Prague - it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if HMRC employed the 1000 sharpest tax practice lawyers in the country. None of those companies would ever pay tax because they have millions invested in lobbyists ensuring that policy and law makers never plug the holes in the system - and threaten to pull out of a country altogether on the off-chance an unfavourable policy that threatens to put the slightest dent in their tax evasion schemes gets close to being passed.
The system itself is horribly broken. HMRC are absolutely toothless when it comes to big corporations, hence the need to be bully boys against the little man. It is, like pretty much everything else, a fucking disgrace. And, like pretty much everything else, there's fuck all you can do about it.
Bully boy tactics is dead right---if you make yourself just a tad more difficult they tend to go for easier targets--i got a good accountant---therefore there are easier targets.
couple years ago i kept getting HMRC letters to my home address for some knob from Eastern europe,_KostafeckingPounwikkk or some such name. After about 4 letters i opened one and phoned HMRC. Told em the guy didnt live here had never lived here for more than a decade ------blah blah HMRC say to me "wheat do you want us to do?" !!!!!! so i explain the situation---he dont live here---he owes you money---he dont live here ---FFS the twat on the other end of the phone repeats "what do you want us to do about it?"---------so i fecking told him in sarf london to get off his arse and chase the fecker down with as much effort as they did to me when i owed a few quid in the past !
An even simpler point, if it's an EU problem, then how are Apple, Google, etc. also managing to avoid paying any US taxes too? It's a global problem that requires coordinated efforts to combat.
Very good point. And again, the EU has the clout to look the Americans in the eye on this. All we have is the Special Relationship.
An even simpler point, if it's an EU problem, then how are Apple, Google, etc. also managing to avoid paying any US taxes too? It's a global problem that requires coordinated efforts to combat.
Very good point. And again, the EU has the clout to look the Americans in the eye on this. All we have is the Special Relationship.
How do you know so much about business?
You've asked me this before and I am not sure if its a windup. Either way, no problem
Well I try to write about what I know about, and I have never been a pro footballer or manager, unlike so many on this forum...:-) so I concentrate on this sort of stuff. I don't have a view on 4-5-1 at home, and Ben Hamer is as good as anyone we can get, IMHO....
EU rules do constrain the action the UK can take to constrain tax avoidance as mentioned in my link which was my point.
However I appreciate the name Christopher Booker may be anathema to you and thus not deemed valid as a source so here is another link from an accredited tax journal which says the same thing at (considerably) greater length.
"Proportionality" seems to be quite an important weasel word in the ECJ judgements regarding this subject.
I consequently feel we could acieve more as an independent country to make our own tax laws although, to perhaps answer Rany Andy's American point at the same time, the commercial reality and vested interests of wanting the business of these global companies might blunt the will of governments of any hue to act.
As a general principle though I certainly believe that "big business" should pay a fair whack rather than the "little man" being persecuted.
Found out last week about the ridiculous way in which they are handling the child benefit changes. You will continue to receive the full amount but then you get taxed back anything you aren't entitled to. Honestly, who thought of that?
Not gonna defend HMRC but the child tax credit charge on so called higher earners was dumped on HMRC at short notice by rent-a-quote halfwit vote chasing politicians with absolutely no resources with which to administer it, repeating the frankly criminal fiasco of the working tax credit scheme. The politicos call it "tax credit" but it has f all to do with tax, it is benefits and last time I looked there was a department for that.
Thank you for this new link. It is going to need some time to go through it carefully, but I promise you I will, and respond. In the meantime let me reassure you that I read the Booker article. Actually his name hardly registers with me. The problem I have with his article is that he demonstrates a complete ignorance of the real nature of Google or Facebook as a business, or any understanding of the nature of Starbucks' transfer charge for 'the brand"
The fundamental key to taxing a business fairly is that the tax authority understands the nature of the business it is seeking to tax. That is true in Britain, the rest of the EU, or in Equatorial Guinea.
Let me illustrate it like this: Part of my small business is executive search. I find candidates for management roles, and the companies pay me a fee on success. Let us assume I do this out of London and not Prague (the argument is the same in either country). However I find that I have a long lost relative in Dublin. So I register my company in Dublin. I live in London, and all my candidates and clients are in the London area. Yet when the deal is done, I invoice from Ireland. A plumber could try the same trick. What do you think will happen to the plumber and I when HMRC find out about us? We will be done like kippers. But this is exactly what Google and Facebook are up to. HMRC don't clobber them because their army of tax consultants and lawyers run rings around HMRC. But all HMRC need to do is seek help from those who work in the advertising business. The ones who sit down opposite Google and Facebook sales people in London to tie up deals on behalf of UK based clients.
