Microsoft accused of avoiding billions in US taxes

Microsoft has been accused of avoiding $6.5bn in taxes (over three years) by using a complex set of transactions with offshore subsidiaries located in Puerto Rico, Ireland, Singapore and Bermuda. The memo, issued by US Senator Carl Levin, did not accuse Microsoft of doing anything illegal, but simply put that they are using a loophole to domestic funds using non-traditional channels. 

Senator Carl Levin said that by using these loopholes, the tax burden is placed onto US citizens:

These loopholes and abuses exact a tremendous cost,” Levin told reporters at a briefing today. “What these gimmicks do is shift the burden of taxes onto citizens and business who don’t use armies of lawyers and accountants.”

Microsoft is not the only company to use loopholes for gaming the tax system, Google has been accused of tax avoidance in the past and Apple has done the same too. While none of the acts are considered illegal, the transactions are typically abnormal in the workflow process and are designed to specifically avoid taxes.

Microsoft, like Apple and Google, are doing this to save money and help keep cash in its own pockets using legal transactions; hard to blame them despite it appearing to be unethical. 

Microsoft sent Neowin the following statement based on Bill Sample's testimony:

Microsoft has a complex business and we must comply with the complicated tax code of the United States, resulting in an exceedingly complex tax structure.  That is why we've advocated for reforms to simplify the US tax code and make it more competitive with the rest of the world.

One of the business imperatives faced by Microsoft and many US-based businesses today is that we must operate in foreign markets in order to compete and succeed as a company.  Foreign revenue growth helps support the growth of our U.S. operations, creating additional U.S. jobs and supporting an economic ripple effect that leads to greater growth in local communities.  Our foreign growth has allowed Microsoft to increase our footprint in the U.S.

According to a recent study of Microsoft's economic impact, we increased our employment by 13.2 percent in the United States from 2007 and 2009.  Through our employment, compensation, and purchases of U.S. goods and services, Microsoft's operations supported roughly 462,000 U.S. jobs.  In Washington State specifically, Microsoft has been the single largest contributor to economic growth since 1990; our impact on the state accounted for 32.4 percent of the total gain in state employment.

To compete and grow, we operate a global business that requires us to operate in foreign markets.  In conducting our business at home and abroad, we abide by U.S. and foreign tax laws.  That is not to say that the rules cannot be improved--to the contrary, we believe they can and should be.  US international tax rules are outdated and not competitive with the tax systems of our major trading partners.  We believe the US should reform its tax rules to support the ability of worldwide American businesses to compete in global markets and invest in the US.

Source: Bloomberg

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

First prices revealed of new HTC Windows Phone 8 devices [Update]

Next Story

Runic could make all new game after Torchlight II

86 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Would you listen to yourselves a bit here? I get *why* some of you think that businesses - especially successful ones - should be taxed more - still, what it really comes down to is that YOU don't want to be taxed more - if at all. Let's get real here - wouldn't YOU use those tax-avoidance strategies if you could? Don't MOST taxpayers (regardless of income) try to pay as little tax as possible? (For example, why do so many of you shop online, as opposed to brick and mortar LOCAL retailers?)

Avoiding the tax man is like the children's game of "It" - NOBODY wants to be "It". (Therefore, you'd rather throw someone ELSE to the tax lions - not yourself.)

Then tackle the tax system in a revenue-neutral way by adopting a FLAT tax that raises no more than the current system (loopholes and all) does - otherwise, it's ALL grandstanding. (No, I'm not JUST talking about the US, either.)

don't most big companies do this sort of stuff anyways?? heck, even my uncle does it as he owns a small liquor store. they're just loopholes. that's why they exist.

By all means, reform the tax system sensibly for all companies. Unfortunately, on the scale of a company like Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc., no one of them can choose to voluntarily forgo an extra billion dollars (made-up number) compared to the others, because it ends up being a competitive disadvantage. It doesn't really help anything to single out any one of them.

Avoiding or evading? In many respects tax legislation or like computer security. It's like blaming hackers for finding and exploiting your security holes for fun and profit. Only that it's legal.

Folks - there's a difference between tax avoidance (noted in this article) and tax evasion. Tax avoidance is legal, and I hope every company in the US avoids as many taxes as possible - our government wastes too much of that money to get any more from us. Tax evasion on the other hand, is illegal and any company that does do this, should be brought to justice (and often are.) Who doesn't want to avoid paying more taxes than they have to? Those who do are idiots. Good for Microsoft if they are following the law, and avoiding taxes - it's good for the economy, good for jobs, good for shareholders and good for innovation.

