Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: October 25, 2013
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFollowing the announcement of several international tax agreements and a higher level of scrutiny over corporate tax strategies, Ireland recently announced its plans to close a tax loophole that a number of companies – most notably Apple, Inc. – have used to significantly lower their tax liabilities.
Ireland’s Department of Finance released a new report detailing its 2014 international tax strategies, in which it declared a “change to our company residence rules aimed at eliminating mismatches – that can exist between tax treaty partners in certain circumstances – being used to allow companies to be ‘stateless’ in terms of their place of tax residence.”
Currently, Apple runs all of its non-US income through two Irish companies, one of which is classified as a tax resident and domiciled in Ireland. The other, however, is not domiciled or considered a tax resident anywhere. Apple is then able to avoid paying roughly $40 billion in taxes by funneling money into the first Irish company, and then passing the funds over as royalties and fees to the second, which is not subject to any national tax jurisdiction, Forbes explained. Ireland’s new rule will make it illegal for any company registered in the country to maintain that “stateless” status to avoid taxes.
However, closing the loophole does not necessarily mean corporations will be required by law to pay higher taxes. In fact, many analysts agreed that nothing would likely change. Although Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan said that the country will close the loophole, it will keep in place a provision that enables corporations to nominate any country they prefer as their tax residence, according to Reuters. This includes popular zero tax jurisdictions, such as Bermuda, which is a prime choice for companies such as Google, Amazon, and other tech giants.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Author: Graham Staton

Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe

Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
Author: Chris Seelinger
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!