Apple Australia Makes More Money, Pays Less Tax

Apple Australia's annual report has shown that the company's consolidated revenue increased in the latest reporting period by 27.9 per cent — that's $1.7 billion. Apple Australia's taxable income, on the other hand, was reduced by 17.4 per cent to $207 million. View Apart / Shutterstock.com

The annual report was lodged this week with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and covers the 12 months from 25 September 2015.

Apple Australia's consolidated revenue for 2015 reached a total of $7.9 billion, and it has reported a rise in gross profit of 16.8 percent to $638 million.

"Sales, marketing and distribution expenses" is cited as the factors that assisted in Apple Australia reducing its taxable income by 17.4 per cent on the previous year to $207 million. The total amount of tax paid was $84.9 million, inclusive of an $11 million adjustment for previous years.

In the end, the total comprehensive income reported by Apple for 2015 was $122.7 million, down 28.7 per cent ($49.3 million) on the previous year.

The report also stated details of an audit the ATO is conducting into Apple's 2012 financial year.

"The Australian Taxation Office is currently auditing the company's income tax position for the year 2012. As at this date of this report, the outcome of tax audit cannot be predicted with certainty and reliably estimated, no adjustments have been recognised in the financial statements," the statement reads.

[It News]


Comments

    Even using loopholes, it's probably a bad look to reduce your taxable income when profit increases...

      Especially when the ATO and senate enquiries are looking at you... but who gives a toss about that shares, stock options and profit share schemes are the main concern of Apple executives.

        Problem is that they know that the ATO and senate enquiries are essentially toothless because what they're doing is, in all likelihood, legal. They'd only have reason to be worried if the government was serious about legislative change to crack down on this, and I doubt this government is particularly serious about that.

    The sole purpose of a publicly traded company is to make as much money as possible.
    Our government should work in the interests of its citizens.

    If the two are in conflict then the interests of its citizens should take priority.

    Nah it's fine, the Government just takes away services but increases ways to tax us to try and offset big businesses. :(

    I agree with everyone that apple should pay more tax, but its really the governments job to ensure the laws cant be exploited.

      The problem isn't that the laws are being exploited; the problem is in how they interact with each other creating legitimate and legally recognized tax deductions that can only be beneficial if you're at a very high income.

      What this effectively does is it forces people with average income to pay their taxes however once you break a certain income barrier you can acquires assets and tax strategies that minimize your income footprint.

      tl;dr The Tax system needs an overhaul not funded by industry experts that have vested interests together with a regulatory body that doesn't have an incestual relationship with the very corporations they are meant to be regulating.

        Can't a scheme be deemed by the ATO to be tax avoidance and then have the ATO recover tax retrospectively like what was done for the "bottom of the harbour schemes"?

          It can but historically that's only ever been done when a particular scheme had interactions that the ATO didn't foresee which in turn created a tax haven/avoidance system they had not intended or accounted for. Additionally recovering tax retrospectively can be quite costly in dollar value and politically.

        Exactly. This is working as intended. Apple (probably) aren't cheating and that's the true problem. They've just got accountants who are good enough to hunt down and combine all the elements of the tax system that were put there specifically to allow those with large amounts of money to significantly lower the amount they pay in taxes.
        When you've got generations of self-serving individuals making their mark on the system it's bound to end up somewhere like this.

        The funny part is that the system is built so the ultra rich can compress their tax bill down to nothing and nobody cares, but if someone stays on assistance too long they're a leech destroying the nation by wasting our tax dollars. If one single person smokes bongs and plays Warcraft all day while receiving assistance the countless people that are helped by the system are forgotten, but if I shift my money around in a way that results in me paying less tax than a part timer at McDonalds that's fine. People might get upset if someone brags about it, but you'll never see anyone in a position of power call them out on it or let it become a big issue.
        We can't waste tax dollars on education but we need to provide the ultra rich with ways to slash far more money off their tax obligations.

    Warren Buffet has often commented that in his offices he pays the lowest amount of tax. The tax system are working as intended in the sense that they place a majority of the burden on the majority of the population. It's how they were meant to work in the Dark Ages and with our government I always believed that to be the destination.

      No, he says that he pays the lowest overall rate of tax. He still pays far more in absolute dollars.

      And no, 'the majority of the burden' doesn't fall on the majority of the population. That's just some bullshit recycled US talking point. An easily refuted one, since the ATO publishes the data every year.

      The top 5% pay 35% of all income tax collected tax. The top 20% of earners pay 60% of income tax.

      Only the top 20% of incomes pay any income tax at all (ie, net of transfer payments), with 45% of adults not paying any income tax whatsoever.

      Last edited 27/01/16 12:02 pm

        You're right on the buffet comment; I worded that poorly. The point however still being that the highest earners pay a much lower rate of tax than they should. Sure in absolute dollars 1% of $1 billion looks like a lot but why are they on a rate that low? (obviously hypothetical figures). I've seen tax minimization schemes in play and I can safely say you need to be earning above a certain threshold in order to utilize them for a net benefit.

        With regards to the ATO tax stats; I'm genuinely interested in the source as all I could find was the 2012-2013 study. Looking at the study I found what worries me with the wording is the use of the term taxable income. I am curious as to what income the 26% that paid no tax were on and if they were genuinely earning below the lowest marginal rate. I had no idea Australia had 26% of it's population in economical situations that required tax breaks that equated 0 tax paid.

        The study I found would make a lot more sense if it could be placed next to a study that broke up how much the various brackets had in net worth; i.e. the top 3%, 6% and so on.

        Last edited 27/01/16 12:30 pm

          A lot of the paid no tax are usually mum and dad's that claimed more in benefits then they paid is tax. (Family tax benefits, childcare rebates) middle class families. Rather than the lower of the spectrum.

    i dont blame apple for trying to exploit any tricks and loopholes but their arrogant attitude when questioned about it gives me the shits.

    Is everybody really that stupid ?
    We don't tax revenue in this country. Revenue is not how much money you make.

    Profits are taxed, taxation law is clear on this and Apple is paying its legal obligations.

      Um...yes.........most of us get that - we're saying that doesn't mean it's the morally correct thing to do. (minimise tax to the point where you almost pay zero when you're a multibillion dollar company) it's essentially f-ing this country right in the jinger and then charging for the experience

    I read that Putin introduced a minimum 10% tax on income.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now