[iamerroragent]

I am confused. Apple made an agreement with a City. Both parties seem to benefit from the arrangement. I am not sure I see anything illegal here.

The Japanese "hometown tax" sounds rather intriguing though. I think it would be difficult to implement efficiently in the U.S. but I think it's a great idea none the less to help smaller towns with limited growth potential. Though I think work-from-home + cheaper cost of living will make small towns quite promising to live in today.

Imagine being able to have small farm for the price of a house in the city + city income. Easily do a bit of farming in the morning, remote work during day, finish up anything else the farm needs for the day, and you're set for a pretty nice life in my opinion.

[dragonwriter]

> I am confused. Apple made an agreement with a City. Both parties seem to benefit from the arrangement. I am not sure I see anything illegal here.

The illegal part is where the reporting of locations of transactions by Apple, for which they get kickbacks from Cupertino, violates California state law on how location of transactions subject to sales tax are reported by reporting them as occurring at Apple HQ rather than where the goods involved in the specific transaction are located at the time of the transaction.

Alice and Bob making an agreement for Alice to forge documents so that Bob gets money that belongs to Clara and for which Bob provides a kickback to Alice may be a mutually beneficial agreement for Alice and Bob, but it is still illegal.

[iamerroragent]

> In California, the local portion of collected sales tax goes to the location where the transaction took place, not the location of the customer. The corporation can designate where a given transaction has taken place, separate and apart from the underlying origin and destination realities.

I am sorry I'm just going of the linked article and I am sure I am missing some nuances here however it doesn't seem like what they've done is exactly illegal.

Alice and Bob agreeing the forge a document is illegal.

Bob agreeing to give Alice some money back that Bob collects from Alice's customers because otherwise Bob would get no money from Alice's customers doesn't appear to be illegal (yet). Of course Clara (the State) is free to change her positions on the matter.

For example set a limit on how much a city can charge sales tax.

> Tax Districts

The statewide tax rate is 7.25%. In most areas of California, local jurisdictions have added district taxes that increase the tax owed by a seller. Those district tax rates range from 0.10% to 1.00%. Some areas may have more than one district tax in effect. Sellers are required to report and pay the applicable district taxes for their taxable sales and purchases.

https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/sales-use-tax-rates....

[dragonwriter]

> I am sorry I'm just going of the linked article and I am sure I am missing some nuances here however it doesn't seem like what they've done is exactly illegal.

When the linked article says they “The corporation can designate where a given transaction has taken place, separate and apart from the underlying origin and destination realities" it is correct only in the extent that, say, you can report money you spent on narcotics and escort services as “charitable donations” on your federal tax returns, in that it is physically possible, but definitely not legal, to do it.

The entire reason this is in the news is that state sales tax authorities audited Apple’s sales tax reporting and found it out of line with the law.

[iamerroragent]

I am still not seeing anything here explaining the actual illegality here. As far as I can tell, and it appears still to to be determined, Apple and the city in question are both operating within the law.

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2023/04/13/apples-local-tax-arr...

If anything it looks like the State is just now getting around to realizing that they foolishly left money on the table and now they want it.

As it is we have Thursday it looks like to find out the results of the audit.

Plus, bigger picture, what the city is being accused of doing to other cities, the the State's themselves already do to each other. Ask yourself why so many corporations are home in Delaware?

[dragonwriter]

> I am still not seeing anything here explaining the actual illegality here.

The illegality is Apple assigning sales where the goods were not in Cupertino at the time of the transaction to Cupertino for sales tax purposes, to take maximize advantage of sales tax kickbacks offered by Cupertino, despite state law which says the location for sales tax is the location where the goods physically were at the time of the transaction.

> If anything it looks like the State is just now getting around to realizing that they foolishly left money on the table and now they want it.

The state gets the same share no matter where in the state the transaction is assigned for sales tax purposes. The entities losing out are other localities, not the State.

[iamerroragent]

> The illegality is Apple assigning sales where the goods were not in Cupertino at the time of the transaction to Cupertino for sales tax purposes, to take maximize advantage of sales tax kickbacks offered by Cupertino, despite state law which says the location for sales tax is the location where the goods physically were at the time of the transaction.

This directly contradicts what the article states.