Sanders: 'Your $8.99 Netflix subscription is more than the company paid in federal income taxes

Dec 2018
3,304
2,436
Indiana
I described what many companies do in post 17 as the cite in post 62 tells you. And no, I will not be sharing the name of my previous employer nor any other personally identifying information about me in this forum.

And that you think the IRS would find this illegal is yet another demonstration that you really don't understand this subject.
I'd knew you'd chicken out when it came to supplying specifics. It's the scenario that YOU provided, minus the critical detail of identification which makes your example impossible to scrutinize or research for purposes of this discussion.

Did you read this part from your link?:

The portion of taxable income was usually determined by the number of employees of the company in Switzerland, and whether the company was under Swiss control, i.e. the percentage of Swiss resident shareholders. In some instances, if the company had less than six employees and no Swiss control, only 10% of foreign-source income would have been subject to tax.

This means that, in certain instances, a Swiss IP holding was subject to effective tax rates between 8% to 10%. Furthermore, Cantonal Tax Authorities have been granting privileged corporate tax regimes via tax rulings to certain multinational business groups that provided for exemptions or reduced cantonal corporate tax rates.

Economic Substance requirements to access these regimes was lenient. A local director (which is required by law), and engagement with a trust services company for the provision of management and secretarial services would have sufficed in most cases.

However, these preferential tax regimes, together with the holding company and the finance branch regimes, have come to an end and will be abolished from 1 January 2020 on.

****


What government creates by corporate charter, can be fully regulated and taxed by governments.
 
Dec 2018
6,034
1,621
New England
I'd knew you'd chicken out when it came to supplying specifics. It's the scenario that YOU provided, minus the critical detail of identification which makes your example impossible to scrutinize or research for purposes of this discussion.

Did you read this part from your link?:

The portion of taxable income was usually determined by the number of employees of the company in Switzerland, and whether the company was under Swiss control, i.e. the percentage of Swiss resident shareholders. In some instances, if the company had less than six employees and no Swiss control, only 10% of foreign-source income would have been subject to tax.

This means that, in certain instances, a Swiss IP holding was subject to effective tax rates between 8% to 10%. Furthermore, Cantonal Tax Authorities have been granting privileged corporate tax regimes via tax rulings to certain multinational business groups that provided for exemptions or reduced cantonal corporate tax rates.

Economic Substance requirements to access these regimes was lenient. A local director (which is required by law), and engagement with a trust services company for the provision of management and secretarial services would have sufficed in most cases.

However, these preferential tax regimes, together with the holding company and the finance branch regimes, have come to an end and will be abolished from 1 January 2020 on.

****


What government creates by corporate charter, can be fully regulated and taxed by governments.
I don't put personal information in forums like this because there are too many idiots about. And unless your parents gave you the name "Rescue Basket" then you're in no position to criticize my desire for anonymity.

If you think the IP ownership approach is coming to an end you're simply wrong. There's nothing the US government can do about it because it's beyond their reach.
 
Dec 2018
3,304
2,436
Indiana
If you think the IP ownership approach is coming to an end you're simply wrong.
The quotation above is from the link YOU posted. LoL!

There's nothing the US government can do about it because it's beyond their reach.
Sure, governments can do something about it -- you're engaging in wishful thinking; but I will grant you that Congressional Republicans have no intention, whatsoever, of doing anything to require MNCs pay corporate taxes to the IRS.

Nonetheless, this excerpt from your link was very informative:

However, these preferential tax regimes, together with the holding company and the finance branch regimes, have come to an end and will be abolished from 1 January 2020 on.

A few months ago, we discussed how OECD and EU pressure have led to the enactment of a comprehensive tax reform, the Federal Act on Tax Reform and AHV Financing (TRAF), in Switzerland, which was ratified last Sunday (19 May) by public referendum.

****

What government creates by corporate charter, can be fully regulated and taxed by governments.
 
