How a corporation can set up a tax haven and use it through transfer pricing. Created by Sal Khan.
Missed the previous lesson? Watch here: https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/core-finance/taxes-topic/corporate-taxation/v/is-limited-liability-or-double-taxation-fair?utm_source=YT&utm_medium=Desc&utm_campaign=financeandcapitalmarkets
Finance and capital markets on Khan Academy: In exchange for being treated as a person-like-legal entity (and the limited liability this gives for its owners), most corporations pay taxes. This tutorial focuses on what corporations are, "double taxation" and a few ways that multinationals might try to get out of paying taxes.
About Khan Academy: Khan Academy offers practice exercises, instructional videos, and a personalized learning dashboard that empower learners to study at their own pace in and outside of the classroom. We tackle math, science, computer programming, history, art history, economics, and more. Our math missions guide learners from kindergarten to calculus using state-of-the-art, adaptive technology that identifies strengths and learning gaps. We've also partnered with institutions like NASA, The Museum of Modern Art, The California Academy of Sciences, and MIT to offer specialized content.
For free. For everyone. Forever. #YouCanLearnAnything
Subscribe to Khan Academy’s Finance and Capital Markets channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ1Rt02HirUvBK2D2-ZO_2g?sub_confirmation=1
Subscribe to Khan Academy: https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=khanacademy
i dont see the point in doing all this. easy to just roll this money into something else and cut your taxes legally. buy an apartment in cancun and one in nassau. rent on airbnb. you now have 2 rental properties you need to maintain and visit every year. maintenance allowance if larger then profits in most cases. go to each once a year and the entire visit is tax deductible. all completely legal.
You're right in one sense. but the way he explains in the video would be easier for big corporations with multiple branches across the country to launder their money more efficiently. if you're a sole trader then investing into income producing assets would be the smart way to reduce your taxes.
JuanFernando Gracia the IRS has weapons to defend such transactions. The loan from foreign entity might be subject to Sec. 956 rules that consider the loan as investment in US property that requires immediate income recognition. Additionally, the interest expense generated by the US entity might not be deductible as it is subject to sec. 163j and related party rules.
Deadalus DX AFAIK, you can't do it legally and tax-free. The most common way is to use the money of foreign subsidiary to invest into parent company, typically via loans. There are also more technical ways of doing it, such as entering into cost sharing agreements and such. The other common way is to pile up cash in foreign subsidiary and wait for the right moment to repatriate profits tax-free. They may use that time to search for new legal loopholes or wait for tax holiday which is quite likely to occur again since US is struggling with tax revenues.
can somebody explain this to me? So if a company tax evade by transfer pricing and end up with a bigger net profit, but this net profit cannot enter back into the country without getting taxed and thus ending up with the same net profit as the company otherwise would have if it didnt do transfer pricing, what is the benefit by doing it then?
+Marcos Mora that is not correct. Individuals are also allowed to deduct expenses that are incurred to produce income in a trade or business or other profit-seeking activity (employment does not qualify). What you cannot deduct is personal expenses?
Until of course, companies, get awarded a 5% reprobation under the guise of Job Building, as seen in 2004. Most companies bring the money in, have more layoffs, buy their stock, increasing the price, lifting the price of the options for the executives of MNC.
"Given IP". This is really a reductive view. You can't simply "give away" your property. If it's an investment, you'll pay tax on it later, and a parent company can often be liable for the profit of off-shore subsidiaries.
Bruno Costa here I agree with you
The word give
Had changed my doctor proposal and my life to hell
It is not that simple there has to be consideration that has to be paid to the parent company or the company that devoloped the IP
+lampard98jr wait so they licence the subsidiary which then licences them in return with the same thing? that doesn't really make sense does it? I mean I understand it's not suppossed to all be kosher but shouldnt the subsidiary actually pay the licencing fees? Can someone elaborate on this mechanic a bit more please?
