Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Businesses Google News

Trump Administration Escalates Global Fight Over Taxing Tech (nytimes.com) 99

Posted by msmash from the up-next dept.
The U.S. investigation targets nine countries, plus the European Union, that have adopted or are considering new taxes that would hit American companies like Google and Amazon. From a report: The Trump administration said on Tuesday that it would open an investigation into taxes on digital commerce that have been adopted or proposed in nine countries and the European Union, escalating a global battle that will affect where big American tech companies like Facebook and Amazon pay taxes. The administration's move could ultimately lead to American tariffs on imports from Brazil, Britain, India and a host of other countries, heightening the chances of another global trade dispute that results in retaliatory taxes on U.S. goods.

The investigation, which will be conducted by the United States Trade Representative, could also complicate global negotiations that have been underway for more than a year and are aimed at reaching a multinational consensus on how to tax internet commerce that crosses borders. At issue are efforts spreading across Europe and beyond to impose so-called digital services taxes on economic activity generated online. Those taxes deviate from many traditional international tax regimes by affecting revenues earned by a company where they are generated -- regardless of whether the company has a physical presence there. For example, India imposed a 2 percent tax in April on online sales of goods and services to people in India by large foreign firms. The European Union has revived its push for a similar tax as a way to help fund response measures to the coronavirus.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trump Administration Escalates Global Fight Over Taxing Tech More

Trump Administration Escalates Global Fight Over Taxing Tech

Comments Filter:

  • Trump escalates.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @04:49PM (#60137274)

    That seems to be the primary and only strategy he has. Always escalate, always more aggression, always try to dominate. The proverbial dumb bully. If this guy had been born poor, he would probably be completely alone because nobody would want to have anything to do with such a completely dysfunctional person, or he would be in prison.

    • True. But currently, that's more of a distraction (from covid19, violence...)

    • Re:Trump escalates.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @05:04PM (#60137330)

      That seems to be the primary and only strategy he has. Always escalate, always more aggression, always try to dominate.

      .... and always distract from whatever he's not willing to deal with right now.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        I don't think it's a strategy, it's just what he does. Look at the lawsuits he has lost, he had no hope of defending himself but escalated anyway and sure enough lost.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Well, "primary and only strategy he has" = "the only thing he can do and always does". So you are correct. On could argue that calling it a "strategy" is giving him too much credit, but I do not stipulate that he ever thought about the merits and disadvantages of this strategy, nor that he is even capable of doing that.

    • Re:Trump escalates.... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @06:20PM (#60137624)

      Trump does not believe in a win-win scenario. He doesn't feel like he is winning unless someone is losing. Once you understand this most of his actions make more sense.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Trump does not believe in a win-win scenario. He doesn't feel like he is winning unless someone is losing. Once you understand this most of his actions make more sense.

        So fundamentally evil? Fits. Well, he does not really have the style for it, but much evil is banal.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        That's a poor interpretation of him. His opening gambit is indeed always extremely aggressive, skewed and weighted towards him.

        But what happens when you hold firm, negotiate, show that you too have a strong position and valid demands, he compromises. He'll shift his position and reach agreement.

        There's a whole bunch of ego massaging going on in the middle and he'll describe the agreement as a 'win', but if you ignore the bluster and look at the reality, he does shift.

        Of course, on some things he won't budge

    • This is only possible because he has been born rich though.

      Poor he'd not be alone. He'd be dead. Probably way before getting as far as trying to start his first gang war.

  • If the companies paid tax anywhere ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nicolaiplum ( 169077 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @05:06PM (#60137344)

    If these companies paid tax anywhere then there would be far less fuss about this.

    Paying tax in one place or another is complicated but you can usually come to an agreement. The reason the EU and other countries are taxing these companies' revenues in-country is because they evade any taxes at all on their profits. If these companies were not so aggressively greedy, they would not get this sort of attention.

    It's only because they evade all tax that everyone thinks they are scofflaws. Pay some tax in some countries and they wouldn't be hated.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      While their penchant for skating taxes can't be overlooked, it is of little solace for a country to see another country's taxes paid.

      More likely that they don't like the uneven playing field for an entire market where local participation is penalized. They would love for the next tech company to come out of closer to home rather than all these tech companies be foreign, but as it stands it is a dumb business proposition when you can just exploit the local markets as a foreign company cheaper than a local co

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The double taxing issue can only be solved by working together. The US doesn't want to do that, which is its choice but could cause American companies to be double taxed.

