The likes of Hodge can ask as many questions as they like but the diverted profits tax is the main reason, although Luxembourg is also a slightly less attractive place to be based than before.
The main reason why Osbourne should be a bit circumspect (fat chance, of course) is this: his tax was dubbed the Google Tax. Effect on Google so far? Nix, nada, nothing. The reason is that ordinary people understand Amazon (and Starbucks) business, because they buy their stuff. They get the joke invoices from Luxembourg with their DVD delivery. So they can get their minds around it, and raise their voices, even boycott. I have no doubt that this was a big influence on Amazon, although I will give Osbourne due credit for putting the measure in place.
We will see about Google and Facebook. The problem is that with these two, most ordinary people do not understand how they make money, so they don't know what to protest about, let alone how to do protest effectively.
Would you, for example, agree that those two are "technology companies" as they claim?
The likes of Hodge can ask as many questions as they like but the diverted profits tax is the main reason, although Luxembourg is also a slightly less attractive place to be based than before.
The main reason why Osbourne should be a bit circumspect (fat chance, of course) is this: his tax was dubbed the Google Tax. Effect on Google so far? Nix, nada, nothing. The reason is that ordinary people understand Amazon (and Starbucks) business, because they buy their stuff. They get the joke invoices from Luxembourg with their DVD delivery. So they can get their minds around it, and raise their voices, even boycott. I have no doubt that this was a big influence on Amazon, although I will give Osbourne due credit for putting the measure in place.
We will see about Google and Facebook. The problem is that with these two, most ordinary people do not understand how they make money, so they don't know what to protest about, let alone how to do protest effectively.
Would you, for example, agree that those two are "technology companies" as they claim?
Adblock plus had an app that was removed from the google store (surprise surprise). But things move on and they have now got a browser in beta for android and iOS.
Social network giant Facebook paid just £4,327 ($6,643) in corporation tax in 2014, its latest UK results show. Its most recent Companies House filing shows the company as making a pre-tax loss of £28.5m last year, but the firm also paid its 362 UK staff a total of £35.4m in share bonuses.
The share bonuses amount to £96,000 on average per UK Facebook employee.
It means Facebook's UK corporation tax bill was less than the tax the average UK employee paid on their salary. The average UK salary is £26,500 on which employees pay a total of £5,392.80 in income tax and national insurance contributions. In January, Facebook reported global fourth-quarter profits of $701m (£462m), a 34% increase on the same period a year earlier. Total profits for the year were $2.9bn, almost double its profit for 2013. Facebook said at the time that advertising revenue grew by 53% to $3.59bn, with nearly 70% of that coming from mobile ad sales. The social networking giant says it now has 1.39 billion active users each month, a 13% increase from a year ago.
EU probe
The latest revelations will reignite the debate about how much UK corporation tax companies pay at a time when several multinational corporations are being investigated by the European Commission over the tax arrangements they have with European Union member states. Google, Amazon, a division of the Fiat motor company and Starbucks are all subject to the investigation and the European Commission has said it could widen its probe further.
The investigation came after Starbucks was revealed to have paid just £8.6m in UK corporation tax in the 14 years between 1998 and 2012, despite making more than £3bn in UK sales in the same period. Last week, EU finance ministers agreed to boost information sharing in response to the so-called LuxLeaks scandal that emerged last year. The scandal showed Luxembourg had issued hundreds of tax rulings allowing companies to lower their tax bill by funnelling their profits through the country.
A spokesperson for Facebook said: "We are compliant with UK tax law, and in fact in all countries where we have operations and offices. We continue to grow our business activities in the UK." They added that all the firm's employees paid UK income tax on their payouts. The company recently secured the lease on a high-profile 227,324 sq ft office space in Rathbone Square, near Tottenham Court Road in London, where it plans to open a new headquarters in 2017.
John O'Connell, director of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "Taxpayers will be justifiably confused and angry about this tax bill. But Facebook is right to say that it is complying with UK law, which shows that the problem lies with our complex tax code, and that is what politicians should address as a matter of urgency. "We have to ensure our taxes are simple to eliminate loopholes, and that taxes are low to increase our competitiveness, so that companies choose to base themselves here."
