Paradise Papers (& Panama Papers)

Matthewfalle

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

OECD has just given Jersey the top ranking for tax transparency - better than that of the US, uk, most of Europe.

Pah, away with you and your facts

TROLLING WITH FACTS. TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL FACT TROLL OECD TROLL JERSEY TROLL TROLL TAX HAVEN TROLL TROLL OECD CORRUPT FAKE NEWS. USE THEM AS BOMBING PRACTICE AND KILL CIVILIANS. INVADE THE TAX COMPLIANT TRANSPARENT TROLLS.

SAD.

rick_chasey

Shame they still distort tax revenues and BOP, and help firms to circumvent taxes in nations where they do most of their business.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shame they still distort tax revenues and BOP, and help firms to circumvent taxes in nations where they do most of their business.

We've already explained tax competition to you and how it is pretty universal in one form or another and to a greater or lesser extent. So the real question is where the line should be drawn.

Can you clarify where you would draw the line between 'fair' and 'unfair' tax competition? Give us some specific examples to illustrate your position.

Can you also explain where the extensive anti-avoidance rules are failing: specifically those rules that address the recognition of tax revenues by offshore related companies where there is insufficient substance and function to justify the level of those revenues. As I'm sure you know, these anti-avoidance rules are present in most countries' tax rules

pinno

Matthewfalle wrote:

OECD has just given Jersey the top ranking for tax transparency - better than that of the US, uk, most of Europe.

Who gives a farq?

Matthewfalle

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

OECD has just given Jersey the top ranking for tax transparency - better than that of the US, uk, most of Europe.

Who gives a farq?

all those who say they are all illegal hidey stolen money places.

i thought transparency was what you and Richard wanted?

pinno

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

OECD has just given Jersey the top ranking for tax transparency - better than that of the US, uk, most of Europe.

Who gives a farq?

all those who say they are all illegal hidey stolen money places.

i thought transparency was what you and Richard wanted?

Well, it does not detract from the fact that Jersey was implicated in aggressive tax avoidance for Apple Inc..

norvernrob

Just wondering why most of the Blu/rays/DVD's I deliver have a business address based in the Channel Islands. It doesn't make much sense logistically, but it must make sense somewhere hey?

pinno

NorvernRob wrote:

Just wondering why most of the Blu/rays/DVD's I deliver have a business address based in the Channel Islands. It doesn't make much sense logistically, but it must make sense somewhere hey?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-20953357

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

OECD has just given Jersey the top ranking for tax transparency - better than that of the US, uk, most of Europe.

Who gives a farq?

People who form their views based on facts and evidence, rather than those who come to the debate with predetermined views and prejudices who are simply looking for anything to reinforce whatever they already think.

Also people who know their subject matter rather than those who are a bit ignorant of it.

Wonder who on here would fall into those latter categories?

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

OECD has just given Jersey the top ranking for tax transparency - better than that of the US, uk, most of Europe.

Who gives a farq?

all those who say they are all illegal hidey stolen money places.

i thought transparency was what you and Richard wanted?

Well, it does not detract from the fact that Jersey was implicated in aggressive tax avoidance for Apple Inc..

The Apple/Jersey situation was explained several pages back. Didn't you read it?

This is getting a bit tedious, getting the same old crap recycled a few pages after being explained :roll:

Matthewfalle

NorvernRob wrote:

Just wondering why most of the Blu/rays/DVD's I deliver have a business address based in the Channel Islands. It doesn't make much sense logistically, but it must make sense somewhere hey?

It used to but about 3/4 years ago they took away the tax advantages for both consumers and retailers leading to a good few hundred job losses in Jersey - so both you paying higher prices and people trying to earn a living in Jersey got stuffed.

It's all about LVCR if you want to look into it.

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shame they still distort tax revenues and BOP, and help firms to circumvent taxes in nations where they do most of their business.

We've already explained tax competition to you and how it is pretty universal in one form or another and to a greater or lesser extent. So the real question is where the line should be drawn.

