decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Baiting a trap? | 234 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Baiting a trap?
Authored by: squib on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 04:31 PM EST
Hear what you say PJ, yet we're having to read in near pitch darkness -as apple is very secretive. Apple has stated that its going to repurchase stock. Upto $10 billion 'so' they say. Do the accountants and financial wizards want to repurchase at a high price or a low price? Should we take any notice of what might be an orchestrated down-turn. Apple hold all the cards and only they know what they hold in their hand.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2148856300x0x610219/112dd7d2-e33a- 44ad-b4ea-8870c5dd9281/AAPL_10K_FY12_10.31.12.pdf

Dividend and Stock Repurchase Program In March 2012, the Board of Directors of the Company approved a dividend policy pursuant to which it plans to pay, subject to subsequent declaration, quarterly dividends of $2.65 per share. The Company expects to pay approximately $2.5 billion each quarter in conjunction with the quarterly declared dividends. In March 2012, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized a program to repurchase up to $10 billion of the Company’s common stock beginning in 2013. The repurchase program is expected to be executed over a threeyear period with the primary objective of neutralizing the impact of dilution from future employee equity grants and employee stock purchase programs. The repurchase program does not obligate the Company to acquire any specific number of shares. The Company anticipates that it will utilize approximately $45 billion of domestic cash to pay dividends, repurchase shares, and to remit withheld taxes related to net share settlement of restricted stock units in the first three years of the dividend and stock repurchase programs. The Company anticipates the cash used for future dividends and the repurchase program will come primarily from current domestic cash and from on-going U.S. operating activities and the cash generated from such activities.
On the Motorola licensing issue. Apple obtained legal title to the Intel sub-assemblies in 'Japan' and thus imported them to the US themselves – violating Motorola's regional licensing conditions. If they did that, thinking it was OK (and Might-Is-Right), can that explain why the pay so little US and other corporation tax. In the same doc above they state they use a rule of thumb that if they think they have a better than 50% chance of winning with the tax authorities then that OK. What do they base this on. Microsoft, Starbucks, et, al pay very corporation tax. Non, have been brought to book -yet. So a 50% chance may be calculated on those example alone. Other multinationals with similar cash-flows tends to be the likes of oil companies, aircraft manufactures, defence contractor etc.. The can't achieve such advantageous tax avoidance because their local governments scrutinise their accounts in detail. These international tax advantages where introduced to save international companies from the burden of 'double taxation' – not to provide a route to no taxation. If Apple's international accounts were to be scrutinise in such detail, would they also be found to be interpreting the law along the lines of “don't ask for permission – just ask for forgiveness if we get found out” This is more than just tax regulations and the 'spirit of the law' but the reappearance (IMHO) of "the unacceptable face of capitalism".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20197710

PS. Sorry for the absence of clicky's

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )