(08-08-2006) U2 inspire Irish ire by avoiding tax - The Guardian*

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

HelloAngel

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Sep 22, 2001
Messages
14,534
Location
new york city
Found what you're looking for? U2 inspire Irish ire by avoiding tax


· Band shifts financial affairs to Netherlands
· Bono criticised for deals while calling for debt relief

Owen Bowcott, Ireland correspondent



Bono may be celebrated for browbeating world leaders into funding debt relief for developing countries, but his Irish rock band is facing criticism for switching its financial affairs overseas to avoid paying higher taxes.

U2's move has been revealed as Bono's California-based venture capital firm, Elevation Partners, confirmed it had invested around $300m (£157m) in Forbes, the US business magazine frequently described as the "bible of capitalism".

Irish politicians have expressed surprise at U2's decision to move part of its multi-million pound operation from Ireland to Amsterdam. The tax rate on royalty earnings in the Netherlands - where many of the Rolling Stones' assets are based - is only a few per cent.

U2's changeover may have been triggered by reforms announced last December by the Irish finance minister, Brian Cowen, who imposed a cap of €250,000 (£168,000) on tax-free incomes for artists resident in the republic. Before the cap, the scheme attracted many famous names to Ireland. But the government came under pressure to curtail the incomes of those benefiting disproportionately from the scheme.

At the time Mr Cowen said: "We cannot stand over a situation in which some high-earning tax residents, through the use of incentive reliefs, can reduce their taxable income to nil."

The Irish Labour party's finance spokeswoman, Joan Burton, said this week: "Having listened to Bono on the necessity for the Irish government to give more money to Ireland Aid ... I am surprised that U2 are not prepared to contribute to the exchequer on a fair basis along with the bulk of Irish taxpayers."

Corporation tax in Ireland is only 12.5%. The standard rate of personal tax is 20%, rising to a top rate of 42%. The band had been able to claim artists' tax relief as songwriters, but the scheme did not cover income from tours and performances.

Alongside Bob Geldof, Bono has spent years cajoling US presidents and other world leaders into increasing debt relief to poorer countries, improving aid to Africa and helping Aids victims. U2's donations to aid organisations have always remained anonymous, although the royalties from several of their songs have been given to charities.

The band will continue to live and work in Ireland, paying other taxes, an industry source told the Guardian. Like other bands, the source added, U2 "try to be as tax efficient as possible". Principle Management, which controls U2's financial affairs, would not comment.

Elevation Partners is a private venture capital firm with six partners, one of whom is Bono. It has an estimated capital value of $1.9bn. U2 were said to be the world's most lucrative group last year, earning more than €210m.

Their success, however, has generated signs of resentment.

Proposals to construct a so-called U2 Tower - the tallest residential development in Ireland on the southside of the Liffey river - have drawn complaints from locals in Dublin's Ringsend. The tower, a 31-floor construction, will house luxury apartments and provide space for the band's recording studios.

The building was originally scheduled to be 60 metres (197ft) high, but last month permission was granted for it to rise to 100 metres. "This tower is going to appear as a monstrosity in what used to be a small maritime village," Damien Cassidy of the Ringsend Environmental Group told BBC radio earlier this week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1840316,00.html
 
I guess I don't get all the fuss--*everyone* tries to pay as little taxes as possible...
 
The Irish Labour party's finance spokeswoman, Joan Burton, said this week: "Having listened to Bono on the necessity for the Irish government to give more money to Ireland Aid ... I am surprised that U2 are not prepared to contribute to the exchequer on a fair basis along with the bulk of Irish taxpayers."

I'm sure U2 have their reasons for wanting to reduce the amount of tax they pay to the Irish government. But I do understand the "fuss". Bono is constantly encouraging others to give their money to help people who are less fortunate. In this way, he is different from the average "person on the street" who just wants to keep as much of their income as possible. But when U2 do not seem to be prepared to contribute the same proportion of their income in tax as other people in their country, that just seems to be a bit of a contradiction. After all, how do governments come up with money to help less fortunate people, both at home and overseas? Largely through taxes.
 
Difference is that the majority of tax money that are paid to governments like Ireland is going into lining government officials pockets rather then helping the people that it should be helping like the Irish working class, and this is true for most nations in the first world.

