Google France Being Raided For Unpaid Taxes (reuters.com) 189
jones_supa writes: Investigators in France have raided Google's Paris headquarters amid a probe over the company's tax payments, Reuters reports. The French Finance Ministry is investigating $1.8 billion in back taxes. According to a report in French daily Le Parisien, at least 100 investigators are part of the raid at Google's offices. A source close to the finance ministry said that the raid at Google's offices has been ongoing on Tuesday since 03:00 GMT. In February, a source at the French Finance Ministry told Reuters that the government was seeking the $1.8 billion from Google. At the time, official spokespeople for Google France and the Finance Ministry refused to comment on the situation. Google could face up to a $11.14 million fine if it is found guilty, or a fine of half of the value of the laundered amount involved. In April, the EU revealed plans to force multinationals such as Google, Amazon and Facebook to disclose exactly where and how much tax they pay across the continent. A new clause was added since the Panama Papers leak requiring the companies to report how much money they make in so-called "tax havens."
How about going after everyone else when your done (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess you have to start somewhere, but this is pretty much how every international business in the world dodges taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you have to start somewhere, but this is pretty much how every international business in the world dodges taxes.
Indeed - and Google isn't the first corporation to be put through the EU wringer either; remember Microsoft? It is the right thing to do, and once they are on a roll, more and more countries will follow suit.
Re:How about going after everyone else when your d (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess you have to start somewhere
If you don't have a solid case then you go mafia style after the small guys who can't afford to defend themselves.
If you do have a solid case then you go straight after the biggest fish to prove the point and set the precedence. The idea is if they go after Google they won't need to go after anyone else, just send them the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, precedent, not precedence.
http://www.dictionary.com/brow... [dictionary.com]
http://www.dictionary.com/brow... [dictionary.com]
Not meaning to be an ass, just hoping to help you improve your language usage. I would expect the same when I make a mistake.
Google as a verb (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you were, because that is not what I thought.
Headlines, again (Score:2)
Google France Being Raided For Unpaid Taxes
That makes it sound like debt collectors are checking down the back of the couches in the lobby and repossessing luxury office items to pay the bill.
They're not being raided for unpaid taxes. They're being raided for information relating to the possibility of unpaid taxes.
Google could face up to a $11.14 million fine if it is found guilty.
There you go. Not yet found guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well know stereotype (Score:2, Insightful)
It is a well know stereotype that tax authorities around the world are employing certain type of people. They are know for (or are requited to have) intimidation.
However French tax authorities met a formidable oponent.
Companies like Google have enough funds to hire very good specialists. Logical thinking and knowledge of the tax laws is one of the criteria.
Eventually it will be the fight between the two: intimidation vs legal logic.
I am betting that Google will win. All french authorities are doing, are sen
Re: (Score:2)
All french authorities are doing, are sending armed masked swat as if google was some sort of illegal business. Imagination is not their thing...
Imagination is clearly your thing, if you suppose that a swat team would be used for a white collar raid.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think "legal logic" works like in TV, or debate class, where you can claim "OH, BUT TECHINICALLY..." and win the case, you're in for a surprise.
This is not France, or Europe, vs US companies. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is World vs Multinationals. All countries, including the US, are slowly getting smart about taxing large companies.
Everyone is realizing that countries competing on tax conditions for large companies does not benefit anyone, except the large companies.
Expect to see much more counties to demand corporations pay tax on gains obtained in their specific country, regardless of the corporations internal financial structure and organization and tax deals with other countries.
Cue the shills (Score:5, Insightful)
Cue the shills saying that Google doesn't need to pay any tax, that they are not doing anything illegal, that this is some conspiracy from the state to steal money from "wealth creators". How much are you being paid to repeat this nonsense?
And to those that say these companies are not doing anything illegal: try claiming to the tax man that you have to pay no income tax because you have no income, because all you earn you have to pay to a company based in Panama called John Doe, inc., as this company owns your name and lets you use it for the exact amount of taxable income that you earn each month.
