> It was reported this week that an Irish subsidiary of Microsoft had paid zero corporation tax on $315bn (£222bn) profit last year because it was resident in Bermuda for tax purposes.
This is just flat wrong, right? MSFT's profits last year weren't even close to that.
I think the consensus is that Microsoft shifted some assets from it’s Irish shell company to another shell company and recorded a bunch of “profit“ because of it.
This is just flat wrong, right? MSFT's profits last year weren't even close to that.