Dec 2015
20,189
20,617
Arizona
Here's a quick test. Be honest, at what point in the whole Ukrainian call mess did you decide the President should be impeached by the House, found guilty by the Senate, and removed from office?
Be honest? LOL. When have you known me to NOT be honest?
I can't give you a DATE or TIME, but I was pretty sure--like most Americans with some semblance of intelligence---that WHEN Trump said, "I would like you to do us a favor..." the JIG was UP....but (not wanting to jump to conclusions) I waited to hear some consensus. Some chatter.
Was it just me? Did others think that was over the line? Is there precedent for that?
Then there was the "memorandum/rough transcript" confirming Trump's words.
Then the whistle guy blew his whistle.
Then Trump and Mulvaney confirmed the statement...errr....request.
But when DID I KNOW FOR SURE that Trump was guilty of abuse of power for personal gain? I knew that FOR SURE when every single Republican said, "Trump did nothing wrong."
Then, when Trump's staff ignored the subpoenas, at Trump's behest, my opinions were solidified....cuz, that, my friend, is obstruction and witness tampering.

AND here's something else we've learned along the way, which pretty much clinches or summarizes the Trump presidency:
Now we know there is absolutely NOTHING the president could do (probably including murder) that would change the cult's support for him.
In other words: They support him NO MATTER what.
I have a problem with that. No other president in our history (almost 244 years) has abused the office of the presidency like Trump. No other president has even tried, except for maybe Nixon and he had the grace to resign.
I have a problem with that too.
 
Dec 2018
3,304
2,436
Indiana
Go back to post 17. In your own words, describe the law that prohibits that.
You tell me - it's your secret scenario. Keep in mind that tax law and tax treaties can be amended and changed anywhere in the world.

****

However, these preferential tax regimes, together with the holding company and the finance branch regimes, have come to an end and will be abolished from 1 January 2020 on.
A few months ago, we discussed how OECD and EU pressure have led to the enactment of a comprehensive tax reform, the Federal Act on Tax Reform and AHV Financing (TRAF), in Switzerland, which was ratified last Sunday (19 May) by public referendum.
 
Dec 2018
6,034
1,621
New England
You tell me - it's your secret scenario. Keep in mind that tax law and tax treaties can be amended and changed anywhere in the world.
You would need ban licensing agreements between US companies and foreign owned companies. That is not going to happen.
 
Dec 2018
6,034
1,621
New England
Be honest? LOL. When have you known me to NOT be honest?
I can't give you a DATE or TIME, but I was pretty sure--like most Americans with some semblance of intelligence---that WHEN Trump said, "I would like you to do us a favor..." the JIG was UP....but (not wanting to jump to conclusions) I waited to hear some consensus. Some chatter.
Was it just me? Did others think that was over the line? Is there precedent for that?
Then there was the "memorandum/rough transcript" confirming Trump's words.
Then the whistle guy blew his whistle.
Then Trump and Mulvaney confirmed the statement...errr....request.
But when DID I KNOW FOR SURE that Trump was guilty of abuse of power for personal gain? I knew that FOR SURE when every single Republican said, "Trump did nothing wrong."
Then, when Trump's staff ignored the subpoenas, at Trump's behest, my opinions were solidified....cuz, that, my friend, is obstruction and witness tampering.

AND here's something else we've learned along the way, which pretty much clinches or summarizes the Trump presidency:
Now we know there is absolutely NOTHING the president could do (probably including murder) that would change the cult's support for him.
In other words: They support him NO MATTER what.
I have a problem with that. No other president in our history (almost 244 years) has abused the office of the presidency like Trump. No other president has even tried, except for maybe Nixon and he had the grace to resign.
I have a problem with that too.
It would have been simpler to say “the moment I first learned of the Ukraine call.”
 
Feb 2018
2,657
1,928
Oregon
This is where the Sanders crowd gets absolutely stupid. In their narrow-mindedness they cannot see beyond their own policy objectives and thus fail to understand that multi-nationals like Netflix can shop for tax jurisdictions. They just can't get it through their feathery heads these are not really American companies. They are global entities and will shop for the best tax deal.

Far better we become a tax destination for these companies rather than one that sends their dollars running.
Translation: "reduce or eliminate corporate taxes."