What would you not do even though its lawful?

[doodab]

Not really. There's no denying that "Starbucks" is an international brand, and one that didn't start in the UK. Why would the international Starbucks organisation setup in the UK without wanting payment in return?

Because they can make money from doing so?

[Platypus]

Try and do the same thing with you Ltd Co. eg: Pay your offshore company 90% of your income for your 'Brillo Brand' . You would not get away with it. Starbucks and Amazon get away with it because they have loads of money to pay lawyers. lobby MPs and to hand out 'incentives'

Maybe not the Brillo Brand thing, but I've met people who avoid tax by having their Cayman Islands holding company charging their UK Ltd "management fees". This works fine so long as you don't then try to repatriate the money to the UK, so I believe.

A common way to access offshore money was by using a credit card issued by your offshore bank. I believe this is technically evasion

[amcdonald]

Vote Labour

[doodab]

Eat a cheese and peanut butter sandwich.

[Paddy]

Maybe not the Brillo Brand thing, but I've met people who avoid tax by having their Cayman Islands holding company charging their UK Ltd "management fees". This works fine so long as you don't then try to repatriate the money to the UK, so I believe.

A common way to access offshore money was by using a credit card issued by your offshore bank. I believe this is technically evasion

The banks in the Cayman Islands will supply anonymous ATM cards thant can be used in the UK.

[d000hg]

What Starbucks and Amazon do are (allegedly) outside the law. Try and do the same thing with you Ltd Co. eg: Pay your offshore company 90% of your income for your 'Brillo Brand' . You would not get away with it. Starbucks and Amazon get away with it because they have loads of money to pay lawyers. lobby MPs and to hand out 'incentives'

I think you've missed the main point (or I have it wrong) which is that Amazon and Starbucks pay CT on 100% of their income, they simply pay all of it in one country rather than proportionally in each country according to where the income came from. The media portrays it like they are not paying tax, but they are simply paying tax to someone else...

If you look at it from Luxembourg's point of view, Amazon are paying 100X MORE tax than they need to!

[Robinho]

The Cayman islands are the bloody UK FFS.

We're such an uncompetitive nation we're getting undercut by our own colonies which we pay to protect

[Paddy]

The Cayman islands are the bloody UK FFS.

We're such an uncompetitive nation we're getting undercut by our own colonies which we pay to protect

No, it's a protectorate.

The countries of the United Kingdom are the four constituent countries that together form the sovereign state of the United Kingdom.[1] Today these are England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Prior to 1922, the entire island of Ireland was a constituent country of the United Kingdom. The alternative term home nations is also used, although today this is mainly in sporting contexts and may still include all of Ireland.

I have contracted for many offshore banks and it is a real eye-opener. There are city councils with funds in offshore accounts along with council officials and their offshore companies. One large council rents their council offices from an offshore company owned by a council official. Don't forget HMCR sold the freehold of their offices to a dodgy offshore company and they now pay rent to the same offshore company. Loads on MPs with offshore accounts, the list goes on and on.

[centurian]

Not really. There's no denying that "Starbucks" is an international brand, and one that didn't start in the UK. Why would the international Starbucks organisation setup in the UK without wanting payment in return?

Actually there probably are laws that could deal with this. Firms still have to report accounts in a true and fair manner - and charging a branding fee is perfectly acceptable, but it should be representative of the transaction that is occuring - not just happen to be the exact amount that reduces their tax to zero.

The hard part - is how do HMRC prove that Starbucks are overcharging themselves - and can you imagine the amount of lawyer time it would take arguing the case back and forth.

But just because HMRC don't have the resources/time/balls to challenge something - doesn't automatically mean that what is being done is legal.

[Robinho]

No, it's a protectorate.

It's UK sovereign territory, surely you understand this? Like the Falklands and Gibraltar.