EU Members To Slap Tariffs On US Tobacco, Electronics, And Toys -- But Not Bourbon
www.rferl.org
European Union leaders will consider imposing 25 percent tariffs on a range of US imports, including steel, clothes, and food, but not bourbon or other alcoholic drinks, following US President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on imports from the EU.

European Union leaders will consider imposing 25 percent tariffs on a range of US imports, including steel, clothes, and food, but not bourbon or other alcoholic drinks, following US President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on imports from the EU.

  • SkilurosEnglish
    11·
    4 days ago

    Let’s go with what you are saying, even though you didn’t address a single point that I mentioned. Define what you mean by “rule of law”, be clear and specific, don’t hide behind polemics! What is your definition of rule of law? You brought it up, define it. I never acted high and mighty and brought up “rule of law”. I said the Americans need a taste of their medicine.

    Back to your example.

    You have 3 polish companies that interact with a US corp. One is the actual subsidiary and two other are clients.

    You’re saying you can audit ABC, but you can’t figure out which one is the subsidiary and which ones are clients? Are you serious? I have zero professional experience in accounting and even I would be able to tell the difference between a client and subsidiary if I had access to their internal accounts (P&L, balance sheet, cash flow statement over multiple quarters).

    I am not an expert on tax scamming methods, but I would argue I may have more knowledge than the average person (or not).

    Why would Corp D even use the model you describe? Why would they try and hide within Polish ABC? Why not just openly say C is our subsidiary, make it a cost centre and redirect the actual money to Company E in Luxembourg or Isle of Mann. Subsidiary C always fails to make any profit. Top American brand D that everyone in the world knows, has a poor subsidiary C in Poland that is never able to make a profit. The crocodiles are crying about poor Polish subsidiary C. You ask a crocodile about subsidiary C and the crocodile says “it is such a gross oversimplification that subsidiary C’s losses are a tax scam. We are trying to develop professional experience in Poland via subsidiary C. Don’t you believe in the rule of law?”

    You have no way of verifying it.

    This is where your lack of imagination and inability to think beyond rules set by American oligarchs comes into play.

    Let’s say we made a thought experiment and assumed your ABC model is viable (it is not viable because the profits will be re-directed to a tax shelter jurisdiction and Company D won’t bother with local-only schemes because they are not efficient). Nevertheless, you do have a way of verifying the total sales by company D in Poland. This applies to both B2C (shipments into channel, POS data) and B2B sales (VAT calculations, government stats agency research).

    What you are arguing is nothing can change, nothing should change and we should always kiss the feet of the oligarchs that run company D.

    I am saying the arguments by the army of lawyers are bullshit and if you really want to, you can make their jobs redundant. It’s all about gumption and willingness to rock the boat.