Can you clarify where you would draw the line between 'fair' and 'unfair' tax competition? Give us some specific examples to illustrate your position.

Can you also explain where the extensive anti-avoidance rules are failing: specifically those rules that address the recognition of tax revenues by offshore related companies where there is insufficient substance and function to justify the level of those revenues. As I'm sure you know, these anti-avoidance rules are present in most countries' tax rules

The lack of response when challenged on key points and specifics speaks volumes.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

OECD has just given Jersey the top ranking for tax transparency - better than that of the US, uk, most of Europe.

Who gives a farq?

all those who say they are all illegal hidey stolen money places.

i thought transparency was what you and Richard wanted?

Well, it does not detract from the fact that Jersey was implicated in aggressive tax avoidance for Apple Inc..

The Apple/Jersey situation was explained several pages back. Didn't you read it?

This is getting a bit tedious, getting the same old crap recycled a few pages after being explained :roll:

Yes that has been covered. Apple have aggressively avoided taxes. Are you contradicting that?
You can take the legal standpoint and say well, it's legal and we should accept it or you can take the other point of view - well, it's legal but it's not fair.
I take the latter view. A massive company with massive profits who still do their utmost to avoid paying taxes through a network and structures that is not accessible to the average small business or sole trader.

Explain it away all you like and justify it in terms of legality but it's a matter of opinion.
You are not going to change my mind. It has been said that Apple have been using aggressive tax avoidance techniques and structures to facilitate that. No one, not even you has contradicted that.

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Deja vu...

Stevo 666 wrote:

And on your point about Apple, it is the Ireland and the US who are the big losers in that structure. They are both fully aware of what Apple are doing/have done, but then again Apple is not breaking any US rules otherwise the IRS would have had them pay up by now. And in the case of Ireland, the Irish government is actually defending Apple's position on this matter.

So your point about Apple is what, exactly?

For the third time...

Stevo_666

FishFish wrote:

The Channel Islands have not reduced Apples Tax bill - they are taxed when the money is returned to the US. Except that all changed with the developments in US tax law which will reduce the rate on remittance compensated for a deferred tax liability on profits. Nothing illegal in what they do. Or Jersey does.

And this. And to be clear, nobody is saying that this structure reduces UK tax as far as I can see...

Don't believe all the NGO leftiebollox that you hear.

So your point about Apple and Jersey in the light of these facts is what?

Matthewfalle

Is that the same Jersey that the OECD had praised for being transparent, legitimate, legal, etc?

pinno

Matthewfalle wrote:

Is that the same Jersey that the OECD had praised for being transparent, legitimate, legal, etc?

Please don't panic or be over-defensive, I am sure your money in off shore accounts is all quite legal.
From what I gather, having those off shore accounts makes you no better off than having them in the UK. Apparently.
Not sure why you should want an off shore account really.

rjsterry

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Is that the same Jersey that the OECD had praised for being transparent, legitimate, legal, etc?

Please don't panic or be over-defensive, I am sure your money in off shore accounts is all quite legal.
From what I gather, having those off shore accounts makes you no better off than having them in the UK. Apparently.
Not sure why you should want an off shore account really.

I think the point is that Apple have gained an advantage through their arrangements (otherwise why would they bother*); it's just not as big an advantage as some people think. It looks big, because all the numbers associated with Apple are big.

* I suspect that some of the schemes sold to private individuals give a pretty minimal ney benefit to the client but a nice fat fee to the people making the arrangements.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

FishFish wrote:

The Channel Islands have not reduced Apples Tax bill - they are taxed when the money is returned to the US. Except that all changed with the developments in US tax law which will reduce the rate on remittance compensated for a deferred tax liability on profits. Nothing illegal in what they do. Or Jersey does.

And this. And to be clear, nobody is saying that this structure reduces UK tax as far as I can see...

Don't believe all the NGO leftiebollox that you hear.