        • The double taxing issue can only be solved by working together.

          There is already a system in place for that, international tax credits.

          Many years ago, when I returned home from living overseas I was sent a tax credit for the tax I paid on income earned while I was away.

          I am sure the same scheme is available for businesses. I don't think the US allows this though.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by JBMcB ( 73720 )

        Of course how you resolve that without double-taxing foreign companies could be a problem.

        The company I work for made an international profit of several million dollars. After exchange rates, foreign and local tax, they lost $2 million. That is, nearly $5 million evaporated due to taxes and currency fluctuations.

        A lot of that was due to exchange rates, but a good chunk was also the multiple layers of taxes you pay after bringing profits back into the country.

        • Re:If the companies paid tax anywhere ... (Score:5, Informative)

          by youngone ( 975102 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @06:11PM (#60137588)

          ...but a good chunk was also the multiple layers of taxes you pay after bringing profits back into the country.

          Which is why everyone else honours international tax credits, so income is not double taxed. Your companies' problem is a US problem.
          You should try working overseas for a couple of years, as a US citizen. Your IRS is going to want a cut of your (already taxed) income too.

    • You took the words right out of my mouth. If you look at the overall tax rate of the big corporates it is peanuts. But hey let's buy back shares and keep issuing debt. I am not against capitalism nor big corporations, but this is just becoming downright stupid.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      I think we need to generally set aside the notion that anywhere is good enough, even setting aside the tax avoidance too much global corporate income is held by very large multinational corporations (not just tech) and they can't just take take take without contributing back to the societies in which they operate.

    • Re:If the companies paid tax anywhere ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @12:19AM (#60138672)

      The reason the EU is taxing these companies' European operations is the same the EU is taxing everyone else operating there - these companies are able to do business because of the business-friendly environment the EU provides, maintaining which costs public money, which money in turn come from taxes.

      Until very recently the so-called "tech companies" were abusing legal loopholes to not pay their share into that maintenance, that is, to free ride, and these are being closed.

      The only people who are against such taxes even in principle are those who do not understand well how important are good regulations for the smooth functioning of the markets, that is, the audience raised on the Republican misunderstanding of economics, in which "free markets" don't mean what it should - a market as closed to perfectly competitive as possible - but a market where anyone is free to do as they please.

    • All true - but the likes of (say) Amazon, who pay no real taxes in the UK get to operate with enormous cash flow, whereas if a UK-based shopping site were to try to rise up, it would be hampered by having to pay 20-odd percent corporation tax. Thus, no other businesses can legitimately compete with Amazon unless they're (already) a multi-national doing the same tax shuffling as Amazon.

      However, if you've got a brain the size of a peanut, taxes in the UK/Europe or wherever else look like "protectionism" - lik

  • If I understand the fine summary, many nations have issue with foreign companies being exempt from local taxes, many nations are trying to negotiate some broad consensus on the matter, and in advance of any consensus several nations and the EU have unilaterally imposed their own digital taxes on foreign businesses.

    The Trump administration has announced that the US Trade Representative will look into these taxes...

    It's not clear what the issue is.

    Is the issue that foreign companies are taxing companies locat

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The issue is that for ages we were told it's okay that big tech avoids tax that it's supposed to pay because they're just finding loopholes in the law and because they're within the law due to these loopholes that's okay, that the solution is to change the law.

      So now these countries do what people like you have been saying they should for a long time, they're changing the law so there are no loopholes to engage in tax avoidance and now people like you and Trump are saying it's still wrong.

      These companies pr

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kenh ( 9056 )
        You said:

        "These companies profit in these countries from things paid for in tax in these countries - education of citizens, infrastructure, police and fire protection. If they're not willing to contribute then can kindly fuck off and we'll create better versions locally."

        No, they don't.

        You are so eager to attack tech companies that avoid paying unnecessary taxes in countries where they DO have a physical presence, that you ignored the fact that these are taxes imposed on companies WITHOUT a physical presenc

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rev0lt ( 1950662 )
          It seems you're not familiarized with goods taxation in Europe.

          Lets say you build an online company that sells leather jackets in Ohio, USA. All your operation is there. You sell me a jacket (I'm in Portugal). At the arrival of the package, I will pay VAT (at the portuguese rate, to the portuguese government) at the customs (besides any other applicable import fees). There are international agreements that avoid me paying VAT twice for articles originating from some countries, so lets assume USA is one of

    • The UK rules (and all others I have seen) apply to *ALL* companies. That they more effect US companies is perhaps an indication they dodge tax more. However I can't setup a trivial to an affected US company in the UK as a UK citizen and avoid the tax. Want to do business add in the UK you need to pay some tax in the UK.

