Panama Papers

[Main Street]

You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

Are you referring to the recently implemented OECD rules to prevent rampant tax avoidance by multi national companies?
http://oecdinsights.org/2015/10/05/plans-to-tackle-tax-avoidance-announced/

We have yet to see the effects of these new OECD rules.
There is little cause yet to be optimistic.

[mikehunt]

You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

So the likes of Google, Apple and Facebook don't get preferential treatment when compared to their indigenous counterpart?

Correct re Google and Facebook.
Apple's tax ruling is from 1980 and the EU is investigating whether it gave them preferential treatment.

Some would argue that OECD standards would be a pretty low base to judge from but even allowing for that the Govt bending over backwards for MNC's while refusing to tackle upward only rents for indigenous companies would suggest otherwise.

[Hound]

You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

Are you referring to the recently implemented OECD rules to prevent rampant tax avoidance by multi national companies?
http://oecdinsights.org/2015/10/05/plans-to-tackle-tax-avoidance-announced/

We have yet to see the effects of these new OECD rules.
There is little cause yet to be optimistic.

That's not Irish tax avoidance.

When MNCs do implement tax saving structures, they usually aim to reduce tax in high paying countries such as the US.

[Hound]

You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

So the likes of Google, Apple and Facebook don't get preferential treatment when compared to their indigenous counterpart?

Correct re Google and Facebook.
Apple's tax ruling is from 1980 and the EU is investigating whether it gave them preferential treatment.

Some would argue that OECD standards would be a pretty low base to judge from but even allowing for that the Govt bending over backwards for MNC's while refusing to tackle upward only rents for indigenous companies would suggest otherwise.

I'd love to hear examples of how Ireland is bending over backwards.
We offer incentives like a low tax rate to compete against other countries to bring MNCs and their jobs to Ireland.

Plenty of MNCs in upward only rents too. That's a completely different issue, and nothing to do with tax

[Esmarelda]

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/richard-bruton-panama-papers-tax-evaders-will-be-vigorously-prosecuted-728045.html


The Enterprise Minister Richard Bruton says anyone found to be evading tax will be prosecuted.

Mr Bruton was speaking after it emerged more than 300 companies in Ireland are mentioned in the the biggest ever leak of financial information.

The details from a law firm in Panama have exposed the offshore holdings of some of the world's most prominent politicians, celebrities and sport stars, including the Russian President Vladmir Putin and FIFA's ethics committee.

The papers also link a company registered on Botanic Avenue in Drumcondra in Dublin to international arms deals.

Minister Bruton, says if there is any evidence of wrongdoing, it will be dealt with.

He said: "Well these are clearly concerns and as you know the government have been very active in developing through the so-called BEPS process through the OECD.

"Obviously if there are offences of Irish law discovered in this, you can be absolutely sure they will be vigorously prosecuted - but at this point we don't know that."

Ha ha, yeah sure it will Richard.

Can anyone find me the details of Putin's off-shore holdings that breakingnews has told us have been revealed?

[mikehunt]

You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

So the likes of Google, Apple and Facebook don't get preferential treatment when compared to their indigenous counterpart?

Correct re Google and Facebook.
Apple's tax ruling is from 1980 and the EU is investigating whether it gave them preferential treatment.

Some would argue that OECD standards would be a pretty low base to judge from but even allowing for that the Govt bending over backwards for MNC's while refusing to tackle upward only rents for indigenous companies would suggest otherwise.

I'd love to hear examples of how Ireland is bending over backwards.
We offer incentives like a low tax rate to compete against other countries to bring MNCs and their jobs to Ireland.

Plenty of MNCs in upward only rents too. That's a completely different issue, and nothing to do with tax

I don't have evidence of Ireland Inc literally bending over backwards but Noonan giving Trump the red carpet treatment would be close enough. Firesale of chunks of property at knockdown prices by NAMA to US Hedge funds would be another example.  This thread is about preferential treatment for the wealthy. Ireland has a reputation of being a tax haven for the wealthy. There is plenty of evidence to back this up.