Leftiebollox from The Sun and John McCain. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/ ... avoidance/

Republican Senator John McCain added that Apple was “among America’s
largest tax avoiders”

What is the point of all this? Well the senators point out that Apple has continued to accumulate vast amounts of cash in places other than the US, and those cash holdings now exceed an eye-popping $102bn (£67bn). Why does any of this matter? Well it is part of a broad trend of multinationals paying a much smaller proportion of public sector costs in all the world's developed economies. In the US, for example, corporate tax generated 32.1% of all federal taxes in 1952. Today that proportion has fallen to a puny 8.9%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22607349

pinno

Nice link BT.

"Apple Inc established an offshore subsidiary, Apple Operations International, which from 2009 to 2012 reported net income of $30bn, but declined to declare any tax residence, filed no corporate income tax return and paid no corporate income taxes to any national government for five years."

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Is that the same Jersey that the OECD had praised for being transparent, legitimate, legal, etc?

Please don't panic or be over-defensive, I am sure your money in off shore accounts is all quite legal.
From what I gather, having those off shore accounts makes you no better off than having them in the UK. Apparently.
Not sure why you should want an off shore account really.

I think the point is that Apple have gained an advantage through their arrangements (otherwise why would they bother*); it's just not as big an advantage as some people think. It looks big, because all the numbers associated with Apple are big.

* I suspect that some of the schemes sold to private individuals give a pretty minimal ney benefit to the client but a nice fat fee to the people making the arrangements.

Of course, it is about deferral of US taxes.

As I mentioned, these overseas profits are taxed in the US at up tp 40% when repatriated to the US by way of (usually) dividends. So logically it makes sense for US multinationals not to repatriate more than necessary. However this is completely as US law intends, so if there is a fault it lies with how the US rules are written. The US gov't is fully aware of the Apple position.

As for the other countries involved or mentii ed
Jersey - no issues from their side
Ireland - Irish govt openly supports the Apple position
UK - not relevant

So where is the 'aggressive tax avoidance'?

Fyi for completeness the Trump tax reforms are due to change this as they recognise that the current rules encourage dysfunctional behaviour in terms of not bringing funds back to the US.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

FishFish wrote:

The Channel Islands have not reduced Apples Tax bill - they are taxed when the money is returned to the US. Except that all changed with the developments in US tax law which will reduce the rate on remittance compensated for a deferred tax liability on profits. Nothing illegal in what they do. Or Jersey does.

And this. And to be clear, nobody is saying that this structure reduces UK tax as far as I can see...

Don't believe all the NGO leftiebollox that you hear.

Leftiebollox from The Sun and John McCain. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/ ... avoidance/

Republican Senator John McCain added that Apple was “among America’s
largest tax avoiders”

What is the point of all this? Well the senators point out that Apple has continued to accumulate vast amounts of cash in places other than the US, and those cash holdings now exceed an eye-popping $102bn (£67bn). Why does any of this matter? Well it is part of a broad trend of multinationals paying a much smaller proportion of public sector costs in all the world's developed economies. In the US, for example, corporate tax generated 32.1% of all federal taxes in 1952. Today that proportion has fallen to a puny 8.9%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22607349

McCain and the Sun appear to have a similar level of understanding, I.e. not a lot. McCain appears to be complaining about how the US rules are written to allow completely legitimate deferral, even if he doesn't know it

I already explained the point about how US companies do not repatriate funds to the US more than necessary.

Regarding the company in that link, again, it was a case of deferral of US taxes and again, within the US rules. So let me ask - which government or tax authority was crying foul in this case? (See my comments above on specific countries).

As for corporate taxes falling as a percentage of total tax take, this is expected and even intended as governments shift revenue raising to other taxes e.g. VAT and payroll. The other point is that overall tax revenues are rising: corporate tax is being used as a carrot to entice investment into countries. Below is the pattern of corporate tax vs other taxes:
https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html

Matthewfalle

Pinno wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Is that the same Jersey that the OECD had praised for being transparent, legitimate, legal, etc?

