• Enjoy the freedom to innovate and grow your business


    [ad] With Microsoft Azure you have hybrid cloud flexibility, allowing your platform to span your cloud and on premise data centre. Learn more at microsoftcloud.com.

  • IT Admin: No Time to Save Time?


    [ad] Do you spend too much time patching machines or cleaning up after virus attacks? With automation controlled from a central IT management console accessible anytime, anywhere – you can save time for bigger tasks. Try simple IT management from GFI Cloud and start saving time today!

  • Free Forrester analysis of CRM solutions


    [ad] In this 25 page report, independent analyst house Forrester evaluates 18 significant products in the customer relationship management space from a broad range of vendors, detailing its findings on how CRM suites measure up and plotting where they stand in relation to each other. Download it for free now.

  • Great articles on other sites
  • RSS Great articles on other sites


  • Reader giveaway: Google Nexus 5


    We’re big fans of Google’s Nexus line-up in general at Delimiter towers. Nexus 4, Nexus 7, Nexus 10 … we love pretty much anything Nexus. Because of this we've kicked off a new competition to give away one of Google’s new Nexus 5 smartphones to a lucky reader. Click here to enter.

  • Blog, Gadgets - Written by on Monday, February 4, 2013 14:54 - 8 Comments

    New Govt tax taskforce may tackle Google, Apple

    blog Fresh on the heels of the news that Apple Australia paid just $40 million in local taxes off revenues of $6 billion in its 2012 financial year (for Google Australia it was $74,000 off revenues of $201 million; although total revenues are estimated to be closer to a billion), the Federal Government has pledged to work on measures which will force multinational corporations to be more transparent about how they disclose their financial results. The media release, in the name of Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury:

    “Today the Government is announcing its intention to improve the transparency of Australia’s business tax system.

    “Large multinational companies that use complex arrangements and contrived corporate structures to avoid paying their fair share of tax should not be able to hide behind a veil of secrecy,” said Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury MP.

    Protecting taxpayer confidentiality for individuals is essential, but recent events in Australia and around the world call into question whether large and multinational businesses should have the same level of confidentiality about the taxes they have paid.

    Improving the transparency of Australia’s business tax system will encourage enterprises to pay their fair share of tax and discourage aggressive tax minimisation practices. It will allow the public to better understand the business tax system and engage in debates about tax policy.

    The Government will also explore ways to improve the sharing of tax information between the Australian Taxation Office and other key corporate regulators including the Foreign Investment Review Board, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. This work will enhance the administration and regulation of Australia’s tax system and capital markets.

    “That is why I have asked Treasury, in consultation with the Specialist Reference Group on Ways to Address Tax Minimisation of Multinational EnterprisesI announced in December last year, to develop the details of how changes could be implemented,” said Mr Bradbury. In particular: How the policy could best be designed to cover large and multinational businesses, including whether a threshold test would be appropriate; Which federal taxes should be disclosed; and How the tax information should be made publicly available.

    In announcing this work, the Government wishes to strongly reaffirm its support for the privacy of individuals’ taxpayer confidentiality. The Government will not publicly disclose the tax information of individuals or small businesses.

    Following the first meeting of the Specialist Reference Group later this month, the Government will consider the advice from Treasury and views of the community to assess what changes are appropriate, with a view to introducing any necessary legislative changes this year.”

    Image credit: Briony, Creative Commons

    submit to reddit

    8 Comments

    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

    1. Bob.H
      Posted 04/02/2013 at 3:38 pm | Permalink |

      If the Government is going to take away the confidentiality of large corporate taxpayers this year then I would suggest the confidentiality of individual taxpayers is in serious jeopardy next year.

      If the Tax system is broken and can’t handle the machinations of multinational behemoths then what needs to be fixed is the Tax system. Trying to embarrass the multinationals into paying their fair share of tax by eroding the current right of all taxpayers to have their tax returns treated confidentially isn’t a fix; it is a cop out.

      • Posted 04/02/2013 at 9:29 pm | Permalink |

        Absolutely agree.

      • GongGav
        Posted 06/02/2013 at 11:45 am | Permalink |

        The tax system isnt “broken”. There are issues (and there will always be issues) which create loopholes, and thats what is happening here. Most of those loopholes are from foreign laws though, not Australian ones.

