Ireland Bankrupt - Should U2 Move back to Dublin to help out

[gvox]

Specifically designed with U2 in mind, most likely.
.
.
Also, they are not cheaters or tax evaders. Is Bono in jail with Wesley Snipes? Is Edge working on a new rap mix of Mysterious Ways with the gangsta rappers? Is Adam lamenting the lack of poshness in the prison jumpsuits while otherwise having a great time? Is Larry working out in the prison gym?

You make no sense all around.

Get real.

 

[U2girl]

U2 moving some of their business back to Dublin would make any meaningful contribution to Ireland's financial woes?

Only on Interference.

This.



And the "hypocrite" issue has been debunked before, it's beating a (very, very very) dead horse.

 

[Aygo]

Someone said above "U2 pay a shitload of taxes all over the world". Well, they should've think about that before becoming a huge multinational company. That's the "price to pay" for being so global and so big.

I don't buy the argument "U2 already pays lots of taxes and they've done for Ireland what no one else did".

Let's assume this situation...

VAT: 20% (everyone pays it - it's a blind tax)
"Tax A": 0,5% over the "income A" (single people, enterprises and companies)
"Tax B": 15% over "income B" (single people only)
"Tax C": 10% over "income C" (enterprises - small or big - and companies only)
"Tax D": 3,5% over "income D" (everyone)

Everyone has to pay the ones who correspond to the functions that the State "designed" for each tax payer, whether we're talking about a person or an enterprise/company.
What U2 is doing by running away to the Netherlands (Why didn't they choose Germany, Sweden, China or something else? Is it because they already knew that they'd be free from that specific tax in that specific country?) is running from that tax, that any other similar entity to them will have to pay in Ireland... And probably less.

Another reason to refuse that argument is because every irish does their effort... equally.

A corporation/enterprise that earns €80000/year will have to pay 1% of that in taxes, which makes €800.
U2, which is a multinational corporation should pay, at least, the same 1%. In my opinion, it should pay more (1,5%/2%), following the logic of re-distribution of richness created. Maybe in North America that's not how it works, but this is the european model... which I truly believe and that every european should defend.

That's what's U2's running from: the responsibility of the redistribution of richness.

 

[BVS]

Someone said above "U2 pay a shitload of taxes all over the world". Well, they should've think about that before becoming a huge multinational company. That's the "price to pay" for being so global and so big.

Um, it was a statement... there was no, woe is U2 they are taxed enough. The point, which you missed by a mile was that their income is made from all over the world therefore they pay taxes all over the world. Seems pretty straight forward.

What U2 is doing by running away to the Netherlands (Why didn't they choose Germany, Sweden, China or something else? Is it because they already knew that they'd be free from that specific tax in that specific country?) is running from that tax, that any other similar entity to them will have to pay in Ireland... And probably less.

Another reason to refuse that argument is because every irish does their effort... equally.

A corporation/enterprise that earns €80000/year will have to pay 1% of that in taxes, which makes €800.
U2, which is a multinational corporation should pay, at least, the same 1%. In my opinion, it should pay more (1,5%/2%), following the logic of re-distribution of richness created. Maybe in North America that's not how it works, but this is the european model... which I truly believe and that every european should defend.

That's what's U2's running from: the responsibility of the redistribution of richness.

My understanding is that they are not free from the tax, it's just greatly reduced, they still pay it on the other end.

How much of the publishing income is generated in Ireland?

 

[Aygo]

And, is it generated in Holland?

 

[gvox]

The point, which you missed by a mile was that their income is made from all over the world therefore they pay taxes all over the world.

You've stated this a number of times in a number of different ways, yet I'm not so sure that's accurate. Where else do they pay tax on publishing revenue? Do they pay tax on album sales in every country their albums sell? Do they pay tax on performing income in every country they perform in? On T-shirt revenues in every country they sell t-shirts in?

If this can be factually stated in any verifiable fashion.. I'm not being facetious, I really don't know, and I'm not so sure you do either, and that's my point.

How much of the publishing income is generated in Ireland?