Once again,Kahn Academy is great for math, science and economics but not good for taxation, first of that 35% is taxed at progressive rate, but yes he is correct Apple and Adobe use this tax strategy to avoid tax, youtubers go google the "the double Irish with Dutch sandwich" it will explain to a little more better and give you the Internal Revenue Code in the law book, once again this just constructive criticism to his lecture, I think Kahn academy is the future to giving education to poor
You accuse EU countries as holding Keynes as an economic god." Yet you gloss over the fact that the austerity that is currently forced upon them is anything but Keynsian. Just because they are socialist countries do not make them Keynsians. How are the housing and dot-com bubbles Keynsian phenomena when they are clearly makings of an out of control private institutions. Re-inflating assets? TARP was enacted to keep banks solvent. It had nothing to do with Keynsian economics. Stop twisting facts
You exemplify the narrow-minded, generalizing and self-proclaiming know-it-all. You wrongly associate Keynsian theory with large public sectors. Keynsian theory refers to increasing government spending as a TEMPORARY remedy to close an output gap (caused by severe fall in aggregate demand) DURING A RECESSION. It does not say that larger government spending is the way to long-term growth. NOTE: I am not defending Keynes here. There are some flaws to his theory.
Central Banking, Government regulation, tariffs go on Wikipedia and look up Keynesian theory, Done? Okay.
In it's essence Keynesian Theory is if you increase Aggregate Demand on the short run unemployment will decrease, and total income and the standards of living will increase. This has been seen worldwide to work when properly administered, which is why economists strongly support Keynesian theory, because it works.
OK. I called it a *model* although I based my statement on anecdotes told by my fellow countrymen who migrated to Sweden about good life there.
If you consider separately social system and economy, and if you introduce notions such as culture or mentality, then how can you or any1 else form a scientific approach in economic thinking?
I may take example comparing US and Mexico. Almost the same Constitution and political system, but big difference in wealth or quality of life? Mentality? Culture?
Progress is Regression. The third sentence ought to be the world. EXACTLY! Many governments were formed to protect us from other government. But then there must have been a first, one built not to protect but simply for greed, one that no longer exists. If that is possible in the first place, than your government is that way too. That would mean a fundamental mutation in the human psyche that gives up any government in the world and thus creates a perfect utopian society.
Youre right. The EU was one of the first steps in homogenizing the economy, and its pure garbage. As far as I can remember the UK was never at such a degenerate state since the EU tactic was implemented.
incorrect, I'm not sure where this notion that Keynesian Economics is a bad thing came from, however Keynesian Theory works, and if you need proof look at Australia's economy who effectively used Stimulus packages along side with a loose monetary policy which shielded them from the GFC.
And in context Heynes Theory which is polar opposite was rather popular with European countries especially in Greece and look where that's got them.
If you were a student of economics you would have been well aware of the concept "Market Failure"
That is, a free market creating an outcome which is not (pareto)efficient
- information asymmetries
- non-competitive markets
- principal–agent problems
- public goods
- natural monopoly
WWII was started by the Third Reich and it's dictator Adolf Hitler, who felt that they should have won WWI and not be poor (Germany had to pay countries affected by the war a lump sum of money) So he build an army, made miles of roads and War Machines (which did wonders for the German Economy) then they invaded Poland and England Declared war, America didn't join the war for a few years when they were bombed. Countries were under threat of conquest they were merely defending themselves.
Money itself isn't an end, money is used to purchase things.
Currencies can be transmuted into anything if you have enough, so it makes sense that Businesses would like to have as much money as they can so they can have more things, profit motive right there.
Yeah I wouldn't say music especially with students at 3 years of age would be particularly complex, I agree music can be abstract and require reflection and introspect, but 3 year old children I doubt seriously the complexity of your occupation.
There's a good reason economists earn upwards 100K annually because their job is actually complex and a great deal relies on the accuracy of their predictions.
Are you saying that your government spends half of it's entire income on the war in the middle east?
And continuing the common misconception that US presence in the middle east is all about Oil?
I'm not even sure how you got the idea that The American Government is trying to gain power by fighting it's enemies, by spending money on it's military? something it can do anyway without the loss of life.
It's not gaining land or money from those countries I fail to see how they're grasping for power.
They could provide every service the government provides but they won't, ever.
And there is a good reason for this, profit motive.
Take roads for example the company would have to charge money for the service of providing a road, in fact if there were no government all of the roads would be tax roads, there goes your argument for cheaper and better.
And in the case of taxes there pretty much two choices, Pay them or not, there's no alternative.
Yeah, that was one of the main reasons, but I don't see that that's relevent. My point was that the checks and balances in place in america to prevent a tyranical government from taking over the country have been pretty effective. This doesn't mean the american government is incapable of making mistakes, far from it. Treaty of Versailles was one of those mistakes. I would also like to remind you that the government of the USA was hardly the only one involved in the treaty, all the allies were.
