You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
First things first, I am in favour of Google, Starbucks, Amazon etc paying more tax in this country.
But.
Why do people frame the issue about corporation tax so wrongly?
The issue is not whether Google or Starbucks paid tax or not (because they did), the issue is where they paid it (in Google's case it was Ireland where the corporation tax rate is 12.5% compared to the UK's 20%)
And it's not how much profit they made, it's where that profit is recognised.
Now I know that not everyone has a business degree, but why can't people accept this important difference when someone who knows the facts tells them? And, perhaps more importantly, why aren't they then lobbying for international tax reform, which is what we really need if we are to solve the problem being discussed.
Its just to get MAWCB's moaning.
Saves them drinking themselves to death.
Point is, they 'Choose' to recognise it there, despite large percentages of the earnings being made here.
But you're right on the last point: our legislation is woefully inadequate and our tax authority is criminally underfunded.
Our politicians have chosen not to have the will to sort this out.
perhaps more importantly, why aren't they then lobbying for international tax reform
Because people don't have the lobbying power that big business does. The tobacco industry is a perfect example of how reality was (and still is) corrupted by the big spenders.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/news/2015/02/24/tobacco-lobbying-eu-directive/
Companies should pay tax at the rate demanded by the territory where the transaction took place.
So if I buy a coffee on my local high street then that transaction didn't take place in ****ing Luxemburg or the Caymen Islands. So don't declare that for the purposes of taxation, that it did. Its just fraud really.
I wonder how many of the outraged still use Google as their default search engine.
I wonder how many of the outraged still use Google as their default search engine.
Straight over the ball with studs into the shins.
Point is, they 'Choose' to recognise it there, despite large percentages of the earnings being made here.
It's not that simple. By law, companies have a fiduciary requirement to maximise shareholder value, so they are by law required to minimise their tax burden where they are able to do so. Of course, if doing this then has a negative impact on their brand value, which then impacts on shareholder value then that's where you might get a voluntary change to pay more tax in return for the goodwill it generates.
For the record, those shareholders are typically Asset Management companies holding investments on behalf of pension funds, so it's you and me that are really the ultimate shareholders and it's out pensions that benefit.
Because people don't have the lobbying power that big business does. [\quote]I meant the politicians and the pressure groups, but the point still stands. If an individual complains about it, they don't complain about international tax rules, they complain about the company.
Corporate tax law is written by corporates, the Treasury has a revolving door policy with industry (as determined by the Government). So it shouldn't be too surprising that our tax laws are so trivially easy to circumvent as they've been explicitly designed to be so.
The only spanner in the works is when the peasants realise this and start complaining....
By law, companies have a fiduciary requirement to maximise shareholder value, so they are by law required to minimise their tax burden where they are able to do so.
Find me the statute stating this...
It's certainly not in UK company law.
Companies should pay tax at the rate demanded by the territory where the transaction took place.
In google's case its blurred by the fact that many of google's services are free (or seemingly free) at the point of use. So lots of people in the UK use google's services but most don't pay anything for them - so the query would hang over where the[i] paid[/i] transactions are taking place, not where the free receivers of this transactions are.
That doesn't work though does it?. Shareholders are only paid dividends from taxable profit, so the money left after expenses and after tax has been deducted. If companies are finding ways to apparently make no (or little) taxable profit then in that same way they're finding ways not to pay out to their shareholders.By law, companies have a fiduciary requirement to maximise shareholder value, so they are by law required to minimise their tax burden where they are able to do so.
So if I buy a coffee on my local high street then that transaction didn't take place in ****ing Luxemburg or the Caymen Islands.
You don't pay corporation tax on the transaction (that's called VAT). You pay it on profit. You'll have to read around how profit is calculated but the pertinent issue here is that you can charge large amounts of overhead to other jurisdictions in respect of operating costs, marketing spend, goodwill etc. Again, you have to simply change the international tax laws to stop that from happening.
I personally think a revenue tax is the only way to really deal with social media companies. Amazon is a bit different because they are really an infrastructure company with nearly all returns ploughed back into CapEx that can legitimately be offset against corporation tax.
