Should Tax avoiding firms be named and shamed

CLAPTON

one would have thought that the company a/cs are in the public domain?


anyway all peoples tax affairs should be published as a matter of course.

ILW

coastline wrote: »

Maybe we need more uniform rules and regulations on an international level...a level playing field.
If very little is to be changed the idea that a company pays a percentage tax relating to their share of business in that country seems a fair proposal.

How could that work, they may have a large market share but not be making any money.

nicko33

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, said such a move was not a good idea because it would breach taxpayer confidentiality.

Is this the house-flipping tax-avoiding Danny Alexander?

N1AK

Hearing politicians wax lyrical about companies following tax law at the moment is especially hypocritical. Plenty of MPs were breaking the law with regards to expenses and many of those who activities were legal were obvious abuses of the system. If MPs can't be trusted to voluntarily do what is 'right' then why should we expect companies who can legally not pay tax to pay it anyway?

I use ISAs, I claim VAT back on my work milage, I get tax back on my pension contributions. All of these are legal forms of tax avoidance. My company operates a salary sacrifice scheme for pensions to drop NI contributions, which is legal, is that immoral? If I bought premium bonds (no tax) rather than investing would I be immoral? It's a stupid argument and it is embarrassing to see our representatives spouting this nonsense.

Mallotum_X

Regardless of whether we like MPs acting all moral or not, its not really relevant.

We have ended up with a system that favours the big players. The key lobbyists for the current tax rules are the very big firms that do best out of them, the rules are set by the politicians but influenced heavily by the big corps.

All that's happening now is the taxpayer is lobbying for a fairer system and it would appear the politicians are listening. Having a system where a big coffee shop is able to pay a significantly lower rate of tax than a mom-and-pop outfit is clearly unfair, and again gives extra advantages to the larger.

Many of us bemoan the closure of shops, and this is one element of that problem.

Linking this to tax credits paid to people is an interesting angle, one could argue that if the likes of Starbucks, Tesco etc paid their staff a suitable wage then tax credits would not be needed.

Its time many of the tax loop holes and structures to allow offshoring of profits etc were closed. starbucks is not about to up sticks and leave for having to pay a higher rate of tax on profits, same as the bankers didnt all leave when they came under attack.

As a nation we need to ensure a suitable tax rate is paid by all players, and that this is fairly distributed amongst them, paying a lower rate of tax simply because a firm is bigger makes no sense and unfairly impacts on everyone else.

Mallotum_X

N1AK wrote: »

I use ISAs, I claim VAT back on my work milage, I get tax back on my pension contributions. All of these are legal forms of tax avoidance. My company operates a salary sacrifice scheme for pensions to drop NI contributions, which is legal, is that immoral? If I bought premium bonds (no tax) rather than investing would I be immoral? It's a stupid argument and it is embarrassing to see our representatives spouting this nonsense.

Think about this, your company is able to claim vat back on business mileage as you charge vat on your invoices, thats how vat works. Its not avoidance.

Isa/premium bonds and pension salary sacrifice are all allowed as the government wants individuals to save... think it through, its cheaper to encourage you to save a bit more than it is to pay you a bigger pension in the future. You are not comparing the same thing at all.

antrobus

grizzly1911 wrote: »

...Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, said such a move was not a good idea because it would breach taxpayer confidentiality.....

Danny Alexander is correct. The government can't go around releasing private information into the public domain just because it feels like it.

Mind you, there's nothing to stop other people from putting two and two together and naming and shaming the worst tax avoiders. Personally I'd like to name and shame the Guardian Media Group for its use of offshore tax havens, not to mention its persistent abuse of the arrangements for group loss relief in order to obtain taxpayer subsidies for that vanity publishing project otherwise known as The Guardian newspaper.

vivatifosi

OK, here's the rub. I run a small business. It is so small that I also have paid employment. In spite of that, if I believe all that's been written about Starbucks, I've paid more Corporation Tax than them for the past 3 years. This is plainly ridiculous.

I don't blame Starbucks, but I do blame the stupid, stupid tax codes. If you look at Starbucks 10-K filing, you will see that the UK is a major part of their international business (alongside Japan and Canada), unlike Switzerland and the Netherlands where the transfer payments for royalties and coffee go to. They've made a decision to move to those places even though they have no real business there. What the UK govt needs to do is investigate why. Could this mean implementing rules on transfer pricing? Maybe. Could this mean we need better investigators looking into transfers? Almost certainly. Does this mean we should look at lowering Corporation Tax? I think that would be a good idea as it would draw more of these international profits here as well as helping businesses in this country with more funds to reinvest.

antrobus

vivatifosi wrote: »

... What the UK govt needs to do is investigate why....

The UK govt knows why. Because CT rates are lower there.

vivatifosi wrote: »

...
Could this mean implementing rules on transfer pricing? Maybe. Could this mean we need better investigators looking into transfers?

We have rules on transfer pricing. I believe HMRC have already had some success in negotiationg down the level of the Starbucks management fee.

vivatifosi wrote: »

... Does this mean we should look at lowering Corporation Tax? I think that would be a good idea as it would draw more of these international profits here as well as helping businesses in this country with more funds to reinvest.

Isn't that what Georgie Porgie is trying to do?

somethingcorporate

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Isa/premium bonds and pension salary sacrifice are all allowed as the government wants individuals to save... think it through, its cheaper to encourage you to save a bit more than it is to pay you a bigger pension in the future. You are not comparing the same thing at all.

It is the same thing.

Both are within the rules, both are tax avoidance and none of it is against the law.

The only thing that differs is the scale.