Hollandsmirtz said,
Folks - there's a difference between tax avoidance (noted in this article) and tax evasion.

Only in legal terms. Morally, they're just as bad as eachother. In the end it comes down to how much money a company can spend on accountants. Small businesses don't have much choice in the matter. It's usually the big multinationals that can afford to get creative with offshore entities and such.

I reject your theory of moral equivalency. To assume so, every business should donate all of their profits (or the amount they are comfortable with) towards extra tax liability. That's a little rediculous.

It's all a matter of choice. Small companies should (and do) avoid taxes just as much as big corporations do. Sure, the amounts may differ, but to argue against that point, is to say the mom-and-pop store, is just like a big Microsoft. That too, is not correct. There are lots of different levels of corporate income, corporate ability, and corporate CHOICES on what to spend money on.

By the way, it's interesting what you said - usually the big multinationals... offshore entities. By definition, multinationals hold money "offshore." That's the definition of a multi-national in some sense.

Please be aware that "offshore" accounts are usually taxed at the rate in which country they are held in. For example, Microsoft UK has profits taxed at UK's rates. It's not like they're getting off tax-free by doing business in other countries.

They're a huge, multi-billion-dollar corporation. It's no surprise they don't want to give anything back to the government (especially when it won't even make a dent in the deficit!). That doesn't make it right, but I'm not outraged or even surprised.

bjoswald said,
They're a huge, multi-billion-dollar corporation. It's no surprise they don't want to give anything back to the government (especially when it won't even make a dent in the deficit!). That doesn't make it right, but I'm not outraged or even surprised.

MS alone wont make a dent, but considering there are hundreds, thousands of companies doing the same.... its many, many billions of USD we're talking about.

DanJamesJr said,
And they want us to switch to Bing because Google didn't follow their privacy guidelines. LOL

Yes, because an accusation that may or may not be based in any bit of fact has anything to do with the Bing / Google fight... lol

If this was "Apple accused of avoiding billions in US taxes" people would be hating them haha

fook apple, Microsoft ftw

M_Lyons10 said,

And Google is a TON worse...

Not sure in the US, but here Google is worse then MS and Apple in skipping European taxes. But theres hundreds of 'letterbox companies' (as we call them) that are only registered here to slide through money on a very low taxrate.
Then again, these companies would go to other countries if we did not offer this solution. They skip many hundreds of billions on taxes in other EU countries, and we gain a few billion off it for free.
For us its a win-win situation (companies settle in our country, pay a lil bit of taxes they normally wouldnt pay due to not settling in our country). But I can imagine other countries could also use that tax money

And in what way is this thinking (by the left) any different from the same sort of thinking on the right? Both want to make legislation on either ethics (the left) or morals (the right). Have we forgotten that, in terms of societal mores, ethics = morals?

Both are problematical, and especially from a legal and constitutional (US) standpoint - which is the REAL reason the Founding Fathers refused to touch either with a ten-foot pole.

If they want MSFT (and all companies that use these techniques) to pay more taxes, then they should close the loopholes. Until then, they should shut their mouths

gohatters said,
If they want MSFT (and all companies that use these techniques) to pay more taxes, then they should close the loopholes. Until then, they should shut their mouths

And what's really aggravating is that their not even loopholes... The whole thing is nothing more than class warfare and fearmongering...

M_Lyons10 said,
And what's really aggravating is that their not even loopholes... The whole thing is nothing more than class warfare and fearmongering...

Companies avoiding paying the taxes they're legally obligated to pay is "class warfare"? You need to stop watching Fox News.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Companies avoiding paying the taxes they're legally obligated to pay is "class warfare"? You need to stop watching Fox News.

but according to current law, they're NOT legally obligated...

The government can only complain about the fact they left these options open, not that people are exploiting them.

Go on Microsoft for doing it, if they can and it is legal then why not.

CW-88 said,
Go on Microsoft for doing it, if they can and it is legal then why not.

If a rapist or murderer found a similar legal loophole would you be congratulating them as well? What a ridiculous thing to say.

Again with the the extreme unreasonable comparisons... Use a reasonable analogy instead of being sensationalistic just to make your side sound like the right one.