As consumers though we do have choices. I personally decided to forego the services of a number of companies who appear to be playing fast and loose with their tax arrangements in the EU and UK. To that end I don't spend any money in:
Starbucks
Caffe Nero
Ikea (which is still run as a charity based on its governance structure)
McDonalds
As an aside, there's a pretty strong correlation between aggressive corporate tax structuring [s]tax dodging[/s] and poor quality / unhealthy food.
Companies should pay tax at the rate demanded by the territory where the transaction took place.So if I buy a coffee on my local high street then that transaction didn't take place in ****ing Luxemburg or the Caymen Islands. So don't declare that for the purposes of taxation, that it did. Its just fraud really.
This +1
Although the issue isn't where the transaction is declared, Starbucks etc are 100% honest about that. They just then pay 'royalties' equal tot heir profit to the parent company elsewhere (in Holland where there's a zero rate on IP related financial transactions), who then pass on the profit from that to another company in a tax haven (Isle of Man, Cayman, Luxembourg), who can then give you a 0% 999year loan.
It's called the dutch sandwich.
I thought it was a case of...
Tax man: you owe us £xxxmillion
Corporate: ah. I only want to pay you £xmillion. Either you let me pay £xmillion, or we will pull our business out of your country completely. Do you want that? 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing....
Tax man: oh, ok then, sorry to have bothered you.
You don't pay corporation tax on the transaction (that's called VAT). You pay it on profit.
Which they artificially reduce by using legal scams such as selling their brand name to a Bemuda company and then leasing it back to the UK at a rate designed to wipe out any EBITDA so they can appear to have zero taxable profit.
(Barely) Legal tax fraud.
Also completely immoral and indefensible.
Find me the statute stating this...It's certainly not in UK company law.
You're partly right. Directors are required to promote the company but the difference is subtle and is designed to balance between promoting money in the short term at all costs and long term sustainability, which was what I was originally pointing out.
[url= http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7319a86-cc5f-11e2-bb22-00144feab7de.html#axzz3yS7rnhw8 ]FT Article on fiduciary responsibilities of UK companies[/url]
Which they artificially reduce by using legal scams such as selling their brand name to a Bemuda company and then leasing it back to the UK at a rate designed to wipe out any EBITDA so they can appear to have zero taxable profit.[\quote]It's artificial simply because it's an intangible asset and it's not a scam it's the law. That's the point. If we don't like it we need to change the law and be upset with the law, not with the company.
A lot of western Governments have also used "austerity" as an excuse to cut and cripple tax authorities. So even when the rules exist, Peter taxman sitting in a lonely office buried under a pile of paper has no ****ing chance to enforce them.
More like "we could pay nothing, but here's something, take it or leave it", they wouldn't pull out of the economy all together as they make money from it.
you still need the european intermediary (Holland, Luxembourg) because tax would be payable on the repatriation of the money to Bermuda, but not within in the EU. Same way as we happily buy bike parts for EU shops like CRC, but can't buy from the USA or China without (potentially, legally) paying tax.Which they artificially reduce by using legal scams such as selling their brand name to a Bemuda company and then leasing it back to the UK at a rate designed to wipe out any EBITDA so they can appear to have zero taxable profit.
All it needs is for countries like Holland to change their rate on IP related transactions, or the EU to step in and do something.
You're partly right. Directors are required to promote the company
IIRC the Statute explicitly mentions employees, share owners and society, so the whole 'have to maximise share holder value as the law says so is total Bullshit).
Ah yeah, that was my other angle 🙂
Well to take the Starbucks example it's because people consider them buying over priced rights to their company name in from a sister company in a low tax country so that the UK arm makes no/low profit to enable it to avoid paying UK corporation tax is immoral. It's not illegal but it's very clear what is happening and why.
Web based services like Googles are even less clear cut as the service is being provided within the UK on a UK domain name and registrations of convenience in low tax countries seems to the lay person to be cheating.
When people say these companies should pay more tax, no-one is really suggesting that they are evading tax, they're suggesting that they should be paying a fairer representation of the money they earn in the UK. But given that HMRC don't appear to be able to fully get their heads round the tax framework suggesting that the average lay person should be able accurately frame their complaint seems unduly harsh.
The underlying issue is the globalisation of trade and financial movements as you say but the problem is that UK plc can't enforce don't be a dick rules. So we can't say to these companies **** off you're being ****s, record this properly based on real life, stop creatively pricing/pretending where you're based/etc. we have to work off the absolute of their accounts even though they don't reflect what is really happening in how they deliver their services.
This is worth a viewing if you missed it last week
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06ygl19/the-town-that-took-on-the-taxman ]The Town That Took on the Taxman[/url]
Heydon Prowse visits the small Welsh town that is starting a national tax revolt by copying the accounting techniques some big companies use to avoid paying corporation tax.
One of the things that came across loud and clear is that the relationship between big corporates and HMRc is all far, far too cosy. Seems like as Google have demonstrated this week, they get to pay as little tax as they like really, on an effectively voluntary basis
More like "we could pay nothing, but here's something, take it or leave it", they wouldn't pull out of the economy all together as they make money from it.
Exactly, we have all the power yet chose to completely acquiesce and let them pay no tax.
As far as I can see it's mainly because of high level corruption, the large corporates make off the record promises of nice Non Exec positions to ministers when they retire as long as they make sure the Treasury goes easy on them wrt Tax. The minute ministers resign they get very cushy jobs in all the companies they were supposed to be policing - it's no different to Nigeria, just a bit more subtle and without cash up front.
One of the things that came across loud and clear is that the relationship between big corporates and HMRc is all far, far too cosy.
The Establishment, which you recommended, covers this brilliantly - although very depressing, could easily be any tin pot dictatorship in Africa...
Can't HMRC / the treasury enforce a windfall tax? They regularly did on the oil industry when oil was <$150. Then Nero/Google/Starbucks etc can either sort out their internal financing and pay it, or declare themselves bankrupt and bugger off.
I think the appropriate phrase is "don't blame the player, blame the game". They're doing nothing illegal so right now, under current international laws, there's very little that can be done.
Can't HMRC / the treasury enforce a windfall tax?
Yes, easily, but there is no Political Will.
The current government are very happy for large corporates to not pay tax. These companies and their owners own the Conservative Party, funding it to the tune of 10s of £m. They don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. As long as they can convince the middle classes that it's all the fault of the ****less poor, the whole system ticks along quite nicely with public services getting worse each year and no one blaming the Government.
IIRC the Statute explicitly mentions employees, share owners and society, so the whole 'have to maximise share holder value as the law says so is total Bullshit).
Yes, you're right.
I think the appropriate phrase is "don't blame the player, blame the game". They're doing nothing illegal so right now, under current international laws, there's very little that can be done.
+1
I disagree with it, but I don't think the companies are to blame. These people are running a business, and if there's a way to legitimately maximise profit then they will take it. In this instance I think the blame lies with our system of taxation.
BTW, I believe the correct term is '[i]don't blame the play[b]a[/b], blame the game[/i]'. 😉
From the Statute, Companies Act 2006, Section 172, Duty of Directors
172 Duty to promote the success of the company
(1) A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would
be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its
members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—
(a) the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b) the interests of the company’s employees,
(c) the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers,
customers and others,
(d) the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the
environment,
(e) the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high
standards of business conduct, and
(f) the need to act fairly as between members of the company.
(2) Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include
purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if
the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its
members were to achieving those purposes.
(3) The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of
law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the
interests of creditors of the company.
A very sensible holistic approach considering the wider implications of any decision. Nothing whatsoever about ****ing everyone over to make a killing.
It could argued that those who do **** everyone over, such as Mike Ashley, are in breach of their duties as a Company Director.
I think the appropriate phrase is "don't blame the player, blame the game". They're doing nothing illegal so right now, under current international laws, there's very little that can be done.
Indeed. All the more reason why the relationship between HMRC and corporates needs to change completely from the cozy ineffectual set up they presently have, where they effectively write their own terms, to something far more adversarial.
Chances of that happening in our present political climate? Absolutely zero!
If you want to know just how hand in glove that relationship is, read The Establishment by Owen Jones that footflaps mentioned. They really are writing their own rules.
I wonder how many of the outraged still use Google as their default search engine.