I think they should be paying as high a tax as anybody but they should be given the freedom to move around wherever they feel is the best for their operation to remain profitable.
 
are you guys talking about Siemens or U2?

really, i can't tell the difference anymore.
 
'Their success, however, has generated signs of resentment.

Proposals to construct a so-called U2 Tower - the tallest residential development in Ireland on the southside of the Liffey river - have drawn complaints from locals in Dublin's Ringsend. The tower, a 31-floor construction, will house luxury apartments and provide space for the band's recording studios.'

As if this is U2's fault. They didn't even want the tower to begin with...
 
It's Bono who meets Presidents to fight poverty, not U2.
U2 is not limited to Bono, he is just a menber of the band. I don't see the problem If The Edge, Larry, Adam and McGuiness want to make more money (they are not involved in Bono's cause).

This kind of articles is the reason why U2 should not make a record about Africa though.
 
For years, Ireland has attracted and kept artists with its promise of tax-free living. In the past year, a cap has been placed on that. Who is being inconsistent -- the Irish government, for granting something it then took away -- or U2, for staying in Ireland because it was encouraged by tax laws to do so, then leaving when the laws were no longer favorable?

U2 will be far from the last artists to leave Ireland if the tax cap is not repealed. It seems ironic that there was no cap when the Irish economy was suffering, and now that it is more robust and diverse, thanks to the artists who located there and made Ireland an attractive place to do business, the cap goes on.

At very least, the government could consider grandfathering in those artists who established a base in Ireland before the tax cap was placed on. Otherwise, the band are fully within rights to up stakes and leave for Holland, or Monaco or Switzerland or wherever suits their purposes.
 
Its fine for U2 and Bono to up and go to find better tax rates to suit their purposes.

However, they should then tone down or shut up about how the Irish government distributes its money since they are not contributing to the Irish exchequer as much as they should. Is it just me, or do you find the whole thing slightly hypocritical?
 
I think it's misleading that the band pay no taxes. They get a bill from each concert they play. In the US it's a Federal and State bill. I'm sure it's similar overseas.
 
mystery girl said:
I'm sure U2 have their reasons for wanting to reduce the amount of tax they pay to the Irish government. But I do understand the "fuss". Bono is constantly encouraging others to give their money to help people who are less fortunate.

What? I've heard him speak several times on the issue and I don't recall him ever asking people to donate money. His point as ALWAYS been quite the contrary. I guess if that point is ignored, it's easy to paint him as a greedy hypocrite.

Like Care said, you guys would really ignore ways to pay less taxes? Haha, yeah right! I'm only 21 and a student and even I spent days working on loopholes that in the end maybe saved me $300. So shoot me, I must be a greedy hypocrite that cares only about income and not about Africa (never mind I used the extra tax returns to GO there).
 
Dutch Partygirl said:
Their success, however, has generated signs of resentment.

Proposals to construct a so-called U2 Tower - the tallest residential development in Ireland on the southside of the Liffey river - have drawn complaints from locals in Dublin's Ringsend. The tower, a 31-floor construction, will house luxury apartments and provide space for the band's recording studios.

As if this is U2's fault. They didn't even want the tower to begin with...

I agree with this. U2 were forced to close their studios. Then there was talk of a tower - which all approved. Suddenly the tower got bigger and bigger - due to the greed of the builders who wanted to rent out or sell more space within the tower. But this some how becomes U2's fault. :tsk:

As for the taxes, the complaints against U2 are superficial. If you only look at the surface, one could complain that U2 aren't prepared to pay as much in taxes as others, yet they are asking for debt relief - something paid by taxes! But again, this is just superficial. U2 pay full taxes - and a LOT - from touring (where the bulk of their money comes from, I assure you - why do you think the Stones keep touring?). Odd how that's barely mentioned in this article. And they have invetments in several countries already. Shifting some assets to another country to save a bit is hardly some effort to dodge paying taxes - I guarantee you that many others in Ireland are probably doing the same.
 
Carek1230 said:
I don't get all the fuss either. Wouldn't ANYONE in their own right mind want to save paying taxes wherever they can? Sheesh!

