[_the_inflator]

> legal loophole

I side with you regarding tax debates for large companies. However what is a "legal loophole"? There is no loophole. What Google did is not illegal.

[Xixi]

"A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system." [1]

A loophole is by definition legal, otherwise it would be fraud.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole

[deogeo]

> What Google did is not illegal.

That's why it's called a 'loophole' - when the letter of the law is followed, but the intent is subverted (or what people imagine what the intent should have been).

[moufestaphio]

Of course what they did is legal.

A loophole is legal, that's the point. It's a way around the intent of the law legally.

[TomMarius]

I am pretty sure the lawmakers intended it exactly as it was used. I'd give them benefit of doubt if they closed the hole within a year after discovery, but this is the most well known tax loophole of which even children know the name, used for several decades.

[shitgoose]

"What Google did is not illegal."

Sure. Now try to funnel your consulting income through Irish corp. Tax man will quickly explain what is legal what is not.

[joshfraser]

Individuals can (and do) use similar transfer pricing schemes. They're just really expensive to set up and maintain.

[themihai]

I guess nothing it's illegal if you are not prosecuted/convicted for the said activities. Not even if you are a war criminal (see the recent Trump saga). The tax rules are confusing and complex enough so that only the wealthy can benefit(i.e. use loopholes).