Conservative MP Mark Garnier, a member of Parliament's Treasury Select Committee told the BBC that even if companies were not breaking any laws, they should think about their moral responsibility. "It's about the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. At the end of the day tax evasion is illegal, when you're deliberately setting out to not pay your tax by hiding your money," he said. "Tax planning is what most people will be doing with their pensions. And tax avoidance is where you take the letter of the law, to get around the spirit of the law, where you're actively seeking a way of using the letters to not pay tax."
In his March Budget, Chancellor George Osborne pressed ahead with plans to introduce a diverted profits tax on companies that moved their profits overseas. He added that firms that aided tax evasion would also face new penalties and criminal prosecutions.
The so-called "Google Tax" is designed to discourage large companies diverting profits out of the UK to avoid tax.
And last week, an OECD/G20 report found that laws allowing companies to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions meant between $100bn and $240bn was lost in tax revenues every year - equivalent to between 4% and 10% of global corporate tax revenues.
Those two people quoted are idiots. If they do not know the following before opening they gobs they are also incompetent:
Facebook have a large team of high powered sales people. They sell advertising space to the high powered buyers in ad agencies. Both parties are invariably based in London (I was in the Facebook office in Euston in April). As are their counterparts who sell advertising on TV etc. Most of the advertising sold is aimed at consumers in the UK.
However, when the agency gets the invoice from Facebook, it comes from Dublin. In this way, Facebook claim that the deal was "concluded" in Dublin, and thus subject to Irish corporation tax.
Anyone who believes such a fairy story is an idiot. And that includes anyone at HMRC. You don't need any change in the law to get to grips with this. You just need people who understand Facebook's real business.
Those two people quoted are idiots. If they do not know the following before opening they gobs they are also incompetent:
Facebook have a large team of high powered sales people. They sell advertising space to the high powered buyers in ad agencies. Both parties are invariably based in London (I was in the Facebook office in Euston in April). As are their counterparts who sell advertising on TV etc. Most of the advertising sold is aimed at consumers in the UK.
However, when the agency gets the invoice from Facebook, it comes from Dublin. In this way, Facebook claim that the deal was "concluded" in Dublin, and thus subject to Irish corporation tax.
Anyone who believes such a fairy story is an idiot. And that includes anyone at HMRC. You don't need any change in the law to get to grips with this. You just need people who understand Facebook's real business.
You may very well understand Facebook's business better than the people you mention, but I'd bet my life's earnings that Facebook, their advisors and HMRC know the tax law better than you. And, crucially, that's what matters here.
In fact, it can only be what matters. You or I may think what someone is paying is "wrong" - maybe for moral or other reasons - but it's what the law says that counts. If the law isn't doing what it's supposed to then change it.
Those two people quoted are idiots. If they do not know the following before opening they gobs they are also incompetent:
Facebook have a large team of high powered sales people. They sell advertising space to the high powered buyers in ad agencies. Both parties are invariably based in London (I was in the Facebook office in Euston in April). As are their counterparts who sell advertising on TV etc. Most of the advertising sold is aimed at consumers in the UK.
However, when the agency gets the invoice from Facebook, it comes from Dublin. In this way, Facebook claim that the deal was "concluded" in Dublin, and thus subject to Irish corporation tax.
Anyone who believes such a fairy story is an idiot. And that includes anyone at HMRC. You don't need any change in the law to get to grips with this. You just need people who understand Facebook's real business.
You may very well understand Facebook's business better than the people you mention, but I'd bet my life's earnings that Facebook, their advisors and HMRC know the tax law better than you. And, crucially, that's what matters here.
In fact, it can only be what matters. You or I may think what someone is paying is "wrong" - maybe for moral or other reasons - but it's what the law says that counts. If the law isn't doing what it's supposed to then change it.
This. Every time the multinats insist that all their arrangements 'comply with all tax laws' - and in most cases they do. Change the laws...