Please don't panic or be over-defensive, I am sure your money in off shore accounts is all quite legal.
From what I gather, having those off shore accounts makes you no better off than having them in the UK. Apparently.
Not sure why you should want an off shore account really.

It's all about ring fencing.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

FishFish wrote:

The Channel Islands have not reduced Apples Tax bill - they are taxed when the money is returned to the US. Except that all changed with the developments in US tax law which will reduce the rate on remittance compensated for a deferred tax liability on profits. Nothing illegal in what they do. Or Jersey does.

And this. And to be clear, nobody is saying that this structure reduces UK tax as far as I can see...

Don't believe all the NGO leftiebollox that you hear.

Leftiebollox from The Sun and John McCain. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/ ... avoidance/

Republican Senator John McCain added that Apple was “among America’s
largest tax avoiders”

What is the point of all this? Well the senators point out that Apple has continued to accumulate vast amounts of cash in places other than the US, and those cash holdings now exceed an eye-popping $102bn (£67bn). Why does any of this matter? Well it is part of a broad trend of multinationals paying a much smaller proportion of public sector costs in all the world's developed economies. In the US, for example, corporate tax generated 32.1% of all federal taxes in 1952. Today that proportion has fallen to a puny 8.9%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22607349

McCain and the Sun appear to have a similar level of understanding, I.e. not a lot. McCain appears to be complaining about how the US rules are written to allow completely legitimate deferral, even if he doesn't know it

I already explained the point about how US companies do not repatriate funds to the US more than necessary.

Regarding the company in that link, again, it was a case of deferral of US taxes and again, within the US rules. So let me ask - which government or tax authority was crying foul in this case? (See my comments above on specific countries)

As for corporate taxes falling as a percentage of total tax take, this is expected and even intended as governments shift revenue raising to other taxes e.g. VAT and payroll. The other point is that overall tax revenues are rising: corporate tax is being used as a carrot to entice investment into countries. Below is he patter of corporate tax vs other taxes:
https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html

This would fit with the one of biggest parts of the tax gap being VAT and payroll, and CT being some way down the list.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

FishFish wrote:

The Channel Islands have not reduced Apples Tax bill - they are taxed when the money is returned to the US. Except that all changed with the developments in US tax law which will reduce the rate on remittance compensated for a deferred tax liability on profits. Nothing illegal in what they do. Or Jersey does.

And this. And to be clear, nobody is saying that this structure reduces UK tax as far as I can see...

Don't believe all the NGO leftiebollox that you hear.

Leftiebollox from The Sun and John McCain. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/ ... avoidance/

Republican Senator John McCain added that Apple was “among America’s
largest tax avoiders”

What is the point of all this? Well the senators point out that Apple has continued to accumulate vast amounts of cash in places other than the US, and those cash holdings now exceed an eye-popping $102bn (£67bn). Why does any of this matter? Well it is part of a broad trend of multinationals paying a much smaller proportion of public sector costs in all the world's developed economies. In the US, for example, corporate tax generated 32.1% of all federal taxes in 1952. Today that proportion has fallen to a puny 8.9%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22607349

McCain and the Sun appear to have a similar level of understanding, I.e. not a lot. McCain appears to be complaining about how the US rules are written to allow completely legitimate deferral, even if he doesn't know it

I'm not arguing about technicalities of tax avoidance (even if I disagree with your views on the desirability of international tax competition, I know that the skill of your job is in using tax laws to the best advantage of your employers, so you will be well versed in your subject), merely pointing out that you have more than leftiebollox to contend with.

There may be a reason that many politicians in this country (at least, and at least historically) have had to contend with philosophy (as part of a PPE degree), as much of government involves (or should involve) at least as much thought about the philosophy and morals of policies as the technicalities. It doesn't follow that because someone is a genius on the technicalities of a subject that they are a moral authority on the subject too.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

I'm not arguing about technicalities of tax avoidance (even if I disagree with your views on the desirability of international tax competition, I know that the skill of your job is in using tax laws to the best advantage of your employers, so you will be well versed in your subject), merely pointing out that you have more than leftiebollox to contend with.