[Hound]

You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

So the likes of Google, Apple and Facebook don't get preferential treatment when compared to their indigenous counterpart?

Correct re Google and Facebook.
Apple's tax ruling is from 1980 and the EU is investigating whether it gave them preferential treatment.

Some would argue that OECD standards would be a pretty low base to judge from but even allowing for that the Govt bending over backwards for MNC's while refusing to tackle upward only rents for indigenous companies would suggest otherwise.

I'd love to hear examples of how Ireland is bending over backwards.
We offer incentives like a low tax rate to compete against other countries to bring MNCs and their jobs to Ireland.

Plenty of MNCs in upward only rents too. That's a completely different issue, and nothing to do with tax

I don't have evidence of Ireland Inc literally bending over backwards but Noonan giving Trump the red carpet treatment would be close enough. Firesale of chunks of property at knockdown prices by NAMA to US Hedge funds would be another example.  This thread is about preferential treatment for the wealthy. Ireland has a reputation of being a tax haven for the wealthy. There is plenty of evidence to back this up.

We do encourage foreign investors to invest in Ireland. I applaud that as it brings employment.
The red carpet treatment for Trump was a bit embarrasing at the time, much more so now in hindsight. But he's getting no special tax breaks.
Ireland is not a tax haven for the wealthy! Hence so many of our rich folk are not tax resident in Ireland.

In my opinion the tax rates for the wealthy should be be reduced from the penal high levels they are at, to encourage more of them to become resident here to encourage entrepreneurs to create more wealth and, in particular, more employment. But that's another story

[mikehunt]

In my opinion the tax rates for the wealthy should be be reduced from the penal high levels they are at, to encourage more of them to become resident here to encourage entrepreneurs to create more wealth and, in particular, more employment. But that's another story

As a matter of interest how would you fund this tax reduction for the down trodden wealthy? This inhumane penal tax system that they face needs immediate attention. The poor and middle classes have been beaten for the dead horse that they are so we can't get them to contribute any more. Maybe legalise euthanasia to reduce the cost of health care? Send welfare recipients to Turkey, we could dress them up as Syrian migrants. Drop the minimum wage to €2.50 to reduce costs for MNC's? Ensure that 2% of actual money raised for charities reaches intended target as opposed to the current 20%. This the type of approach you would advocate?

[J70]

These boys are no different to anyone who, for instance, has taken/paid cash for a job to avoid paying VAT on it.  They're doing the exact same thing on a bigger scale.  Hands up anyone who can say they've never done something like that.

I sold xmas trees for a few days one xmas for cash. Think I got cash once for a day loading a freezer boat in Killybegs when I was 16 or 17 when they called in help to meet a deadline. And a neighbour once gave me 20 pounds for baling his hay for him.

Does that put me on the same moral plane as someone putting millions or even billions out of reach of the taxman?

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

*Actually, if you want to get really fussy, you were worse, as (if I've got it right) what these boyos were up to was strictly speaking legal.

So accepting a few quid here and there for a day's work as a teenager might be morally worse than systematic cheating of your government out of millions and billions, depending on whether it was accomplished  through some legal loophole?

I'll repeat.

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

It's the same attitude - "I know I should be paying this, but I'm gonna skirt the system so I can keep the money".

If same teenager comes into serious wealth later in life, do you think that attitude's going to change?

One is not a predictor of the other.

Just because some neighbour gave me 20 pounds to bale a field for him when I was 16 does not mean I'm going to be a tax evader in later life. Same as me giving my nephew $10 for helping me out with something doesn't impose a civic duty on him to file a tax return.

If I was moonlighting as an adult doing so -called nixers or a bit of bar work under the table on a steady basis, then you'd have a valid comparison.