But in the Google/FB examples, i'm honestly baffled that they can get away with this charade, simply by invoicing from Ireland. Go into LinkedIn and there are loads of Google people with 'sales' in their job titles. They are based in the UK. There's some arcane legal arguments being used, and we have to put a stop to this nonesense.
Those two people quoted are idiots. If they do not know the following before opening they gobs they are also incompetent:
Facebook have a large team of high powered sales people. They sell advertising space to the high powered buyers in ad agencies. Both parties are invariably based in London (I was in the Facebook office in Euston in April). As are their counterparts who sell advertising on TV etc. Most of the advertising sold is aimed at consumers in the UK.
However, when the agency gets the invoice from Facebook, it comes from Dublin. In this way, Facebook claim that the deal was "concluded" in Dublin, and thus subject to Irish corporation tax.
Anyone who believes such a fairy story is an idiot. And that includes anyone at HMRC. You don't need any change in the law to get to grips with this. You just need people who understand Facebook's real business.
You may very well understand Facebook's business better than the people you mention, but I'd bet my life's earnings that Facebook, their advisors and HMRC know the tax law better than you. And, crucially, that's what matters here.
In fact, it can only be what matters. You or I may think what someone is paying is "wrong" - maybe for moral or other reasons - but it's what the law says that counts. If the law isn't doing what it's supposed to then change it.
Of course that's a point of view to respect. And I certainly don't claim to know UK tax law at all. I do know however two things
1. UK law is based on precedent. It's a flexible fluid thing, and generally better than European systems because of it.
2. If you are going to make a case in law, you need to understand the business you are taking on. I cannot prove it, but I severely doubt that HMRc have enough suitably smart and experienced people for a case like this. Instead they do deals over dinner (Harkness-Vodafone). I can't prove it, but I'm hardly alone in this.
We need an elite tax squad comprised of people with significant senior business experience
Change the laws means voting in politicians who will change those laws. One wing of Conservatism is free market economics, where taxes are reduced and people get to keep and spend their own money. In addition there is a risk that untaxed money can buy influence overtly or covertly over the decision makers. The cry is don't tax they'll go elsewhere. Yet I have noticed Facebook are advertising on the telly to folk who live in this country, so they want to make money out of the citizens who have created Britain as it is, but not contribute much more than a pittance to sustaining that self same country,. I used to think I was somehow disenfranchised by not having Facebook, now I realise I am a class warrior.
Prague, while I understand what you say about Google and Facebook, I think Starbucks are a more appropriate target to start on.
The advertisers you see as competitors to Google and Facebook are likely to be involved in similar tax avoidance practices. The independent coffee shops that compete with Starbucks on the street are less likely
Change the laws means voting in politicians who will change those laws. One wing of Conservatism is free market economics, where taxes are reduced and people get to keep and spend their own money. In addition there is a risk that untaxed money can buy influence overtly or covertly over the decision makers. The cry is don't tax they'll go elsewhere. Yet I have noticed Facebook are advertising on the telly to folk who live in this country, so they want to make money out of the citizens who have created Britain as it is, but not contribute much more than a pittance to sustaining that self same country,. I used to think I was somehow disenfranchised by not having Facebook, now I realise I am a class warrior.
It is interesting that you mention "taxes are reduced and people get to keep and spend..."
Facebook, et al are not people of course. They do not get a vote, so are disenfranchised. Perhaps a business ought to get a "block vote" in general elections based upon the tax they pay? Perhaps the argument ought to be should businesses be taxed at all on their profits? What would happen if they were not? I don't know but there are some possibilities. They'd have extra money to pay their staff more (yes, laughable, I know) but if they did those staff would be paying across more in income tax and need to rely less on certain things like child benefit, so the Govt. would need less tax receipts anyway. Or, the more likely, they'd pay out larger dividends to shareholders. These dividends would be taxed (more money for the Govt.) but would also provide a better foundation for all the insurance companies and pension funds to pay out better returns so we'd all be more well off. Or, they'd spend the money instead on R & D thereby improving our productivity and again making us all richer.
