hvalika

You can't make it "dead simple" when some of the concepts are not "dead simple." Let me give you the example of debt vs equity. Just because the company/lender codes it as such, does not make it so. What might be treated as interest deductions may ought to be treated as dividends instead. It may be difficult to make this entirely automated.

I don't entirely disagree with your post but I generally avoid calling these loopholes. It is all about finding the mismatch between two countries --

For example, if a little kid asks his dad if he can go to the movies, and dad replies "go ask mom, do what she says" and the kid then asks mom and mom says "whatever dad said" it doesn't mean that you are necessarily finding a loophole. Either party is essentially deferring and the benefit is caught in between. Works out well for the kid but at the end of the day, the parents probably should have had better communication and figured out what to do.

Thanks Kell - I must ask - did Google ever approach the French Revenue Authorities and try to get a ruling ahead of time? I assume they are arguing that Google does not have a permanent establishment in France.

^^^ exactly that. The rule is generally that your "principal purpose" can't be to avoid taxes (in this case). There is also the "economic substance doctrine" which actually codifies the above principle. Basically, you have to have a non-tax reason to do something -- even if the tax reasons are ridiculously great.

There are certain things where you are allowed to write into the IRS and get a Private Letter Ruling. "Business Purpose" is not one of them.

Thank you! People are blowing this whole LLC thing out of control. It really isn't a big deal deal at all. He probably went against the word of his tax advisors to use an LLC as opposed to a typical foundation. Just applaud the man for his efforts and stop turning this into a tax play -- it isn't. Not a very good one at least.

Just a slight clarification -- there is no "avoidance" going on here. This is merely "deferral." Transferring the shares of any company to another company is often a tax free transaction (provided some basic rules are met) under Section 351 of the tax code. (This is Tax 101).

But really, what is this saying about the companies that are allowed to remain? Does the Pakistani government have the ability to monitor every message/email sent via phones through a domestic carrier? (I suppose all carriers are domestic.)

As a business decision, is this really smart for Blackberry? There is a decent market in Pakistan, after all.