There may be a reason that many politicians in this country (at least, and at least historically) have had to contend with philosophy (as part of a PPE degree), as much of government involves (or should involve) at least as much thought about the philosophy and morals of policies as the technicalities. It doesn't follow that because someone is a genius on the technicalities of a subject that they are a moral authority on the subject too.

McCain is calling foul when there is no foul committed. This is because he doesn't understand the law or the relationship to 'morals'.

Similarly, you and others seem to be coming into this with the pre-formed assumption that somebody must be doing something wrong, but when pressed you can't say what it is. Hence the question about which country is calling foul - because none of them are. Yes, Apple is paying less tax than it might do if it did things another way that is just sensible tax planning - in the end this is what people are taking issue with.

All taxpayers have the right to arrange their affairs so as not to pay more than is legally due - there is even case law to support it in the UK. This quote from the relevant case which is part of current UK case law on tax:-
“No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer’s pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue” Lord Clyde Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue.
I've highlighted in bold above one key word for you

As I've said many times on this thread, morals are relative and as demonstrated above they don't trump the law.

Also it is a bit difficult to be a moral authority on a subject if you don't actually understand the subject. As this thread demonstrates very well

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

I'm not arguing about technicalities of tax avoidance (even if I disagree with your views on the desirability of international tax competition, I know that the skill of your job is in using tax laws to the best advantage of your employers, so you will be well versed in your subject), merely pointing out that you have more than leftiebollox to contend with.

There may be a reason that many politicians in this country (at least, and at least historically) have had to contend with philosophy (as part of a PPE degree), as much of government involves (or should involve) at least as much thought about the philosophy and morals of policies as the technicalities. It doesn't follow that because someone is a genius on the technicalities of a subject that they are a moral authority on the subject too.

McCain is calling foul when there is no foul committed. This is because he doesn't understand the law or the relationship to 'morals'.

Similarly, you and others seem to be coming into this with the pre-formed assumption that somebody must be doing something wrong, but when pressed you can't say what it is. Hence the question about which country is calling foul - because none of them are. Yes, Apple is paying less tax than it might do if it did things another way that is just sensible tax planning - in the end this is what people are taking issue with.

All taxpayers have the right to arrange their affairs so as not to pay more than is legally due - there is even case law to support it in the UK. This quote from the relevant case which is part of current UK case law on tax:-
“No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer’s pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue” Lord Clyde Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue.
I've highlighted in bold above one key word for you

As I've said many times on this thread, morals are relative and as demonstrated above they don't trump the law.

Also it is a bit difficult to be a moral authority on a subject if you don't actually understand the subject. As this thread demonstrates very well

Executioners might understand the technicalities of execution and the law as it applies to them very well, but I'd not want to restrict decisions about the death penalty to them.

Anyway, you seem to be arguing that right wing politicians can be just as ignorant as left wing, given your remark about John McCain, which was the main point I was making.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

I'm not arguing about technicalities of tax avoidance (even if I disagree with your views on the desirability of international tax competition, I know that the skill of your job is in using tax laws to the best advantage of your employers, so you will be well versed in your subject), merely pointing out that you have more than leftiebollox to contend with.

There may be a reason that many politicians in this country (at least, and at least historically) have had to contend with philosophy (as part of a PPE degree), as much of government involves (or should involve) at least as much thought about the philosophy and morals of policies as the technicalities. It doesn't follow that because someone is a genius on the technicalities of a subject that they are a moral authority on the subject too.

McCain is calling foul when there is no foul committed. This is because he doesn't understand the law or the relationship to 'morals'.

Similarly, you and others seem to be coming into this with the pre-formed assumption that somebody must be doing something wrong, but when pressed you can't say what it is. Hence the question about which country is calling foul - because none of them are. Yes, Apple is paying less tax than it might do if it did things another way that is just sensible tax planning - in the end this is what people are taking issue with.

