Monday, March 21, 2016

Apple Sales International–By the numbers

The Apple subsidiary Apple Sales International (ASI) formed a central bank of the 2013 US Senate Investigation into Apple’s tax affairs and subsequently became one of the two Apple subsidiaries which are under the spotlight in the European Commission’s state aid investigation into the treatment by Ireland of Apple.  Here we look at the publicly available information to set out where ASI fits into Apple’s structure, what it does both within Ireland and without and what it’s current tax position in Ireland is.

The following chart summarises the ASI position at the core of Apple’s international structure (click to enlarge).

Apple Sales International Structure

We will focus on the four financial flows (marked in green):

  1. The research and development cost-sharing payment which ASI makes to Apple Inc. through which ASI gets a license to sell Apple’s products outside the Americas.
  2. The manufacturing fee which ASI pays to third-party manufacturers in China to produce Apple’s products.
  3. The sales revenue that ASI receives from the sale of Apple’s products to distribution and retail subsidiaries within Apple and also some customers (including internet customers).
  4. The fee that ASI pays its branch in Ireland for organising the logistics behind the manufacturing  and (up to 2011) the administration involved in the delivery and sales.

The most crucial aspect of the above structure is payment #1.  If this is close to the profit earned by ASI the structure achieves little and the income accrues to Apple Inc.  These payments were a central part of the US Senate investigation which revealed that the cost-sharing payments were actually very small relative to the profits earned by ASI – as shown in the following table taken from the Senate report.

ASI Cost Sharing Payments

By making payments of $5 billion to contribute to the R&D that Apple undertakes (of which 95 per cent is done in the U.S.), ASI was granted the economic rights to exploit Apple’s intellectual property outside of the Americas.  The legal rights owner remains Apple Inc.

The table also shows that the economic rights are hugely valuable.  By 2012, ASI was generating profits of $36 billion a year.  After the relatively small cost-sharing payment this is generated by two factors.  The first is volume and the second is the difference between payments #2 and #3 above.

ASI pays a manufacturing fee to a third-party manufacturer to make the products that arise from the company’s R&D.  ASI then sold that product on to various related parties (Apple distribution and retail subsidiaries) and unrelated parties (such as large customers in the education sector and internet customers).  Under the arm’s length principle ASI must charge similar prices for all of these transactions. 

It is not inconceivable that ASI charges, say, $650 for some Apple product to a customer and pays a fee of $250 to the third-party manufacturer.  Do that on the scale of Apple and it is pretty easy to see how tens of billions of profits will build up.  However, it must be remembered that the iPhone was introduced in 2007 and the iPad in 2010 so these profits are a fairly recent phenomenon.  ASI’s profits were compiled here by Neil Chenoweth and focusing on the likely period for any recovery of taxes arising from the investigation by the European Commission (2004 to 2013) we see the following (in $US thousands)

ASI Company Outcomes

There is no figure available for 2013 but given the overall performance of the company a figure similar to that achieved in 2012 is likely.  The huge run-up in profits is evident.  The cumulative profits for the five years to 2008 of $7.1 billion are only one-fifth of the $35.9 billion of profits earned in 2012 alone.  If the 2013 figure was similar to that achieved in 2012 then the total profit for the ten years is around $113 billion.

ASI has a branch in Ireland which carries out the underlying administrative tasks behind the manufacture and delivery of these products.  According to the European Commission “the main activities of the branch relate to:

  • procurement of Apple finished goods from third-party manufacturers (including a third-party manufacturer in China), […],
  • onward sale of those products to Apple-affiliated companies and other customers, and
  • logistics operations involved in supplying Apple products from the third-party manufacturers to Apple-affiliated companies and other customers.”

The branch is paid for these duties and the pricing agreement with the Revenue Commissioners is one of the contested rulings in the EC investigation.  The pricing agreement is relatively straightforward with the EC letter telling us that:

  • In 1991, a basis for determining Apple Computer Accessories Ltd.’s (subsequently ASI) Irish branch net profit was proposed by Apple and agreed by Irish Revenue. According to that ruling, the net profit attributable to the ASI branch would be calculated as 12.5% of all branch operating costs, excluding material for resale.
  • A modified basis for determining net profit was agreed for the ASI branch in 2007 with a [8-18]% margin on branch operating costs, excluding costs not attributable to the Irish branch, such as […] and material costs.