I think the point of the criticism is that U2 can do it and the ordinary taxpayer cannot. In a nation of around only 4 million, the oridnary taxpayer probably feels he/she could have a lower tax rate or better public goods and services if the rich paid their fair share of taxes.


MrBrau1 said:
I think it's misleading that the band pay no taxes. They get a bill from each concert they play. In the US it's a Federal and State bill. I'm sure it's similar overseas.

Other than sales tax on tickets, U2 avoids paying US federal income taxes by spending fewer than 120 days on US soil. Over 120 days, and the US can claim you as a tax resident. That explains why they fly out of the US frequently when playing shows in the US.
 
The comment about getting a bill for each US concert they play is not true. If they were contracted by venues to play, then this indeed would be the case. However, in U2's case, they rent the arenas, and therefore can claim a significant amount of relief off the bottom line on the basis of overheads. The whole picture can then not be determined on a concert by concert basis. As such, their tour earnings for tax purposes are reported as gross earnings. How much tax they pay on this I do not know, but bear in mind the correct comment that they are not US-based, and secondly there are other people in the foodchain (promoters/agents), who can want U2 here, and as such can sweeten their deal from a tax standpoint (and no I am not talking about tax evasion, but picking up some of the tax burden for them).

As for their business operations to the Netherlands, thats their business (if you will excuse the pun). GIven that as individuals, they do reside (I think) in Ireland, its not as if they will not have tax to pay there as well.
 
U2 are the hardly the only band that avoid having to pay huge taxes, i dont get why a whole article has been written as if its just U2. Whats the fuss about?
 
The state income tax(e.g. Massachusetts) applies because nonresidents have to pay state income tax as well (a much lower rate than federal). Federal taxes do not apply, however. The state revenue department is probably presenting the bill to ensure payment, but it is not tied to a specific concert.
 
Anyone wants to be economically sensible when it comes to paying taxes. Rich and famous people are no exemption. This wouldn't even happen if Ireland didn't decide to change the tax laws. I also don't think Ireland won't ever get a cent out of U2's incomes from now on.

As for the Forbes deal, I guess the reporter missed this bit "Bono, real name Paul Hewson, was said not to have been directly involved in the talks that led to the Forbes deal." He's one of the 6 parters anway, and for all we know Elevation might try to influence Forbes to start focusing on the issues.
 
It's not like they're moving to the Cayman Islands, they're just going from one EU country to another; why is that so bad?
 
tarquinsuperb said:
It's not like they're moving to the Cayman Islands, they're just going from one EU country to another; why is that so bad?

Actually the Rolling Stones have a series of offshore trusts and companies.


U2girl said:
Anyone wants to be economically sensible when it comes to paying taxes. Rich and famous people are no exemption.

And they usually get the most favorable treatment. It's sort of like huge companies in the US like ExxonMobil getting tax breaks. I feel as if I have to make up for that shortfall somehow by paying extra taxes. So, I understand the resentment of the Irish folks.
 
And they usually get the most favorable treatment. It's sort of like huge companies in the US like ExxonMobil getting tax breaks. I feel as if I have to make up for that shortfall somehow by paying extra taxes. So, I understand the resentment of the Irish folks. [/B][/QUOTE]

Not really !!! ExxonMobile get the tax breaks they do (and they are actually not that good) because they produce a product which contributes to the economy !!! Do you know how much tax you are paying on the price of a gallon of petrol ??? Huge companies are taxed pretty severely as it is. Furthermore, they pay for employee benefits (healthcare etc), which save the state covering their employees (more of an issue in the US). Also, it is of benefit to an area to attract huge companies (cf. pharmaceutical companies in Ireland), as they provide employment, and often will revitalize a community.
 
Zoomerang96 said:
are you guys talking about Siemens or U2?

really, i can't tell the difference anymore.

In this case there isn't really much difference, as U2 Ltd. (the company that owns the masters of the music recorded by U2 the bad) moved to the Netherlands.
You have to keep in mind that we're not talking about persons here (and their taxes), but about corporations. This is a corporate move and one which every sensible corporation would do. Go where you have to pay the least amount of taxes while still being able to conduct business as usual.
 