[Franko]

These boys are no different to anyone who, for instance, has taken/paid cash for a job to avoid paying VAT on it.  They're doing the exact same thing on a bigger scale.  Hands up anyone who can say they've never done something like that.

I sold xmas trees for a few days one xmas for cash. Think I got cash once for a day loading a freezer boat in Killybegs when I was 16 or 17 when they called in help to meet a deadline. And a neighbour once gave me 20 pounds for baling his hay for him.

Does that put me on the same moral plane as someone putting millions or even billions out of reach of the taxman?

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

*Actually, if you want to get really fussy, you were worse, as (if I've got it right) what these boyos were up to was strictly speaking legal.

So accepting a few quid here and there for a day's work as a teenager might be morally worse than systematic cheating of your government out of millions and billions, depending on whether it was accomplished  through some legal loophole?

I'll repeat.

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

It's the same attitude - "I know I should be paying this, but I'm gonna skirt the system so I can keep the money".

If same teenager comes into serious wealth later in life, do you think that attitude's going to change?

One is not a predictor of the other.

Just because some neighbour gave me 20 pounds to bale a field for him when I was 16 does not mean I'm going to be a tax evader in later life. Same as me giving my nephew $10 for helping me out with something doesn't impose a civic duty on him to file a tax return.

If I was moonlighting as an adult doing so -called nixers or a bit of bar work under the table on a steady basis, then you'd have a valid comparison.

Yet again you're ignoring the bit I've underlined.

If you were baling the hay and said, "here lad, I'll do it for a bit less if you give me cash" or if your nephew said something similar about his E10, then you're in the same boat as these people.  That's the point I'm making. And I'd say there's quite a few who have said/done these things.

[omaghjoe]

Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak 

3 Apr, 2016 

Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.

Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results. In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent.

But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.

The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that "much of the leaked material will remain private."

What do you expect? The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists", which is funded and organised entirely by the USA's Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include

Ford Foundation
Carnegie Endowment
Rockefeller Family Fund
W K Kellogg Foundation
Open Society Foundation (Soros)

among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.

Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny "balancing" western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia.

The corporate media – the Guardian and BBC in the UK – have exclusive access to the database which you and I cannot see. They are protecting themselves from even seeing western corporations' sensitive information by only looking at those documents which are brought up by specific searches such as UN sanctions busters. Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the instruction of MI6.

What if they did Mossack Fonseca database searches on the owners of all the corporate media and their companies, and all the editors and senior corporate media journalists? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on all the most senior people at the BBC? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every donor to the Center for Public Integrity and their companies?

What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every listed company in the western stock exchanges, and on every western millionaire they could trace?

That would be much more interesting. I know Russia and China are corrupt, you don't have to tell me that. What if you look at things that we might, here in the west, be able to rise up and do something about?

And what if you corporate lapdogs let the people see the actual data?

UPDATE

Hundreds of thousands of people have read this post in the 11 hours since it was published – despite it being overnight here in the UK. There are 235,918 "impressions" on twitter (as twitter calls them) and over 3,700 people have "shared" so far on Facebook, bringing scores of new readers each.

I would remind you that this blog is produced free for the public good and you are welcome to republish or re-use this article or any other material freely anywhere without requesting further permission

I was wondering why nothing had come up on Western interests because its a cast iron certainy they are actually the major benefactors from this firm.

Is Cameron's dead father the best they can do? Come on!

The Icelandic PM is payin the price for takin Russian Aid

The notion we have a Free Press is truely laughable? The Western Police state might be more accurate

[Main Street]

You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

Are you referring to the recently implemented OECD rules to prevent rampant tax avoidance by multi national companies?
http://oecdinsights.org/2015/10/05/plans-to-tackle-tax-avoidance-announced/

We have yet to see the effects of these new OECD rules.
There is little cause yet to be optimistic.

That's not Irish tax avoidance.

When MNCs do implement tax saving structures, they usually aim to reduce tax in high paying countries such as the US.

