Maybe, but I really don't see why HMRC don't just look at the profits in the accounts, and land them with a whopping great tax bill, on the basis if they want to enter into artificial schemes involving associated companies based in an attic in Luxembourg then that's fine, but does not affect their tax. They would have to pay that tax, and if they wanted to appeal through the courts and persuade a judge that it really was all genuine, and not at all an associated companies scam for no purpose other than to save tax, well, crack on, and good luck with that.

"...and the screams of torment at the next shareholders meeting could be heard from every vantage point in the land, and those screaming the loudest were the very ones who had once thought that their job in parliament would lead to riches untold when they took the pension out."

I agree.

It can't be beyond the wit of even HMRC to know that the price Starbucks UK pay Starbucks Geneva for coffee is vastly inflated. HMRC are great at assuming a level of profit with SMEs, there's not reason similar assumptions cannot be transferred to larger enterprises.

Similarly, if they look a little closer at Walkers Crisps, they may find even more opacity in accounting. From 1948, when Walkers first started frying, they have paid UK Corporation Tax on their profits, until the takeover by Pepsico in 1999. Walkers still buy their potatoes from British growers, they even source their flavourings from British sources too. Unfortunately this once profitable company no longer generates profit from its UK operations.

Now one could assume that the usually shrewd Pepsico got it's acquisition strategy spectacularly wrong with Walkers, alternatively one may think that even though the potatoes are still grown by the same farmers and trucked to the same factories, the fact that they are bought by Pepsico in Switzerland and then sold on to Walkers UK, may give some clue about transfer pricing. Alternatively, I suppose Pepsico may have seen the plight of potato farmers in the UK and decided they would pay way over market price for the best spuds.

Either way, the UK exchequer is being robbed blind

Predictable leftist view with no balance.

Greece has a culture of tax avoidance and corruption spread across the population. €28 Billion of tax evaded in 2009 was by the self-employed alone.

Economists estimate that 2million private sector workers are carrying the brunt of the tax load while 1 million public sector employees and 1.3m self employed escape almost financially unscathed.

Chief offenders of the self employed are the professionals - education, engineers, accountants, etc hardly oligarchs.

Then there is the corruption that the OECD estimates in 2009 the size of the Greek grey market was €65 Billion. This was equal to 25% of GDP or €20 Billion in unpaid taxes. The Greeks have the expression "fakelaki" or little envelopes which is the term for bribing the many corrupt public servants.

Greece should never have been allowed to join the Euro zone. The irony is that the country who will not allow any debt to be written off is Germany who I believe is the only European country to have had half their debts (from two world wars) written off in the last 60 years.

Back to the present and quite how an election could have been won with a policy of promising to default on your national debt is worrying. A policy to renegotiate is fine but where do they think the money will come from. If the EU does agree to write off some debt there will be a queue forming behind Italy, Portugal and Spain with their hands held out.

They would have been better not taking the bail out and ditching the failed euro.

Didn't fancy trying to revive this account on the Mitchell thread then?

Not with two lots of legal fees to pay LOL

As a right winger surely you must applaud the tax avoiders.

Isn't it right wing dogma that taxes must be avoided at all costs and yet here you are spouting forth that this is wrong!

Seems to me that as usual you talk the right wing line without having a clue how the system works.

By the way any nearer giving answers to my previous questions?

The right wing line is about wealth creation and rewarding those who create that wealth. The stakeholders are: shareholders who risk their capital, directors who manage the shareholders' investments, employees who benefit from the first two, suppliers likewise and their employees, the general population through taxation - no way of avoiding Employers NI and VAT. The right wing model creates wealth that benefits everyone, what is wrong at the moment is the spread of the wealth generated. If this isn't resolved then you will have anarchy - something Cameron doesn't understand. That's what happens when you have rich boys who have never had a proper job.

It could be much worse - you could have a socialist/marxist/communist system that stunts development still spreads wealth unevenly and dictates to its citizens how they live their life.

Capitalism has its faults but its a hell of a lot better than any alternative out there.

Wrong. Because I am not a left winger or that I contest your cosy mutual leftie backslappers club opinions does not therefore make me a right winger. Right of centre for most things left of centre for other issues.



So this proves your judgement to be wrong and by your own rules I am therefore not a right winger



I merely seek to prick the leftie hot air bubble.



Remind me which of your confusions you would like clearing up?

So what are we saying here ... Greeks are ... erm ... [ipathologically corrupt?[/i

[iPodemos[/i on the march in sunny Spain.

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31072139[/url