Seeking Alpha

Google moves €8.8B to Bermuda to keep taxes low

  • Google (GOOG) transferred €8.8B in royalty payments to Bermuda last year, a move that cut the company's international tax rates to 5%. That's less than half the levy charged in already low-tax Ireland, where Google records most of its overseas sales.
  • Google, which has attracted the ire of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic for exploiting international loopholes to minimize its tax costs, also makes use of the "Dutch Sandwich," whereby it routes earnings through Holland in order to avoid witholding taxes.
Comments (23)
  • Google should be held to a higher standard, this kind of behavior doesn't match their "Do No Evil" credo.
    11 Oct 2013, 07:33 AM Reply Like
  • "Do No Evil"


    Now there's a good joke. Google has turned into on of the most wicked and bullying corporations of the world. They're even worse than Microsoft used to be back in the 90's... and yet they say "Do No Evil."


    What a bunch of hypocrites.
    11 Oct 2013, 07:46 AM Reply Like
  • Can't blame them for trying to keep their profits intact. After all giving those royalty payments and taxes to governments is not a recipe for continued advancement in technology or jobs. Give these to government all you get is more slothful non-productive bureaucrats in that food chain.
    11 Oct 2013, 07:53 AM Reply Like
  • Google needs money for expansion. They are competing into various areas.
    11 Oct 2013, 07:54 AM Reply Like
  • Stop blaming Google for using loopholes politicians created... Close the loopholes its as simple as that...
    11 Oct 2013, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • You mean loopholes created with graft from the beneficiaries, for how else are they crafted in the first place? You don't get it, do you?
    11 Oct 2013, 11:32 PM Reply Like
  • there is the slight problem of "no world Government" as well. in Google's defense "it used to be called Delaware."
    12 Oct 2013, 01:18 AM Reply Like
  • @Marek, Of course nothing wrong with Google being able to graft... governments allow it so it must be legal..
    12 Oct 2013, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • Agreed... what Google is doing MIGHT be unethical, but it is not illegal. They might not be the 'do good' company they originally set out to be, but they sure aren't that evil. They still provide a ton of services for 'free'... meaning they trade our information and ability to advertise within the services so we don't to pay for our cloud space, email maintenance, phone numbers, etc.


    A pretty fair trade-off if you ask me.
    12 Oct 2013, 09:50 AM Reply Like
  • Only if they have your permission to do it and they pay you for it. I don't see either so I don't use goog, on anything, anywhere, if I can help it. Not on the web, not in a phone, and not with their partners, if possible.

  is the only search I know of that puts your privacy first and doesn't track and doesn't store your info.
    12 Oct 2013, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • That's a fair choice. I certainly don't judge those who prefer privacy over services. I do, however, have issues with people complaining about privacy but still use the service... for free :) No such thing as a free ride!
    12 Oct 2013, 09:58 PM Reply Like
  • It's kind of like those jerk drivers on the highway that drive ALL the way down the entrance ramp to the highway and then get on at the very end, cutting someone off. Is it a jerk move, absolutely...but it's not illegal, they're using all the space that was given to them.
    11 Oct 2013, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • Better in Google's pocket where it can be used to drive innovation than the governments pocket where it is wasted. ;-)
    11 Oct 2013, 09:14 AM Reply Like
  • I believe companies should be able to go to whatever country offering the best tax rates. I don't think governments should even tax intellectual property or patent royalty payments. Like the workers they should only be taxed for goods and services produced in the country of origin not where they are incorporated. Governments are just a big sucking sound for big spending, waste, fraud and unnecessary interference into the growth of commerce in the name of social fairness.


    They should no rights to capital gains taken by those that risk their capital to fund commerce. Neither should they give credits for capital losses.
    11 Oct 2013, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • U.S. corporate tax rate should be ZERO. only way to keep more quality jobs, and the money these employed people spend, inside U.S. economy
    11 Oct 2013, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • Well zero is a bit over the top, maybe for key industries... but I don't think any company is arguing they deserve no taxes... Government may be a necessary evil but the key word is necessary and it doesn't come free.