The Commission go to lengths to mention that the eligible costs in the calculation exclude material for resale and we’ll come back to that.  So what is the result of this calculation?  We can see this by combining figures from the Commission and US Senate.

ASI Branch Outcomes

The turnover figure is taken as the midpoint of the range reported by the European Commission while the taxable income and tax paid figures are taken from the US Senate report.  The effective tax rate is derived from these figures.  The effective tax rate is above the standard 12.5 per cent rate because, as well as the income derived from support activities, the taxable income of the branch includes interest earned which is subject to Ireland’s 25 per cent of Corporation Tax.  This is confirmed by the European Commission who state that:

The taxable income in the table above was taxed at 12.5%, except for limited components taxed at 25% mainly represented by interest payments received.

One would think the key question here is whether the 12.5 per cent cost-plus agreement is appropriate for the Irish branch.  Transfer pricing is an art rather than a science.  Is a cost-plus agreement appropriate for the the type of activities undertaken by ASI’s Irish branch? Probably.  Even then, the margin to be used can be queried but doubling the margin is not going to result in a “material” finding given the figures reported above.

Perhaps the branch should be remunerated on a return on sales basis, i.e. profit should be related to the amount of sales the branch handles.  These are excluded from the cost-plus arrangement outlined above and the Irish authorities have (unsurprisingly) told the Commission that they are “satisfied” with this transfer pricing agreement:

  • As regards the agreements in the rulings in favour of ASI, the Irish authorities express the view in their letter of 25 March 2014 that ASI’s branch was considered to carry out routine, albeit important, functions in the procurement and onward sale and supply of goods for Apple. It would therefore have had no special valuable assets. Although the Irish branch arranged the procurement and onward sale and supply of goods (which did not pass though the Irish branch), the goods concerned derived their value largely from intangibles created in the US. There were also no indications that the Irish branch bore significant risks in relation to the activities of ASI.
  • Furthermore, according to Irish authorities’ letter of 25 March 2014, Irish Revenue was satisfied that the agreed margin on operating costs delivered a net profit commensurate with the value added by the Irish branch. On the basis of a branch-focused analysis of the operations undertaken in Ireland, it would have been clear that the main profit-generating functions and assets were not located in Ireland. All significant risks and all intellectual property would have been borne and economically owned elsewhere in the ASI enterprise or the Apple group and the profit attribution to the Irish branch would have represented full remuneration of its role in that process.

The Commission wasn’t willing to accept this and, in particular, felt there was a disconnect between the revenues and profits of ASI as a company and the revenues and profits of ASI’s Irish branch.

  • Second, the profit allocation to the ASI Irish branch, agreed in the 2007 ruling, does not factor in the evolution of sales. In fact, [.] the sales income of ASI increased by 415% over the three years 2009-2012 to USD 63.9 billion. For the same period, the operating costs as reflected by the taxable income (which represents around [8-18]% of operating costs of the branch according to the ruling of 2007) increased by [10-20]% [.]. As a large part of the operating capacity of ASI as a whole seems to be located in Ireland, the discrepancy between the sales growth and the growth of the Irish operating capacity, cannot be explained.
  • That discrepancy could point to an inconsistency in the allocation of turnover between ASI and its Irish branch. The income of ASI of USD 63.9 billion for 2012 and the respective amounts for previous years [.] represent sales income, which is an active income and generates operating expenses. If the 415% increase in sales is only due to an increase in price and not an increase in volumes, it would not be inconsistent that the operating expense of the ASI branch only increase by [10-20]% over the same period.  However if the sales volumes increased, the operating costs of either the Irish branch of ASI or the operating costs that ASI incurs outside of Ireland should have increased significantly as well. At this stage, the increase in sales cannot be related to a comparable increase in operating costs, which could point to an inconsistency in the profit allocation to the Irish activities.