Could it ever happen? No, Governments are addicted to tax receipts even Conservative ones. Even Republicans in the USA.
BTW, I don't include business rates in this scenario. It is clear that businesses need to contribute to their local economy and its infrastructure.
As a side issue, in theory I guess the so-called living wage could have a similar effect. To an extent it will reduce firms' profits (or they'll put up prices) and thereby the tax take from corporation tax will reduce too but be more than offset by the increased tax take from income tax and NIcs and the VAT harvested when people start spending more money.
I think all this talk about changing laws is a red herring. I think what's missing is the political will, backed by a commitment of resources to at least try to enforce the existing laws against some of these companies taking the pee out of the UK taxpayers.
Starbucks, Google, Amazon and the rest are going nowhere, no matter what they and right wing commentators might threaten whenever the subject of them paying their dues comes up.
Yeah, they have deep pockets and fancy lawyers but so does the government when it wants to. Let's pick a strong case against one of these firms and get their controlling mind in court to answer for themselves and why a multi national company is paying less tax than their employees. If we lose, we lose but I bet in the longer term it would change their approach to compliance because as things stand at the moment they are currently driving a coach and horses through our tax system at a time when we need that revenue more than ever.
BTW, I don't include business rates in this scenario. It is clear that businesses need to contribute to their local economy and its infrastructure.
So businesses need to contribute to their local economy and its infrastructure, but shouldn't necessarily contribute to the national economy and its infrastructure.
In a closed economy you can forego a tax on profits as all the money stays in the economy, whether it's through growth of the company, salaries increases to works, dividends to shareholders, or some other means. Of course, we don't live in a closed economy. So if we don't take on profits then that money goes to shareholders, or to execs as bonuses, and the vast majority of those are in another country, another economy, so you get profit generated in the UK and it all leaves the country. Therefore taxation is the only way that the UK economy can benefit from the economic activity Facebook, et al help generate. If you don't tax then you are just transferring money from the UK population into the bank accounts of US execs and shareholders.
Those two people quoted are idiots. If they do not know the following before opening they gobs they are also incompetent:
Facebook have a large team of high powered sales people. They sell advertising space to the high powered buyers in ad agencies. Both parties are invariably based in London (I was in the Facebook office in Euston in April). As are their counterparts who sell advertising on TV etc. Most of the advertising sold is aimed at consumers in the UK.
However, when the agency gets the invoice from Facebook, it comes from Dublin. In this way, Facebook claim that the deal was "concluded" in Dublin, and thus subject to Irish corporation tax.
Anyone who believes such a fairy story is an idiot. And that includes anyone at HMRC. You don't need any change in the law to get to grips with this. You just need people who understand Facebook's real business.
You may very well understand Facebook's business better than the people you mention, but I'd bet my life's earnings that Facebook, their advisors and HMRC know the tax law better than you. And, crucially, that's what matters here.
In fact, it can only be what matters. You or I may think what someone is paying is "wrong" - maybe for moral or other reasons - but it's what the law says that counts. If the law isn't doing what it's supposed to then change it.
Of course that's a point of view to respect. And I certainly don't claim to know UK tax law at all. I do know however two things
1. UK law is based on precedent. It's a flexible fluid thing, and generally better than European systems because of it.
2. If you are going to make a case in law, you need to understand the business you are taking on. I cannot prove it, but I severely doubt that HMRc have enough suitably smart and experienced people for a case like this. Instead they do deals over dinner (Harkness-Vodafone). I can't prove it, but I'm hardly alone in this.
We need an elite tax squad comprised of people with significant senior business experience
The elite tax squad is part of this. The issue is, how do you justify the cost. If you want better lawyers than the corporations, you have to pay them. Can you imagine the outrage when the elite squad are found to be earning 7 digit salaries once bonuses are included. When you're talking about hundreds of millions in tax, those big paydays will be needed to get the talent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35381130 Good to see but after six plus years of chasing, how much are the the UKs costs to get £130m out of them. Also will they pay any other year or will they have to be chased for what they owe?