The type of loopholes that murders and rapists get off on are mostly human error in collecting evidence or the lack of a witness, etc. Using this as a comparison is like blaming it on terrorists, of course people are going to side with you then. And THAT is ridiculous.

statm1 said,
Again with the the extreme unreasonable comparisons... Use a reasonable analogy instead of being sensationalistic just to make your side sound like the right one.

It's an extreme analogy but it's a sound one. Obviously tax avoidance isn't as severe as escaping a murder or rape charge (not was I claiming it was) but it is still morally and socially wrong. People should be criticising Microsoft, not defending the practice.

I never got why there is such a big whoohaw over companies doing taxes legally.... if you have a problem with it, instead of going after the company that did their taxes legally, go after the people who wrote the laws that made it legal.... and have the laws changed... MS did nothing wrong, only followed the tax code... thats like telling an average person "sure you can deduct your mortgage and college loan expenses... but don't even think about it, it's cheating the system! Sure its legal but you are a cheater! CHEATER!!"

neufuse said,
I never got why there is such a big whoohaw over companies doing taxes legally.... if you have a problem with it, instead of going after the company that did their taxes legally, go after the people who wrote the laws that made it legal.... and have the laws changed... MS did nothing wrong, only followed the tax code... thats like telling an average person "sure you can deduct your mortgage and college loan expenses... but don't even think about it, it's cheating the system! Sure its legal but you are a cheater! CHEATER!!"

Exactly. But some morons think that businesses shouldn't be allowed to deduct anything... It's absurd.

M_Lyons10 said,
Exactly. But some morons think that businesses shouldn't be allowed to deduct anything... It's absurd.

This isn't a case of businesses deducting genuine expenses; it's about businesses manipulating the tax system and using extreme technicalities that go against the spirit of the law. In the UK it's possible to retrospectively fine businesses for that, as businesses are legally required to disclose any tax schemes they use.

It's like walking into a school and taking a random child and then using a bizarre technicality to claim ownership of them - it's not moral and shouldn't be tolerated. Just because something isn't technically illegal doesn't mean it is right to do. At the end of the day it is society that suffers, as the government doesn't have enough money to balance the book and services are being cut.

Obviously there is a serious need for tax reform but that doesn't mean aggressive and immoral business practices like this should be tolerated.

M_Lyons10 said,

Exactly. But some morons think that businesses shouldn't be allowed to deduct anything... It's absurd.


The world just went through a terrible credit crisis and you really want to defend businesses from an already lower than global average tax system. What is wrong with people?!?! Is there some lack of predictive pattern reasoning?

There's the "law" and then there is the "spirit of the law".

Next time those "legally avoided" taxes don't get to be spent on the new hospital or school you were hoping for because your government has no money console yourself with the fact that it was all above board I'm sure you won't be complaining.

Lord Method Man said,
Oh no! California won't be able to build any more $578,000,000 high schools!

We weren't talking about how your state overspends due to what I imagine is poor project management.

Nice effort though.

technikal said,

We weren't talking about how your state overspends due to what I imagine is poor project management.

Nice effort though.

Yes, because overspending is just a California thing... The Federal Government is just as bad. Rather than spend what they have, they spend money on things that simply do not matter and then whine about what's coming in. It's laughable. In government we do not have a cash flow problem, we have a SPENDING problem. And that's the case for State AND Federal...

The USA is in a terrible situation bud. If you dont spend enough, there will be little onflow to the public and consquently the public will slow their spending and then businesses will start to collapse like dominos. Also obviously if you spend too much eventually your interest will start to supercede your GDP and then you are screwed too. It is a balancing act. The last recession was considered the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression. The government needed to stimulate the US economy. Also currently it is a good idea to invest in education to make sure the US builds slowly towards a stronger future.

Using legal loopholes to not pay taxes it one thing but actually using a system where you get government "handouts" aka subsidized like oil companies etc, then THAT I could have a problem with.

GP007 said,
Using legal loopholes to not pay taxes it one thing but actually using a system where you get government "handouts" aka subsidized like oil companies etc, then THAT I could have a problem with.

The problem with the Oil subsidies is that cutting them up will ONLY result in higher gas prices. Obama likes to make himself out to be some sort of Robin Hood, but he doesn't even understand why things are the way they are when he's messing with them.