I guess my complaints are more of a general level rather than specifics. When people are as wealthy as U2 are who in turn speak to the fans and thank them for the wonderful life they have - by then moving business interests out of the country to avoid paying taxes then you tend to take everything with a pinch of salt.

Maybe I'm being idealistic in that I would have thought money didn't matter to a band like U2 - Corporation U2 or individual U2 - as in a sense, they would have been giving back to the people in a round-about way.

What it does mean is that Bono and the rest of the band lose their right to a full voice in Irish society in terms of criticising how the Irish government spends its money. Why should they have a voice when they avoid paying tax on what they earn?

I just don't get it - when people are that wealthy, does protecting your money become more important than if your on a normal working or middle class wage? Tax breaks should be there to help those who need help - not those who can blatantly afford it and then skip town when the tax law changes.
 
Last edited:
ntalwar said:
I think the point of the criticism is that U2 can do it and the ordinary taxpayer cannot. In a nation of around only 4 million, the oridnary taxpayer probably feels he/she could have a lower tax rate or better public goods and services if the rich paid their fair share of taxes.

Well, the ordinary taxpayer can too. If you have a corporation which is doing business in several countries, you can try to move assets in such a way that you get taxed the least. That's what happened here.
And regardless of this move, the members of U2 the band (again, in contrast to U2 Ltd. the company) probably still pay a lot of taxes in Ireland as all income from other businesses still get taxed. And that includes income from touring, merchandise, other investments, etc. Like it was before.
 
Party Boy said:
Maybe I'm being idealistic in that I would have thought money didn't matter to a band like U2 - Corporation U2 or individual U2 - as in a sense, they would have been giving back to the people in a round-about way.

Of course I can't speak for them, but I do think that they might know some better destinations for the about 15 million euro/year they're saving now. Maybe they know a better way to give it back to the people...
 
Popmartijn said:


Of course I can't speak for them, but I do think that they might know some better destinations for the about 15 million euro/year they're saving now. Maybe they know a better way to give it back to the people...

This is very naive...idealistic though it may be, I am sure U2 have no intention of giving all the money back to the people.......and I am not saying they should....
 
Not really !!! ExxonMobile get the tax breaks they do (and they are actually not that good) because
they produce a product which contributes to the economy !!! Do you know how much tax you
are paying on the price of a gallon of petrol ??? Huge companies are taxed pretty severely as it is.
Furthermore, they pay for employee benefits (healthcare etc),
which save the state covering their employees (more of an issue in the US).
Also, it is of benefit to an area to attract huge companies (cf. pharmaceutical companies in Ireland),
as they provide employment, and often will revitalize a community.

Yeah - I'm familiar with the whole argument. Keep in mind what that the legal corporate tax rate
is a lot higher than what corporations actually pay. ExxonMobil makes $40 billion in profit per year.
They get tax breaks because their servants occupy Capitol Hill. Many corporations pay zero taxes.
See this article about loopholes: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6080561/

Popmartijn said:


Well, the ordinary taxpayer can too. If you have a corporation which is doing business in several countries,
you can try to move assets in such a way that you get taxed the least. That's what happened here.
And regardless of this move, the members of U2 the band (again, in contrast to U2 Ltd. the company)
probably still pay a lot of taxes in Ireland as all income from other businesses still get taxed.
And that includes income from touring, merchandise, other investments, etc. Like it was before.

Nope - why do you think they spend so little time in Ireland? They are in France and the US a lot.
In Ireland they pay sales taxes, but they don't spend enough days per year to be claimed as tax residents
by Ireland.

http://www.revenue.ie/leaflets/taxguide_chapt3.htm

"How do I know if I am resident in Ireland for a tax year?

Your residence status for tax purposes is determined by the number of days that you are present in Ireland in a tax year. You will be resident in Ireland for a tax year in either of the following circumstances:

* If you spend 183 days or more in Ireland during a tax year or,
* If you spend 280 days or more in Ireland over a period of two consecutive tax years, you will be regarded as resident for the second tax year. For example, if you spend 140 days here in Year 1 and 150 days here in Year 2, you will be resident in Ireland for Year 2."
"
 
Wrong...they spend *vacation* time in France and the U.S.--their main homes are in Ireland, their families live in Ireland, their children go to school in Ireland, etc....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom