Why do tech companies have an easier time avoiding taxes than non tech companies? First of all, is this true? I mean it's one of the claims of one US presidential candidate. I suppose that the reason is because IT company can shift their profit to offshore companies. Why can't normal companies do the same? Why can't all restaurants set up corporation in Seychelles and pay "royalty" to their Seyschelles company? What is so special about tech companies that allows them to avoid taxes? Some source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzPoDCmYmwI he claims here that tech companies are hard to tax I also know that Microsoft, Google, and Apple pay very little taxes. I also know that tech companies do not need infrastructure as much as non tech companies. However, that would make sense if government tax land, or gasoline for example. If government tax income, I do not see why normal companies have a harder time avoiding tax. We also need to take into account tax evasion. While normal companies often deal with many other companies around, tech companies often deal globally with people around the world. However, I am not seeing that tech companies are evading tax illegally. It seems that they legally avoid paying taxes.
A substantial part of the value of the goods and services provided by tech companies is in intangibles. For example, this analysis suggests that approximately 1/3 of the price of an iPhone is in materials and labour and the rest is in the patents, copyrights and brand value that the names "Apple" and "iPhone" provide. If these intangibles are owned by, say, Aplle (Ireland) then Apple (USA) will have to pay them to use them - whatever amount those two companies agree on will reduce Apple (USA)'s profit and raise Apple (Ireland)'s profit - the tax rates in each of these countries is not the same. Now, tax law says that such transfers have to be at fair market value. So, what is the fair market value of all the IP needed to build an iPhone? Or the value of the names "Apple" and "iPhone"? You don't know, I don't know, Apple doesn't know and the tax authorities don't know. Whatever figure they pick is defensible as "fair market value" because there isn't actually a market - fair or otherwise. Resteraunts can do this too - McDonald's (Australia) pays a licence fee to use the name "McDonalds" but this is the only intangible McDonalds have - there is no patent on how to make a hamburger - so the scope for them to take advantge of this is less than for tech companies.
By putting their finances into a complicated legal structure, moving assets and income through various jurisdictions, and lobbying to make that legal. They also employ highly skilled lawyers who understand the tax code and possible loopholes very well. I'm pretty sure that a &quot;normal&quot; person with average income could reduce their taxes to close to zero by hiring specialist lawyers, but the cost of those lawyers would exceed the tax savings. For a billionaire, the ratio between legal costs and tax savings is different.
what taxes or fees does he need to pay? According to this glimpse of Austrian tax law, Franz would still have to pay income tax on any non-monetary compensation he gets from the company. See section of "Vermietung und Verpachtung [...]". Non-monetary compensation is typically known as benefits. The term serves to distinguish that compensation from (1) any cash flows from the company to Franz, which you ruled out in your description, and (2) any expenses the company incurs for business purposes involving Franz. Your mention that "nor does he take money out of the company in any other way" might mean that you ruled out benefits as well. I just wanted to be safe and preclude any misunderstanding in case you had in mind only cash flows from the company to Franz.
So these are the basic rules of the tax game: The taxpayer (employee, in this case) is liable for tax on income earned by him. On occasion, the payor of the income to be received by the taxpayer is required to withhold tax on the payment, remit the withheld tax to the IRS/state/local tax authority and pay the balance over to the taxpayer. If that happens, the taxpayer is entitled to a credit against his taxes for the amount withheld by the payor. Failure by the payor to withhold the required amount of tax does NOT excuse the taxpayer from paying tax on the income he earned. So company B is right.
You don't explicitly say (this being an internationally visited and populated site), but based on your question, I will assume that you are in the US. For the question you asked: Is the company the government? If not, then NO, you cannot successfully sue a company (or person for that matter) for violating the freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment to the US Constitution in any circumstances whatsoever. (Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine). The US Constitution does not bind or restrict any private* individual or company, in any way. (Here &quot;private&quot; means &quot;non-governmental; a &quot;public(ly traded) company&quot; is still considered a &quot;private&quot; entity in this context). The US Constitution exclusively deals with four things: How the US Federal Government operates, powers of the government, and restrictions of the government, and the definition of treason (which arguably is itself a restriction on the power of the government, by denying them the ability to define treason themselves). The First Amendment itself is explicit about this restriction: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech (emphasis mine). Note that, while the First Amendment does not mention acts of the President, this is because the President's Constitutional powers are quite weak and limited; What powers the President does have and usually uses are granted to the office by laws passed by Congress, and so the restriction comes with them, as Congress cannot delegate to the President powers that Congress themselves do not possess). As such, no company can be sued for violating the First Amendment (or any portion of the Constitution, really) because it does not apply to them. Now, there may be laws passed by relevant legislatures, but these are dependent on your jurisdiction (e.g. state). However, as a general rule of thumb this would be legal. Turning down a candidate based on what they say in an interview is the point of having an interview; Turning down an candidate for saying something in an interview that could potentially leave the company liable for a lawsuit under the theory of vicarious liability is only good common sense.
You mean like Unilever, and countless others do? Yes. Many, many companies control a stable of brands, often of competing products. This is particularly prevalent in grocery lines (cleaning, food, beauty products) and motor vehicles (there are dozens of brands of motor vehicle but only a handful of automotive companies). Clearly, these products have different features (improvements) – you are entitled to segment your market anyway you like. If they are actually produced by the same company, keeping that secret would be virtually impossible. If they were separate companies (even with licencing agreements etc.), well, they are not the same company even if they have common ownership. As for having a monopoly: if you hold a patent you are allowed to have a monopoly, if you don't, expect to see knock-off rocket boots on the shelf in a week.
The key difference is that Best Buy is a corporation, and you are probably thinking of a painter who does not do business as a corporation. (They might be a sole proprietor, for instance.) As far as I know, the $600 rule isn't about Form W-9 itself. Rather, the rule is that when your business pays more than $600 for services, you may be required to file Form 1099-MISC. One of the boxes on that form asks for the recipient's Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), so you have to get that from them somehow, and a common way (though not the only way) is to give them a Form W-9 and ask them to fill it out and return it to you. Form W-9 also asks the recipient to state whether they are subject to backup withholding; if they are, or if they won't give you their TIN, then you have to withhold taxes from the payment and send it to the IRS, reporting this on the 1099-MISC as well. Now, if you look at the section &quot;Exceptions&quot; on the 1099-MISC instructions: Payments for which a Form 1099-MISC is not required include all of the following. Generally, payments to a corporation (including a limited liability company (LLC) that is treated as a C or S corporation). However, see Reportable payments to corporations, later. Best Buy is a corporation, and none of the exceptions under &quot;Reportable payments to corporations&quot; apply when you are paying them for computer repair services. Therefore, you do not have to file a 1099-MISC when you make such payments to Best Buy. As such, you have no need to get their TIN, and therefore no need to ask them to fill out a W-9.
If you want to protect yourself or any property interests you may have in this circumstance you have to talk to a lawyer. You cannot get (or trust) legal advice from the internet. I will, however, make the following personal observations: I only provide a W-9 to people who are paying me money, and who request it as a condition of paying me. I don't know of a legal requirement to supply it after the fact. However, not providing it to someone who did pay you more than $600 in a tax year could certainly make it difficult for them to comply with their tax filing obligations. I do not sign any agreements, assignments, or contracts, without what I consider to be fair consideration. E.g., if on leaving a job (as has happened) I am asked by a former employer to sign something that I am not already obligated to sign due to some prior contract, then I negotiate what is commonly called a "severance package." They pay me and/or extend benefits, and I sign something that limits their liability.