Should Tax avoiding firms be named and shamed

System

"It is not a good idea to always go for the race to the bottom, but to set up a regime that ensures a fair proportion of the profits are taxed in the country they are earned."

Fine words, but we don't have a choice.

If we impose too many costs and burdens on shipping, shipowners register in Panama or Greece.
If wages are lower in India, companies will outsource call centres to India.
Chinese components cheaper, they buy in China.
Assembly cheaper in Indonesia - assemble in Indonesia.

The government and the complainers just don't get it. If we want to engage in the global economy we must offer competitive rates. Taxation is no different - it's just a cost, which any organisation that wants to survive must seek to minimise by any legal method.

N1AK

Mallotum_X wrote: »

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.

If I save in a normal account I pay income tax, I am taking steps to avoid taxation by putting it into an ISA. You're defending a nonsensical position. Whether the government 'wants' me to do it or not is entirely irrelevant to whether it is avoidance or not. Heck, they even refer to 'bad' tax avoidance as 'aggressive' tax avoidance for that reason.

In short: I am comparing exactly the same thing, you've just created your own definition

N1AK

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

The government and the complainers just don't get it. If we want to engage in the global economy we must offer competitive rates. Taxation is no different - it's just a cost, which any organisation that wants to survive must seek to minimise by any legal method.

The companies highlighted thus far are making money by selling products or services to UK consumers. Your entire premise is that you could 'move' the business elsewhere which is nonsense in these circumstances.

One way to get round this would be to decrease taxes on companies and increase VAT. Companies that employ people in the UK but sell abroad would effectively wind up discounted and companies selling within the UK would collect more VAT which can't be dodged by fudging your profit margin.

Obviously this would need to be tied to efforts to make using tax havens, especially ones with the EU or commonwealth with the ability to avoid or decrease VAT payments, less effective.

Mallotum_X

N1AK wrote: »

If I save in a normal account I pay income tax, I am taking steps to avoid taxation by putting it into an ISA. You're defending a nonsensical position. Whether the government 'wants' me to do it or not is entirely irrelevant to whether it is avoidance or not. Heck, they even refer to 'bad' tax avoidance as 'aggressive' tax avoidance for that reason.

In short: I am comparing exactly the same thing, you've just created your own definition

You really cant see the difference between an ISA and using an artificial corporate structure to shift profits to a low tax regime?

Mallotum_X

N1AK wrote: »

One way to get round this would be to decrease taxes on companies and increase VAT. Companies that employ people in the UK but sell abroad would effectively wind up discounted and companies selling within the UK would collect more VAT which can't be dodged by fudging your profit margin.

I think this is the most likely eventual outcome, easier to prevent avoidance, easier to implement rules to capture imports into the system. It *could* even make the tax system simpler.... or maybe not

antrobus

vivatifosi wrote: »

In which case Georgie and the HMRC should do a better job of exercising it. If they should be able to do it with what they've got but can't, then they've either got to change the laws, or make changes to the people enforcing them.

Well I'm not 100% what "it" it is that Georgie and the HMRC should exercise, but I think I know what you mean, but the problem is that the devil is in the detail, and there is no magic bullet.

antrobus

Mallotum_X wrote: »

You really cant see the difference between an ISA and using an artificial corporate structure to shift profits to a low tax regime?

There is no difference between a bank account that is designed to take advantage of the ISA regulations and a corporate structure that is designed to take advantage of some other regulations. The use of the word 'artificial' simply indicates your disapproval of the latter.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

Actual tax computations differ greatly to published annual profit figures. There's no correlation.

grizzly1911

antrobus wrote: »

There is no difference between a bank account that is designed to take advantage of the ISA regulations and a corporate structure that is designed to take advantage of some other regulations. The use of the word 'artificial' simply indicates your disapproval of the latter.

There is a big difference.

The governement sets limits as to what can be put in ISAs. Does it monitor them? I don't know but must have some idea at a macro level and it could withdraw them.

The extent to which companies can avoid tax is limitless potentially.

grizzly1911

Mallotum_X wrote: »

I think this is the most likely eventual outcome, easier to prevent avoidance, easier to implement rules to capture imports into the system. It *could* even make the tax system simpler.... or maybe not

Downside is that it will largely be picked up the consumer, I doubt the companies involved will reduce prices significantly,. If they do pass some back to counter a drop in demand it will be limited.