      • Want to do business add in the UK you need to pay some tax in the UK.

        I am a US company. I have a US-hosted website. You live in the UK. You order a product (or maybe a service) from me in the US. I now need to pay tax in the UK for sending you a product you ordered, or completing a service here in the US that you desired?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by root007 ( 656920 )
          Have you ever heard of import tariffs (the ones Trump increased for steel for example). All goods entering the US in principle are taxed by the US. This is not too different - it just extends to digital commerce. Alas, one big difference for small and mid-sized companies - this is a tax (tariff) to be paid only if you have more than 500 million turnover in the EU...
          • This isn't import taxes or duties (which I deal with all the time); this is an additional income/profits tax. And how do you apply tariffs to non-goods, like a service?

          • American products already require large import duties, there is a huge imbalance in that regard already.

            In a trade war, our duties are normally lowest in the world, we have room to raise them. Everybody else already has them maxed out to wear if they raise them, trade drops.

            This is a basic trade reality. These countries already have high duties, they have little ability to engage in trade disputes.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by kenh ( 9056 )
            Why are tariffs only one-sided? If India can impose a traffic on US goods, why can't the US respond with a tariff on Indian goods?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jemmyw ( 624065 )
          If that were the case then you pay your taxes in the USA and all is fine and dandy. Corporate tax is quite high in the US. But that's not what is happening here. Companies are setting themselves up so that they can operate in the UK, including having a high presence, sales teams, other employees etc, and make a sale there but show no profit anywhere.

          Both your company and a UK company would be at a tax disadvantage to this multinational approach.

          • Corporate tax is quite high in the US.

            Yeah, you say that with a straight face, but that's how full of shit you are. You're just an agitator.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jemmyw ( 624065 )
              wtf are you talking about? I'm not American, but I looked it up on wikipedia. 21% federal + state taxes.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by Cederic ( 9623 )

                It won't help much, but I share your confusion regarding that strange attack.

              • LOL You looked up a number for a tax that doesn't apply to any actual companies and doesn't produce any revenue.

                Now look up what percent of their income they actually pay taxes on, and how much of the total US tax burden is actually collected from companies.

                In 1980 it was evenly divided, it was close to 50/50 between companies and individuals. Look up what it is now.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by kenh ( 9056 )
            That's not what the article describes:

            "Those taxes deviate from many traditional international tax regimes by affecting revenues earned by a company where they are generated -- regardless of whether the company has a physical presence there. For example, India imposed a 2 percent tax in April on online sales of goods and services to people in India by large foreign firms. The European Union has revived its push for a similar tax as a way to help fund response measures to the coronavirus."

            Got that, "Those ta

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jemmyw ( 624065 )
              I didn't really make an argument. Anyway, these new taxes don't tax businesses with no presence in-country. How would they tax the business if it didn't have a presence? The companies this is mainly targeted at most definitely do have a presence in these countries. If you sell a service from the US to a company in India... maybe you are liable for the tax in India, but how would they go about collecting that?

              Also, and forgive me if I haven't read all the applicable proposed laws, but my belief is that the t

        • Re: Not clear (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @12:27AM (#60138694)

          No, dear, as usual you totally misunderstand the situation.

          You're a Google or a Facebook. Your revenues come exclusively from advertising. In France or Germany that's advertising targetting French and German audience and being paid by companies that operate in France or Germany.

          So much so that you even have an office there which is actually responsible for the operations and support, but you're dodging taxes by putting "Billing address" on your invoice to be somewhere outside of that particular EU jurisdiction that you're serving, and pretending your business doesn't happen there.

          That's what the EU is taxing, and pretending otherwise is playing stupid.

          Now, are you just playing stupid? I don't know, hard to tell given the many arguments I've seen you lose here badly.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dryeo ( 100693 )

          This is US companies with offices in the EU etc, actually often headquarters even, and servers all over the world, rather then just in the States.
          Your case is simple, you might have to pay (after collecting) sales tax in the foreign country but your profits and expenses are in America and that is who taxes you.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rev0lt ( 1950662 )
          It depends. If it is a physical product, generally yes, you will pay VAT in the UK, billed by UK customs (there is a "free tier", but not sure the amount). If it is a service, it depends how you are set up. You could use a subsidiary somewhere in the EU and use "inversion of tax" - you don't collect VAT, and it is up to the buyer to know and pay appropriate local taxes. In practice, a end-user of your service will never pay local VAT.