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in the Commission’s position.  The Commission are concerned that ASI’s profits have grown substantially but that this is not reflected in a commensurate growth in the operating capacity of the Irish branch (reflected by its costs).  The Commission then argue that the increase in sales suggests an “inconsistency” in the profit allocated to the Irish branch.  But if the sales could increase without an increase in the operating capacity its suggests that the two are not related.  And when ASI’s volumes increase the expense that increases is its cost of sales, i.e. the fee paid to the third-party manufacturer in China.

The are a few answers to the “inconsistency”.  One is that the Irish branch of ASI is actually not central to the overall profitability of the company.  The second is that Apple’s structure changed in 2012 and the responsibilities of ASI’s Irish branch were reduced which is something the EC appear to have overlooked.  The US Senate report tells us that:

Prior to 2012, ASI sold to Apple retail subsidiaries and directly to internet customers.  Since the company re-organised, ASI now sells to ADI and Apple Singapore, and those entities sell to Apple retail subsidiaries, or internet customers.

The impact of this can be seen in the reduction the turnover of ASI’s Irish branch in 2012 in the table above.  ADI is Apple Distribution International, another Irish-registered subsidiary of Apple Inc.  ADI is not subject to investigation by the European Commission but after the 2012 restructure figures from the US Senate show that ADI reported €186 million of taxable income to Ireland and paid €23.8 million of Corporation Tax (effective rate 12.8 per cent).  In fact as a result of the restructure ASI no longer has a sales function and arranges only for the manufacturing of Apple goods and sells them to ADI or Apple Singapore who then manage the subsequent sales.  ADI won’t accumulate huge profits as the price is pays ASI will be close to the resale price. 

But maybe there is an argument that, up to 2011 at least, ASI’s Irish branch should have been remunerated on a return of sales basis.  It is far from clear that it should apply because it is not clear what activities of the Irish branch could have influenced the level of sales.  As we have already seen ASI’s revenues increased rapidly up to 2011 without a comparable increase in the operating capacity of the Irish branch. However, if it is was appropriate to use a return on sales approach and given the level of the sales even a small margin would generate significant profits. 

What might an appropriate margin be?  I can’t say but if we consider the Irish branch to be a fairly ordinary reseller than a margin of around three per cent may be appropriate.  To be honest I have no idea and am really only looking for a number to use as an example.  If we apply a three per cent return on sales margin to the revenues shown above then that would give a profit of around $5.5 billion for the years from 2004 to 20112.  Applying our 12.5 per cent Corporation Tax to that gives a figure of $700 million – in total.

Would Apple Inc. let me handle the logistics of dealing with the third-party manufacturers in China and handle the billing and delivery to customers that Apple virtually hand-deliver to me for a three percent margin on sales? I doubt it.  Maybe one per cent is a better margin and that gives a ten-year tax bill of around $200 million.

The Commission indicate that any margin above 0.2 per cent would result in additional tax being due to Ireland:

For example in 2011, the taxable profit of ASI represented only around [less than 0.2]% of the sales of ASI. Therefore if a margin on sales indicator would have been retained as a net profit indicator, the resulting taxable profit would have been much higher, for any benchmark sales margin above [0.2]%. In detail, the turnover of the ASI subsidiary is taken as reference as no branch turnover seems to be reported (other than the turnover provided by the Irish tax authorities in 2014 and which are according to the submission calculated on the basis of the taxable basis and not according to accounting figures). [T]he sales of ASI for 2011 amounted to USD 47.5 billion, which at the EUR/USD exchange rate 2011 average exchange rate of 1.3920, represents around EUR 34.1 billion. Comparing the 2011 taxable profit in Ireland of ASI of EUR [50,000,000 – 60,000,000] to this sales figure results in a margin on sales of around [less than 0.2]%.

