Apple iTax: made in Ireland, designed in the US
click on the link above to read the full article
Apple, famous for its innovative products, is equally creative in its tax structure.
From 2009 to 2012, it successfully sheltered US$44 billion from being taxed anywhere in the world, including sales generated in Australia.
While there are probably some sound reasons for Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, to claim in a US congressional hearing in May 2013
that his company “complies fully with both the laws and spirit of the
laws”, many people may think it is immoral for such a successful company
to avoid taxation.
But the company shouldn’t be alone in the being blamed for the low tax it pays around the world.
Concerted government action, including specific provisions inserted
into US tax laws in 1997, have made it possible for multinationals with
complex structures to funnel profits between the gaps of tax
authorities.
And it is unlikely to be a coincidence that Irish tax law has been
crafted to allow companies incorporated in Ireland to take full
advantage of these gaps in the US.
Mapping the reach of Apple’s iTax scheme and the rules it uses to
hide profits is difficult, if not impossible, to discern from its
financial statements.
My research on this topic would have been impossible but for information revealed in the US Senate hearing in May last year.
Tuesday 11 March 2014
Wednesday 5 March 2014
Free Trade and the Environment | Global Exchange
Free Trade and the Environment | Global Exchange
click on the above link to read the full article
U.S.-based Harken Energy Company
wanted to exploit oil off the coast of Costa Rica, a country known for
its long history of democracy as well as its pristine natural parks and
natural resources. But the Costa Rican government denied the permit
because the oil exploration would negatively impact Costa Rica’s
environment. Harken attempted to sue the government for $57 billion –
more than the country’s entire GDP. The case was eventually settled in
local courts. But if CAFTA is approved, Harken would have the right to
sue the Costa Rican government for expropriation. Then the Costa Rican
people would be left with two options: let Harken drill for oil and
damage the environment, or pay them potential lost future profits.
For decades, governments have worked together through the United
Nations to develop agreements to protect the natural resources of our
shared planet. Unfortunately, so-called “free trade agreements” threaten
to erode many of the advances in global environmental protection,
endangering our planet and the natural resources necessary to support
life. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and certain
agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) were written to
prioritize rights for corporations over protections for our shared
environment.
But rather than being repealed, corporate interests
are negotiating the expansion of these corporate rights. The
U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA),
soon to go before Congress, and the proposed Free Trade Area of the
Americas (FTAA), currently in negotiations, are modeled on NAFTA. In
addition, negotiations are proceeding within the WTO to expand many of
its policies.
These new agreements threaten global biodiversity,
would accelerate the spread of genetically engineered (GE) crops,
increase natural resource exploitation, further degrade some of the most
critical environmental regions on the planet, and erode the public’s
ability to protect our planet for future generations.
No Protections for the Environment
Neither CAFTA nor the FTAA require member countries to adopt
internationally recognized standards for environmental protection. Nor
does either agreement ensure that member countries don’t lower or waive
their existing environmental laws in an effort to attract investment.
What’s more, rules in CAFTA and the FTAA would actually prohibit member
countries from enacting many new environmental regulations, allowing
those regulations to be challenged as “barriers to trade.” This strips
the public from a fundamental democratic right to pass laws that protect
our environment in favor of corporations’ “right” to profit from
environmental destruction.
Mega-Diverse Countries
Latin America is one of the most biologically and culturally diverse
regions on the planet. Four of the five Central American countries
included in CAFTA have tropical areas that have been identified as
“critical regions” for their biodiversity. Additionally, 7 of the
world’s 12 “megadiverse” countries, (Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Peru,
Ecuador, Costa Rica and Colombia) are found in the Americas.
“Mega-diversity” countries represent the majority of the world’s
biodiversity and surviving Indigenous peoples, the true guardians of
biodiversity. Unfortunately, so-called “free trade” agreements directly
contradict important international legislation designed to protect the
rights of Indigenous peoples and biodiversity, like the Convention on
Biological Diversity as well as the International Labor Organization
Convention 169, which states that Indigenous groups must be consulted on
issues that affect their rights to land and livelihood.
Piracy of Global Biodiversity
In the last decade, the biodiversity of the Americas has been targeted
by “life science” corporations (the growing consolidation of
pharmaceutical, agrichemical and seed companies) in search of “green
gold.” These corporations are pillaging humankind’s patrimony of
traditional knowledge and biodiversity to create and patent drugs and
agricultural products to sell for profit. The quest to patent life
forms, especially medicinal plants and crops, threatens our food
security, access to healthcare, and the biological and cultural
diversity of the Americas.
