[vesinisa]

> if Apple was to behave "ethically" and pay the taxes that technically the law requires that they dont, then the shareholders can sue the company

Well yes, but you know there's a shade of gray between engaging in complex, aggressive tax planning schemes and handing out unsolicited donations to the IRS.

A company's board is perfectly within its mandate to say it pays tax for its profits where it is incorporated, when the profits are made (and not delaying foreign profits in a tax havens). Because this is the very normal thing that almost all normal corporations do. The board is just as well within its mandate to say they do it for PR reasons to demonstrate corporate social responsibility.

For example, Nokia during its heyday happily paid a fair share of its taxes in Finland, eventhough they definitely had access and capability for all the tax dodging schemes in the world.

[pembrook]

You must admit the irony in that Nokia example...

If Nokia had instead gone to the lengths Apple does to cut taxes and invested that money back in the company they might still be thriving as an independent entity today...ultimately generating far more benefit for the Finnish economy over the long run than being a shrinking Microsoft division.

[vesinisa]

I admit to the irony, but sadly they could have never saved enough profits to turn around the company. They could have at best delayed the inevitable further down the road..

[Nursie]

Not so sure really, they likely would have burned through it anyway, such was the scale of the management screwup there.