Arguably all of it?

 

[BVS]

And, is it generated in Holland?

No, so it could pretty much be anywhere. Why would it have to be Ireland, just because they live there?

 

[BVS]

You've stated this a number of times in a number of different ways, yet I'm not so sure that's accurate. Where else do they pay tax on publishing revenue? Do they pay tax on album sales in every country their albums sell? Do they pay tax on performing income in every country they perform in? On T-shirt revenues in every country they sell t-shirts in?

If this can be factually stated in any verifiable fashion.. I'm not being facetious, I really don't know, and I'm not so sure you do either, and that's my point.

Album sales yes, every country and distribution sytem is different but the tax is paid to each country. Taxes from performing definitely on a country by country even state by state basis. I'm not sure how T-shirt revenues work, I would have to look into that...

Arguably all of it?

How?

 

[james t kirk]

BS.

They are not avoiding corporate taxes but rather royalties taxes. Specifically designed with U2 in mind, most likely.

I am sure they pay plenty of corporate taxes with the 2/3 of their business that it still out of Ireland, not to mention all of their other business ventures.(Clarence Hotel, etc)

Also, they are not cheaters or tax evaders. Is Bono in jail with Wesley Snipes? Is Edge working on a new rap mix of Mysterious Ways with the gangsta rappers? Is Adam lamenting the lack of poshness in the prison jumpsuits while otherwise having a great time? Is Larry working out in the prison gym?

It was a perfectly LEGAL move. Nothing sleazy about it, they're not cheating, it was right out in the open.

Again, its not like they took the company's profits and hid all of them in an off shore tax shelter that they hid by illegally claiming losses on another tax shelter, etc. They didn't do anything even close to that, in fact they didn't even exploit a loophole in the law.

Thousands of corporations with much more money than U2 routinely get out of paying ANY taxes whatsoever.

They went to a lower taxed environment, the Netherlands.

You make no sense all around.

Artists' funding in the Netherlands would somehow be more robust if U2 and the Stones just packed up and left??

Get real.

I make total sense. And I did not state that they are doing anything ILLEGAL. I said that they are hypocrites. They moved their corporation to the Netherlands where corporate taxes on money made by artists are taxed at a lower rate than in Ireland. (In fact they are not taxed at all.) Ireland already has the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe in order to attract new business (so I don't see how staying in Ireland would have taxed U2 Inc. into the poorhouse.)

This is a statement of fact, not based on emotion (which so many of the posters on here are resorting to)

I could not find a lot of specifics on line, but I did find a couple of interesting links:

U2 Accused of Hiding Money in the Netherlands

The one thing that is clear to me is that U2 has chosen to move assets out of Ireland in order to avoid paying taxes in Ireland.

This rubs me the wrong way.

I would dearly love to know the specifics of the move and what lead to the decision and who did what - however, unless U2 goes public, that will never happen.

 

[BVS]

I make total sense. And I did not state that they are doing anything ILLEGAL. I said that they are hypocrites. They moved their corporation to the Netherlands where corporate taxes on money made by artists are taxed at a lower rate than in Ireland. (In fact they are not taxed at all.) Ireland already has the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe in order to attract new business (so I don't see how staying in Ireland would have taxed U2 Inc. into the poorhouse.)

This is a statement of fact, not based on emotion (which so many of the posters on here are resorting to)

Which is it? Taxed at a lower rate or not at all?

The only portion of the taxes that was effected by the move was the publishing aspect of U2. Please get this straight.

 

[james t kirk]

Um, it was a statement... there was no, woe is U2 they are taxed enough. The point, which you missed by a mile was that their income is made from all over the world therefore they pay taxes all over the world. Seems pretty straight forward.



My understanding is that they are not free from the tax, it's just greatly reduced, they still pay it on the other end.

How much of the publishing income is generated in Ireland?

Ok, now I get it.

You don't understand how it works.

