Should Tax avoiding firms be named and shamed

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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

published annual accounts state the amount of tax paid

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

published annual accounts state the amount of tax paid

If you don't declare a profit you don't pay tax.

Ensure you have to pay "expenses" that are over what they should be to a subsidiary not registered here - no profit.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

published annual accounts state the amount of tax paid

The amount of tax paid in any given period does not correspond to the profit in that period.

Amazon invested a huge amount of money over a number of years to gain traction in the UK. So would have had taxable losses to offset. Only more recently has the "profit" been siphoned out of the UK. As the Company generated cash.

Mallotum_X

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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.

Sadly this is also true. It also lets them spin the pr on any additional price rises to blame the government.

GeorgeHowell

It's up to governments to deal with inadequate tax laws, not to name and shame. It's all posturing, they want to have their cake and eat it. They want the tax revenue, they also want to bribe firms to come to/stay in Britain, but they don't want the public to think that HMG/HMRC is soft on big business. A totally untenable position.

kabayiri

It seems like vocal criticism of corporate taxation policy by Starbucks has had some effect

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20624857

Why should this company cave in if they felt completely justified in their approach to taxation? I'd still not touch their coffee, quite frankly, not while there are alternatives.

vivatifosi

kabayiri wrote: »

It seems like vocal criticism of corporate taxation policy by Starbucks has had some effect

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20624857

Why should this company cave in if they felt completely justified in their approach to taxation? I'd still not touch their coffee, quite frankly, not while there are alternatives.

I have a sneaky suspicion that we're about to match and then go under the Corporation Tax rates for the Netherlands. So they can say they are doing the right thing while still minimising their tax bill. Don't know about Switzerland though.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The amount of tax paid in any given period does not correspond to the profit in that period.

Amazon invested a huge amount of money over a number of years to gain traction in the UK. So would have had taxable losses to offset. Only more recently has the "profit" been siphoned out of the UK. As the Company generated cash.

I'm not really sure what point you want to make.
Do you want to discuss accounting practice?

I know how accounting works and about balance sheets and about P&L a/c and about how to deal with investment and how to offset investment against profit and how to a carry over losses.


Amazon aren't treating the UK account as a stand alone business and making the appropriate 'expenses' claims like a normal UK based company.

They are 'transfering ' costs specifically to understate their UK profits and to overstate their profits elsewhere.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not really sure what point you want to make.

Your statement was similar to that of a media journalist or politician. It was misleading and ill informed in the sense of how to assess the figure. We live in a world of soundbites, 60 second attention span.

If you understand accounts and business. You'll know that setting up new operations doesn't come cheap, hence my example of Amazon.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Your statement was similar to that of a media journalist or politician. It was misleading and ill informed in the sense of how to assess the figure. We live in a world of soundbites, 60 second attention span.

If you understand accounts and business. You'll know that setting up new operations doesn't come cheap, hence my example of Amazon.

Your rudeness and arrogance is unwelcome.

All companies are able to offset start up costs and investment costs against profits.

The relevant comparison is betwen two similar companies with similar start up costs;
one based in the UK and subject to Uk taxes, the other based elsewhere that can artificially 'transfer' costs elsewhere.

One pays more tax overall than the other and so Uk based one has an uneven playing field.