The tax man will skin you alive if you try this. But this is exactly the kind of shit Google, Apple, Amazon, and your favourite megacorp get away with.
Re:Cue the shills (Score:4, Insightful)
Companies wanted to be treated like people, well, so they're treated like people.
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the shills saying that Google doesn't need to pay any tax
Not only should Google not have to pay any tax, no corporation should, because corporate taxes are evil and harm the people. The dynamics of markets mean that in the long run corporations never actually pay any tax regardless of the checks they write to the government. That's because regardless of whether or not they have tax expenses, their after-tax profits are determined by market forces, and their before-tax profits adapt to generate that net profit level regardless of taxation, because either they gene
Re: (Score:3)
I'm afraid you're missing my point. I'm arguing that Google needs to pay tax, because this is the law. Simple as that. You're arguing that Google shouldn't need to pay tax, because you think corporate taxes are evil. This is besides the point, as even if corporate taxes are abolished (good luck with that) Google did not pay the tax it owed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid you're missing my point. I'm arguing that Google needs to pay tax, because this is the law. Simple as that. You're arguing that Google shouldn't need to pay tax, because you think corporate taxes are evil. This is besides the point, as even if corporate taxes are abolished (good luck with that) Google did not pay the tax it owed.
Meh.
My point is the more important one. If Google hasn't paid the taxes owed under the law, investigation will find that and the taxes will be demanded, and paid. If Google actually has followed the letter of the law, then the French government is just engaging in some obnoxious (and probably illegal) intimidation tactics. Either way, it'll be resolved.
But the whole question is wrong-headed because corporate taxes are a very bad idea and should be eliminated.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is the more important one.
Some courtesy goes a long way in raising the level of discussion. But I'll let that pass and reply to the content of your post: yes, obviously who pays Google's corporate tax is people who pay for Google's services, in terms of higher prices (in a non-monopolistic market, that is. I'll ignore that Google is a monopoly for the sake of argument). I'm perfectly okay with people who use Google's services paying tax for that privilege. It is similar to sales tax, if you think about it. The difference is that sal
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the shills saying that Google doesn't need to pay any tax, that they are not doing anything illegal, that this is some conspiracy from the state to steal money from "wealth creators".
How dare you?! Google doesn't need to pay any tax! They are not doing anything illegal! This is some conspiracy from the state to steal money from wealth creators!
How much are you being paid to repeat this nonsense?
I'll tell you when I get the check. Do you know how long it takes to arrive? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Wealthy individuals in Europe do this all the time: they move to Monaco or Switzerland or the Bahamas and transfer their assets to trusts and not-f
Re: (Score:2)
They do this indeed, it is one of the main sources of income of Switzerland. However, this is not what I described, as they still need to actually move to Switzerland to pay tax there. The tax man does not accept you simply setting up a trust there. And it kinda sucks living in Switzerland if all your family and friends are in Spain.
Re: (Score:2)
Capital gains are tax-free in Switzerland, and the top federal income tax bracket is 11.5%. Cantonal income tax varies between about 2% and 10%.
You misunderstood. Wealthy Europeans can avoid paying taxes in their own home countries without even the trouble of moving by putting their wealth into trusts.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure we are even disagreeing on any facts. I'm arguing that most rich Europeans do pay their income tax (in fact, the vast majority that does not live in Switzerland). A proof of this is that thousands of celebrities have moved to Switzerland to avoid paying tax.
The situation I was describing is someone setting up a trust overseas to avoid paying income tax. It does not work. The rich set up trusts to manage their fortunes overseas and avoid wealth taxes or capital gains taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. You originally said that "The tax man will skin you alive if you try this." But, in fact, individuals have plenty of ways of avoiding paying income and capital gains taxes quite legally. So your notion that corporations are somehow privileged in being able to do this is false.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, how are you going to avoid income tax without moving out of your country? All rich Europeans are desperate to hear your answer. I proposed a specific scheme for avoiding income tax that does not work. The tax man will skin you alive if you try that.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right: your specific proposal doesn't work, but your specific proposal is bullshit, starting with the fact that corporate profits aren't like income tax. It didn't seem worth pointing that out.