M_Lyons10 said,

The problem with the Oil subsidies is that cutting them up will ONLY result in higher gas prices. Obama likes to make himself out to be some sort of Robin Hood, but he doesn't even understand why things are the way they are when he's messing with them.

So if you don't have a problem with subsidizing gas prices, then it's perfectly OK to spend millions subsidizing solar, wind, and other forms of energy consumption.

samsabri said,
Instead of pointing fingers at the corporations that do this (all), let's look at congress to fix the tax system.

And while we're looking at Congress (And the Senate), let's look at how they dodge taxes... Rengall I'm sure is not alone.

M_Lyons10 said,

And while we're looking at Congress (And the Senate), let's look at how they dodge taxes... Rengall I'm sure is not alone.

The Senate is part of Congress.

A few days ago we had people screaming about article titles that were misleading, for example the Yahoo article only mentioned WP8 in the title, but not iPhone or other phones.

Well, this article only has Microsoft in the title and the article states that Apple and Google also use similar loopholes. But something tells me the Apple and Google fans will not be arguing for their favorite company names in the title.

nohone said,
A few days ago we had people screaming about article titles that were misleading, for example the Yahoo article only mentioned WP8 in the title, but not iPhone or other phones.

Well, this article only has Microsoft in the title and the article states that Apple and Google also use similar loopholes. But something tells me the Apple and Google fans will not be arguing for their favorite company names in the title.

Of course they aren't.

nohone said,
A few days ago we had people screaming about article titles that were misleading, for example the Yahoo article only mentioned WP8 in the title, but not iPhone or other phones.

Well, this article only has Microsoft in the title and the article states that Apple and Google also use similar loopholes. But something tells me the Apple and Google fans will not be arguing for their favorite company names in the title.


The difference is that people clearly understand it's not Microsoft's fault for playing the system as it allows. Read all the replies. If the title mentioned Apple, people would be all up in arms about how evil Apple is and that we need to start a revolution. Honestly, I'm glad the author labeled it as such. It kept the trolls out of here.

nohone said,
A few days ago we had people screaming about article titles that were misleading, for example the Yahoo article only mentioned WP8 in the title, but not iPhone or other phones.

Well, this article only has Microsoft in the title and the article states that Apple and Google also use similar loopholes. But something tells me the Apple and Google fans will not be arguing for their favorite company names in the title.


Except for the fact that the news is Microsoft doing it now and that Apple/Google have done it in the past. That is the whole principal of news - what has happened recently, not the past. Hence the focus on Microsoft in the title.

I don't know why certain people here insist on trying to drag everything into Microsoft vs Google vs Apple all the time.

Astra.Xtreme said,

The difference is that people clearly understand it's not Microsoft's fault for playing the system as it allows. Read all the replies. If the title mentioned Apple, people would be all up in arms about how evil Apple is and that we need to start a revolution. Honestly, I'm glad the author labeled it as such. It kept the trolls out of here.

Translation: If it is positive about Microsoft, we need to make sure we glorify Apple, also. If it is negative about Microsoft, we need to make known how bad they are while finding excuse after excuse to keep Apple's name out of it to protect their image.

Fourjays said,
Except for the fact that the news is Microsoft doing it now and that Apple/Google have done it in the past. That is the whole principal of news - what has happened recently, not the past. Hence the focus on Microsoft in the title.

They have all done it in the past, and they're all doing it now.

nohone said,

Translation: If it is positive about Microsoft, we need to make sure we glorify Apple, also. If it is negative about Microsoft, we need to make known how bad they are while finding excuse after excuse to keep Apple's name out of it to protect their image.

What are you talking about? None of that makes any sense in the context on this...
What I said doesn't need a translation. It was clear, simple English...

Astra.Xtreme said,

What are you talking about? None of that makes any sense in the context on this...
What I said doesn't need a translation. It was clear, simple English...

You are right, it didn't need translation. You stated what I "translated" quite clearly - protect Apple's image at all costs.

nohone said,

You are right, it didn't need translation. You stated what I "translated" quite clearly - protect Apple's image at all costs.

Again, what are you talking about? This isn't about protecting anybody. It's about how screwed up the tax system is. I simply stated that if the thread title said Apple instead of Microsoft, the iHaters would have flocked in here and turned this into a flame war, far beyond the point of the article. Just like every other thread if somebody even whispers the name "Apple". Even you can't deny that.