All taxpayers have the right to arrange their affairs so as not to pay more than is legally due - there is even case law to support it in the UK. This quote from the relevant case which is part of current UK case law on tax:-
“No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer’s pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue” Lord Clyde Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue.
I've highlighted in bold above one key word for you

As I've said many times on this thread, morals are relative and as demonstrated above they don't trump the law.

Also it is a bit difficult to be a moral authority on a subject if you don't actually understand the subject. As this thread demonstrates very well

Executioners might understand the technicalities of execution and the law as it applies to them very well, but I'd not want to restrict decisions about the death penalty to them.

Anyway, you seem to be arguing that right wing politicians can be just as ignorant as left wing, given your remark about John McCain, which was the main point I was making.

I took McCain's statement at face value regardless of his political affiliation. It doesn't change the fact that he is mistaken.

Regardless of what you think, this is part of applicable UK tax law. So the main thrust of several people on this thread, which appears to be 'what is happening is legal but not moral' - at least from a UK perspective - is simply incompatible with UK tax law. I have argued this point from the start and here is the relevant piece of the law itself that backs up what I have been saying.

You and others who are going down the 'moral' tax route should really have a think about this before you plough on

briantrumpet

In any case, clearly there's a distinction whether it's morally/ethically acceptable to exploit tax regimes/laws as they stand (ultimately courts of law will decide on that, if there's contention), and whether those overall regimes/laws as they are framed are morally/ethically justifiable for society as a whole. It would be entirely moral for a defence lawyer to use all his skill and knowledge to try to get someone accused of murder acquitted (indeed, it's a vital part of our adversarial legal system), but that doesn't mean that murder itelf is morally acceptable. And neither does it mean that someone ignorant of the finer points of law of murder cannot hold the view that murder is wrong.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

I'm not arguing about technicalities of tax avoidance (even if I disagree with your views on the desirability of international tax competition, I know that the skill of your job is in using tax laws to the best advantage of your employers, so you will be well versed in your subject), merely pointing out that you have more than leftiebollox to contend with.

There may be a reason that many politicians in this country (at least, and at least historically) have had to contend with philosophy (as part of a PPE degree), as much of government involves (or should involve) at least as much thought about the philosophy and morals of policies as the technicalities. It doesn't follow that because someone is a genius on the technicalities of a subject that they are a moral authority on the subject too.

McCain is calling foul when there is no foul committed. This is because he doesn't understand the law or the relationship to 'morals'.

Similarly, you and others seem to be coming into this with the pre-formed assumption that somebody must be doing something wrong, but when pressed you can't say what it is. Hence the question about which country is calling foul - because none of them are. Yes, Apple is paying less tax than it might do if it did things another way that is just sensible tax planning - in the end this is what people are taking issue with.

All taxpayers have the right to arrange their affairs so as not to pay more than is legally due - there is even case law to support it in the UK. This quote from the relevant case which is part of current UK case law on tax:-
“No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer’s pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue” Lord Clyde Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue.
I've highlighted in bold above one key word for you

As I've said many times on this thread, morals are relative and as demonstrated above they don't trump the law.

Also it is a bit difficult to be a moral authority on a subject if you don't actually understand the subject. As this thread demonstrates very well

Executioners might understand the technicalities of execution and the law as it applies to them very well, but I'd not want to restrict decisions about the death penalty to them.

Anyway, you seem to be arguing that right wing politicians can be just as ignorant as left wing, given your remark about John McCain, which was the main point I was making.

I took McCain's statement at face value regardless of his political affiliation. It doesn't change the fact that he is mistaken.

Regardless of what you think, this is part of applicable UK tax law. So the main thrust of several people on this thread, which appears to be 'what is happening is legal but not moral' - at least from a UK perspective - is simply incompatible with UK tax law. I have argued this point from the start and here is the relevant piece of the law itself that backs up what I have been saying.

You and others who are going down the 'moral' tax route should really have a think about this before you plough on

I'm absolutely fine with you saying he's mistaken, but you're obviously admitting that ignorance isn't confined to 'the left', though are finding that hard to say.