Leaving the EU?

grizzly1911

ILW wrote: »

Not really.

If revenue is the same as purchase price, there would be no VAT payable.

Transaction tax £1 per trade, no different to fuel duty 57p per litre or whatever for amabaybmw sale?

A simple annual fee to be allowed to trade here. Auction off the slots like telephone licences.

Of course if we made penal they may prefer not to trade here a and a UK based alternative could take their position or they could choose to base their subsidiary here and actual adopt the UK tax regime. Not saying that HMRC regime is watertight either.

I wonder how long it will be before VAT is increased generally to balance out the lack of corporate tax receipts.?

ILW

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Transaction tax £1 per trade, no different to fuel duty 57p per litre or whatever for amabaybmw sale?

A simple annual fee to be allowed to trade here. Auction off the slots like telephone licences.

Of course if we made penal they may prefer not to trade here a and a UK based alternative could take their position or they could choose to base their subsidiary here and actual adopt the UK tax regime. Not saying that HMRC regime is watertight either.

I wonder how long it will be before VAT is increased generally to balance out the lack of corporate tax receipts.?

All possible, but would this only apply to foreign companies?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

If Amazon are understating the amount of profit that's due to activity in the UK then that's tax fraud.

It's tax evasion if we're in the EU. It would be tax evasion if we left the EU.

Again within the remit of HMRC.

Are you being purposely difficult? It's none of what you are talking about and you know it.

wotsthat

ILW wrote: »

It appears they are not understating the amount of profit they make. They just chose to make it in another country.

Amazon say that their UK office is simply an order fulfillment centre and that profits made are due to activities in Luxembourg - therefore no corporation tax is due.

Maybe that's true (Jimmy Hill) but it's not an EU related issue. They employ 2000 staff in the UK to run the 'order fulfillment' business but only 130 work in Luxembourg running the main business that operates in 27 European countries.

If it's not true and, in fact, there are more activities taking place in the UK than stated then that looks like they've understated profits (evaded tax).

I believe one of the parliamentary committees expressed concerns about HMRC's overly cosy relationships with some of these companies

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Are you being purposely difficult? It's none of what you are talking about and you know it.

Show me the EU rules that allow companies to understate activities in a member state (to avoid tax) or to charge excessive internal fees (to avoid tax).

Graham_Devon

No one has said anything about understating either.

If you are suggesting I'm wrong, then you are also suggesting some very high up, influencial people are also wrong.

The EU allows companies to do what they are doing. That resuilts in lower revnue for the UK.

You can spin and bluter all you like, but it's the truth.

wotsthat

Start from first principles.

What do you think companies are doing? How does the EU allow this.

If they're not understating UK activities or overstating expenses then what's the problem?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Start from first principles.

What do you think companies are doing? How does the EU allow this.

If they're not understating UK activities or overstating expenses then what's the problem?

Ok, lets start from first principles.

I have not stated I have a problem with this. What I have stated is that these sorts of revenue losses are not looked at when making calculations on how we benefit from the EU.

I have never once said I have a problem with how things operate on this front. You've tried to make out I do to avoid the real issue of what I actually stated.

We keep on being told how much the EU brings into the country in terms of revenues. However, we can't ignore the revenues lost. Amazon, Starbucks....it's lost revenue as they can process through Luxumberg, which put simply, they wouldn't be able to do if we left the EU. They would have to process through the UK.

(Well., I say wouldn't be able to do....I guess they could if we allowed it....so what i'm saying is, we could stop that....at the moment, we can't).

So just there you have extra revenue bought into the country by leaving the EU. Thats a benefit. One of the many advantages and disadvantages.

RJP33

Key point Graham is making is we have the power to legislate that all UK sales are subject to UK VAT if we were outside the EU, whether we'd do that or not is debateable.

And that it should be taking into consideration when doing a EU cost / benefit analysis. Which in itself might suprise people.

Kennyboy66

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There is no such "rule", rather several rules. Which I assume is why you asked for "the rule" as you are aware of this (hence point 2) and think you can somehow catch one out.

Basically, Amazon, for example, report European (including UK) sales through luxemburg. They can only do this due to being within the EU. It's that simple. They cannot, for instance, send sales from New Zealand through Luxumberg. Neither would they be able to if we were outside of the EU.



Covered above.

You do understand that the UK's double taxation law with Luxembourg was signed in 1967 - a full 6 years before we joined the EU don't you ?

The UK has double taxation deals from countries from Antigua to Zimbabwe (and most countries in between).

Leaving the EU won't make a blind bit of practical difference to companies routing profits through low tax jurisdictions.