Apple's tax ruse is astonishingly cynical

Remember when Apple was as fresh, green and wholesome as the fruit it’s named after? I don’t really either, but the most recent news — reported in today’s Times — that Apple is "pursuing the holy grail of tax avoidance" by setting up subsidiaries that are not based in any country is quite astonishingly cynical. 

According to the report, one subsidiary called Apple Operations International has no employees or offices anywhere. It’s certainly a creative solution — but when developing countries lose eight times more to tax evasion than they receive in aid ($385bn according to DFID) and the UK tax gap is estimated at £30bn, the creative minds behind the tax ruse ought to be using their skills elsewhere.

The concept of not registering in any country at all is an interesting one, and something I’ve been researching when it comes to wealthy individuals. Projects like "The World" — a globe-crossing luxury boat containing 165 private residences so that ‘home’ is wherever ‘The World’ is — loosen the ties that usually exist between an individual and a particular country (and their inland revenue.) 

Last year, 1800 Americans gave up their US citizenship. While some renounced their US citizenship for political reasons (often because they object to US foreign policy), a large proportion did so for tax reasons. The US is one of only four countries in the world (the others are the incongruous gang of North Korea, The Philippines and Eritrea) that tax their citizens regardless of where they are living. Most other countries tax individuals on the basis of residence. 

The vast majority of Americans who have expatriated have taken up a second nationality instead, but the US is also unusual in that gives citizens the option of becoming stateless ie. having no nationality at all. There are an estimated 12 million stateless people in the world — people who often face grave difficulties, including a lack of access to state welfare, education or healthcare or travel documents. But a handful of people are known to have become stateless voluntarily.

I’ve spoken to one of them, and next issue I’ll be exploring whether the rich will consider statelessness as a radical way to avoid tax.

Photograph: Getty Images

Sophie McBain is a freelance writer based in Cairo. She was previously an assistant editor at the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Jeremy Corbyn turns "the nasty party" back on Theresa May

The Labour leader exploited Conservative splits over disability benefits.

It didn't take long for Theresa May to herald the Conservatives' Copeland by-election victory at PMQs (and one couldn't blame her). But Jeremy Corbyn swiftly brought her down to earth. The Labour leader denounced the government for "sneaking out" its decision to overrule a court judgement calling for Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) to be extended to those with severe mental health problems.

Rather than merely expressing his own outrage, Corbyn drew on that of others. He smartly quoted Tory backbencher Heidi Allen, one of the tax credit rebels, who has called on May to "think agan" and "honour" the court's rulings. The Prime Minister protested that the government was merely returning PIPs to their "original intention" and was already spending more than ever on those with mental health conditions. But Corbyn had more ammunition, denouncing Conservative policy chair George Freeman for his suggestion that those "taking pills" for anxiety aren't "really disabled". After May branded Labour "the nasty party" in her conference speech, Corbyn suggested that the Tories were once again worthy of her epithet.

May emphasised that Freeman had apologised and, as so often, warned that the "extra support" promised by Labour would be impossible without the "strong economy" guaranteed by the Conservatives. "The one thing we know about Labour is that they would bankrupt Britain," she declared. Unlike on previous occasions, Corbyn had a ready riposte, reminding the Tories that they had increased the national debt by more than every previous Labour government.

But May saved her jibe of choice for the end, recalling shadow cabinet minister Cat Smith's assertion that the Copeland result was an "incredible achivement" for her party. "I think that word actually sums up the Right Honourable Gentleman's leadership. In-cred-ible," May concluded, with a rather surreal Thatcher-esque flourish.

Yet many economists and EU experts say the same of her Brexit plan. Having repeatedly hailed the UK's "strong economy" (which has so far proved resilient), May had better hope that single market withdrawal does not wreck it. But on Brexit, as on disability benefits, it is Conservative rebels, not Corbyn, who will determine her fate.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.