I would quite like the government to put google on the ISPs restricted list along with the piratebay etal until they start coughing up the cash.
Peter taxman sitting in a lonely office buried under a pile of paper
Hector. His name is Hector.
[img] 
[/img]
I would quite like the government to put google on the ISPs restricted list along with the piratebay etal until they start coughing up the cash.
Yep, but it will never happen.
Instead they'll be invited to Champagne receptions with the Cabinet at which Gideon will ask them how else he can make the UK more friendly to business e.g. would they like him to re-introduce Slavery...
I think the appropriate phrase is "don't blame the player, blame the game".
I have no problem laying the blame on the game and the player. Just because rules don't expressly forbid an action or the rules draw a line that mustn't be crossed, doesn't mean those things should be done.
I would quite like the government to put google on the ISPs restricted list along with the piratebay etal until they start coughing up the cash.
For what reason? They're not doing anything illegal, nothing at all.
Buy this book, brilliant read, especially the bit on Corporate Tax..
[img] 
[/img]
Yep, but it will never happen.
probably, but does even have to, just get the press to bounce the idea around a bit talk of draconian chinese style firewalls, cracking down etc, just enough to make the advertisers nervous and see what comes out in the wash.
just get the press to bounce the idea around a bit
That would be the same UK press, which bar The Guardian, [url= http://leftfootforward.org/2013/06/everyone-should-know-who-owns-the-press-for-the-sake-of-our-democracy/ ]is owned by less than 10 billionaires[/url], all of whom want to pay as little tax as possible.
Whose side do you think they are on?
They use the same scams to avoid paying tax in the UK....
though they would still report it, even to call it bonkers.
and they'll back the Tories to the hilt come the next election as they know who will let them get away with paying no tax.
Amazing thing this Democracy thing isn't it 😉
Amazing thing this Democracy thing isn't it
There are two really great things about it.
One is that if you don't like, as you clearly don't, you're free to say so.
The other is you're also free to leave.
The other is you're also free to leave.
You offering to buy a ticket? 😉
I know this is perhaps a silly thing to say, but the dismay the 'general public' feel is because behind all the smoke and mirrors we know - really it's all bullshit.
Google sells its advertising space in the UK, it takes the money in the UK and whilst the web is a global platform the majority of its 'work' for UK customers I.E. displayed ads for websites are done so in the UK, because a few massive global players like eBay and Amazon aside, most business are at national level.
However, they choose to pay their tax in Ireland, because it's cheaper - but businesses can't just choose to pay tax wherever they choose, that's not legal - so what the do is come clever convoluted act whereby they claim IP is held in this country, and loans (to themselves) are held in another etc. Whilst is might be legal, it's immoral and I suppose if you strip away all the layers of bullshit, they're lying, it's just a legal lie.
For years people didn't really care about such things, because very few people actually considered the connection between tax revenue and public spending and debt, now EVERYONE does and they see their own personal income being taxed, the tax on the things they buy and the tax that business owners they know being taxed and whilst we might all argue what % is 'fair' most people agree you have to pay something - on the other hand, these huge multinationals whose income is measured in billions of pounds pay - nothing. As they often say, yes they pay Employers NI, equivalent to 13.8% of their employees’ salaries - great, so does every other employer in the UK.
They also like to spout off about how much VAT they pay, but their customers pay that, and how much PAYE they pay, but their staff pay that.
That doesn't mean I don't understand why they do what they do, they wouldn't being working in the best interests of their shareholders if they didn't - but equally, just because they can, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be angry about it, and if the Government doesn't fancy upsetting their friends in the City too much, and HMRC can't fight it then public opinion might make it worth them paying - make no mistake, Gideon didn't arm wrestle Google into paying - one of their money men calculated the potential loss in income from bad PR by not paying tax, and offered to pay HMRC a figure lower than that.
The Guardian aren't unfamiliar with avoiding tax themselves and the Scott Trust which owns them was purposely setup to avoid inheritance tax.
There are two really great things about it.One is that if you don't like, as you clearly don't, you're free to say so.
The other is you're also free to leave.
My point is that we don't have a real / effective Democracy in the UK, it's more a Plutocracy shrouded in a thin veneer of Democracy.