ASI is hugely profitable but it is not because of anything that happens in Hollyhill in Cork.  As outlined above there are three factors driving the profitability of ASI:

  1. The cost-sharing agreement with Apple Inc.
  2. The agreement with the third-party manufacturer in China
  3. The price ASI charges when selling the products on

And we have ample evidence to show that none of these are or ever were part of the responsibilities of the Irish branch.  First the cost-sharing agreement which the US Senate succinctly describes in the following paragraph:

Cost Sharing Agreement. The cost-sharing agreement is structured as follows. In the agreement, Apple Inc. and ASI agree to share in the development of Apple’s products and to divide the resulting intellectual property economic rights. To calculate their respective costs, Apple Inc. first pools the costs of Apple’s worldwide research and development efforts. Apple Inc. and ASI then each pay a portion of the pooled costs based upon the portion of product sales that occur in their respective regions. For instance, in 2011, roughly 40 percent of Apple’s worldwide sales occurred in the Americas, with the remaining 60 percent occurring offshore. That same year, Apple’s worldwide research and development costs totaled $2.4 billion. Apple Inc. and ASI contributed to these shared expenses based on each entity’s percentage of worldwide sales. Apple Inc. paid 40 percent or $1.0 billion, while ASI paid the remaining 60 percent or $1.4 billion.

And later the Senate report tells us that the cost-sharing agreement was signed by US-based employees of Apple Inc.  No competence for the cost-sharing agreement rested with the Irish branch.

Apple’s offshore affiliates operate as one worldwide enterprise, following a coordinated global business plan directed by Apple Inc. In fact, the last two versions of Apple’s cost-sharing agreement were signed by Apple Inc. U.S.-based employees, each of whom worked for multiple Apple entities, including Apple Inc., ASI, and AOE.

The European Commission appear to agree with this when they note that:

All strategic decisions taken by ASI, including in relation to IP, are taken outside of Ireland. As with AOE, ASI is a party to the R&D cost sharing agreement with other Apple Inc. subsidiaries under which the total costs of the group’s worldwide R&D are pooled. ASI’s Irish branch has no authority to make decisions relating to Apple IP or the cost sharing agreement. No rights in relation to the Apple IP concerned are attributed to the Irish branch.

Next is the agreement with the third-party manufacturer which the US Senate told us was negotiated and signed in the US:

Foxconn is a trade name for Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd ("Hon Hai").  The individuals with primary responsibility for negotiating agreements with Hon Hai for products containing the A5 chip were U.S.-based Apple Inc. employees working in Operations [.] Individuals signing the relevant agreements for Apple Inc. were US-based Apple Inc. employees with the title VP, Procurement.  The individual who signed the relevant agreements for Apple Sales International was a U.S.-based Apple Inc. employee who signed the agreement in his capacity as Director of Apple Sales International.

That just leaves the price that ASI uses when the products are sold on but that actually isn’t subject to negotiation or agreement.  Up to 2011 ASI sold to distributors, retailers and customers and although, there would be slight differences, in rough terms the prices should be comparable.  The arm’s length principle is that the price to a related party should be similar to that charged to a third-party.  And prior to 2012, ASI had plenty of third-party sales. As reported by Apple to the US Senate:

Of the $108.25 billion of Net Sales reported on Apple Inc.'s Form 10-K for period ending September 24, 2011, approximately $26.06 billion of worldwide Net Sales were recorded by Apple Sales International. Apple Sales International was the only Irish entity with third party sales.

We can se sure that ASI made plenty of profit on these sales to third parties (the difference between the fee paid to manufacturer and the sale price).  And because of this ASI makes plenty of profit of sales to related parties.  And it does.  As the first table shows, even after the restructure in 2011, ASI’s profit continued to rise and hit $36 billion in 2012.

Of course, the question the European Commission seems to have concerned itself with is not whether the appropriate tax is collected from Apple’s operations in Ireland but who is collecting the tax on this $36 billion?  The answer ultimately, of course, is the US but the US doesn’t collect it from ASI.  In fact, as Neil Chenoweth shows the tax rates on ASI are incredibly low.

ASI Tax Outcomes

From 2004 when it was just 0.80 per cent the tax rate on ASI fell throughout the period and by 2012 it was just 0.02 per cent (this is the €5.4 million of Corporation Tax paid by the Irish branch as a percentage of the companies $35.9 billion of profits).  The is because ASI’s tax provision is based on the costs it incurs in Cork rather than the sales it has around the world.

