조세피난처 이용할껄요.

구글 조세회피는 유명하죠.

구글은 적극적으로 조세회피처 애용 하는거지요.
구글이 한국내 지도 반출할려는 이유가 사실 국내에 관련데이터센터 같은거 안만들려고 하는거지요.
국내에 관련사업장 생기면 한국 국세청도 적극적으로 법인세 징수에 들어 갈텐데.
그 사업장이랄만한게 국내에 없다 보니. 세금 찔끔 내고 끝...다른 수익에 대한 세금은 나 몰라 이러고 있는거죠.

AI에게 물어보니 새로운 법 적용 때문이라고 하네요.
1번은 메타가 왜 많이 냈는지, 2번은 구글은 왜 영향을 안 받았는지에 대해 설명하고 있습니다.
자세한 건 전문가에게... :)

1) Meta's Q3 FY2025 income statement showed a high tax expense because of a one-time, non-cash charge of approximately $15.9 billion related to new U.S. tax legislation.
This charge was due to the implementation of "President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which was signed into law in July 2025. Specifically:
The new law required Meta to recognize a valuation allowance against its U.S. federal deferred tax assets, reflecting the impact of the new U.S. Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax.
This was an accounting adjustment (non-cash) that dramatically increased the reported tax provision for the quarter, leading to a reported effective tax rate of 87%.
Without this one-time charge, Meta's effective tax rate for the quarter would have been approximately 14%, and net income would have been significantly higher, closer to analyst expectations.
Importantly, Meta's management stated that despite this large one-time expense, the new legislation is expected to result in a significant reduction in its U.S. federal cash tax payments for the remainder of 2025 and in future years. Therefore, the high tax expense in the income statement reflects an accounting rule change rather than a large immediate cash payment

2) The reason the law affected Meta but not Google lies in the difference in their accounting judgments regarding the realizability of their deferred tax assets (DTAs) and their specific financial positions at the time the law was enacted.
While both companies operate under similar tax jurisdictions, the core difference stems from the following factors:
Valuation Allowance: U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) require a company to record a valuation allowance against its deferred tax assets if it is "more likely than not" that some or all of the DTAs will not be realized through future taxable income.
Meta's Position: The new U.S. tax legislation introduced a Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (CAMT) that altered the rules on how certain DTAs can be used. This change created significant uncertainty about Meta's ability to utilize all of its federal DTAs before they expire. Consequently, Meta's management determined it was no longer "more likely than not" that they could realize a substantial portion of these assets, necessitating the large, one-time $15.9 billion non-cash charge to establish a valuation allowance.
Google's Position: Google, apparently based on its own analysis of future taxable income projections and existing tax strategies, likely concluded that it had sufficient positive evidence to support the realization of its federal DTAs despite the new CAMT rules. Therefore, Google's management was not required to record a significant new valuation allowance, resulting in no comparable one-time charge in its Q3 2025 income statement.
In essence, the different accounting treatment reflects each company's independent assessment of its specific financial circumstances and future ability to use its tax assets under the new tax framework.
The 2025 tax law affected Meta but not Google due to differences in their respective tax asset positions and accounting judgments regarding the realization of those assets.
Here's why:
Valuation Allowance on Deferred Tax Assets (DTAs): The core of the issue was that the new law, specifically the U.S. Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (CAMT) provisions, limited the ability of some companies to use certain tax breaks in the future. Meta determined it was more likely than not that it would not be able to fully utilize its existing U.S. federal DTAs (which typically arise from R&D expenses and other deductions) against future federal tax liabilities. Accounting rules require a company to record a "valuation allowance" (a non-cash charge) against DTAs if their realization is uncertain, which led to the large one-time expense.
Google's Position: Google (Alphabet) did not report a similar one-time charge in its Q3 2025 earnings statement. This suggests that Google's management determined they had sufficient positive evidence (e.g., a history of consistent, strong U.S. taxable income) to support the position that their own DTAs would be fully utilized in the future.
Business Specifics: While both companies are large tech firms, their specific historical tax strategies, the amount and nature of their deferred tax assets, and projections for future taxable income differed, leading to different accounting outcomes when faced with the new legislation.
Future Cash Taxes: Both companies are expected to benefit from other provisions of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," such as full R&D expensing, which should lower their future cash tax payments. The difference in the Q3 accounting charge was specifically due to the timing of recognizing the uncertainty around existing DTAs.
In essence, the law created a scenario where Meta had to adjust its books to reflect the reduced future value of its tax breaks, an adjustment Google did not have to make based on its own financial assessments.

지나가다 문의드립니다. 저 그림은 어디서 찾을수 있나요?