• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Facebook Paid 0.3% Taxes On $1.34 Billion *non-U.S.*Profits

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
blackangst1 said:
Does it matter? Most people, you and I included, try to mitigate our taxes as much as lawfully possible. well maybe you dont, but most people do. If theres a loophole that will save someone $100 in taxes, they'll use it. Are corps any different?

Google used a tax technique that, whether most people think so or not, is legal. Whats the problem?

edit: if Google, or any corp or person, has been shown to break the law (I mean the real law, not the "should be law" that so many people cling to) than I'll jump on the rage wagon. Until then, /yawn
Click to expand...

I think the issue that people have is that they can claim a few deductions and get their effective income tax lowered from 28% to 24%, and have little recourse to do much more than that.

Big corporations on the other hand have tons of money to lobby lawmakers to ensure there are tax credits and loopholes which allow them to reduce their effective tax rate from 35% to 0%.
 
silverpig said:
I think the issue that people have is that they can claim a few deductions and get their effective income tax lowered from 28% to 24%, and have little recourse to do much more than that.

Big corporations on the other hand have tons of money to lobby lawmakers to ensure there are tax credits and loopholes which allow them to reduce their effective tax rate from 35% to 0%.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is clearly the core issue.

Note that I don't argue against the motivations the corporations have... They are just maximizing profit by any means possible. The loopholes have to be closed, and tax evasion / fraud needs to be serious enough of a penalty to dissuade companies from doing it. It is a flaw in the system, not a flaw in the nature of companies.
 
Acanthus said:
Yes, this is clearly the core issue.

Note that I don't argue against the motivations the corporations have... They are just maximizing profit by any means possible. The loopholes have to be closed, and tax evasion / fraud needs to be serious enough of a penalty to dissuade companies from doing it. It is a flaw in the system, not a flaw in the nature of companies.
Click to expand...

So then make lobbying illegal, and make politicians accountable to people and not to money.
 
Facebook operates a second subsidiary that is incorporated in Ireland but controlled in the Cayman Islands,' Kenneth Thomas explains. 'This subsidiary owns Facebook Ireland, but the setup allows the two companies to be considered as one for U.S. tax purposes, but separate for Irish tax purposes.


The Caymans-operated subsidiary owns the rights to use Facebook's intellectual property outside the U.S., for which Facebook Ireland pays hefty royalties to use. This lets Facebook Ireland transfer the profits from low-tax Ireland to no-tax Cayman Islands.'

Similar tax moves by Google, Microsoft, and others who have sought the luck-of-the-Double-Irish present quite a dilemma for tax revenue-seeking governments

========================================

I contest the Title change by the Managment but it is their website so they get to post fiction just like Fox News

The article is clear that they use off shore accounting and transfer the profits between the entities to skirt U.S. taxes and Facebook is not the only one doing it.

 
dmcowen674 said:
I contest the Title change by the Managment but it is their website so they get to post fiction just like Fox News

The article is clear that they use off shore accounting and transfer the profits between the entities to skirt U.S. taxes and Facebook is not the only one doing it.
Click to expand...

Contest all you want, the new title is factually correct.
 
dmcowen674 said:
Saying it does not make it true.

History's written words in black and white shows the truth and exposes you and your kinds lies.
Click to expand...

Can you prove it is not factually correct? Can you point to somewhere that says this money was generated in the United States?
 
As a side note:

I know the US forces dual taxation on citizens living overseas and it appears as though the same holds true for US companies. (A brief reading shows that the US imposes a 35% tax on repatriated incomes). Is it common for other countries to tax overseas income after it has already been taxed by the local country?

I will be honest - the thought of being taxed twice has made us second guess teaching abroad so it doesn't surprise me at all that companies are more willing to keep\reinvest money overseas than get it taxed twice.
 
Exterous said:
As a side note:

I know the US forces dual taxation on citizens living overseas and it appears as though the same holds true for US companies. (A brief reading shows that the US imposes a 35% tax on repatriated incomes). Is it common for other countries to tax overseas income after it has already been taxed by the local country?

I will be honest - the thought of being taxed twice has made us second guess teaching abroad so it doesn't surprise me at all that companies are more willing to keep\reinvest money overseas than get it taxed twice.
Click to expand...

Most countries, including the US, got tax agreements with other countries about double taxation. So you dont end up paying tax twice as such in terms of whats taken from you.
 
ShintaiDK said:
Most countries, including the US, got tax agreements with other countries about double taxation. So you dont end up paying tax twice as such in terms of whats taken from you.
Click to expand...

I couldn't find anything about any of the treaties eliminating double taxation. If you have any links I would be interested to read further. I did, however find these:

Reporters and lawmakers who criticize U.S. companies for "avoiding" taxes on their foreign earnings need to be more careful with their language and acknowledge that our worldwide tax system requires U.S. firms to pay taxes twice on their foreign profits—once to the host country and a second time to the IRS—before they try to reinvest those profits back home.
Click to expand...

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-multinationals-paid-100-billion-foreign-income-taxes-according-most-recent-irs-data

Current tax policy penalizes corporations when they reinvest their foreign profits in the United States. Corporations currently pay the 35 percent U.S. tax rate on the profits of their foreign subsidiaries, but they can defer those taxes until they bring those profits back to the United States.

Even though a corporation is eligible for a tax credit equal to foreign taxes paid, the decision to repatriate earnings typically requires that corporation to incur a significant tax cost. As a result, corporations usually find it more attractive to defer U.S. taxation by reinvesting their foreign earnings abroad.
Click to expand...