What I was saying is that wealthy individuals have many ways of tax avoidance in Europe for capital gains and other "profits", namely by changing their formal place of residence, by creating trusts, and by moving their investments around.
If
Re: (Score:2)
My specific proposal is a very close analogue to what Google does. And my point is precisely that it is bullshit, that you need to work a lot harder to avoid taxes as an individual.
And if you think it is so easy to avoid tax by changing your formal place of residence and assorted tricks, could you please explain to me why thousands of celebrities have actually moved to Switzerland for the sole purpose of avoiding tax? Mind you, these are not people who earn regular income from an employer. I'm talking about
Re: (Score:2)
No, income from employment is not equivalent to profits. Reducing income taxes is very hard because income is reported by your employer; there is little ambiguity about it, and it's easy to place limits on allowable deductions.
As for celebrities having"actually"moved to Switzerland, how do you know? Obviously, they need to own property in Switzerland and spend a little time there, but you have no idea how they spend their time otherwise. From personal experience, I can tell you that it is easy to have your
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to research how Google's tax scheme works.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you need to realize that personal income is just very different from business profits. Personal income tax is probably the hardest tax to avoid among all the taxes we face day to day. That's why your analogy doesn't work at all.
Re:Cue the shills (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how the law works. You are considered innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean you aren't breaking the law at this very moment. Otherwise there would be no crime.
The French tax authorities told them more than once that their little scheme isn't legal. They ignored them and tried to argue it, and refused to cooperate, until the only option left was a raid.
Re: (Score:2)
They paid 180 million pounds to the British because of the same shenanigans. That counts as admitting guilt in my book. Oh, I did nothing wrong, but I'll give you a couple hundred million pounds just to make you happy.
The question is not whether Google France committed fraud, but how much they scammed out of the tax man.
Re: (Score:2)
As of today, they aren't doing anything illegal. There's been no charge, nothing filed in court, no judgment made. But that's OK, go ahead and jump to conclusions...
No and yes.
They haven't been charged so far but that doesn't mean that what they've been doing is legal, thus the investigation to determine if what they've done is legal or not.
Go figure (Score:2)
Huh. I stated the exact same sentiment in a story yesterday about off-shored US corporate lucre avoiding taxes... and got rated down to a zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. And I got up to 5. I guess I got lucky with the mods (a shill gave me a -1, though).
But reading your post I see that you got quite lyrical, while my post is barely grammaticaly correct. I guess keeping it simple helps people understand your point.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, we have got ourselves an Ayn Rand true believer here! Are you for real or are you just trolling?
Re: (Score:2)
I see. So you are seriously advocating the murder of people who work for the French tax authorities. This is a crime in most countries, and I hope the police pays you a visit and teaches you to behave in a civilized society.
Re: (Score:2)
If you ever get out of your basement and actually do something about destructing governments you are going to have a nasty surprise.
New Google motto (Score:2)
"Don't get busted". You heard it here first.
One Half ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's one half ON TOP OF the unpaid taxes. So, if you're found to have evaded $1 million in taxes, you have to pay the $1 million, plus $500k in penalties.
Re:Check your own records (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU is changing the rules so that companies part tax on business they do in each state, regardless of where they funnel the profits too. Google tries stuff like claiming that all sales take place in Ireland, but their staff in other countries put things like "sales at Google" on their LinkedIn profiles. France is having none of it.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Why can't we have intelligent discourse on this site, instead of this polarizing nonsense?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the whole shit has taken up religious proportions. There is no intelligent discourse possible any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't we have intelligent discourse on this site, instead of this polarizing nonsense?
We can have it in addition to, not instead of. The problem is that those screeching about the evil commienazipaetoterrorists, or in modern parlance "SJW" have already indicated that they're incapable of engaging in intelligent discourse by resorting to cheap logical fallacies and invective off the bat.
Think of it as a really effective bozo filter.
Re:Check your own records (Score:4, Funny)
I'm curious... I've never needed a gun for anything... if I were to buy a gun
What is the obsession with these metal objects which have many applications but are most often owned by people who seem to first buy one and then look for a reason to own one. I did this with a toy robot I have. He can now dance and sing and welcomes me when I walk into the office.
I wonder... would a dildo have the same effect? In other words... if you didn't really need one but you bought one anyway, simply because you have the right to buy one of course. Would you run around wearing one in a holster? Would you fight for legal rights to have a vibrator on display, clipped safely to your belt while at Chuck'E Cheese during a children's birthday? Currently, so far as I know, you can be arrested for this type of behavior, though within the right context it's clear to me that a large enough or odd enough dildo or vibrator could be classified as baring arms.
If you had one which was gigantic and shaped like a fist, I'm positive it would classify as "baring arms". So... would you fight for your legal right to carry a large object capable of stroking, fisting and otherwise just beating the shit out of someone with when used as a club? Would you carry it across your back? In your belt? Or would you insist that you be allowed to keep it "Cocked" at all times?
You could suggest that a large fist shaped vibrating dildo would not be in the same category as a hand gun... I would disagree... I'm 100% convinced that it would have a far higher likelihood of scaring off the bad guys than a gun. If you break out a gun, most bad guys would likely respond violently. Break our a gigantic vibrating dildo and chase a guy with it, it's almost absolutely certain to cause the other guy to panic and run.
I'm also pretty convinced that if you wanted to topple a tyrant... a creative person with such a fantastic dildo would have much more of a chance against armored soldiers with tanks and such than a redneck with a pile of guns. Paint it rainbow and you would conquer half of North Carolina with one swing.
I think we both agree that like your guns, such amazing and versatile fist shaped, vibrating "massage items" are best kept locked away from children in your bedroom than on display for everyone to see. You can take them out when the time is appropriate. You can rub them and touch them and clean them and keep them oiled and shiny. I simply don't need to know your expertise level with such items... it's ok if you keep that to yourself.
I honestly swear, I really really really don't want you using either your gun or your love toy around me even in extreme circumstances. I am perfectly ok with taking my risks and dieing instead.
OK, I'm confused. . . (Score:2)
. . . this has segued from international taxation to SJWs to guns. Although, I would argue that apparently the original SJW comment was aimed at a specific user.
But the jump to guns, where did THAT come from ??
I realize this is /., but geeze, people , at least TRY to stay on topic. . . .
Roasting people's signatures (Score:2)
I see we have completely derailed.
If I rush out quickly and find a sig, could we roast me next?
Cheers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While, what you are saying in the last line is true. Those that practice daily or even weekly, have a higher probability in making it out of the problem.
Question is, how well do you react to pressure environments.
taking a gun out quickly requires practice,
Aiming at a target 30 feet away and hitting it requires even more ( center mass, even more )
doing both successfully at the same time requires a lot of practice.
after you can do all that, aim for a human and pull the trigger, ending a life is amazingly hard
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Signatures aren't visible until you log in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...international treaties mean they'll be abrogating their agreements...
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Uhh... just think what happens when France decides that turnabout is fair game and invalidates any and all intellectual property within French borders.
Hint: The internet doesn't give a fuck about borders, and IIRC a certain bay that isn't into selling stuff is interested in finding a place that doesn't give 2 shits about pesky little things like copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because that is how every government in the world does taxes?
Re: (Score:3)
Because they don't have coordinated tax systems, and doing that is a huge political issue, otherwise yes that is how you do it. This is the reasonably low bureaucratic route where the company reports all income and taxes, and spot checks can be used to make sure companies are telling the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Because a Value Added Tax is not as easy to enforce as a retail sales tax. Use Google translate to read the gripes from employees of impots.gouv.fr
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding....if they set up their branch offices like we do, then Google can then just cut the network connections. Just a bunch of thin clients on the other end that can no longer talk back to home base.
Re:Get ready everyone with anything (Score:5, Insightful)
The State with a capital "S" has just run out of other people's money. Which means they will now go get money from anyone they can, screw legality or morals.
If you have anything of value the state can reach, it will reach for it now. A small amount at first but you would be surprised how quickly it can snowball (ask the people of Venezuela or Argentina). Not quite time to make a run on the banks, but keep a weather eye on the availability of cash and perhaps start buying more durable goods with lasting value that are not so easily seized.
Funny, my take is exactly the opposite.
Big corporations have been playing a shell game with the tax man for a long time.
The deficit caused by these big corporations using government services but yet skating out on the tax bill, has been handed to the rest of us to settle.
Finally, "The State" figures it out: FOLLOW THE MONEY
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, nope. However much money politicians get, they'll outspend it, because they benefit politically from it, because they (still) can borrow on the taxpayers' back, and because they don't pay the consequences themselves.
Also, french here, and it's pretty transparent that the Ministère des Finances going after Google is little more than maybe-legal attempted extortion. It's a mediatic coup destined mostly for french voters, in preparation for the coming pres
Re: (Score:3)
In France they use those pages to raid first and ask questions later.
Re: (Score:2)
And if skirts weren't so short fewer women would be raped.
Re:Get ready everyone with anything (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe you like "If copyright laws weren't so fucked up and prices for content so insane people wouldn't download shit" more?
Re:Get ready everyone with anything (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Get ready everyone with anything (Score:5, Informative)
Some European countries, including France, have an effective solution to loopholes. If there is any doubt or question, a court settles it based on an interpretation of the law that tries to maintain its spirit. If a company has a question they can ask the tax office for clarification, and even challenge their judgement in court, but if they decide to just start abusing that loophole and get found out later they are going to be on the hook for everything they owe.
It's a fair and workable system. Occasionally there are still ambiguities that need fixing, but as Google has discovered just pretending your sales happen in Ireland for tax purposes doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$200k per year in taxes when you make $20k per year? Lol. GTO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So make it a 35% flat tax on gross income, no deductions. You know, what it works out to for regular people when you stack in VAT/sales tax, corporate fees passed off as taxes (USF, etc).
Say hello to a world where vertically integrated megacorps rule because their income is only taxed once while money flowing through a series of smaller less-integrated buisnesses is taxed multiple times.
That is why for buisnesses we tax profits rather than income, so it is transparent to the tax system whether the value is created in one large megacorp or a chain of smaller buisnesses.
Re:Get ready everyone with anything (Score:4, Insightful)
But what constitutes a "cost"?
Is it the lease on your building? Yep
Is it the power to run your shop's lights? Yep
Is it the cost of attending a "widget" conference in Las Vegas for a week? Um...
Is it the cost of the new Porsche you purchased which gets used for business use 5% of the time? Errr...
Is it the boozy lunches you regularly hold for your "friends" in the widget industry? Hmm...
Most of those 15,000 pages are probably to do with defining what constitutes an acceptable expense and what doesn't.
The problem is immensely more complex than you might think -- which is why business gets away with "avoiding" tax so much more effectively than wage-slaves do.
Re: (Score:2)
The Google / Double Irish equivalent for widgets would be making a subsidiary company in another country, that then licenses the design of your widgets to you. You then claim a large business cost and pay taxes on a lower profit, whilst your overseas subsidiary laughs all the way to the bank.
Re:Get ready everyone with anything (Score:4, Informative)
You miss the point the parent poster is making. If, as was suggested by GPP, tax is a flat rate on gross income, what constitutes a cost doesn't matter.