    Our tax code is ridiculous though at every level... As soon as the common person started to need a CPA to do their taxes the Government should have known it was time to change...
    11 Oct 2013, 09:33 AM Reply Like
  • I guess you would prefer them to tax personal income then by... say... 50%? Tax dollars pay for roads, health services, education, utilities, infrastructure, etc. If the companies who make money in the country they are incorporated in or do business in don't pay any tax then the tax liability is moved to the citizens. Hardly a fair trade... especially for the millions that can't afford that.


    Have super rich and super poor is not a good answer. Revolutions happen because of this type of mentality.
    11 Oct 2013, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • I like the average employee wage incentive... if the company executives only get paid x% more then their companies average employee the company's tax gets a little lower.


    @sarichter, revolutions do happen, and one will probably happen again but I think we are a long way off from that... the super poor are still a minority in the US and probably will be for some time, add in that the super rich, by way of welfare programs financed via debt have figured out a way to placate the super poor for a time. When they get closer to equal wait or majority heads will role... (quite literally).
    11 Oct 2013, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • Well corporate welfare far outsizes welfare programs for the poor. Welfare should only be provided to those that can't pay themselves. It should not be provided to those entities that have the money. Incentivizing greed is not good policy no matter how you color it.
    11 Oct 2013, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • So much for the corporate ethics then! Same corporate hypocrisy as any other 'corporate social responsibility evangelist' that then screws it's own country!
    11 Oct 2013, 11:33 AM Reply Like
  • "I guess you would prefer them to tax personal income then by... say... 50%"
    we are already at that point,(ask any NYC resident Investment Banker)AND we have no more american manufacturing(excluding the war machine) so lets try to bring jobs back to our shore somehow. exchange rates, lower taxes, some incentive needed to make it cost effective.
    More people paying taxes, no need for 50%(combined) tax rates.


    " Incentivizing greed is not good policy no matter how you color it."


    Haven't we already let that happen too?


    Hey, maybe i am wrong, but you have not convinced me yet, maybe i should have said we should have the lowest corporate tax rates and not zero, i give you that
    What is better, a vacant waterfront with empty rusting buildings and a high corporate tax rate, or a low corporate tax rate and people who live in this country having a job and paying taxes as opposed to not having a job and increasing our entitlement programs. Next you will be telling me our government will spend this money more wisely & efficiently than the people who now have a job.
    11 Oct 2013, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • I think you are taking my comments out of context. You cannot prove that lowering taxes for the wealthy (corporations) improves the living standards of the country they incorporate in. Trickle down economics has proven that it does NOT work and does NOT provide support for a struggling economy. We have been literally giving millions of dollars of incentives to corporations for decades and only a fraction of that has been reinvested in the American population.


    The simple fact is, raising taxes for those that can pay them will in fact raise money. I'm sure that this would send some companies to incorporate elsewhere. However, the demand for those products and services from the companies that are leaving will still remain. This allows other companies to fill the void and supply the demand. That is how the free market is supposed to work.


    Taxing personal income does not accomplish anything. Taxing services and products does. They have to be produced so the taxes are inevitable.


    As far as your comments about the government being more efficient than private corporations... no, I don't believe that. I think the government and private corporations are in bed with each other. Most big corporations are greedy, bloated, and completely inefficient. Example... look at the latest news about the FED and Goldman Sachs. I understand the FED is a private entity but it's still tied directly to our government. If that isn't a perfect example of a conflict of interest, I don't know of a better one.


    The government is there to protect the health, welfare, and safety of it's citizens. That also includes collusion, corruption, and other assorted scandals. A government needs money to run... it's also in a position to give all citizens here a fighting chance which sometimes means the rich will pay a little more to help someone else out.


    Does anyone else here think it's ridiculous that a very kind rich couple from Texas had to donate money to keep Head Start open? All of Congress should be recalled... they are doing this country a HUGE disservice.
    11 Oct 2013, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • Close all the gaping tax loopholes
    12 Oct 2013, 03:06 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)