Anarchy is the opposite of progress. It is pure chaos. A tribal, fractured society(broken?) with no central leadership and a haphazard barter system for an "economy". Jeez dude, what kind of drugs are you on? You're intelligent enough to form complete sentences but you can't follow that this idea simply doesn't work in the modern world we live in? Can't you understand that even if you don't believe in central gov. there are other countries that do and would crush us in a sec. under your system?
What I'm proposing is finding real solutions to fix the system of gov. we already have, which, although flawed, is still the best model of gov. in the world today. Sorry, but I don't see the logic in tearing it all down just because of a few rotten apples. If the roof on your house is missing a few shingles, and you decide to burn it to the ground because of that, then you're a fool. The problem is not the system, it's the people who run it and manipulate it selfishly to their advantage.
Reread my post. I said the answer lies somewhere in the middle. The middle. As in moderate. Business shouldn't control government and neither should the gov. "control" business. But it has a duty to responsibly regulate it to ensure that everyone is playing the game fairly. When Big Business starts buying gov. positions and creating laws for itself, that is just as tyrannical as "Big Brother" trying to butt into your personal life and liberties granted you as a lawful citizen.
I advocate non-violence, respect for property rights, and respect for free will.
How you interpret that as being malicious is your own business. I have no time for trolls. I have blocked you. You need not respond.
How about the creation of modern civilization and all the trappings of it that we enjoy? How about the formation of a cohesive, orderly and ethical society based on the rule of law and the will of the people? That work for ya?
The idea that the system you propose can work is the only myth here. It is nothing short of anarchy, trading one broken form of government for another. Worse yet the transition to this "utopian" society that you seem to envision for us all would likely cause more death and destruction in a short period of time than all the "evil" governments of the world have caused in an entended period of time. Perhaps you would care to argue for the "humanity" or "morality" in this idea.
Absolutely right. The private sector is motivated by profit, not morality. It has been painfully demonstrated already that Big Business(or small business, for that matter) cannot be trusted to police themselves. What NateforLiberty is suggesting is the equivalent of letting the fox guard the henhouse. The real answer, I think, lies somewhere in the middle. A strong centralized government system can work with the RIGHT people in charge...which admittedly we don't have right now.
That's not entirely true...if you don't want to pay taxes OR be fined, go to jail, be killed etc. there is another option for people like you: Be homeless. Be a fucking bum and live off of the land, the charity of strangers, or *gasp* government-funded welfare! Life is about choice, dude. Welcome to the reality of living in a democratic REPUBLIC my friend. The problem with you "Zeitgeist" lovers is you're no better than the tyrants you rail against, and worse yet...even less productive :(
Don't have to pay taxes. My income at present is below the no tax threshhold, and either way, all that would come my way is fines, in order to take back the money I was stealing from my fellow citezens by continuing to use public services while refusing to help pay for them and then imprisonment if I refused to pay those. But, then, I thought we were ending this discussion.
I can't say I blame you for wanting to end this discussion. I have found it rather exhausting. I would just like to say that, despite your repeated attempts to characterise my position as being otherwise, I do not support the coercion through threat of violence of anyone to restrict their freedom, as long as they are not harming anyone else. And I reject your premise that anyone is being threatened with death or violence if they refuse to tow the line for the government.
No there weren't 250 million people killed by their own governments in the 20th century IN AMERICA. And that is beside the point, the holocaust was a result of a opportunistic government taking advantage of a downtrodden people that wanted someone to blame for all their problems. It would not have happened if the populace had been properly informed, the right checks had been in place to prevent it and so on.
How do you suggest everyone is going to find out if they poisoned his food and didn't leave any witnesses or evidence? And, for that matter what if they're not software companies? What if they were the only two water companies in competition and now there's only one left? What are people going to do? Stop drinking the only clean drinking water that's left because the company that makes it used shady methods to eliminate the competition? Doubtful.
Where are your observations to suggest that monopolies don't form naturally? Because, actually we've never had a completely free market capitalist system in teh world before, and in the places that have been close to free market, monopolies have frequently formed. What observations suggest that the capacity for monopolies to form would not be magnified by corporations having access to things like private armies? Its hard for a competitor to survive if it's owners have all been assassinated
The government doesn't have the exclusive privilege of taking away rights. Why do you think it does? In a democratic system, the government requires the approval of the general population in order to infringe on the rights of it's citezens. It would only be theorhetically possible for the president to circumvent democracy and even then, it would only work with the co-operation of the supreme court and the military. Something the military would never provide in such a situation.