Intellectual property rules in CAFTA
and the FTAA would require that member countries grant protections to
the patenting of life forms. This would facilitate a massive increase in
“bioprospecting” or the practice of corporations patenting Indigenous
communities’ knowledge of plants and then profiting from that knowledge –
while forcing Indigenous communities to pay for what they had
previously held in common.
click on the above link to read the full article
Free Trade and the Environment
by Deborah JamesU.S.-based Harken Energy Company
wanted to exploit oil off the coast of Costa Rica, a country known for
its long history of democracy as well as its pristine natural parks and
natural resources. But the Costa Rican government denied the permit
because the oil exploration would negatively impact Costa Rica’s
environment. Harken attempted to sue the government for $57 billion –
more than the country’s entire GDP. The case was eventually settled in
local courts. But if CAFTA is approved, Harken would have the right to
sue the Costa Rican government for expropriation. Then the Costa Rican
people would be left with two options: let Harken drill for oil and
damage the environment, or pay them potential lost future profits.
For decades, governments have worked together through the United
Nations to develop agreements to protect the natural resources of our
shared planet. Unfortunately, so-called “free trade agreements” threaten
to erode many of the advances in global environmental protection,
endangering our planet and the natural resources necessary to support
life. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and certain
agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) were written to
prioritize rights for corporations over protections for our shared
environment.
But rather than being repealed, corporate interests
are negotiating the expansion of these corporate rights. The
U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA),
soon to go before Congress, and the proposed Free Trade Area of the
Americas (FTAA), currently in negotiations, are modeled on NAFTA. In
addition, negotiations are proceeding within the WTO to expand many of
its policies.
These new agreements threaten global biodiversity,
would accelerate the spread of genetically engineered (GE) crops,
increase natural resource exploitation, further degrade some of the most
critical environmental regions on the planet, and erode the public’s
ability to protect our planet for future generations.
No Protections for the Environment
Neither CAFTA nor the FTAA require member countries to adopt
internationally recognized standards for environmental protection. Nor
does either agreement ensure that member countries don’t lower or waive
their existing environmental laws in an effort to attract investment.
What’s more, rules in CAFTA and the FTAA would actually prohibit member
countries from enacting many new environmental regulations, allowing
those regulations to be challenged as “barriers to trade.” This strips
the public from a fundamental democratic right to pass laws that protect
our environment in favor of corporations’ “right” to profit from
environmental destruction.
Mega-Diverse Countries
Latin America is one of the most biologically and culturally diverse
regions on the planet. Four of the five Central American countries
included in CAFTA have tropical areas that have been identified as
“critical regions” for their biodiversity. Additionally, 7 of the
world’s 12 “megadiverse” countries, (Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Peru,
Ecuador, Costa Rica and Colombia) are found in the Americas.
“Mega-diversity” countries represent the majority of the world’s
biodiversity and surviving Indigenous peoples, the true guardians of
biodiversity. Unfortunately, so-called “free trade” agreements directly
contradict important international legislation designed to protect the
rights of Indigenous peoples and biodiversity, like the Convention on
Biological Diversity as well as the International Labor Organization
Convention 169, which states that Indigenous groups must be consulted on
issues that affect their rights to land and livelihood.
Piracy of Global Biodiversity
In the last decade, the biodiversity of the Americas has been targeted
by “life science” corporations (the growing consolidation of
pharmaceutical, agrichemical and seed companies) in search of “green
gold.” These corporations are pillaging humankind’s patrimony of
traditional knowledge and biodiversity to create and patent drugs and
agricultural products to sell for profit. The quest to patent life
forms, especially medicinal plants and crops, threatens our food
security, access to healthcare, and the biological and cultural
diversity of the Americas.
Intellectual property rules in CAFTA
and the FTAA would require that member countries grant protections to
the patenting of life forms. This would facilitate a massive increase in
“bioprospecting” or the practice of corporations patenting Indigenous
communities’ knowledge of plants and then profiting from that knowledge –
while forcing Indigenous communities to pay for what they had
previously held in common.
The 14 Worst Corporate Evildoers | International Labor Rights Forum
The 14 Worst Corporate Evildoers | International Labor Rights Forum
Corporations carry out some of the most horrific human rights abuses
of modern times, but it is increasingly difficult to hold them to
account. Economic globalisation and the rise of transnationals corporate
power have created a favourable climate for corporate human rights
abusers, which are governed principally by the codes of supply and
demand and show genuine loyalty only to their stockholders.
