Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Makes they chump change they bought the gays off with on R71 look pretty small, don't it...
BTW, I should note that requiring a contract to be interpreted according to Washington law doesn't necessitate suing in Washington. You can sue anyplace where there's jurisdiction. The case then proceeds as if it were in Washington.
The courts thing sounds a little fishy, but I doubt it's not legal for them to do what they're doing. That would be a major oversight for the courts and the people working at microsoft. I would guess it's just morally questionable, but not actually illegal, as I've heard of people doing similar legal moves with ALL sorts of cases.
This is pretty old news though. Also, didn't the cities of Bellevue and Redmond take them to court over an employee head tax for similar reasons? (i.e. permatemps and consultants don't work in those cities because their agencies aren't in those cities.)
a. any US presence (including online sale) at all; and
b. physical presence in the state as a proportion of worldwide revenue.
The main problem is they can offshore to India and Ireland and claim not to be American-based.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2004-09-29/…
Not unlike Bill, he seems to be genuinely trying to absolve himself of his sins by doing good with his blood money, and should be applauded for this. It would be even better, however, if people found their moral core *before* they lended their energy and talents to such sketchy practices.
However, the misuse of tax shelters, like the one that Microsoft uses, is an important issue. Even Bill Gates Sr.'s tax policy task force looked at how tax shelters are misused in Washington.
First, let's understand that what Microsoft is doing is totally legal. Other companies do the same thing. Including Boeing. Especially Boeing.
Microsoft is not engaged in 'tax evasion.' It is using the tax laws exactly the way they were intended. It is not different, say, from someone buying a CD online to avoid sales taxes.
The best approach would be to have a committee look at all the tax exemptions and preferences. Oh wait, we had that last year, and they got rid of ZERO tax exemptions and preferences. If they did get rid of them, it would go a long way to filling the budget gap (but would not fill it).
Mike Weisman
It's a totally normal arrangement, and unless you want to go federal to prohibit Nevada from having different tax laws (which serve to attract business), there's really nothing to be done about it.
And really, how much of Washington's economy is Microsoft responsible for? How many direct employees? How many people rely on indirect revenue from subcontractors and Microsoft vendors? What's the quality of MS health care benefits?
Is this *really* the time to be trying to make it $1B more expensive for Microsoft to stay in-state?
You think picking up and moving would be that cheap for them? $1 billion is peanuts to Microsoft.
Oh, and buying a CD online to avoid paying sales tax? I believe that's actually illegal--you're supposed to voluntarily pay it even if the vendor doesn't add it into your purchase.
Here you can search for companies incorporated in Delaware, go ahead, search for ANYONE.
https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/GIName…
While it's legal for Microsoft to sue in Washington on its Nevada-based contracts, doing so further erodes their tax argument that they aren't in the software licensing business in Washington.
This article, if you take the time to read it, explains why Microsoft's tax practices may constitute illegal tax evasion. It's really up to the Department of Revenue to explain why it's as yet chosen not to contest Microsoft's returns.
They could easily move elsewhere for less than $1B/year. Breakeven would be maybe 2-3 years out, which would make it clearly the right thing to do.
But hey, what do I care? I'm moving out of state myself. So go ahead and soak your major employers at a time when other states are offering huge incentives for relocation as they desperately seek jobs. Let me know how that goes for you.
See: http://tinyurl.com/msEvasion
And Windows 7 profits (don't get me started...) will likely continue to push that number upward for the forseable future.
Think I am kidding? Go ask old Detroit engineers now living in Florida if they thought South Korea would ever make better cars than GM, Ford and Chrysler.
Gee, I wonder how this sort of thing usually turns out?
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/08…
My guess is that some bean counter would run a cost benefit analysis, figure he could save the company 10-15 billion over 20 years, and make a business case for moving. ND, NV or OK would fall all over themselves competing with crazy incentives to sweeten the deal in order to have Microsoft to bring jobs to the local economy. The next thing you know, employees would face a decision to move or scramble for work in a decimated area, the local Uhaul business would boom for a short time, our real estate market would be in worse shambles than it is now and 20-30 years later the fat and happy locales in the new city would say, "Microsoft would never leave here".
A little before 1980, Microsoft used to be a New Mexico based company. Can anybody guess what one of the factors was that caused them to move to Washington?