It's a load of bollocks Len, and we can surely agree that it is so, whatever our views on the EU. Don't forget Eric Schmidt of Google has basically said to the UK: 'tighten your laws and we will pay the tax'. So now I'm going to take time to read that link you sent and see what is in there that suggests the EU prevents HMRC from dropping its arrogance, addressing its ignorance, and then going after Google. If you want to lead me to specific paragraphs, I'd be grateful, of course.
You hear these stories all the time and I won't begin to dissect the mind and character of that piss taking foreign tosser, her landlord.
What if he turns out to have a British passport? Then he would be a piss taking British tosser. My son is mixed race, and looks it too, but he has a British passport. Sounds to me as if the 'Chinese' landlord you talk of has been here a long time, and very likely to be British.
Yep they are more worried about a few hundred quid here & there than getting to grips with the large companies who are screwing this country.
I'm afraid "free movement of capital" under EU law has put the kybosh on us collecting from them. Hence the persecution of "the little people" to try and bleed a bit more from them.
One of the benefits of being part of the European Union.
Len
It has absolutely sweet FA to do with "the EU". The issue is not even one of 'capital'.
Let's start with Google. Google, whatever they tell you and their own employees about being a tech company,helping people get information, is a media owner. It makes money from selling advertising. Just like ITV does. The difference however is that Google invoice from Ireland and make the preposterous claim that the "deal was closed' in that country and that is where they pay corporation tax on the resulting profit. Facebook plays the same game. That is, if you even get an invoice from Facebook. I've just placed a purchase on Facebook for a "boosted post" which quite patently only applies to the Czech market (because its in Czech). Yet not only do the Czech government not see any corporation tax from it, I cannot even get a document which proves we paid it. Heaven knows how much money Facebook takes without accounting for it.
Then there is Amazon. I buy a book on Amazon UK. It is sent to my address in Eltham from one of what, 20, UK distribution centres. Yet because they generate an electronic invoice from Luxembourg, that is where they pay tax on the profit.
Then there is Starbucks. Starbucks doesn't make any profit to speak of because another part of Starbucks charges the UK operation a humungous charge for "use of the brand" or some similar bollocks.
And on, and on, and on. It is all a load of bollocks. All of us who work in or around marketing know that its a load of bollocks. Why then doesn't HMRC do anything about it? Nothing to do with "the EU". It is simply that HMRC don't have people who understand the businesses and the yarns they are spinning. The only way to assess whether Starbucks is charging a fair price for the "brand" is for HMRC to take advice from marketing people.
There are various solutions discussed, including a point of sale tax, or simply an assumption that the sale took place where the buyer rather than the seller sits. The "EU" has no problem with any of these ideas. Indeed various EU governments are getting together to discuss co-ordinating moves against those companies. If you have any evidence that the EU would block such tax changes, or even a more thorough audit of these companies by HMRC, along the lines I describe, do please show it to us.
You and I are united I am sure by the belief that these guys are the ones who should be paying far more tax, and that is where the effort should eb concentrated rather than on the incompetent pursuit of "little "people like MOG. So here's my final question to you Len. Google and Facebook are powerful global companies. Who do you think has more chance against them. Britain on its own, or the EU countries together?
An even simpler point, if it's an EU problem, then how are Apple, Google, etc. also managing to avoid paying any US taxes too? It's a global problem that requires coordinated efforts to combat.
Very good point. And again, the EU has the clout to look the Americans in the eye on this. All we have is the Special Relationship.
How do you know so much about business?
You've asked me this before and I am not sure if its a windup. Either way, no problem
Well I try to write about what I know about, and I have never been a pro footballer or manager, unlike so many on this forum...:-) so I concentrate on this sort of stuff. I don't have a view on 4-5-1 at home, and Ben Hamer is as good as anyone we can get, IMHO....
Yeah sorry it was a windup. Was just trying to get you to say "because I work in business" as was mentioned in an old Into the Valley thread. Suppose it's kind of fallen flat on its face now.