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/06/12-foreign-profits-pozen

Currently, the United States taxes both the domestic and foreign earnings of U.S. corporations.
Click to expand...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Reform-Internation-Taxation-Rules.cfm
 
ShintaiDK said:
I assume its something like this for americans. But I dont deal with the US version of IRS tho.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/International-Businesses/United-States-Income-Tax-Treaties---A-to-Z
Click to expand...

I did some skimming on those earlier but (the ones I skimmed) but didn't see anything excluding double taxation. (I did come across some items for reducing it) As far as I can tell US companies are generally subject to double taxation on foreign earnings (although I certainly did not read all of those). I am certainly no expert on IRS tax rules for corporations though

Also:
Some states of the United States do not honor the provisions of tax treaties.
Click to expand...

So it could depend on what state you are incorporated in.
 
Last edited:
Hold on. I need to run and post this thread on my FB.
After all, we DID help create the monster. In our own little way.
I don't suppose boycotting is in the making?
I mean, how would you then know what Aunt Fanny had for lunch?
(with photo)

Im sorry, but there are three things guaranteed in life:
Death, taxes, and tax evasion.
 
Exterous said:
I did some skimming on those earlier but (the ones I skimmed) but didn't see anything excluding double taxation. (I did come across some items for reducing it) As far as I can tell US companies are generally subject to double taxation on foreign earnings (although I certainly did not read all of those). I am certainly no expert on IRS tax rules for corporations though

Also:


So it could depend on what state you are incorporated in.
Click to expand...

You should open one of the country documents below and read further. It might explain it better to you.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/denmarkprot06.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/denmarkte07.pdf

The result is that you dont pay twice the tax, even if you are taxed 2 places instead of 1. There are different cases. Some cases you dont pay any US tax, some cases you only pay US tax. And some cases the tax is essentially divided in some sort between the countries. Without a treaty you will get double taxed in terms of paying twice the tax.

As you see in the list, far from all the worlds countries are listed meaning the US dont have a treaty with those. For those countries your assumption is correct. For all the listed countries its wrong.
 
Last edited:
dmcowen674 said:
Facebook operates a second subsidiary that is incorporated in Ireland but controlled in the Cayman Islands,' Kenneth Thomas explains. 'This subsidiary owns Facebook Ireland, but the setup allows the two companies to be considered as one for U.S. tax purposes, but separate for Irish tax purposes.


The Caymans-operated subsidiary owns the rights to use Facebook's intellectual property outside the U.S., for which Facebook Ireland pays hefty royalties to use. This lets Facebook Ireland transfer the profits from low-tax Ireland to no-tax Cayman Islands.'

Similar tax moves by Google, Microsoft, and others who have sought the luck-of-the-Double-Irish present quite a dilemma for tax revenue-seeking governments

========================================

I contest the Title change by the Managment but it is their website so they get to post fiction just like Fox News

The article is clear that they use off shore accounting and transfer the profits between the entities to skirt U.S. taxes and Facebook is not the only one doing it.
Click to expand...

Your original title was clearly flawed as to the content of the articles. You knew it and ignored it for purpose of trolling

The Moderator should have changed it to be Irish Taxes on non-US profits.

dmcowen674 said:
You have to be joking.

You honestly think the little country of Ireland could generate $1.34 Billion??? 🙄
Click to expand...

The article never stated such. It stated non-US.

Taxes paid to Ireland on non-US profits.

Two simple concepts that went over your head in your eagerness to vilify a corporation
 
Last edited:
ShintaiDK said:
Companies avoiding taxes using "immoral" practices are nothing but leechers on society.
Click to expand...


Who is defining "immoral" practices.

Such is subjective and socialist concept; not a legal concept
 
Last edited:
dmcowen674 said:
Saying it does not make it true.

History's written words in black and white shows the truth and exposes you and your kinds lies.
Click to expand...
You regularly lie in your posts here. Your thread title represented another lie and it was corrected. Your continued efforts at skulduggery will convince nobody.
 
ShintaiDK said:
You should open one of the country documents below and read further. It might explain it better to you.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/denmarkprot06.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/denmarkte07.pdf

The result is that you dont pay twice the tax, even if you are taxed 2 places instead of 1. There are different cases. Some cases you dont pay any US tax, some cases you only pay US tax. And some cases the tax is essentially divided in some sort between the countries. Without a treaty you will get double taxed in terms of paying twice the tax.

As you see in the list, far from all the worlds countries are listed meaning the US dont have a treaty with those. For those countries your assumption is correct. For all the listed countries its wrong.
Click to expand...

Well in terms of Ireland:

the United States shall allow to a resident or citizen of the United States as a credit against the United States tax on income:
Click to expand...

So they do not eliminate the double taxation - only offer a credit for it.

IRC section 904 categorizes foreign income and limits the FTC to the amount of the U.S. income tax attributable to the foreign sourced taxable income in each category. The limitation is:

(Foreign Sourced Category/Total Taxable Income)* U.S. Income Tax before other credits = FTC Limitation

It appears this credit may not always be enough to offset the double taxation
 
Exterous said:
It appears this credit may not always be enough to offset the double taxation
Click to expand...

Thats not how I read it. But again, double taxation may or may not happen depending on the treay or no treaty. If you want a clear answer, give the IRS a call.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top