PP was making the point that if your business operates on smaller margins than the flat rate, it will not be able to pay its taxes, much less the shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
You're taxed on the buck. If your business expenses plus taxes can't support you, then you're unsuccessful.
Re:Get ready everyone with anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps if taxes weren't so high...
I don't think I buy this argument. Companies are ultimately driven by people, people are people, and human nature is human nature. A tiger who is plays shenanigans at a 35% or 28% tax rate does not magically change his stripes if the tax rate drops to 20% or 15%. It's still more than zero, so he will play jurisdictional arbitrage to try and make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Is the 5% tax rate more expensive than paying a few accountants and lawyers to make it look like less? If so the yes. Remember for the most part what we are talking about here is just smoke and mirrors (claiming sales occurred in different places). What you may get with a 95% tax rate is a different approach (bribery, corruption, or outright illegal tactics rather than dancing around the grey area).
But thanks for taking the extremes which have little to nothing to do with the taxes that businesses
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we implemented your ideas, government would become privatized, and essentially feudal and dictatorial.
So you sign an agreement with Joe's Police Force. Who's going to investigate your robbery when Fred's Police Force puts the kibosh on it, and they've got twice the gunmen? Joe decides that you aren't paying enough and your daughter is hot. Too bad there's no court to sue him or independent police to rescue your daughter. We degenerate into gang rule pretty darn fast.
The next step is when some ov
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is that at the scale Google and co operate at even a minute different in tax rates can make it economically viable to hide the money offshore. If you lower the tax rate to accommodate their demands you create a race to the bottom as every country trying to get those tax dollars lowers their tax rate to less than their "competitors." And who are the losers in this arrangement? We are. The people who have to foot the deficit created in the governments budget on account of lost tax revenue.
As for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the law as written has fuzzy edges and whether they're obeying the law or not can only be decided in a court of law, something else that is fuzzy (look at many Supreme Court decisions where there is a split with some Judges ruling one way and others ruling the other way).
Re: (Score:2)
I think the law is quite clear and Google is complying with it: these are well-defined companies engaging in well-defined, legal transactions that happen to greatly reduce tax liability.
If France pushes ahead on this, Google will find other ways of reducing its tax liability, and those are likely going to be economically worse for France than not having collected these taxes
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what you think about the law being clear. I think the 1st Amendment is very clear (and simple) and yet people have been executed (the Rosenburgs (sp?) for telling how to make an atomic bomb) for speech due to some Judge deciding that the 1st doesn't cover some types of speech. The 2nd amendment is also pretty clear, people have the right to bear arms and yet Judges have ruled that laws that only allow some people can bear arms are legal.
And if you don't want to pay taxes, don't. It's reall
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that courts interpret laws differently from their plain meaning is not proof that the laws are unclear. (Nevertheless, your understanding of the First Amendment is faulty.)
Re: (Score:2)
In the context of my message earnings are the same purchases, though I know they mean something different in traditional business terms. That is plain by referencing skimming which is what sales tax does, skim from sales (or what I called earnings because I think of each sale as "earned" by the company).
I agree it's too confusing to overlap terms like that though, so I will not do that again...
Funny, in my country, the employment taxes are for dedicated services, not for the services companies receive.
In y
Re: (Score:2)
The moment I hear the term "fair share", I know the argument is false.
Re: Get ready everyone with anything (Score:3)
Corporations do have a representation in the government. Their representatition is called a lobby group. In fact, unfortunately they have more representation than people.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably none of it.
If there is something governments love more than surveillance and censorship, it's money. And Google happens to have a lot of it and do shady stuff with their taxes, that's a good opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no it doesn't. It is just that it doesn't make it to the news when some local business gets raided.
Re: (Score:2)
I love how you just make shit up to support your "viewpoint".
What's interesting is that I doubt that there are any number of contrary facts which will make you change your opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
So you read a lot of local French news?
This happens all the time, but it's not global news worthy.
Re: (Score:2)