Welsh town declares itself offshore for tax purposes

[northernladuk]

A massive KUATB for you sir....

Not sure a Daily Mail article is allowed in the Professional forums either

[BrilloPad]

I remember in 2006 I tried to use a big boy scheme. Along with 2000 others.

I just hope they put the tax aside.

And they should have opted for no publicity. MP started with the scheme limited to 500. If they had kept it that small it might still be going now.

[DodgyAgent]

This is the biggest hypocrite Margaret Hodge's family company pays just 0.01pc tax on £2.1bn of business generated in the UK - Telegraph

[MicrosoftBob]

I like the way they put "capital allowances" in quotes to suggest it's some kind of scam, along with "adjustments for previous years" which is completely legit and part of the rules. A bit like saying a contractor was able to reduce his CT bill by using "expenses" and "salary".

But they are saying using expenses is a scam!, so why shouldn't any other commonly used accountancy adjustment used by Gideon be considered a scam

[DaveB]

A massive KUATB for you sir....

Not sure a Daily Mail article is allowed in the Professional forums either

Which is why it went in General

[MrMarkyMark]

But they are saying using expenses is a scam!, so why shouldn't any other commonly used accountancy adjustment used by Gideon be considered a scam

My example, in this post, certainly was a scam, even if it was from 2005.

[d000hg]

That's because they don't exist in the UK. You can't attack a company that doesn't exist.

They charge fees to UK businesses.

MacDonalds are restaurants owned by UK business people, they pay fees to MacDonalds Bahamas (or whereever). In the same way that Exporting companies in foreign countries don't pay UK tax.

HMRC can't go and visit MacDonalds because they're not there, they go around and check up on little UK businesses all who pay a fee to MacDonalds International. When you visit McDonalds, it's not actually McDonalds, it's Fred Blogg's restaurant, but Fred has bought the M sign, and all the paraphenalia from MacDonalds in Luxembourg (or whereever).

Starbucks actually own their coffee shops, they also pay fees to their Marketing central in Luxembourg or wherever and are similarly profitable to a Macdonalds restaurant, but the difference is Starbucks does exist here.

That's why Starbucks can claim it's commercial because they can simply sell all their coffee shops to fanchisees, depart the UK, and still get the fees.

I know (well broadly) how franchising works but I'd assumed they still had a headquarters in the UK - they run a graduate scheme for instance, and I thought you were employed by McD not McD Leiceester #12 - people move between branches, etc?

I like the way they put "capital allowances" in quotes to suggest it's some kind of scam, along with "adjustments for previous years" which is completely legit and part of the rules. A bit like saying a contractor was able to reduce his CT bill by using "expenses" and "salary".

True, although how they have managed to have adjustments 7 years in a row is interesting - though probably the answer is quite banal.

[BrilloPad]

At the moment they only have APNs to worry about. Soon it will be automatic bank account deduction.

I wish them luck though. Might persuade the government to do something about the big companies doing this.

[VectraMan]

True, although how they have managed to have adjustments 7 years in a row is interesting - though probably the answer is quite banal.

It is. They made a loss for 6 years in a row, or at least that's all you can assume from the article. It only says they made a profit in one year, and then quotes sales of £200m (but not profit) for the previous years whilst suggesting that it's somehow outrageous that a loss making company doesn't pay corporation tax.

[MrMarkyMark]

It is. They made a loss for 6 years in a row, or at least that's all you can assume from the article. It only says they made a profit in one year, and then quotes sales of £200m (but not profit) for the previous years whilst suggesting that it's somehow outrageous that a loss making company doesn't pay corporation tax.

They had made plenty, already, by setting up the Virgin Islands shell company, selling the company premises for 4.9 million, then taking out all the proceeds out in dividends, 5.2 million, in 2005.

Essentially asset stripping.

I suspect the subsequent losses were due to buying / setting up new premises.

Ching feckin' ching