Oh my, Boris Johnson, you lying monstrous bag of slime.
You know perfectly well how Google do it. They do it by pretending that their sales contracts have been "closed" in Dublin, when they were actually closed by UK based Google employees negotiating with UK based clients, for transactions often for millions of pounds in one go (e.g at WPP or Omnicom), aimed at consumers living in the UK. That, basically, is telling lies. Company directors are not supposed to build their businesses on a lie, just because they know that they will have the resources to hoodwink the inadequately staffed HMRC.
I've seen some politicians in my time, but few as shameless as you. I wish you would eff off back to the USA, where you are a citizen. You and Trump are two of a kind.
I sent them some forms in for a client - 70 pages worth. Prick on the phone says they are "all wrong and you need to do them again". Fuck off, no they're not. I will email you why not. "We don't accept emails, you will have to fax us".
A fax, in this day and age. So I sent the fax on Monday, phoned him back on Thursday to ask if he got it. "No, the fax needs to be scanned in first, takes 3-4 days". Can I email you a scanned version? "No, but you can fax it to me"
No argument on the point that hmrc are a shitty bunch of shit cunts - but the reason they use fax is because it's inherently more secure than email.
But in Estonia you fill in your entire tax form online, and it takes five minutes. I appreciate that isn't quite the same thing as an individual email, but you know, fax?
What @Off_it is describing (especially the last bit about scanning the fax) would be laughed off as absurd even in the Czech Republic where bureaucracy remains a valuable component of GDP and employment.
No argument on the point that hmrc are a shitty bunch of shit cunts - but the reason they use fax is because it's inherently more secure than email.
I get that bruv, but back in the 80s a fax was the way to get something to someone instantly. Now, 30 years on, they are still using the same technology, but for some reason their own fucking system means it doesn't get to where it needs to be for 3-4 days, at least.
I sent them some forms in for a client - 70 pages worth. Prick on the phone says they are "all wrong and you need to do them again". Fuck off, no they're not. I will email you why not. "We don't accept emails, you will have to fax us".
A fax, in this day and age. So I sent the fax on Monday, phoned him back on Thursday to ask if he got it. "No, the fax needs to be scanned in first, takes 3-4 days". Can I email you a scanned version? "No, but you can fax it to me"
No argument on the point that hmrc are a shitty bunch of shit cunts - but the reason they use fax is because it's inherently more secure than email.
More secure? Fax is completely insecure, you're sending unencrypted data over an open line, it's not secured in any way.
With email you can at least encrypt the attachment before sending. The better solution would be for them to provide a secured upload page of some sort.
No argument on the point that hmrc are a shitty bunch of shit cunts - but the reason they use fax is because it's inherently more secure than email.
More secure? Fax is completely insecure, you're sending unencrypted data over an open line, it's not secured in any way.
With email you can at least encrypt the attachment before sending. The better solution would be for them to provide a secured upload page of some sort.
You should have told nightmeire this before she faxed her directors registration documents to Companies House.
Comments
We will see about Google and Facebook. The problem is that with these two, most ordinary people do not understand how they make money, so they don't know what to protest about, let alone how to do protest effectively.
Would you, for example, agree that those two are "technology companies" as they claim?
He's only had a couple of weeks without Danny Alexander sitting on his shoulder. One down, four to go.
Facebook paid £4,327 corporation tax in 2014
Social network giant Facebook paid just £4,327 ($6,643) in corporation tax in 2014, its latest UK results show.
Its most recent Companies House filing shows the company as making a pre-tax loss of £28.5m last year, but the firm also paid its 362 UK staff a total of £35.4m in share bonuses.
The share bonuses amount to £96,000 on average per UK Facebook employee.
It means Facebook's UK corporation tax bill was less than the tax the average UK employee paid on their salary.
The average UK salary is £26,500 on which employees pay a total of £5,392.80 in income tax and national insurance contributions.
In January, Facebook reported global fourth-quarter profits of $701m (£462m), a 34% increase on the same period a year earlier.