Has Apple found the elixir of tax minimisation?  Not really.  While ASI may not owe tax on those profits Apple Inc. does.  It is not our central thesis here and is a well worn track.  Apple Inc. owes US corporate income tax on the profits earned by ASI but can defer it until transferring the profits to a US-incorporated entity within Apple’s structure.  We will not see the tax paid on these profits in the accounts of ASI.  The tax paid will show up in the consolidated accounts of Apple Inc.

Apple accounts show that it makes a tax provision in its Profit and Loss statement of around 26 per cent of its pre-tax earnings.  However, if we look at the effective tax rates on its “foreign” and “domestic” (i.e. US)  earnings we see a wide divergence with the foreign tax rate being less than 10 per cent and the domestic rate seemingly more than 60 per cent.

Apple Tax Rates

The reason for the very large US tax rate is that the provision for US tax includes some of the US tax due on foreign earnings.  That is Apple owes very little foreign tax on the earnings of ASI – as they are generated by risks, functions and assets that are in the US – and makes a provision for some of the the US tax that is due on these earnings.  There are some who believe that this foreign/domestic split is real and that Apple is avoiding huge amounts of foreign tax but making sales abroad is not the same as making profits abroad.  The reality is that the foreign/domestic revenue split in Apple’s accounts does not reflect the position of its risks, functions and assets, so is not useful in helping to determine its tax liabilities. See section on ‘Shifting Profits Offshore’ on page 28 of the US Senate Report.  The tax should be due in the US but Apple have, somewhat artificially, been able to describe much of the income as “foreign” for US tax purposes.

Of course, providing for 26% tax and paying the tax are very different things.  In the case of ASI the payment only becomes due when Apple transfers the profit to a US-registered entity in its structure and it seems pretty clear that Apple is unlikely to do that anytime soon.  Should companies like Apple be able to defer, oftentimes permanently, the tax that is due on their profits?  No, but that is something for the US to remedy.  The point is that while the profits appear untaxed in ASI they are ultimately subject to tax in Apple Inc. 

But what if the profits of ASI were to be deemed taxable in Ireland?  All the noises are that this is a determination that the European Commission could make.  There seems little basis in fact to support it but I guess there are arguments that could be made.  These may be that:

  • ASI should be deemed tax resident in Ireland
  • ASI is an Irish-registered company
  • ASI has employees in only one country – Ireland
  • ASI only has substance through its Irish branch which is enough to deem the parent, which has no substance, taxable in Ireland
  • Such is the nature of the activities of the Irish branch that ASI’s sales should be considered to be fully completed by it

What happens if all of ASI’s profits are deemed taxable in Ireland? Without the exact calculations it is difficult to tell but if it does happen we will be really at the races and the talk will be of billions not millions. 

Assuming ASI performance in 2013 and 2014 tracked that of the overall company then the cumulative profit earned by ASI of the period from 2004 to 2014 is somewhere around €110 billion.  If we just do a crude approximation and apply a 12.5 per cent tax to that you get something approaching €14 billion.

ASI Notional Tax Due

And you can’t just rock up to the Revenue Commissioners in 2016 and say you want to pay tax due for 2004.  At the very least interest will be applied and the interest rate used by the Revenue Commissioners since 2009 has been the equivalent of eight per cent per annum.   If we apply eight per cent interest to this notional €14 billion of tax due over the ten years then the total liability approaches €20 billion.  If the interest rate set out in the EU’s state aid regulations is applied the total would be around €16 billion (as the interest rate is linked to market rates which have been significantly lower than eight per cent for much of the period.)

Is this something that could happen? It seems so though I still consider it unlikely.  Is this something that should happen? No.  There is almost no basis for any argument that 60 per cent of the profits of Apple Inc. over the period in question were generated by risks, functions or assets in Cork.  Even thinking that someone might suggest it seems foolish.  And if Ireland does take a big chunk of tax out of Apple’s profits then we can be sure there will be another hearing of the US Senate on this matter.  And this time they won’t be calling us a tax haven; they’ll be calling us a tax thief!


  1. Does ASI have any other branches, other than Ireland?

    Just to clarify/confirm that it is the case that all ASI profits will be taxed somewhere, at some stage? So it's then not true that some profits are stateless, forever untaxed?

