> "This case was not about how much tax we pay, but where we are required to pay it," Apple said in a statement.
We have come to accept that certain tax payers (ie. corporate or well lawyered individuals) can chose where their revenue should be taxed. It think it has become obvious that this freedom distorts the spirit of taxation in most (all?) countries. I think it is fair to prevent double taxation across countries but IMHO revenue should be taxed as close to the source (revenue-generating-event) as possible.
> "We're proud to be the largest taxpayer in the world, as we know the important role tax payments play in society."
The old PR line Apple (and others) have been repeating ad nauseum... No one questions your place in the ranking, people care about the proportion (rate) you end up paying. If you're among the largest companies in the world by revenue it's not surprising that you'd be among the largest tax payers.
We have come to accept that certain tax payers (ie. corporate or well lawyered individuals) can chose where their revenue should be taxed. It think it has become obvious that this freedom distorts the spirit of taxation in most (all?) countries. I think it is fair to prevent double taxation across countries but IMHO revenue should be taxed as close to the source (revenue-generating-event) as possible.
> "We're proud to be the largest taxpayer in the world, as we know the important role tax payments play in society."
The old PR line Apple (and others) have been repeating ad nauseum... No one questions your place in the ranking, people care about the proportion (rate) you end up paying. If you're among the largest companies in the world by revenue it's not surprising that you'd be among the largest tax payers.