Total profits for the year were $2.9bn, almost double its profit for 2013.
Facebook said at the time that advertising revenue grew by 53% to $3.59bn, with nearly 70% of that coming from mobile ad sales.
The social networking giant says it now has 1.39 billion active users each month, a 13% increase from a year ago.
EU probe
The latest revelations will reignite the debate about how much UK corporation tax companies pay at a time when several multinational corporations are being investigated by the European Commission over the tax arrangements they have with European Union member states.
Google, Amazon, a division of the Fiat motor company and Starbucks are all subject to the investigation and the European Commission has said it could widen its probe further.
The investigation came after Starbucks was revealed to have paid just £8.6m in UK corporation tax in the 14 years between 1998 and 2012, despite making more than £3bn in UK sales in the same period.
Last week, EU finance ministers agreed to boost information sharing in response to the so-called LuxLeaks scandal that emerged last year. The scandal showed Luxembourg had issued hundreds of tax rulings allowing companies to lower their tax bill by funnelling their profits through the country.
A spokesperson for Facebook said: "We are compliant with UK tax law, and in fact in all countries where we have operations and offices. We continue to grow our business activities in the UK."
They added that all the firm's employees paid UK income tax on their payouts.
The company recently secured the lease on a high-profile 227,324 sq ft office space in Rathbone Square, near Tottenham Court Road in London, where it plans to open a new headquarters in 2017.
John O'Connell, director of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "Taxpayers will be justifiably confused and angry about this tax bill. But Facebook is right to say that it is complying with UK law, which shows that the problem lies with our complex tax code, and that is what politicians should address as a matter of urgency.
"We have to ensure our taxes are simple to eliminate loopholes, and that taxes are low to increase our competitiveness, so that companies choose to base themselves here."
Conservative MP Mark Garnier, a member of Parliament's Treasury Select Committee told the BBC that even if companies were not breaking any laws, they should think about their moral responsibility.
"It's about the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. At the end of the day tax evasion is illegal, when you're deliberately setting out to not pay your tax by hiding your money," he said.
"Tax planning is what most people will be doing with their pensions. And tax avoidance is where you take the letter of the law, to get around the spirit of the law, where you're actively seeking a way of using the letters to not pay tax."
In his March Budget, Chancellor George Osborne pressed ahead with plans to introduce a diverted profits tax on companies that moved their profits overseas.
He added that firms that aided tax evasion would also face new penalties and criminal prosecutions.
The so-called "Google Tax" is designed to discourage large companies diverting profits out of the UK to avoid tax.
And last week, an OECD/G20 report found that laws allowing companies to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions meant between $100bn and $240bn was lost in tax revenues every year - equivalent to between 4% and 10% of global corporate tax revenues.
Facebook have a large team of high powered sales people. They sell advertising space to the high powered buyers in ad agencies. Both parties are invariably based in London (I was in the Facebook office in Euston in April). As are their counterparts who sell advertising on TV etc. Most of the advertising sold is aimed at consumers in the UK.
However, when the agency gets the invoice from Facebook, it comes from Dublin. In this way, Facebook claim that the deal was "concluded" in Dublin, and thus subject to Irish corporation tax.
Anyone who believes such a fairy story is an idiot. And that includes anyone at HMRC. You don't need any change in the law to get to grips with this. You just need people who understand Facebook's real business.
In fact, it can only be what matters. You or I may think what someone is paying is "wrong" - maybe for moral or other reasons - but it's what the law says that counts. If the law isn't doing what it's supposed to then change it.
But in the Google/FB examples, i'm honestly baffled that they can get away with this charade, simply by invoicing from Ireland. Go into LinkedIn and there are loads of Google people with 'sales' in their job titles. They are based in the UK. There's some arcane legal arguments being used, and we have to put a stop to this nonesense.
1. UK law is based on precedent. It's a flexible fluid thing, and generally better than European systems because of it.
2. If you are going to make a case in law, you need to understand the business you are taking on. I cannot prove it, but I severely doubt that HMRc have enough suitably smart and experienced people for a case like this. Instead they do deals over dinner (Harkness-Vodafone). I can't prove it, but I'm hardly alone in this.
