Australian Govt Pledges Action On Google Tax Evasion 331
daria42 writes "Looks like Google's habit of funneling billions of dollars in revenue through its Irish and Bermuda subsidiaries continues to attract unfavorable government attention globally. France has already announced plans to take on the search giant's tax evasion habits, and the Australian Government, to which Google paid just $74,000 in tax last year despite having Australian revenues close to $1 billion, has now confirmed plans to do the same."
Re:How are they legally allowed to do this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Do no evil, my ass (Score:4, Informative)
Just to be clear it isn't only Google that's implicated in this, the summary is probably just a typical attempt at defaming just Google by the usual culprits (i.e. Microsoft shills). That's not to defend Google in this, there's no doubt they're in the wrong, but most well known US multi-nationals are guilty of the exact same thing - some even more so. In the UK the companies exposed for this have included Amazon, Apple, Starbucks, and many others.
Re:It isn't very different (Score:4, Informative)
Avoidance is merely evasion that has not yet been shown to be illegal.
Is English your native language?
What's your point? Regardless of whether the words "evasion" and "avoidance" are synonymous or similar in general usage, the distinction between "tax evasion" and "tax avoidance" as referring to illegal and legal activities respectively is widely accepted and standard terminology.
If you don't know this, perhaps it says more about *your* ignorance of the language.
Re:It isn't very different (Score:2, Informative)
When the government sets a rate of 21% corporation tax, it's pretty clear that the government intends that companies pay 21% corporation tax on their revenues.
When the government passes a law allowing companies to deduct some expense from their profits before calculating their taxes it is pretty clear that the government does not intend for the company to pay taxes on that money. If the government truly intended for companies to pay 21% tax on their revenues they would not have written deductions into the tax law for companies to take. They would have just written the law saying that companies need to pay 21% of their revenues in taxes. However, since that is not what the law has been written to say, it is pretty clear that the government did not intend for companies to pay that much. What is clear is that the government intended for you to think that companies pay 21% of their revenue in taxes.
If Google followed the law in the deductions they took, the taxes are not owed and cannot be legitimately collected retroactively (and if it can be done "legally" in your country than you do not actually have laws, just government edicts).
Re:It isn't very different (Score:4, Informative)
If you can stop with the tears and name calling for just a moment, you'll find plenty here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States [wikipedia.org]