My point is that we don't have a real / effective Democracy in the UK, it's more a Plutocracy shrouded in a thin veneer of Democracy.
It's a shame you feel that way. I don't and of course I would happily debate each point you use to make your case but it probably wouldn't change your mind. In my experience, those kinds of views are deeply help and usually the product of other factors than just the external evidence (such as it does or does not exist).
The Tories have actually being trying to make some headway at the international level and are making some progress - see [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34445078 ]here[/url]. Some of the rules that they have introduced on tax avoidance are very draconian. The fundamental problem is that the tax systems in most of the world and the interstate arrangements were based in a world where most of a businesses value was based in physical things like factories, offices etc. Now everything intangible assets are where the value is and they are much easier to move around the world.
A very sensible holistic approach considering the wider implications of any decision. Nothing whatsoever about **** everyone over to make a killing
You have misread what it says. The obligation is to the members. The directors have to have regard to the other factors in meeting that obligation.
"I have had regard to the fact our new trainer sweatshop will result in virgin rainforest being concreted over and have decided to go ahead with construction".
That would be the same UK press, which bar The Guardian
And the mirror, the Record/sunday mail and the FT.
In my experience, those kinds of views are deeply held and usually the product of other factors than just the external evidence (such as it does or does not exist).
Which applies as much to you as me of course....
And the mirror, the Record/sunday mail and the FT.
True, but still something like 90% of papers (by market share) have their editorial policy dictated by 10 Billionaires. Hardly something to celebrate....
... and the FT
Really? Is it not linked to The Times anymore?
I should probably google this before replying, but in the spirit of the thread I shall use another search engine. 😉
Now which one doesn't avoid tax?
Which applies as much to you as me of course....
I'm not so sure. In theory yes, but when you extend the philosophy of the argument it doesn't hold up.
I think that many people hold negative views about the system (any system) because they have been disadvantaged by it.
The corollary for the reverse is that I would have been 'advantaged' by it, and therefore feel positively pre-disposed to it.
But that's far from true. In many ways I've been serially f***ed over by it. I recognise those events for what they are, but I don't feel negatively disposed towards the system because of it, at least, not to the extent that I feel we live in anything other than true democracy.
Really? Is it not linked to The Times anymore?
I don't know that it ever was. For as long as I know it's been published by Pearson but like you say, there's a search engine that will confirm this.
It was sold to a Japanese company last year. A lot of people are concerned that its traditionally impartial reporting of worldwide financial matters will be compromised as a result.Really? Is it not linked to The Times anymore?
A lot of western Governments have also used "austerity" as an excuse to cut and cripple tax authorities. So even when the rules exist, Peter taxman sitting in a lonely office buried under a pile of paper has no **** chance to enforce them.
Not quite the case with HMRC:
- their conviction rate is up 58% year on year with £26B more tax collected overall
- the ringfenced budget for complex tax avoidance detection has been increased by £60m
- the revenue from investigations into self-assessment returns will hit close to £1B - it has risen five fold from the £200m collected under Labour in 2007/08 prior to the the economy tanking.
And in related news:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/26/kpmg-partners-arrested-hmrc-tax-evasion-inquiry
Hardly something to celebrate....
Of course not, I just added for fairness, and to point out that not being owned by one of these pajillionaires doesn't make you one of the good guys...
However right or wrong the Google tax deal is, the Labour Party aren't really in a position to get on their high horse given that they had 13 years to sort it out if they thought it was important.
Good interview with the head of HMRC this morning, and an MP this lunchtime, both saying that no laws have been broken, and it's the laws that need addressing by politicians
HMRC are chasing after small businesses who do not have access to the kind of avoidance schemes that the big multinationals do. It's not a level playing field.
However right or wrong the Google tax deal is, the Labour Party aren't really in a position to get on their high horse given that they had 13 years to sort it out if they thought it was important.
Tony Blair only got elected because he went round to all the Billionaires (Murdoch etc) and convinced them he'd go easy on big corporates. Had he not agreed that, they would never have backed him.
Thus my point about a Plutocracy, without the backing of Murdoch etc, you'll never get elected as you'll have 90% of the UK press at your throat.
