[vessenes]

The problem is that this issue is indistinguishable from the following scenario from Apple's point of view:

Corporation Makes Application

Programmer has control of communication with Apple Store

Programmer leaves Corporation aggrieved

Programmer asks Apple to personally wire him the Corporation's Money

Corporation is f-ed.

That is the fundamental problem he has getting this issue solved, and I'm guessing that from his story that his communication skills aren't helping people at Apple get in a place to help him.

[jacquesm]

Exactly.

From Apples point of view it would be very hard to see the difference between the two.

[aaronblohowiak]

Thats why notorized articles of incorporation &c. should be sufficient.

[tptacek]

He's not incorporated though, is he? Isn't that his problem? He (for some reason) made up a fake company in a country he doesn't even live in.

[zoomboy]

You misunderstand. The company is a real UK limited. They can be setup over the internet. It's registered and real. I can setup a company over the internet, but not a bank account.

[tptacek]

Sorry. Real company. It just apparently can't transact any business, right?

[antonovka]

He (for some reason) made up a fake company in a country he doesn't even live in.

Which, if true, Apple never actually verified existed in the first place. Seems a bit odd to be pushing for it now.

I can't really blame him, either. The sign-up is confusing, the legal requirements are often poorly specified, and it's to do something that seems to makes sense (I want a fictitious name, I'll create the company later) that's actually a really bad idea given Apple's requirements.

[tptacek]

I don't think there's any ambiguity here about whether the author made a mistake. He knew he didn't have the company when he started. He just didn't expect that mistake to cost him so much. I sympathize, but his mistake involves both taxes and accounting, and I'm having a hard time blaming Apple for the fact that it's a debacle.

[antonovka]

I have no trouble blaming Apple for failing to resolve an outstanding debt after many months of poor communication with the individual to which they owe.

[antonovka]

Surprised at the downvotes. Clearly you people have never had to deal with trying to get anything done with Apple or any other similar massive inattentive bureaucracy (like, say, immigration services?).

It's one thing to, in good faith, work through an outstanding issue with someone over the course of months, another to simply ignore any/all requests until they go through extraordinary measures to capture your attention.

[jacquesm]

The onus is not on Apple to verify it to that extent up front, but if they suspect fraud or tax evasion they'll go by the book on it. That will take time.

[antonovka]

3+ months of little-to-no communication, stonewalled by front-line support and having to e-mail [e-mail] before getting any response is "by the book"?

I get the impression that you're arguing (and users are downvoting) from the vantage point that Apple is a reasonable organization. They are most certainly not.

The only organization I know of that beats Apple and the AppStore when it comes to Kafkaesque bureaucracy is US Immigration Services.

[tptacek]

I think the real subtext here is that it would take an unusually awesome company to resolve a problem like this quickly, and whatever anyone thinks of Apple, when it comes to process they are not unusually awesome.