|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
That these senate hearing cause enough public clamor for
congress to fix tax law.
And no, this does not mean a regressive tax.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
At least there, they're just discussing it.
Over here, we have the stupid situation where Revenue & Customs (as it's now
called) is harrassing companies because "you formed a limited company!
That's tax avoidance! (implying evasion!)".
For the uninitiated, avoidance is legal, evasion is not.
Problem is, it was the Revenue that *actively* *pushed* many of these people
into incorporating when they didn't want to!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
Apple has claimed that they pay tax on overseas sales at the place of sale.
Yup, this is good for sales taxes, which usually can't be so easily avoided
as there is a retailer involved, and maybe a custoimer who has some ground
for reclaim of some or all of that tax. The residue then goes into the
company coffers as income, and may become liable for income tax
in whatever jurisdiction. Is this double taxation? That's an argument to
take to the legiuslators there.
The NZ figures I quoted show that for $571M gross sales, very generously
(but unusually) allowing that number to include Goods & Services Tax,
leaves $496.5M sales. Apple's margin in round numbers might be 25%
which is $124M gross income on a retail and distribution business.
The goods in trade are low volume high value, but the declared
"tax paid" income of $5.1M leaves a profit at 4% approaching that
of the grocery trade. Go figure.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|