    1. No, ASI only has a branch in Ireland and a US Board of Directors. It does not have a presence in any other country.

      The US has a worldwide system so all of ASI's profit are subject to US taxation. They are not untaxed. What is critical is that the US allows a deferral of the actual payment of this tax until the profits are "repatriated". See quote from Pam Olson at the end of this:

  2. Michael O'DonnellTuesday, August 30, 2016

    Seamus, does "repatriation", which invokes US tax, require a distribution of its profits by ASI back to its US parent or could repatriation occur while the profits remain within ASI?

  3. Hello, Neat post. There’s an issue along with your site in internet explorer, would check this? IE still is the marketplace leader and a big element of folks will leave out your magnificent writing because of this problem. I am reading this wonderful article to increase my know-how.

  4. After study some of the web sites with your site now, and I genuinely like your technique for blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark site list and are checking back soon. Pls consider my internet site likewise and tell me what you believe. We Are Caribou

  5. To hit gold in business, you have to think gold. What is your business all about? Nicolas Krafft L'Oreal

  6. A great number of small business owners have a constant urge to expand. Of course, the mere idea of expanding and becoming a "big" business known to thousands and millions of people is fascinating. However, expansion is not all about finding a new office space and hiring new employees to fill the vacant seats. Nicolas Krafft L'Oreal

  7. Fantastic beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your site, how could i subscribe for a blog website? The account helped me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided bright clear concept

  8. A great number of small business owners have a constant urge to expand. Of course, the mere idea of expanding and becoming a "big" business known to thousands and millions of people is fascinating. However, expansion is not all about finding a new office space and hiring new employees to fill the vacant seats. Private Investigator Brampton

  9. hi, your site is fantastic. I truly do many thanks for operate Andrea Natale Austin

  10. Greetings! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering which blog platform are you using for this site? I’m getting tired of WordPress because I’ve had issues with hackers and I’m looking at alternatives for another platform. I would be great if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.

  11. The world is full of businesses but do you know how important they are? You know there are very big ones like Apple, BP and Amazon and very small ones like your local shop or window-cleaner. Grandad explains how all these businesses contribute to our daily life as importantly as the air we breathe and the food we eat. Without businesses he believes we would still be living in caves or mud huts, we would spend all our time searching for food and water. There would be no schools, no doctors, no police, no government,no cars, no television, nearly nothing, This is one of a series of articles aimed by Grandad at grandchildren everywhere. Grandad has learned many things over his lifetime in business. These articles can give you a flying start in life. Digital Booths of Royal Capital

  12. Building a business requires considerable time and effort, and how do you maintain your business legacy? Read on to learn how you can help protect your business in the future through business succession planning Car Locksmith Estero

  13. Aw, this was an extremely nice post. Spending some time and actual effort to generate a really good article… but what can I say… I put things off a whole lot and don’t manage to get anything done.

  14. Business Resilience requires an new look at Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity that aligns the risk businesses face today due to Black Swan events with new strategies such as cloud technology. The risk businesses face to their operational readiness today doesn't come from the loss of their IT infrastructure but from the loss of critical staff during regionalized and local disruptive events. Only proactive preparation including planning, training and the design of a resilient facility will mitigate the risk businesses face today. SEO Company West Palm Beach

  15. Local search is the use of modified internet search engines that requires the people to submit searches against an arranged database of local business lists. Typical local searches include not only information about "what" the visitor is searching for but also "where" the information lies. Local business directories are mainly search engines which hold all the businesses that are owned by people in a certain area and are categorized into different types. international divorce lawyer

  16. Within the commercial lending arena, there are many different elements that will determine business loan rates for each client. Understanding these pieces to the lending puzzle will better prepare you as a borrower when seeking a commercial loan. boynton beach lawyers

  17. Hi there! This post could not be written much better! Looking at this post reminds me of my previous roommate! He always kept preaching about this. I will forward this post to him. Fairly certain he’s going to have a very good read. Thank you for sharing!

  18. All computer consultants are not created equal. Some specialize in hardware, others in software but what you really need is one that specializes in business and how technology can make it better. You need a business technology coach that can help you work smarter with technology. schlüsseldienst in der nähe

  19. I am not sure where you’re getting your information, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more. Thanks for great information I was looking for this info for my mission.