        The problem exists because we allow tax deductions for expenses incurred while earning taxable income. Pretty fundamental part of tax law. Problem is, they ‘incur’ expenses by a related company charging excess amounts, which results in the money leaving Australia.

        Then other tax laws effectively launder it so they pay very little tax overall.

        But from our viewpoint, the problem isnt as big as people think. Apple paid $40m tax off of $6b in revenue. Or about 1% of gross turnover. Would it surprise you to hear that Woolies pays about the same?

        Woolies had $57b in revenue, for around $2b in profit, or about $600m in tax in their last tax year. Or about 1% of gross turnover. Easily found through a google search by the way.

        With Apple, look at an iPad for a decent example. $700 for one here. Import it from overseas suppliers )ie Apple Ireland), the product costs $600. So there’s $100 left over. Take out store costs, wages, advertising, etc, there is about $20 to $40 profit left over. Or something like $7-$14 in tax. 1-2% of the $700 pricetag.

        The big cost is paying Apple $600 to import it to Australia. Those numbers arent much different for most Apple products by the way, the intial cost of the importation plus local costs leaves very little local profit to tax.

        In a nutshell, thats where the problem is – the parent company legally charges a price, which makes up the bulk of the costs ($600 out of $700), meaning smaller local profits to be taxed. Once that money is out of Australia, other countries laws come into effect. Laws we have no control over.

        To ‘fix’ this, you might need to disallow all tax deductions altogether. Otherwise there will always be a ‘loophole’ to be exploited.

        • Bob.H
          Posted 06/02/2013 at 12:13 pm | Permalink |

          The tax system isnt “broken”.

          I didn’t say it was broken. And I didn’t say that what they are doing is illegal. What I did say was that playing “I am going to embarrass you” is bullshit.

          There have been commentators and politicians complaining about transfer pricing since at least 1980 that I can recall. In 1980 I was working for the ATO in the compliance area..

          If income tax doesn’t work then we need to scrap it and come up with a better system. That is not terribly hard to work out surely. Continual bitching about the problem and doing nothing is a sure sign of incompetence.

          30+ years of the same complaint would suggest that there is either incompetence or some serious corruption.IMHO.

          • GongGav
            Posted 06/02/2013 at 12:39 pm | Permalink |

            Fair enough. i’m just pointing out that with all the debate going on, most people dont actually understand what the issue is. They just see “Apple paid $40m out of $6b” and switch off. You’re clearly not one of those people.

            Its not our system thats causing the problem, its tax law and how it relates between Ireland and the Netherlands. Two systems we have no control over.

            I used Apple because it an easy example – they charge $600 to get an iPad into Australia (or thereabouts, its close enough). Its THAT transaction that ultimately causes the problem. After that its pretty basic accounting.

            So whats wrong with an importing company charging an amount thats pretty close to market value? Its been an issue for decades, as you say, but until now most countries were able to simply ignore the problem.

            Nothings changed, except the GFC has made most countries tax revenue drop dramatically, so now they are eyeballing these arrangements as hopefully a quick source of income. It wont be.

            As you say, embarassing them isnt going to solve the problem.

            • Ren Leahy
              Posted 06/02/2013 at 2:53 pm | Permalink |

              I would argue the fact that transfer pricing essentially exists to avoid paying tax, and that we do not take it into account (or legislate against it) is a flaw in our tax legislation.

              Tax avoidance is illegal, the trouble is proving transfer pricing is avoidance rather than minimisation.

              • GongGav
                Posted 06/02/2013 at 3:45 pm | Permalink |

                Definitely Ren, but at what point does the transaction stop being arms length? Thats the problem, Apple and Google’s transfer pricing IS arms length. Nobody can prove otherwise. If they could, you better believe the various countries around the globe would be cracking down on it, and cracking down hard.

                Again, I use Apple as the easy example. They import an iPad into Australia, and charge Apple Australia $600 for that import (give or take). The transaction is an arms length transaction, therefore the transfer pricing is legal.

                The result being that largest part of the transaction is exported outside our jurisdiction. The smaller part gets disolved a little more with local costs, ultimately meaning tax is paid in Australia on only a small portion of the entire cost.

                Every step is correct and legal by our rules. Where do they change the rules to make this illegal, without breaking the system even more?