    • Is the issue that foreign companies are taxing companies located outside their borders?

      Yes. They want to tax extra-national providers of services. If you live in the US, and pay taxes in the US, but happened to do a quick software job for a client based in, for say, India - India wants to tax your income for that job. Even though you have no footprint in India or even set foot in India.

      The EU, to pick one entity, has targeted US business with a special tax, thereby subsidizing/benefiting EU companies over US companies. If the argument goes that it's OK for the EU to impose a tariff on US companies, why is it not ok for the US to return the favor on EU companies?

      If you can't beat them... Tax them?

    • If I understand the fine summary, many nations have issue with foreign companies being exempt from local taxes, many nations are trying to negotiate some broad consensus on the matter, and in advance of any consensus several nations and the EU have unilaterally imposed their own digital taxes on foreign businesses.

      The Trump administration has announced that the US Trade Representative will look into these taxes...

      It's not clear what the issue is.

      The issue is that the US lets foreign businesses operate here, and they pay the same taxes as a local business.

      These little countries like France are not in a position to create an imbalance like that.

      There will be trade consequences, and the US is the side with most of the bargaining power, because we're the place with low business taxes that is 100% friendly to foreign business. So there is a lot of room to fight back.

      It is a stupid fight.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        These little countries like France are not in a position to create an imbalance like that.

        Leaving aside the fucking idiocy of calling France a "little country", what imbalance?

        This is the second post of yours I've seen in this discussion that really makes no sense at all. Seek medical assistance, you may be suffering from something that's causing serious mental processing issues.

        That's not a troll. That's a gentle request to make sure you're ok.

  • This is part of being President (Score:3)

    by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Tuesday June 02, 2020 @07:06PM (#60137790)

    Trump represents the US, its citizens and its businesses. This is no different than representatives of every other country.

    What's the issue?

    • The US president does not represent the narrow interests of the American people. The US president is more like World President, and his job is to keep the entire world going well. This means distributing jobs and wealth from where it's piled up (America) to other countries (third world), ensuring big business can make a profit, bailing out the banks when they fuck up the system with their greed, destroy any country that gets out of line and tries to go its own way without guaranteeing international financ

  • "Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is?"

    https://youtu.be/OIfXdtml2gU [youtu.be]

    • The definition of insanity is taking mental health advice or diagnosis from a bunch of addicts who sell a book.

  • What is needed is for all nations to simply require the same tax on goods / services moving over borders, AND collected by shipping company if a good, otherwise, service is paid directly.
    Seriously, if we all agree to say 5 or 10% tax on goods (easy for all to calculate), that is collected by the shipping company and turned over to the national government, then each nation can decide how to spend/divide the tax.
    As to service, again, make it at a NATIONAL level. No taxing zones. And keep it simple. Make s

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      Sadly tax isn't that simple.

      Amazon operate in the UK, have amazon.co.uk, sell advertising and products here, have a healthy level of turnover.

      So it's reasonable to expect that their UK operations generate profits, and that those should be taxed in the UK.

      However, Amazon's UK business benefits from the global brand, and that costs money to build and maintain. They use a shitload of technology that's created in the US. They use packaging designed in Seattle, manufactured in (this bit I'm making up) Denmark, a

  • It's that simple.

    And that includes using our heathcare system by selling shitty products that get people sick (like cigarettes). You are free, to pass those costs on to the idiots who buy such things. If it deters them, and you make no money, and they do not get sick, all the better.

    Plus other such more complex costs, that require one to turn on one's brain.

    If you don't do any of that, then there should be no taxes either. We say when that is the case, though. You are free to not do business in our country

  • > The investigation, which will be conducted by the United States Trade Representative...

    Robert Lighthizer? The USTR? He's going to "take a break" from helping Big Media own copyrights forever, removing bittorrent, disputing the validity of CDA Section 230, and in general abusing every freedom of speech on the Internet... to have "an investigation"???

    Bwahahahahaha.

    OMG my stomach hurts now.

    Next they'll say the USTR will be assisted by Jared Kushner to ensure he gets the job done.

    Bwahahahahahhahaa

    E

  • not to be taxed.

    Show me one billionaire, or multibillion dollar company, that pays nearly as high a rate of taxes as you do.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Close