Well, the american government for one, at least initially formed to protect the rights of people from being infringed by the tyrannical(at that time, the british). You might argue that the government has strayed from that role, but that was still why it was initially formed, and it could have, in theory continued to fill that function, and I would argue that to a small extent it has.
I never said that. But you'd have no army, it's not profitable and no private entity would ever provide it. Same for police and firefighting. And prisons. And the FAA. No grants for science or R&D anymore. No education for those who can't afford, or healthcare. Maybe poor people don't deserve health or education, no? Private roads and trains would be disastrous. No one to stimulate a failing economy. No one would provide parks. No one to try protect the environment. Have fun in that dystopia.
No, no no. Buisnesses do not form to fill needs. Buisnesses form to make money. Filling a need that people are willing to pay to have filled is a means, not an end. Furthermore, governments can form for any number of reasons, it is literally impossible to list all of the reasons a government can be formed for and for you to think there is only one is ludicrous.
I never said I could teach music, and I don't see how that's relevant. The point is that I have enough understanding of the concepts required to learn music to make an informed judgement on whether or not your analogy is logically consistent and it isn't.
By contrast, something like the relationship between people, corporations and governments is immensely complicated and something that we simply don't have enough data on to make the short, simple, black and white assertions such as the ones you are making.
I don't understand how you can possibly imagine characterising the relationship between people, corporations and governments as simple. I am a musician myself, and just because music is abstract does not mean the concepts that someone has to learn in order to understand it on a functional level are complicated. Most concepts involved in teaching young kids music are things like how to read rhythm, pitch and so on, things that follow consistent, rules that are easy to follow once learned.
Are you suggesting to me that in a free market system, that it is completely impossible for any company, anywhere, at any time, under any set of circumstances to gain a monopoly over anything that is a prerequesite for either living, or interacting with society in a meaningful way. Even if there were no monopolies, there would still be some people who had no access to an alternative, and who would be open to exploitation. And I still don't see how you can get past the courts and military issues.
No, there's nothing about your point of view that I have trouble understanding. At least I don't think there is, correct me if my responses suggest otherwise. I do think that my point of view on this issue is significantly more complicated than yours, and I prefer to explain my rationale for my beliefs as comprehensively as I can. I find it extremely small minded to claim that an inability to summarise a complex opinion, and the arguments for it in 500 characters shows a lack of understanging.
Furthermore, whose to say that a significant number of people would even be aware of what these corporations were doing? It would be in their best interest to keep the public in the dark about the immoral things they do and we can see from history that, even with regulation, companies are very good at decieing the public.
By what mechanism do you suggest people would be able to deal out retribution to corporations? In a government free system there would be nothing stopping them from gaining monopolies on things as basic as food and water, or from controlling large armed forces. You cannot boycott a company if they have a monopoly on clean drinking water and you can't attempt to fight a company that has a monopoly on weapons.
If certain checks are in place(checks that are notably absent in the USA), it is possible to make government relatively free of corporate control and corruption, and to ensure they serve the people. If corporations aren't able to make huge campaign contributions in exchange for officials protecting their intrests, and the public is as informed as possible, the only thing that elected officials will be competing for is who can act in a way that is most approved by the public.
Our team is ready to discuss how Ripple can integrate with your existing payments systems.
In a world where three billion people are connected online, cars drive themselves and appliances can communicate, global payments are still stuck in the disco era.
Ripple connects banks, payment providers, digital asset exchanges and corporates via RippleNet to provide one frictionless experience to send money globally.
Connectivity across payments networks.
Instant, on-demand settlement.
Real-time traceability of funds.
Low operational and liquidity costs.
Better Than Any Blockchain.
Built on the most advanced blockchain technology that is scalable, secure and interoperates different networks.
Growing Global Network.
Banks, payment providers and digital asset exchanges process and provide liquidity for payments on RippleNet, creating new, competitive cross-border payments services for their customers.
How to buy Ripple.
The payment is easily completed online in minutes by POLi Payments a business from Australia Post and after payment is complete the coins will be sent to your CoinSpot online wallet immediately.
Ripple is a technology that acts as both a cryptocurrency and a digital payment network for financial transactions.
Ripple was released in 2012 and co-founded by Chris Larsen and Jed McCaleb.
The coin for the cryptocurrency is premined and labeled XRP.