Just because U2 makes money "all over the world" doesn't mean I pay taxes "all over the world"

You need to be a resident of a country in order to have to pay income taxes there, or have a corporate office there to pay corporate taxes. If U2 plays a show in Toronto, they don't pay Canadian Income taxes since they are not permanent residents of Canada and unless they have a corporate headquarters in Toronto - they don't pay corporate taxes here. Yes, the Canadian government would slap on sales taxes on their shows - or if there was a special "concert tax" - (which there is not - at least here). But that doen't affect U2. Any VAT or Sales Tax is the Government forcing the buyer (me) to pay my fair share of the tax, not U2.

Maybe it's different in Communist China - I can't speak to that. But you're welcome to point out any inaccuracies in my statement.

BTW, you are long on stating your position, but very short on providing back up.

 

[gvox]

Album sales yes, every country and distribution sytem is different but the tax is paid to each country. Taxes from performing definitely on a country by country even state by state basis.

Honestly, I don't think you're right and just saying so doesn't make it so (or not so). I think your view here is simplistic at best and not fact-based.

You should do a bit more reading on what actually happened, the 5 "mystery employees" of U2 Ltd's (that is what is based in the Netherlands) and the fact that in the years prior to the move those employees did not exist. It's not rocket science what's going on, and the simple fact is they are paying not only less percentage-wise, they are reporting far far less net revenue for U2 Ltd because of 98% of it ($28.5M of $30M in 2006) getting written off as "salaries" for those 5 mystery employees. Are those "employees" (and just who are they, anyways?) paying personal taxes in the Netherlands?

 

[Popmartijn]

I make total sense. And I did not state that they are doing anything ILLEGAL. I said that they are hypocrites. They moved their corporation to the Netherlands where corporate taxes on money made by artists are taxed at a lower rate than in Ireland. (In fact they are not taxed at all.) Ireland already has the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe in order to attract new business (so I don't see how staying in Ireland would have taxed U2 Inc. into the poorhouse.)

This is a statement of fact, not based on emotion (which so many of the posters on here are resorting to)

It might be a statement of fact to you, but you're stating an incorrect fact.
U2 did not move their corporation to the Netherlands, at least not all of it. They moved their music publishing branch to the Netherlands. It's not that the Netherlands is not taxing corporations of artists at all, but rather that they have a lower taxrate on money generated from royalties (hence moving the publishing branch to the Netherlands and not the rest).
The fact you reported that is true is that Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate in the EU.

 

[BVS]

Ok, now I get it.

You don't understand how it works.

You've been out on the Enterprise way too long, come back down to earth.

Just because U2 makes money "all over the world" doesn't mean I pay taxes "all over the world"

Um, yes actually it does.

You need to be a resident f a country in order to have to pay income taxes there, or have a corporate office there to pay corporate taxes. Since U2 is neither - they don't pay income taxes. For example, if U2 plays a show in Toronto, they don't pay Canadian Income taxes since they are not permanent residents of Canada. The government would slap on sales taxes on their shows - or if there was a special "concert tax" - which there is not. But that doen't affect U2. Any VAT or Sales Tax is the Government forcing the buyer (me) to pay my fair share of the tax, not U2.

You do realize that income taxes are not the only taxes they have to deal with, right? Please tell me you know this. Otherwise the conversation is going nowhere...

 

[A stor]

Ok, now I get it.

You don't understand how it works.

Just because U2 makes money "all over the world" doesn't mean I pay taxes "all over the world"

You need to be a resident of a country in order to have to pay income taxes there, or have a corporate office there to pay corporate taxes. If U2 plays a show in Toronto, they don't pay Canadian Income taxes since they are not permanent residents of Canada and unless they have a corporate headquarters in Toronto - they don't pay corporate taxes here. Yes, the Canadian government would slap on sales taxes on their shows - or if there was a special "concert tax" - (which there is not - at least here). But that doen't affect U2. Any VAT or Sales Tax is the Government forcing the buyer (me) to pay my fair share of the tax, not U2.

Maybe it's different in Communist China - I can't speak to that. But you're welcome to point out any inaccuracies in my statement.

BTW, you are long on stating your position, but very short on providing back up.

