Because your definition seems to be taking advantage of something in a law, miswording or mistake, in a negative way, or even illegal, to avoid paying taxes that are rightfully due.
I define it as following the law as written to lower your tax burdens.
You imply that there's something inherently wrong with using "loopholes". I say there's something inherently wrong not using them, since it is the law.
You may attempt to make this about moral high ground and doing what's right, but that's your definition of the situation and you are welcome to your opinion. But the law says otherwise.
Especially since the company is basically legally required to use such methods to reduce their tax burdens, because otherwise they're likely to be sued by share holders or to whomever they are beholden to.
Multi-national corporations are playing a game of arbitrage with national tax laws.
If it were true that a corporation is legally obligated to reduce its tax burden... then why isn't every shareholder in America suing the company for not moving the headquarters to Dubai where corporation tax is ZERO percent?
> If it were true that a corporation is legally obligated to reduce its tax burden
I'm pretty sure the parent meant within reason. Moving a $300b tech company's headquarters from the heart of SV to a location halfway around the world is not reasonable.
I don't agree, because when you start dealing with regulations you see that 'loophole' as a term is often bandied around for minor things. Some may even be the intention of the regulation.
Please, come on. If only Google stops using tax optimization havens, Apple and Microsoft will get an edge simply because profits of main competitor decreased. The different guy gets the stick. This is exactly like DRM for digital media, think about that.
I am quite OK with Google or any other tech corp using these and other tax optimization techiniques.
Disclaimer: I am a former Googler in a third world country
What Google is doing is not illegal (immoral maybe). They have an obligation to their shareholder to maximise their profits through all legal means. If they were to turn around tomorrow and announce that they will no longer use the "Dutch Sandwich" and profit falls as a result do you think the shareholders would be happy?
Here we go again, the same old corporate mantra trotted out once more, about maximizing shareholder value, to excuse a company's unethical behaviour.
So why doesn't Google and every other company move to Dubai where corporation tax is zero percent? Why aren't shareholders demanding the company move to the lowest tax jurisdictions in the world?
Larry Page and Sergey Brin wanted Google to be different, but all they've done is create yet another giant corporation.
On many matters Larry Page and Sergey Brin have had opportunity to take the moral high ground, but they have failed.