                These are issues for every imported product. At some point the local distributor pays a foreign entity, meaning that portion of the cost leaves our shores.

                • Ren Leahy
                  Posted 07/02/2013 at 9:52 am | Permalink |

                  Actually I disagree, I think all you would need to do is provide specific consolidation rules that define control. This would not effect your small to meduim business importer as its unlikely they have lost their controlling interest to a global multinational.




    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:


  • Most Popular Content


  • Six smart secrets for nurturing customer relationships
    [ad] Today, we are experiencing a world where behind every app, every device, and every connection, is a customer. Your customers will demand you to be where they and managing customer relationship is the key to your business’s growth. The question is where do you start? Click here to download six free whitepapers to help you connect with your customers in a whole new way.
  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Greens claim NSW LMBR project turning into a disaster sydney

      The NSW Greens late last week claimed to have obtained documents showing that the NSW Department of Education and Communities’ wide-ranging Learning Management and Business Reform program, which involves a number of rolling upgrades of business administration software, was deployed before it was ready, with “appalling consequences for administrative staff, principals, teachers and students”.

    • NSW Govt trials inter-truck safety devices trucks-cohda

      The New South Wales Government has inked a contract with connected vehicle technology supplier Cohda Wireless, as part of a trial of so-called Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) which allow heavy vehicles to communicate directly with each other about their position on the road to help reduce road accidents.

    • Victoria finally kills $180m Ultranet disaster thumbsdown1

      The Victorian Government has reportedly terminated its disastrous Ultranet schools portal, which ballooned in cost to $180 million over the past seven years but ended up being barely used by the education stakeholders it was supposed to serve.

    • NetSuite in whole of business TurboSmart deal turbosmart

      Business-focused software as a service giant NetSuite has unveiled yet another win with a mid-sized Australian company, revealing a deal with automotive performance products manufacturer Turbosmart that has seen the company deploy a comprehensive suite of NetSuite products across its business.

    • WA Health told: Hire a goddamn CIO already doctor

      A state parliamentary committee has told Western Australia’s Department of Health to end four years of acting appointments and hire a permanent CIO, in the wake of news that the lack of such an executive role in the department contributed directly to the fiasco at the state’s new Fiona Stanley Hospital, much of which has revolved around poorly delivered IT systems.

    • Former whole of Qld Govt CIO Grant resigns petergrant

      High-flying IT executive Peter Grant has left his senior position in the Queensland State Government, a year after the state demoted him from the whole of government chief information officer role he had held for the second time.

    • Hills dumped $18m ERP/CRM rollout for Salesforce.com hills

      According to a blog post published by Salesforce.com today, one of Ted Pretty’s first moves upon taking up managing director role at iconic Australian brand Hills in 2012 was to halt an expensive traditional business software project and call Salesforce.com instead.

    • Dropbox opens Sydney office koalabox

      Cloud computing storage player Dropbox has announced it is opening an office in Sydney, as competition in the local enterprise cloud storage market accelerates.

    • Heartbleed, internal outages: CBA’s horror 24 hours commbankatm

      The Commonwealth Bank’s IT division has suffered something of a nightmare 24 hours, with a catastrophic internal IT outage taking down multiple systems and resulting in physical branches being offline, and the bank separately suffering public opprobrium stemming from contradictory statements it made with respect to potential vulnerabilities stemming from the Heartbleed OpenSSL bug.

    • Android in the enterprise: Three Aussie examples from Samsung androidapple

      Forget iOS and Windows. Today we present three decently sized deployments of Android in the Australian market on Samsung’s hardware, which the Korean vendor has dug up from its archives over the past several years for us after a little prompting :)

  • Enterprise IT, News - Apr 23, 2014 15:58 - 4 Comments

    Greens claim NSW LMBR project turning into a disaster

    More In Enterprise IT


    Blog, Telecommunications - Apr 24, 2014 14:00 - 11 Comments

    iiNet to splurge $350m on content, media

    More In Telecommunications


    Analysis, Industry - Apr 24, 2014 16:05 - 0 Comments

    Free to fail: Why corporates are learning to love venture capital

    More In Industry


    Blog, Digital Rights - Apr 23, 2014 12:57 - 32 Comments

    Cinema execs blame piracy for $20 ticket prices

    More In Digital Rights