We need an elite tax squad comprised of people with significant senior business experience
The cry is don't tax they'll go elsewhere.
Yet I have noticed Facebook are advertising on the telly to folk who live in this country, so they want to make money out of the citizens who have created Britain as it is, but not contribute much more than a pittance to sustaining that self same country,.
I used to think I was somehow disenfranchised by not having Facebook, now I realise I am a class warrior.
The advertisers you see as competitors to Google and Facebook are likely to be involved in similar tax avoidance practices. The independent coffee shops that compete with Starbucks on the street are less likely
Facebook, et al are not people of course. They do not get a vote, so are disenfranchised. Perhaps a business ought to get a "block vote" in general elections based upon the tax they pay?
Perhaps the argument ought to be should businesses be taxed at all on their profits? What would happen if they were not? I don't know but there are some possibilities.
They'd have extra money to pay their staff more (yes, laughable, I know) but if they did those staff would be paying across more in income tax and need to rely less on certain things like child benefit, so the Govt. would need less tax receipts anyway. Or, the more likely, they'd pay out larger dividends to shareholders. These dividends would be taxed (more money for the Govt.) but would also provide a better foundation for all the insurance companies and pension funds to pay out better returns so we'd all be more well off. Or, they'd spend the money instead on R & D thereby improving our productivity and again making us all richer.
Could it ever happen? No, Governments are addicted to tax receipts even Conservative ones. Even Republicans in the USA.
BTW, I don't include business rates in this scenario. It is clear that businesses need to contribute to their local economy and its infrastructure.
As a side issue, in theory I guess the so-called living wage could have a similar effect. To an extent it will reduce firms' profits (or they'll put up prices) and thereby the tax take from corporation tax will reduce too but be more than offset by the increased tax take from income tax and NIcs and the VAT harvested when people start spending more money.
Starbucks, Google, Amazon and the rest are going nowhere, no matter what they and right wing commentators might threaten whenever the subject of them paying their dues comes up.
Yeah, they have deep pockets and fancy lawyers but so does the government when it wants to. Let's pick a strong case against one of these firms and get their controlling mind in court to answer for themselves and why a multi national company is paying less tax than their employees. If we lose, we lose but I bet in the longer term it would change their approach to compliance because as things stand at the moment they are currently driving a coach and horses through our tax system at a time when we need that revenue more than ever.
What's the logic behind this?
Good to see but after six plus years of chasing, how much are the the UKs costs to get £130m out of them. Also will they pay any other year or will they have to be chased for what they owe?
Oh my, Boris Johnson, you lying monstrous bag of slime.
You know perfectly well how Google do it. They do it by pretending that their sales contracts have been "closed" in Dublin, when they were actually closed by UK based Google employees negotiating with UK based clients, for transactions often for millions of pounds in one go (e.g at WPP or Omnicom), aimed at consumers living in the UK. That, basically, is telling lies. Company directors are not supposed to build their businesses on a lie, just because they know that they will have the resources to hoodwink the inadequately staffed HMRC.
I've seen some politicians in my time, but few as shameless as you. I wish you would eff off back to the USA, where you are a citizen. You and Trump are two of a kind.
I sent them some forms in for a client - 70 pages worth. Prick on the phone says they are "all wrong and you need to do them again". Fuck off, no they're not. I will email you why not. "We don't accept emails, you will have to fax us".
A fax, in this day and age. So I sent the fax on Monday, phoned him back on Thursday to ask if he got it. "No, the fax needs to be scanned in first, takes 3-4 days". Can I email you a scanned version? "No, but you can fax it to me"
Utter utter c***s
What @Off_it is describing (especially the last bit about scanning the fax) would be laughed off as absurd even in the Czech Republic where bureaucracy remains a valuable component of GDP and employment.
Amazing.
Is this not true then?
With email you can at least encrypt the attachment before sending. The better solution would be for them to provide a secured upload page of some sort.