Part of the reason for the 2008 crash was that New Labour went so easy on The City and pretty much left them to self regulate...
Buy this book, brilliant read, especially the bit on Corporate Tax..
Can't stand the author. Won't read.
Can't stand the author. Won't read.
That is your prerogative, but it's an excellent book, well researched and fully referenced.
Hahaha. I knew all of the that was new labour, now we're new new old labour but we'd like to see old old labour.
It's all labour.
I disagree with it, but I don't think the companies are to blame. These people are running a business, and if there's a way to legitimately maximise profit then they will take it.
That's not quite true though. Costa do not have the same tax arrangements as Starbucks and Amazon do not have the same tax arrangements as John Lewis.
Seems to me that the big companies are playing by the rules, but using them to their advantage.
Everyone does the same, but because we're talking about millions instead of the hundreds of pounds that individuals can save, it's somehow more wrong.
Everyone does the same, but because we're talking about millions instead of the hundreds of pounds that individuals can save, it's somehow more wrong.
If you told HMRC that you'd like to pay less than they'd asked for, what do you think would happen?
It's Neo-feudalism.
Them: the ruling class, in politics and tech.
vs the rest of us.
That's not quite true though. Costa do not have the same tax arrangements as Starbucks and Amazon do not have the same tax arrangements as John Lewis.
So they have different accountants? I'm not sure what your point is.
So they have different accountants? I'm not sure what your point it.
My point is that not all large companies take extreme measures to reduce their tax bill.
A lot of western Governments have also used "austerity" as an excuse to cut and cripple tax authorities.
What an odd strategy
Flashy +1
My son bought me The Establishment so felt duty bound to read it. Tiresome rant with little connection to the title other than a general winge against a variety of targets. Hard to recommend unless you like your froth
Part of the reason for the 2008 crash was that New Labour went so easy on The City and pretty much left them to self regulate...
Self regulation was more successful, the FSA was a complete disaster the reguatory regime turned from a big picture based one that controlled where the big issues to a nit picking political agenda designed to fine as many participants as possible for breaching the money laundering and KYC rules.
Just going to chuck this in again (as usual) how many people on this forum run limited companies and use tax allowances/dividends/directors loans/entrepreneurs allowance to reduce taxation on you and your business - glass houses and all that
Google, Starbucks, Apple, Amazon etc all swerve hundreds and hundreds of millions in UK taxes with the help of EU tax law plus in many cases Junker"s personal blessing.
Time to radically overhaul the corporate tax system starting with oir exit from the EU as without thst nothing can be done.
Just going to chuck this in again (as usual) how many people on this forum run limited companies and use tax allowances/dividends/directors loans/entrepreneurs allowance to reduce taxation on you and your business - glass houses and all that
That's par for the course. But what the big companies have been getting upto is a completely different ballpark.
I have a feeling that things can't stay like this for much longer...how much more will people put up with?
Just going to chuck this in again (as usual) how many people on this forum run limited companies and use tax allowances/dividends/directors loans/entrepreneurs allowance to reduce taxation on you and your business - glass houses and all that
Cycle 2 work, anyone?
My point is that not all large companies take extreme measures to reduce their tax bill.
Fair enough. But for those that do there are legal loopholes, which is where I believe the problem lies. And why would a global corporate voluntarily pay more tax than it needs to?
A lot. Have you seen the queues in Starbucks or the sales at Amazon?
If you told HMRC that you'd like to pay less than they'd asked for, what do you think would happen?
You'd be an idiot to ask them instead get an accountant who knows the rules, for instance plenty of contractors are one man ltd companies with company cars that are pickups, this is not an accident.
without the backing of Murdoch etc, you'll never get elected
Murdoch overstates his influence IMO. but ultimately people like his product and the Sun is still the biggest selling paper, no one makes people buy it or politicians appear in it.
Just going to chuck this in again (as usual) how many people on this forum run limited companies and use tax allowances/dividends/directors loans/entrepreneurs allowance to reduce taxation on you and your business - glass houses and all that
Because that's exactly the same as a corporate avoiding paying a large tax bill by using offshore accounts.