Hi James,

Would it be the same when U2 performs in the U.S.? I know that Bono and Edge pay property taxes on the homes they have here. But, they are not U.S. citizens.

 

[BVS]

Honestly, I don't think you're right and just saying so doesn't make it so (or not so). I think your view here is simplistic at best and not fact-based.

So you think I can go and set up a concert in TX next week without having to pay any kind of tax?

You should do a bit more reading on what actually happened, the 5 "mystery employees" of U2 Ltd's (that is what is based in the Netherlands) and the fact that in the years prior to the move those employees did not exist. It's not rocket science what's going on, and the simple fact is they are paying not only less percentage-wise, they are reporting far far less net revenue for U2 Ltd because of 98% of it ($28.5M of $30M in 2006) getting written off as "salaries" for those 5 mystery employees. Are those "employees" (and just who are they, anyways?) paying personal taxes in the Netherlands?

I haven't seen any real evidence to this portion of the story. Any links?

 

[gvox]

So you think I can go and set up a concert in TX next week without having to pay any kind of tax?

You're answering a question about your claim with a hypothetical question. I don't know, can you? If you can't, prove you can't, and illustrate with evidence the taxes you will pay. Then we can discuss what relevance that has to publishing royalties worldwide.

I haven't seen any real evidence to this portion of the story. Any links?

Are you being willfully blind here? They are a matter of public record. U2 Ltd.'s. The company pays tax on the net of revenues less the combined salaries and other expenses. It's all out there to read if you want to take the time.

 

[financeguy]

Secondly you miss the point that the Netherlands percentage wise promises more aid...

But go ahead and keep towing the line that U2 are tax cheats, makes you sound so informed.

Have you any evidence for your allegation, repeated on numerous occasions on here, that the higher % the Netherlands allocates to aid was the prime motivation behind U2's move?

Even if your argument is correct and you can produce some evidence, it would seem a rather illogical move on the part of U2, as if the royalty income is zero-rated, by definitition, it is not contributing to the Netherlands aid funding, whereas if it was left in Ireland, there would be some rate of tax applicable so some of it ends up in the aid budget. Have you thought this through?

I think you're all spin and bluster and hectoring on this issue, TBH, but if you can cite some evidence I'll take the claim seriously.

 

[Marien]

I don't want to talk about U2 taxes, knowing Ireland and their tax policy I agree with U2 movement to another country, but what I wanted to say is this: you are forgetting that some people became very rich during the last 20 years, not only in Ireland, also in other countries, Spain is a very similar case, they became really rich due to the estate speculation, the mortages and other risky loans the banks offered, we rescued the banks once with our taxes 2 years ago, and we are going to pay for them for years and years again, and yet nobody is asking responsabilities to these people who are sitting in their great homes thinking it is a beautiful day and surely laughing at us because we are going to pay for our loans and for their disaster management and they are going to continue making money from all of this. I don't doubt it's a very good joke if you're one of them.

 

[BVS]

You're answering a question about your claim with a hypothetical question. I don't know, can you? If you can't, prove you can't, and illustrate with evidence the taxes you will pay. Then we can discuss what relevance that has to publishing royalties worldwide.

Here's an interesting article for those that don't think international acts are taxed by the country they tour in:
IRS keeping close eye on musicians' tour dollars | Reuters

Are you being willfully blind here? They are a matter of public record. U2 Ltd.'s. The company pays tax on the net of revenues less the combined salaries and other expenses. It's all out there to read if you want to take the time.

In all the articles I've seen I haven't seen any mention of 5 employees that didn't exist before, etc etc... So, link please?

 

[BVS]

Have you any evidence for your allegation, repeated on numerous occasions on here, that the higher % the Netherlands allocates to aid was the prime motivation behind U2's move?

I never once said it was the motivation, I've repeated that several times.

 

[gvox]

In all the articles I've seen I haven't seen any mention of 5 employees that didn't exist before, etc etc... So, link please?