Several of the companies below are being sued under the Alien Tort
Claims Act, a law that allows citizens of any nationality to sue in US
federal courts for violations of international rights or treaties. When
corporations act like criminals, we have the right and the power to stop
them, holding leaders and multinational corporations alike to the
accords they have signed. Around the world--in Venezuela, Argentina,
India, and right here in the United States--citizens are stepping up to
create democracy and hold corporations accountable to international law.
Caterpillar
For years, the Caterpillar Company has provided Israel with the
bulldozers used to destroy Palestinian homes. Despite worldwide
condemnation, Caterpillar has refused to end its corporate participation
house demolition by cutting off sales of specially modified D9 and D10
bulldozers to the Israeli military.
In a letter to Caterpillar CEO James Owens, The Office of the UN High
Commissioner on Human Rights said: "allowing the delivery of your ...
bulldozers to the Israeli army ... in the certain knowledge that they
are being used for such action, might involve complicity or acceptance
on the part of your company to actual and potential violations of human
rights..."
Peace activist Rachel Corrie was killed by a Caterpillar D-9,
military bulldozer in 2003. She was run over while attempting to block
the destruction a family's home in Gaza. Her family filed suit against
Caterpillar in March 2005 charging that Caterpillar knowingly sold
machines used to violate human rights. Since Corrie's death at least
three more Palestinians have been killed in their homes by Israeli
bulldozer demolitions.
Corporations carry out some of the most horrific human rights abuses
of modern times, but it is increasingly difficult to hold them to
account. Economic globalisation and the rise of transnationals corporate
power have created a favourable climate for corporate human rights
abusers, which are governed principally by the codes of supply and
demand and show genuine loyalty only to their stockholders.
Several of the companies below are being sued under the Alien Tort
Claims Act, a law that allows citizens of any nationality to sue in US
federal courts for violations of international rights or treaties. When
corporations act like criminals, we have the right and the power to stop
them, holding leaders and multinational corporations alike to the
accords they have signed. Around the world--in Venezuela, Argentina,
India, and right here in the United States--citizens are stepping up to
create democracy and hold corporations accountable to international law.
Caterpillar
For years, the Caterpillar Company has provided Israel with the
bulldozers used to destroy Palestinian homes. Despite worldwide
condemnation, Caterpillar has refused to end its corporate participation
house demolition by cutting off sales of specially modified D9 and D10
bulldozers to the Israeli military.
In a letter to Caterpillar CEO James Owens, The Office of the UN High
Commissioner on Human Rights said: "allowing the delivery of your ...
bulldozers to the Israeli army ... in the certain knowledge that they
are being used for such action, might involve complicity or acceptance
on the part of your company to actual and potential violations of human
rights..."
Peace activist Rachel Corrie was killed by a Caterpillar D-9,
military bulldozer in 2003. She was run over while attempting to block
the destruction a family's home in Gaza. Her family filed suit against
Caterpillar in March 2005 charging that Caterpillar knowingly sold
machines used to violate human rights. Since Corrie's death at least
three more Palestinians have been killed in their homes by Israeli
bulldozer demolitions.
Tax deal: How Apple shifts its billions out of Australia
- Date
Neil Chenoweth
Last year, Apple sent an estimated $2 billion of income from its Australian sales to Ireland via Singapore. Photo: Andrew Quilty
US tech giant Apple has shifted an estimated $8.9 billion in
untaxed profits from its Australian operations to a tax haven structure
in Ireland in the last decade, an investigation by The Australian Financial Review has found.Last year Apple reported pretax earnings in Australia of only $88.5 million after it sent an estimated $2 billion of income from its Australian sales to Ireland via Singapore, where Apple negotiated a secret tax deal in 2009.
The Financial Review has obtained 10 years worth of financial accounts for Apple Sales International, the secretive Irish company at the heart of Apple's international tax arrangements, which reveal the mark-up Apple charges for intellectual property on its products around the world.
Advertisement
"Newspapers have had lots of stories about tax avoidance by
Microsoft and Google and Apple, but there are hardly any numbers," said
University of Sydney senior lecturer of taxation law Antony Ting, who
has published a review of Apple's tax arrangements."Now, for the first time, there are numbers for the profits that escaped from Australian tax."
The G20 meeting in Sydney last week gave US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Apple a deadline to reform their tax arrangements, warning that "by the Brisbane summit [in November], we will start to deliver effective, practical and sustainable measures" against international tax avoidance.
Apple Sales International has reported more than $US100 billion ($112 billion) of profits in the last five years. Its accounts show it has paid less than 50¢ in tax on every $1000 of income.
Read the full story at AFR.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)