No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[lucozade]

fair point

Let’s not forget that Starbuck paid their "fair share" of taxes and acted within the law:

"We have paid and will continue to pay our fair share of taxes in full compliance with all UK tax laws, as we always have"

So Starbucks have been far more aggressive than us and actually have the balls to claim they paid their fair share!!! So how come HMRC see us a wholly exceptional case and not Starbucks??

HMRC knew exactly how much corporation tax Starbucks were paying as they’d been submitting accounts for years… You can use the argument that they contribute to the economy in other ways, i.e. employment, but how on earth can you argue that’s any different to what we’re doing? Any money I earned was injected back into the UK economy via taxes on spending and profit on any investments!

So if we’ve been described as aggressive then how does Starbucks compare in the minds of Gauke and HMRC?

Yeah fair point there.

I think it's worthwhile rattling a few MP cages with these points.

[foolishboy]

Yeah fair point there.

I think it's worthwhile rattling a few MP cages with these points.

Do we know if NTRT are onto this?

[lucozade]

Do we know if NTRT are onto this?

Don't know if they are mate. But I don't think it will do our cause any harm if we continue to remind our MPs.

I want to see an equal playing field for all concerned. So if they are not going to pursue Google, Facebook, Amazon or Starbacks then why the hell are the pursuing us!

It smacks of double standards.

Can you imagine the money to be made if they applied retro on these companies - if indeed HMRC got away with it !

"Aggressive tax avoidance" hmmm....

This is no more than bullyboy tactics on those that are more vulnerable to attack.

[foolishboy]

Don't know if they are mate. But I don't think it will do our cause any harm if we continue to remind our MPs.

I want to see an equal playing field for all concerned. So if they are not going to pursue Google, Facebook, Amazon or Starbacks they why the hell are the pursuing us !

It smacks of double standards.

Can you imagine the money to be made if they applied retro on these companies - if indeed HMRC got a way with it !

"Aggressive tax avoidance" hmmm

I completely agree with you on this but I would prefer a co-ordinated response drive by NTRT rather than one off approaches to local MPs.

We do seem to be getting a whole load of valid arguments for our case that HMRC/Treasury need to answer to.

[Lewis]

You can also add Apple to that list as well apparently

Facebook Enters Ethical Tax Debate - Contractor Weekly

[smalldog]

It seems to be the attitude that if you do enough other good stuff, like create jobs then you are allowed to break the rules?! Makes a mockery of the rules in the first place, and who decides if you actually do just, or not enough, where is the line?

So where will it end, kiddie fiddling is ok as long as you do lots for charity....ooooeeerrrrr

[Johnnycomelately]

anybody any more info on this article re a winding up order on MP?
Montpelier late filing accounts and faces a winding up order - 11 Oct 2012 - Accountancy Age

[OnYourBikeGB]

Don't know if they are mate. But I don't think it will do our cause any harm if we continue to remind our MPs.

I want to see an equal playing field for all concerned. So if they are not going to pursue Google, Facebook, Amazon or Starbacks then why the hell are the pursuing us!

It smacks of double standards.

Can you imagine the money to be made if they applied retro on these companies - if indeed HMRC got away with it !

"Aggressive tax avoidance" hmmm....

This is no more than bullyboy tactics on those that are more vulnerable to attack.

It's because we are plebs who got ideas above our station.

[centurian]

Also I am not completely convinced that what all these big multinationals are doing is 100% legal, despite even their harshest critics seemingly going to great pains to state that that they are doing nothing illegal.

There are dozens of existing laws which state that you have to provide true and fair representation of profit levels. Artificially moving profit to another country must surely breach some existing tax law. Just because a fancy accountant/lawyer states that something is legal (and is therefore avoidance vs evasion), doesn't automatically mean it is so. Only a court determines what is legal.

I think the problem is that HMRC just don't have the stomach/resources/motivation to go after the big boys

[BrilloPad]

anybody any more info on this article re a winding up order on MP?
Montpelier late filing accounts and faces a winding up order - 11 Oct 2012 - Accountancy Age

It says in the article "THE HOLDING COMPANY of Top 50 firm Montpelier". What does Top 50 firm mean here? I would like to think its a big company and Montpelier are going to stick by us - though they have already fulfilled their commitment to us. If we have to pay its going to be bad for their business.

WG always does love to sail close to the wind.