Paradise Papers

kinger101

Nick_C wrote: »

Different people use the "avoidance" term to mean different things.

It used to be the case that avoidance simply meant legal measures and evasion meant illegal ones.

This new distinction of "contrary to the intentions of the legislature" is used on the UK government website, and is obviously intended to distinguish between things like ISAs and complex schemes used by the super rich.

But really there is no difference. Either its legal or it isn't. And if it's legal but the Government don't like it, then they have to change the law.

It's not as easy as changing the law. It needs international co-operation. Often, HMRC's problem is massing evidence that the transfer price use on a transaction is incorrect. How does on calculate the price of using the Starbuck's brandname? It obviously has a value, but why is that value so high that the shops in the UK don't turn a profit? Would you set up a coffee shop that made zero profit?

kinger101

Nick_C wrote: »

Well it's an argument but I'm not sure it's a good one!

So a dustman working for the Council makes no contribution to the exchequer. What happens when the Council contracts the service out to the private sector? Is that same dustman still not paying tax?

What would happen if the council stopped providing a refuse service and people paid private contractors directly? Are the employees paying tax or not?

What about Council services that are paid for directly, with no subsidy. Are the workers providing those services paying tax?

What about people in the not for profit sector whose companies receive public funding? Are they also not paying tax?

And all those companies that trade in the UK but pay only nominal tax here, yet rely heavily on employees subsidized through tax credits and housing benefits.

Tromking

kinger101 wrote: »

And all those companies that trade in the UK but pay only nominal tax here, yet rely heavily on employees subsidized through tax credits and housing benefits.

Indeed, it’s a strange intellectual journey that takes someone to the point where they think that private sector taxpayers are somehow superior to other citizens.

antrobus

Shock! Horror! Gasp!

Two Labour controlled councils, Sefton Council and Warrington Council, have been caught using offshore vehicles to avoid paying stamp duty to the tune of £12 million. Sefton Council's leader is quoted as saying that "This is a widely accepted tax-efficient way of completing the purchase." So that's allright then.

The original story is from The Times, but that's behind paywall, so here's the Mail clone.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5060535/Jeremy-Corbyn-branded-hypocrite-tax-avoidance.html

antrobus

kinger101 wrote: »

And all those companies that trade in the UK but pay only nominal tax here, yet rely heavily on employees subsidized through tax credits and housing benefits.

I'm not sure that applies to the likes of Apple etc. Or that it's particularly relevant to the issue of 'profit shifting'.

antrobus

kinger101 wrote: »

It's not as easy as changing the law. It needs international co-operation. ..

That's what the OECD is for.

They call it Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), because you have global companies shifting profits into low tax jurisdictions and eroding the tax base of other jurisdictions. There have been conferences.:)

Herzlos

kinger101 wrote: »

It's not as easy as changing the law. It needs international co-operation. Often, HMRC's problem is massing evidence that the transfer price use on a transaction is incorrect. How does on calculate the price of using the Starbuck's brandname? It obviously has a value, but why is that value so high that the shops in the UK don't turn a profit? Would you set up a coffee shop that made zero profit?

Would you set up a coffee shop that made zero profit, but then go on to talk about how it's your most profitable region in the shareholders meeting?

Anyway, the solution is to charge them based on revenue. Maybe drop the corporation tax entirely and bump VAT up to 30%.

.string.

chucknorris wrote: »

I know I'm from Newcastle. But I find life far easier amongst you Southern softies.

Newcastle 0 Bournemouth 1

.string.

chucknorris wrote: »

I must admit that I am also a bit surprised at the support (thanks) for that post, I don't visit this website everyday, so it is possible that I have missed some key posts, but I have to judge posters on what I have seen myself, and I agree with you, it seems harsh.

What I saw was a series of posts which were either lunatic suggestions or provocative ideas designed to take the p155. I plumb for the latter.

Nick_C

.string. wrote: »

What I saw was a series of posts which were either lunatic suggestions or provocative ideas designed to take the p155. I plumb for the latter.

What I saw were some radical ideas which were thought provoking. I like listening to other peoples views. I don't always agree with them, but if they are well expressed then they will help to see things from a different perspective and may even change my mind about my own beliefs.

That's one reason why I continue to read these forums.