U2 Ltd. pays $30M to employees

One of about 100 reprints of the original AP article which you can buy for $1.50:

Associated Press Archive

 

[Aygo]

I don't want to talk about U2 taxes, knowing Ireland and their tax policy I agree with U2 movement to another country, but what I wanted to say is this: you are forgetting that some people became very rich during the last 20 years, not only in Ireland, also in other countries, Spain is a very similar case, they became really rich due to the estate speculation, the mortages and other risky loans the banks offered, we rescued the banks once with our taxes 2 years ago, and we are going to pay for them for years and years again, and yet nobody is asking responsabilities to these people who are sitting in their great homes thinking it is a beautiful day and surely laughing at us because we are going to pay for our loans and for their disaster management and they are going to continue making money from all of this. I don't doubt it's a very good joke if you're one of them.

Plus!... In Greece, Ireland, Portugal (and probably Spain too... and, who knows who comes next) cases, these countries rescued the banks twice: once in late 2008/2009 when everyone started to have perception that something bad was coming and... now, with the banks collapse.

I'm not a anti-bank guy, but the financial system really has to have a 180º turn and to be 250% reformulated... And even better if far away from the North American system (...IMO).

 

[gvox]

Read this also, it provides an interesting window into what effect "perfectly legal creative tax efficient structuring" has on worldwide economy and poverty.

Tax justice and the global fiddle -- New Internationalist

Legal? Sure. (but look who made the rules)

Ethical..moral...just?........

 

[financeguy]

I never once said it was the motivation, I've repeated that several times.

So what are you talking about? You repeatedly raise the issue and now say it wasn't the motivation?

 

[gvox]

Most call this a red herring.

 

[financeguy]

Most call this a red herring.

I agree, but BVS keeps raising it, and then dodging the question when asked to produce evidence. And then avoiding the obvious point that the move leads to U2 giving less of their hard-earned to developing countries, not the reverse.

 

[gvox]

Here's an interesting article for those that don't think international acts are taxed by the country they tour in:
IRS keeping close eye on musicians' tour dollars | Reuters

This is nothing new. In a perfect scenario U2 gets taxed on the relatively small portion of tour profits that is determined to be their take home (after all production costs) and then, because the US has tax treaties with just about every developed country in the world, get to claim a tax credit at home so they don't double pay. There's nothing unfair about that nor is it any fodder for an argument that they already get taxed to the hilt. Maybe other countries they go to don't have similar tax authorities and/or the resources to go after international acts like the US does. Having said that, I'm sure they're fully compliant with whatever laws each country has.

But to answer the second part of my question ie how is this relevant to tax on publishing royalties...??

 

[BVS]

So what are you talking about? You repeatedly raise the issue and now say it wasn't the motivation?

Have you not read my previous posts?

I only used it in response to this:

though the tag of hypocrite falls mainly on the shoulders of Bono because he is the one who does 95% of the advocating and lobbying of foreign governments to use their taxes to fund his cause - yet he doens't want to pay his taxes

How could he be a hypocrite if he moved it to a country that gives more?

Now the issue is if they pay taxes. James has gone back and forth contradicting himself saying they pay none, and then they pay reduced amount. All the articles I've read have stated that they indeed pay taxes, just a reduced amount comparing to the new rate they would in Ireland.

 

[BVS]

This is nothing new. In a perfect scenario U2 gets taxed on the relatively small portion of tour profits that is determined to be their take home (after all production costs) and then, because the US has tax treaties with just about every developed country in the world, get to claim a tax credit at home so they don't double pay. There's nothing unfair about that nor is it any fodder for an argument that they already get taxed to the hilt. Maybe other countries they go to don't have similar tax authorities and/or the resources to go after international acts like the US does. Having said that, I'm sure they're fully compliant with whatever laws each country has.

But to answer the second part of my question ie how is this relevant to tax on publishing royalties...??

I never once said anything about this being related to publishing, in fact myself and others have repeatedly said these are different portions of their income. I also never said anything about being taxed to the hilt or that this was unfair. The point was that they do indeed pay taxes all over the world, and you were pretending like they don't.