Dodgy deals on wheels

[Bunk]

I take it Majestic12 is whiter than white?

They pay exactly the tax they need to.

[BrilloPad]

Some much needed perspective, thank you scourer.

I take it Majestic12 is whiter than white?

They claimed £5m in squirrel food last year and another £1m on sofa cleaning.

Though HMRC deemed it appropriate under the circumstances......

[AtW]

Start with Amazon, google, starbucks etcetc. first.

If I was in charge then I can assure you that I'd start with those first - the French are leading the way right now, that case is very closely watched by all Govts around the world -

France 'to make €1bn tax claim against Google' - Telegraph

I take it Majestic12 is whiter than white?

The tax bill that we pay is very high, but it is what I believe is due to be paid. We don't pretend things that actually don't exist (ie incurring supposed losses that are completely artificial, ie - false). Money that we earn abroad come to UK and this is where we pay taxes on them.

I reckon (it's an opinion) it would have been entirely legal and above the board to create EU based (say Liechtenstein ) company that would take those foreign non-UK revenues and thus reduce corp tax on them, UK shareholders would still pay UK income tax on dividends but there would have been much lower corp tax on those foreign revenues and UK main office would have most of costs so it would probably not pay much corp tax either.

We don't do that even though I reckon it would have been entirely legal, though it's possible that HMRC got that covered (doubt it since those revenues come from non-UK sources), either way we won't be trying it - just paying corp tax as it should be (it's going down to pretty reasonable levels anyway - 21% next FY vs 28% under Brown).

[suityou01]

80uu is still an easy troll. All is well with the world.

[d000hg]

Start with Amazon, google, starbucks etcetc. first.

That's nonsense. They divert their money to other locations and then pay tax on it in those locations. They don't claim to be doing something which is patently untrue.

[suityou01]

That's nonsense. They divert their money to other locations and then pay tax on it in those locations. They don't claim to be doing something which is patently untrue.

Ohhhh. Why didn't you say. That's alright then.

[d000hg]

You're currently paying a company to help you re-word a contract, without materially affecting the nature of the work you'll be performing in any way, in order to avoid paying tax, so shut it

[AtW]

That's nonsense. They divert their money to other locations and then pay tax on it in those locations. They don't claim to be doing something which is patently untrue.

Diversion of money earned in UK to foreign location is in my view something that's untrue - tax should certainly be paid on UK earned money regardless of place of registration, some exception can be made for small scale traders (say under level of VAT threshold).

Nobody expects Google and others to pay tax on money they earn in USA, that's between them and IRS.

[VectraMan]

Diversion of money earned in UK to foreign location is in my view something that's untrue - tax should certainly be paid on UK earned money regardless of place of registration, some exception can be made for small scale traders (say under level of VAT threshold).

Nobody expects Google and others to pay tax on money they earn in USA, that's between them and IRS.

And as I'm sure you know, companies don't pay tax on money they earn. They pay tax on profit. To talk about them paying tax on earned income is what you expect from somebody whose just reproducing what they've read in the newspapers and on the BBC but without any understanding. Much like people who get on their high horse about "illegal tax avoidance".

If you want to introduce a new tax, then say that.

[doodab]

Diversion of money earned in UK to foreign location is in my view something that's untrue - tax should certainly be paid on UK earned money regardless of place of registration, some exception can be made for small scale traders (say under level of VAT threshold).

Nobody expects Google and others to pay tax on money they earn in USA, that's between them and IRS.

How about a German company that posts stuff from Germany to the UK? Where should they pay tax on their UK sales? Tax law says Germany. Now how about if they have a warehouse & distribution operation in the UK? Tax law still says Germany.

That's the trouble with amazon in particular. Like it or not the law specifically excludes storage and distribution networks such as theirs from creating a local tax liability. There is nothing dishonest about it at all. You need to change the law if you want to change where they pay tax.

Google and Starbucks are a different matter as they use a different mechanism.