You hear these stories all the time and I won't begin to dissect the mind and character of that piss taking foreign tosser, her landlord.
What if he turns out to have a British passport? Then he would be a piss taking British tosser. My son is mixed race, and looks it too, but he has a British passport. Sounds to me as if the 'Chinese' landlord you talk of has been here a long time, and very likely to be British.
Well I read it. At least I did my best. If you mastered that and can apply it to the Google example, then I will take my hat off to you. But for now I am sticking to my guns. HMRC doesn't tax Google as it should because it doesn't understand what Google's real business is.
Comments
The system itself is horribly broken. HMRC are absolutely toothless when it comes to big corporations, hence the need to be bully boys against the little man. It is, like pretty much everything else, a fucking disgrace. And, like pretty much everything else, there's fuck all you can do about it.
couple years ago i kept getting HMRC letters to my home address for some knob from Eastern europe,_KostafeckingPounwikkk or some such name. After about 4 letters i opened one and phoned HMRC. Told em the guy didnt live here had never lived here for more than a decade ------blah blah HMRC say to me "wheat do you want us to do?" !!!!!! so i explain the situation---he dont live here---he owes you money---he dont live here ---FFS the twat on the other end of the phone repeats "what do you want us to do about it?"---------so i fecking told him in sarf london to get off his arse and chase the fecker down with as much effort as they did to me when i owed a few quid in the past !
Well I try to write about what I know about, and I have never been a pro footballer or manager, unlike so many on this forum...:-) so I concentrate on this sort of stuff. I don't have a view on 4-5-1 at home, and Ben Hamer is as good as anyone we can get, IMHO....
EU rules do constrain the action the UK can take to constrain tax avoidance as mentioned in my link which was my point.
However I appreciate the name Christopher Booker may be anathema to you and thus not deemed valid as a source so here is another link from an accredited tax journal which says the same thing at (considerably) greater length.
http://www.ccls.qmul.ac.uk/docs/staff/oshea/52174.pdf
"Proportionality" seems to be quite an important weasel word in the ECJ judgements regarding this subject.
I consequently feel we could acieve more as an independent country to make our own tax laws although, to perhaps answer Rany Andy's American point at the same time, the commercial reality and vested interests of wanting the business of these global companies might blunt the will of governments of any hue to act.
As a general principle though I certainly believe that "big business" should pay a fair whack rather than the "little man" being persecuted.
Thank you for this new link. It is going to need some time to go through it carefully, but I promise you I will, and respond. In the meantime let me reassure you that I read the Booker article. Actually his name hardly registers with me. The problem I have with his article is that he demonstrates a complete ignorance of the real nature of Google or Facebook as a business, or any understanding of the nature of Starbucks' transfer charge for 'the brand"
The fundamental key to taxing a business fairly is that the tax authority understands the nature of the business it is seeking to tax. That is true in Britain, the rest of the EU, or in Equatorial Guinea.
Let me illustrate it like this: Part of my small business is executive search. I find candidates for management roles, and the companies pay me a fee on success. Let us assume I do this out of London and not Prague (the argument is the same in either country). However I find that I have a long lost relative in Dublin. So I register my company in Dublin. I live in London, and all my candidates and clients are in the London area. Yet when the deal is done, I invoice from Ireland. A plumber could try the same trick. What do you think will happen to the plumber and I when HMRC find out about us? We will be done like kippers. But this is exactly what Google and Facebook are up to. HMRC don't clobber them because their army of tax consultants and lawyers run rings around HMRC. But all HMRC need to do is seek help from those who work in the advertising business. The ones who sit down opposite Google and Facebook sales people in London to tie up deals on behalf of UK based clients.
It's a load of bollocks Len, and we can surely agree that it is so, whatever our views on the EU. Don't forget Eric Schmidt of Google has basically said to the UK: 'tighten your laws and we will pay the tax'. So now I'm going to take time to read that link you sent and see what is in there that suggests the EU prevents HMRC from dropping its arrogance, addressing its ignorance, and then going after Google. If you want to lead me to specific paragraphs, I'd be grateful, of course.
Well I read it. At least I did my best. If you mastered that and can apply it to the Google example, then I will take my hat off to you. But for now I am sticking to my guns. HMRC doesn't tax Google as it should because it doesn't understand what Google's real business is.