Author Topic: U2 and Taxes  (Read 799 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JFW

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 446
  • Lookin' in the places where no flowers grow
Re: U2 and Taxes
« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2017, 08:26:01 AM »
U2 in Texas?

Offline Luzita

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: U2 and Taxes
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2017, 09:07:41 PM »
As I understand it U2 moved just one of their companies from Ireland to Holland to take advantage of a better tax rate. This is nothing like the shady tax avoidance of some companies, it is totally legit and even still within the EU. It is rediculous some have decided to criticize this.

Offline codeguy

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,699
  • I'm a long way from your hill of calvary
Re: U2 and Taxes
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2017, 03:27:00 PM »
Ireland introduced a property tax in 2010 (NAMA), and it required anyone using property in Ireland as anything other than a principle residence to register it as a vacation or business property with the authorities, otherwise they would be treated as a resident for tax purposes. All of U2's Irish residences are registered as principle residencies with this authority, which means that all four members of the band are still Irish residents for tax purposes. Since Principle Management is a Dutch corporation, it's within the EU jurisdiction, and therefore all payments to the four band members are directly taxable in the countries in which they reside. So U2's company may pay a 1.5% tax on their global earnings, but all four band members subsequently pay Irish income tax at a  40% rate, plus 11% social taxes.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The criticism of the band over this is based, not on fact, but on people not wanting Bono preaching about debt relief. The law that taxed U2 on their worldwide earnings and prompted their move to the netherlands was introduced around the same time as Bono was meeting President Bush, doing Live8, Gleneagles, etc.