Astra.Xtreme said,

Again, what are you talking about? This isn't about protecting anybody. It's about how screwed up the tax system is. I simply stated that if the thread title said Apple instead of Microsoft, the iHaters would have flocked in here and turned this into a flame war, far beyond the point of the article. Just like every other thread if somebody even whispers the name "Apple". Even you can't deny that.

You just restated my point - Don't put Apple's name in the title, because people may criticize Apple in the way the article title is criticizing Microsoft. And you restate my point by complaining about what others may do, by attacking people calling them iHaters. We can't have a flame war that includes Apple and Google, we just need to leave Microsoft's name in there so they are the focus.

iHater - the name Apple fans give to people who have the nerve to use something other than Apple.

nohone said,

You just restated my point - Don't put Apple's name in the title, because people may criticize Apple in the way the article title is criticizing Microsoft. And you restate my point by complaining about what others may do, by attacking people calling them iHaters. We can't have a flame war that includes Apple and Google, we just need to leave Microsoft's name in there so they are the focus.

You still obviously don't understand. This is an article that is reporting news on what Microsoft is doing NOW and the specifics to THEM. Why you were trying to divert the attention towards Apple (and Google) is beyond me. Oh wait, it's because you are one of the Apple hating trolls around here that gets all worked up when Apple isn't in the spotlight when bad news arises. Get over yourself...

Astra.Xtreme said,

You still obviously don't understand. This is an article that is reporting news on what Microsoft is doing NOW and the specifics to THEM. Why you were trying to divert the attention towards Apple (and Google) is beyond me. Oh wait, it's because you are one of the Apple hating trolls around here that gets all worked up when Apple isn't in the spotlight when bad news arises. Get over yourself...

And the article the other day about Yahoo giving phones to their employees was about what Yahoo is NOW doing and the specifics about the LUMIA. But people whined about how the article focused on only Microsoft, and they wanted their fair share of the headlines. Ahh yes, call me an Apple hating troll (hater - the only thing the Apple fans have to fall back on, calling names and having their little temper tantrum), I tried to respond on my iPad 3 (the second iPad I have owned) but because of bugs with the commenting system I couldn't reply. I have a number of Apple products, but I bought them out of hate.

Get over the childish name calling.

seb5150 said,
If it's not illegal than why is this news??

Laws are designed to enforce what is moral and justified. By avoiding tax they were legally required to pay Microsoft is depriving the government of essential funding. If the US doesn't have a law covering tax avoidance then that's shocking.

I mean, if a murderer managed to find a loophole that allowed them to walk free would that not also be wrong and worthy of news? "If it's not illegal" is a pathetic, pathetic excuse.

Laws should have nothing to do with morality, as morality is subjective. If the tax code allows the things that these companies are doing, then they're paying exactly what is required of them and aren't 'avoiding' anything.

That other countries have laws to prosecute companies which make use of the law is asinine.

Memnochxx said,
Laws should have nothing to do with morality, as morality is subjective.

Laws are based on common morality. Obviously these matters are subjective but everyone can agree that murder is not acceptable, just as tax avoidance isn't acceptable. Companies ARE avoiding tax by coming up with ever more elaborate ways to get around the tax code. It's not that companies are paying the amount they are legally required to - they are jumping through hoops and redistributing large amounts of money just to reduce the amount they pay.

As I said, a murderer shouldn't be let off because of a technicality and neither should a company be allowed to avoid paying taxes. It really is that simple. Such behaviour shouldn't be defended and it is absolutely bizarre that you would choose to do so.

In the context of this issue, its black and white, if its not illegal then I agree that they are paying everything they are required to pay and aren't avoiding anything. If the government wants them to pay more taxes than make it illegal, otherwise stop whining about it.

This specific issue has nothing to do with morality. Its either illegal or its not. Trying to compare this to getting away with murder which has everything to do with morality is just plain ridiculous.

But, this like most issues have two sides. Both sides usually have good points to push their opinion with and makes arguing pointless.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Laws are based on common morality. Obviously these matters are subjective but everyone can agree that murder is not acceptable, just as tax avoidance isn't acceptable. Companies ARE avoiding tax by coming up with ever more elaborate ways to get around the tax code. It's not that companies are paying the amount they are legally required to - they are jumping through hoops and redistributing large amounts of money just to reduce the amount they pay.