Tax savings?
Multinationals implement tax avoidance gimmicks in order to shift profit  to make it appear that it has been earned in low tax countries .  Subsidaries of US corporations earned profits in Ireland which amounted to 42% of Irish GDP, obviously impossible.
That's tax avoidance. That what the OECD call tax avoidance.

[J70]

These boys are no different to anyone who, for instance, has taken/paid cash for a job to avoid paying VAT on it.  They're doing the exact same thing on a bigger scale.  Hands up anyone who can say they've never done something like that.

I sold xmas trees for a few days one xmas for cash. Think I got cash once for a day loading a freezer boat in Killybegs when I was 16 or 17 when they called in help to meet a deadline. And a neighbour once gave me 20 pounds for baling his hay for him.

Does that put me on the same moral plane as someone putting millions or even billions out of reach of the taxman?

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

*Actually, if you want to get really fussy, you were worse, as (if I've got it right) what these boyos were up to was strictly speaking legal.

So accepting a few quid here and there for a day's work as a teenager might be morally worse than systematic cheating of your government out of millions and billions, depending on whether it was accomplished  through some legal loophole?

I'll repeat.

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

It's the same attitude - "I know I should be paying this, but I'm gonna skirt the system so I can keep the money".

If same teenager comes into serious wealth later in life, do you think that attitude's going to change?

One is not a predictor of the other.

Just because some neighbour gave me 20 pounds to bale a field for him when I was 16 does not mean I'm going to be a tax evader in later life. Same as me giving my nephew $10 for helping me out with something doesn't impose a civic duty on him to file a tax return.

If I was moonlighting as an adult doing so -called nixers or a bit of bar work under the table on a steady basis, then you'd have a valid comparison.

Yet again you're ignoring the bit I've underlined.

If you were baling the hay and said, "here lad, I'll do it for a bit less if you give me cash" or if your nephew said something similar about his E10, then you're in the same boat as these people.  That's the point I'm making. And I'd say there's quite a few who have said/done these things.

Fair enough on that (narrow) point.

However, the scale thing doesn't add up for me in terms of judging these people. There's no comparison between some boy doing a little bit of work off the books and some banker or politician hiding his millions on some island somewhere that has been bought out to help the super rich avoid paying the share they should be paying to help fund their government. If you think the rest of us have no right to condemn, fair enough. I disagree. As do, apparently, the people of Iceland.

Its like saying any one of us who slapped another buck on the field when things got heated during a match is just a small scale version of some lout who pulled out a gun and shot someone who pissed them off. The man hurting other man thing might be the same, but the gravity of the situation is a lot different. Just because I might have given some boy a clip at some point doesn't mean I have no moral right to judge or condemn someone who uses lethal force.

[CiKe]

You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

Are you referring to the recently implemented OECD rules to prevent rampant tax avoidance by multi national companies?
http://oecdinsights.org/2015/10/05/plans-to-tackle-tax-avoidance-announced/

We have yet to see the effects of these new OECD rules.
There is little cause yet to be optimistic.

That's not Irish tax avoidance.

When MNCs do implement tax saving structures, they usually aim to reduce tax in high paying countries such as the US.

Tax savings?
Multinationals implement tax avoidance gimmicks in order to shift profit  to make it appear that it has been earned in low tax countries .  Subsidaries of US corporations earned profits in Ireland which amounted to 42% of Irish GDP, obviously impossible.
That's tax avoidance. That what the OECD call tax avoidance.

I'm not a solicitor nor an accountant but I thought tax avoidance was different to tax evasion. Avoidance is tax minimization in accordance with the rules (no matter how twisted those rules may be), while evasion is tax minimization in contravention of the rules.

I think is a case of don't hate the player, hate the game. I don't voluntarily pay more tax than I have to and I don't think we should expect companies to either. Are some of the rules perverse? Sure and they should be changed and should try to eliminate (impossible) all the grey areas so there is a independently verifiable, consisent and objective "right" and "wrong".

[theskull1]