of need jobs

We need food, should we allow the likes of tescos every subsidy under the sun? Of course not.

These companies need educated employees just as much as countries need jobs.

Pay your way MNCs. They are free riders and us pawns are bowing to them.

Godge

Google low taxes? I did and I got this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Not bad on personal tax are we? and this

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126614692

dunphy3

Godge wrote: »

Google low taxes? I did and I got this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Not bad on personal tax are we? and this

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126614692

cant low taxes and goverment grants be linked to how long a company/coperation is in ireland?

Godge

dunphy3 wrote: »

cant low taxes and goverment grants be linked to how long a company/coperation is in ireland?

I think the IDA do that in some cases, but there is limited value. Say you tell a company that you will pay the grant over ten years provided they stay in Ireland. They may walk away saying Scotland don't have that requirement, we will go there or they may say we don't know what we will be doing as a company by then.