As I said, a murderer shouldn't be let off because of a technicality and neither should a company be allowed to avoid paying taxes. It really is that simple. Such behaviour shouldn't be defended and it is absolutely bizarre that you would choose to do so.


Common morality, or tyranny of the majority? Murder is not illegal because of morality, it's illegal in order to maintain a society. And what you try to dismiss as a 'technicality' I call following the law, and absolutely believe that the 'murderer' should be let go.

I'd like to see the society you'd agree to live in, where you're liable to be prosecuted for things which aren't illegal and perhaps put in prison for life even though you weren't able to be proven guilty just because everybody 'knows' you are.

Memnochxx said,

Common morality, or tyranny of the majority? Murder is not illegal because of morality, it's illegal in order to maintain a society.

And tax is required to maintain a society. I fail to see your point.

Memnochxx said,
Laws should have nothing to do with morality

HAHAHA WHAT!!! Are you a republican??? Of course laws have something to do with morality.

theyarecomingforyou said,

And tax is required to maintain a society. I fail to see your point.

Judging by all your posts above you clearly fail to see alot of things.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Laws are designed to enforce what is moral and justified. By avoiding tax they were legally required to pay Microsoft is depriving the government of essential funding. If the US doesn't have a law covering tax avoidance then that's shocking.

I mean, if a murderer managed to find a loophole that allowed them to walk free would that not also be wrong and worthy of news? "If it's not illegal" is a pathetic, pathetic excuse.

Morals?

Morals/scrupals/principles all went out the window a long time ago, right along with common sense and caring.

I'd be willing to be there isn't a single politician who doesn't use some type of rule similar to this, aka, Romney!!

Iridium said,

HAHAHA WHAT!!! Are you a republican??? Of course laws have something to do with morality.

Then why is pot banned in the US? Why is it legal to carry arms?

Our tax system is so screwed up, its hard to say that this is unethical. If a corporation has to pay a certain tax for some weird asinine reason (and that is certainly the case), they might as well be able to avoid another tax for some weird asinine reason.

Is it unethical to take the mortgage interest deduction? How about the charitable giving deduction?

nowimnothing said,
Our tax system is so screwed up, its hard to say that this is unethical. If a corporation has to pay a certain tax for some weird asinine reason (and that is certainly the case), they might as well be able to avoid another tax for some weird asinine reason.
Agreed, about the tax system being so screwed up. However, with screwed up career politicians, the concept of a simpler and fairer tax system is unimaginable. Term limits, anyone?

Is it unethical to take the mortgage interest deduction? How about the charitable giving deduction?

While it's a dick move, if it's perfectly legal nothing should be allowed to be done surely?

If anything it highlights the flaws in the system to fix.

McKay said,
While it's a dick move, if it's perfectly legal nothing should be allowed to be done surely?

If anything it highlights the flaws in the system to fix.

In the UK companies can be fined for avoiding tax, even if the particular scheme they were using wasn't technically illegal at the time. Companies should not be allowed to simply say "tax is complicated, we're not technically breaking the law" and get away with tax avoidance on such a massive scale.

theyarecomingforyou said,

In the UK companies can be fined for avoiding tax, even if the particular scheme they were using wasn't technically illegal at the time. Companies should not be allowed to simply say "tax is complicated, we're not technically breaking the law" and get away with tax avoidance on such a massive scale.

I am pretty sure they have an army of best lawyers and assured they have covered they asses for such moment. I think government need to fix their system and be more efficient.

is this a surprise to anyone familiar with multinational corporations, Boots, Amazon, Play, amongst a plethora of others do exactly this to avoid paying taxes, the UK is as bad. It is a worldwide problem due to badly writtten tax rules/laws. cant blame them all for using a loophole thats not illegal.

Toysoldier said,

Blame the tax system as it is wrong, not Microsoft.


This, Google does the same, not sure about US though. But in the EU Google skips many more billions of taxdollars (or rather Euro's) then the 6.5billion MS did.

Soldiers33 said,
good on Microsoft. All the us will do is fund their stupid copyright cases such as Megaupload.

Yeah, it's not like people need things like schools, or the police, or the military... those things are all free, right?

Soldiers33 said,
good on Microsoft. All the us will do is fund their stupid copyright cases such as Megaupload.

There are very few places on the internet where someone could make a comment about SUPPORTING tax evasion/avoidance, and then get more than 10 likes.