The third installment in the very insightful and popular NYT iEconomy series is front page of the Sunday NYT.
Part 1: An Empire Built Abroad: How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work
Part 2: A Punishing System: In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad
Part 3: Protecting Profits: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Global Taxes
Some of the details of Apple’s corporate tax-avoidance maneuvers according to the NYT are:
• Apple’s federal tax bill was $3.3 billion on reported profits of $34.2 billion last year, a tax rate of 9.8%;
• Apple allocates 70% of its profits outside the U.S. note that the value is created in the US, but the low end manufacturing is overseas.
• A Nevada shell company let’s Apple’s U.S. business sidestep California state taxes. California corporate tax rate = 8.84%, while Nevada = 0%.
• California gives tax credits to Apple for conducting R&D in the state worht more $400 million since 1996;
• The “Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich” routes royalties and profits through Ireland and the Netherlands and the Caribbean. On paper, Ireland “generated” one-third of Apple’s revenue last year.
• Salespeople working in high-tax countries are employed by subsidiaries in low-tax countries.
• iTunes sales “happen” in Luxembourg -- a tax dodge with local incentives. In 2011, iTunes S.à r.l.’s revenue exceeded $1 billion
The full series is Pulitzer bait, and deservedly so.
Click thru for giant graphics
‘Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich’

Source:
How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes
CHARLES DUHIGG and DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
NYT, April 28, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html
This post originally appeared at The Big Picture and is posted with permission.
2 Responses to “iEconomy, Part 3: The Corporate Tax Dodge”
Is this APPLE rotten? « Qui Entertainment Magazine • April 30th, 2012 at 8:51 am
[...] Apple Exec’s are good at being silent. They quietly flushed the China stink. Shame on them for continuing to hem — as if the [...]
holding companies • June 7th, 2012 at 8:44 am
Swedish holding companies are supposed to be attractive for corporate tax planning purposes; do you know in which exact way they are favorable?













