Too right, it's annoying that companies like Google get out of paying their fair whack of tax. I believe they should, indeed, pay what they technically owe.

BUT, if such incentives were not offered, Google (and others) simply wouldn't set up business there. They'd find somewhere else with a more 'attractive' tax system. You might think that's OK, but with companies like Google come lots and lots of jobs, and with those jobs come employees, all of whom pay tax on both their earnings and on what they spend their wages on. Without companies like Google investing in the local economy, those jobs simply wouldn't exist.

And then you've got the money Google spend on being able to do business and provide those jobs. Their offices have to be paid for, as do their internet connections, their phones, their office equipment, any office materials, and whatever else Google need to use in order to do business.

I'm not defending this, but Governments have to do their sums too, and if the lack of corporation tax is more than made up for with the tax they collect on related activities, then the argument that the country is being robbed stacks up a bit less than if you simplify it all as "Google don't pay tax"

I'm not saying it's right, all this, but if it's a case of "jobs v no jobs", or more accurately "jobs, investment and local spending v a fat nothing" then what's the alternative, really?

Unless you're the Duchy of Cornwall, and thus not part of the UK at all.

This.


Isn't that, on paper, the system we're supposed to have now? Yet as Private Eye keeps pointing out, no large corporation has [iever[/i been brought to book on their complex tax-dodging webs of sham arrangements. This is so, even when the dodge is blatant - like Starbucks not making a profit "because what we make we have to pay in royalties to our sister company in Holland". The mystery is not how they do it, but how the feck they are allowed to get away with it, when any person reqarding of the arrangement can see it is a blatant tax dodge. And I see the issue of whether it is "legal" as a complete red herring. The only question should be "is it effective". The resoundingly clear answer should be "NO, because although perfectly legal, it's for no reason other than to dodge tax, and so we're not having it".

You might see it as a "red herring", but the current recourse for HMRC if it believes tax is being avoided is via the tax tribunal system and ultimately the courts.

Their consideration is very much a case of "is it legal", rather than is it morally or ethically correct. As courts, that's all they can do.

The proposed "General Anti-Abuse Rule" which is going through consultation at the moment seeks to address this by looking through any transaction that HMRC considers does not match both the letter and the intent of the legislation.

How well it operates in practice is still to be seen, and quite how it will apply to existing arrangements like transfer pricing (what Starbucks does) should create lots of money for lawyers and accountants running test cases.

And I'll say again - if your business does not have a "permanent establishment" in the UK, the fact you sell products or services to UK customers is not enough on its own to render you liable to UK Corporation Tax on your profits. If the UK wants to tax these companies on the profits they make selling to UK customers, they should be prepared to lose out when UK companies make profits selling to customers in other countries and their governments want a share of the pot.

Please don't twist what I said, I obviously was referring to my view of what the position "SHOULD" be, which is why I used the word "should".

I even said it twice. I closed my remarks with
Not really. While the costs in a test case might look a lot, compared with your shopping bill at Asda, they are peanuts compared with the tax take (or non-take) that any precedent would set. And i don't know why you included accountants in that - surely they are the ones already making millions out of setting up these scams and have been for many years?


Interesting but not on the point, I thought we were discussing Starbucks et al, who certainly do have such a permanent establishment, and are liable to UK corporation tax. But don't actually pay any.


You're again completely avoiding the point. Which is that it is hardly a case of any government "wanting a share of the pot" for its own sake, but of a company which is established in Britain making big profits in Britain but by means of accounting dodges paying no tax on those profits in Britain.

If you can give me an example of where the converse might apply, I'll be happy to think about it.

One question that hasn't been asked is: How come UK based idependent Starbucks franchisees can make enough profit to be subject to UK CT, HTF can't the parent (franchisor) company make similar profits?