  20. How to utilize social media marketing without broadcasting endless pitches to people. Instead, how to actually engage and provide true value. 먹튀검증사이트

  21. Crystalline panels when compared with various other semiconductors have got for a longer time everyday living. backlink search

  22. An old saying goes, "the two best days of owning a boat - the first, when you buy it and the second, when you sell it. The same seems to apply to some start-up businesses too. As financial experts point out, a business can be sold only once. Business for sale in Dubai

  23. It’s best to take part in a contest for one of the best blogs on the web. I will recommend this website! hard wax

  24. Wonderful work! This is the type of information that are supposed to be shared around the web. Disgrace on the search engines for no longer positioning this submit higher! Come on over and talk over with my web site . Thank you =)

  25. I respect your work, regards for all the interesting blog posts.

  26. Many business owners are working so hard at their business that they fail to enjoy the rewards of being the business owner. If you are letting the life of your business overrule the business of living your life, then it is time to begin turning the tides. Finding ways to make your business work harder for you and your family is the reason we all started our businesses in the first place. If your business is obstructing your efforts to enjoy life with friends and family, this is a problem. We all know a lot of work goes into building a successful business, but if it is consuming all your time, effort and energy... is it worth it? Here are 5 ways to have your business working harder for you and your family personal injury lawyer Boynton Beach fl

  27. It’s the best time to make some plans for the future and it’s time to be happy. I’ve read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you some interesting things or advice. Perhaps you can write next articles referring to this article. I wish to read even more things about it!

  28. Super-Duper website! I am loving it!! Will be back later to read some more. I am bookmarking your feeds also desktop compters

  29. From risky business to power couple partnership, discover how couples everywhere are learning the secrets to running a successful business together while deepening their relationship. Find out more about how couple entrepreneurs are building the lifestyle of their dreams and protecting their assets by starting a business, growing their relationship and learning to achieve success together. personal injury attorney palm beach county

  30. Here we discuss the reality of attaining business funding for small businesses. We address the advantages and disadvantages of private funding vs. bank funding. While there are many differences, these are different products which achieve the same end result for small businesses. Forbes Business Council

  31. A virtual jungle of potential financial dangers lurks; challenges and pitfalls surround freelance professionals starting out. The vast majority of people will naively attempt to navigate through this jungle on their own with very little, if any, financial and business education or freelance experience whatsoever. It is alarming to note that most people will never even consider seeking some form of guidance or construct a strategic roadmap to help get them to where they want to go. Equally alarming - they will probably never employ an experienced, highly trained guide to help them avoid the pitfalls and dangers, and allow them to reach their final destination safe and sound. This article has been written with the intent of providing helpful tips to consider before venturing into freelancing career or business ownership. Daniel Gordon IMDB

  32. I am a Staff Author at a Marketplace for the On-Demand telecom workforce, extending from field engineers to high-level network engineers, project managers and Network Architects in 172 nations. I am an EC Engineer.

    network infrastructure

  33. Information technology professionals describe requirements first in terms of system requirements. These are the technical specifications of hardware, software and networking systems to support business applications. To produce accurate and reliable assessments of these and other information systems requirements, we need to understand the business requirements first. Information technology can make dramatic contributions to productivity growth. Misaligned requirements can lead to expensive disasters. Quora profile

  34. Small business owners and entrepreneurs are good at working on their own and thinking outside the box. When things aren't working though, we are not good at something which, if left unchecked, can destroy our business - asking for help Daniel Gordon profile

  35. Small business owners and entrepreneurs are good at working on their own and thinking outside the box. When things aren't working though, we are not good at something which, if left unchecked, can destroy our business - asking for help Daniel Gordon profile

  36. Keep up the great work , I read few blog posts on this site and I believe that your website is real interesting and has bands of good info . Yahoo Finance

  37. Interactive story translation are stories that you do not observe but lock in with. To form an interactive story happen you would like a script, storyboards and perhaps a film shoot or a few activities. But you too require an interface plan, strong UX, dependable facilitating, and of course a few ways for individuals to discover it once done.