Pay your taxes you scum - doesn't apply to tax-dodging millionaires or corporations.

[Irish_Tom]

Out of interest, as an example; does BMW pay UK corporation tax on their UK sales or do they pay German corporation tax?

I don't think we need a global flat rate, but I think if you're making money in a certain country you should be paying that countries rates; and that doesn't mean funnelling money made in country x into country y so you pay county y's rates, if that makes sense.

 

[singularity]

They probably pay cayman corporation tax

 

[Von Smallhausen]

I'd be interested to know if stockhausen would pay more tax than he's legally obliged to if he were super wealthy ?

 

[Dark88]

Out of interest, as an example; does BMW pay UK corporation tax on their UK sales or do they pay German corporation tax?

I don't think we need a global flat rate, but I think if you're making money in a certain country you should be paying that countries rates; and that doesn't mean funnelling money made in country x into country y so you pay county y's rates, if that makes sense.

Any profits from their Uk subsidiaries will be taxed in the UK. They'll also be taxed in Germany but they'll get double tax relief for the UK tax.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

There will always someone exploiting the systems in place.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Out of interest, as an example; does BMW pay UK corporation tax on their UK sales or do they pay German corporation tax?

BMW's are imported into the UK and distributed through a franchised dealer networks by BMW (UK) Ltd, a UK registered company which is a subsiduary of BMW AG.

 

[Irish_Tom]

BMW's are imported into the UK and distributed through a franchised dealer networks by BMW (UK) Ltd, a UK registered company which is a subsiduary of BMW AG.

Why did I use BMW?

Do you have a google alert set for this forum and BMW?

So despite BMW being German based they still pay UK tax on their products sold in the UK...

 

[[TW]Fox]

Yes, because they are sold in the UK by companies registered in the UK.

Though if we ignore VAT for a second as this isn't really about VAT, you dont pay corporation tax on products sold you pay it on profits.

 

[Angilion]

Hiding and concealing income is different to moving income.

No, it isn't. It might be treated differently by the law, but it's the same thing. Hiding income from one place by moving it to another place is still hiding it, especially when nothing is actually moving.

If I set up a standing order to move my wages from a UK account to a Cayman Islands account which I could access from the UK as easily as a UK account, should I get my income tax refunded? I shouldn't be paying tax on Cayman Islands money, should I?

 

[Irish_Tom]

Yes, because they are sold in the UK by companies registered in the UK.

Though if we ignore VAT for a second as this isn't really about VAT, you dont pay corporation tax on products sold you pay it on profits.

Yeah, I should have specified 'profits made from the sale of their goods in the UK'. I wasn't thinking about VAT.

 

[Floogie]

It's none of your business because there's no such thing as 'tax avoision', it's just a new buzz word made up by the lefties to make themselves feel like they have a cause.

You're just going to face facts my friend:

If a company is employing Tax evasion, i will join you shouting from the roof tops to bring that company to justice (or at least to put a stop to it)

If they are simply employing Tax avoidance, then it's the government that you should be calling to close loop hole and it's not the companies fault they're taking advantage. If i had a large company I'd be doing the same.

Simple As. Nothing more to it.

I don't know how to make it any simpler as you appear to be unable to comprehend the argument and the point of discussing this is a public forum.

I know there is no legally defined concept of 'tax avoision'. It is simply a convenient term to distinguish 'normal' tax avoidance in the spirit of the law from behaviour which exploits tax instruments and utilises artificial structures/transactions designed to avoid tax in ways the government has not anticipated and which the majority of people feel is immoral. Of course, both are legal in the eyes of the law.

As the latter type of tax avoidance behaviour was not anticipated, the government has not legislated against it. Neither have they sought to preempt this by utilising a GAAR to reclassify this activity as tax evasion. This GAAR will not magically appear. It will only be implemented when the government have more to gain from listening to the public over their puppet-masters in big business. Discussing this is a public forum and bringing the implications of such behaviour to the fore is a very small part to advancing that goal.

While behaviour which should come under a GAAR continues against a growing public consensus by a government that refuses to act, I as a UK citizen, am forced to pay for it making it most certainly my business. Moreover, other businesses that do not undertake such behaviour pay for it too. The only people who tell me its no business of mine are idealogues, multi-nationals and tax professionals who directly benefit from such behaviour.

Companies make a choice whether to use immoral tax avoidance schemes until it becomes too toxic to their brand. That is why, in absence of a GAAR and a responsive government, it is also important to put pressure on such companies until they have more to lose from embarking on this behaviour, reflecting negatively on sales of their goods and services.

 

[Lunawolfy]

Why did I use BMW?

Do you have a google alert set for this forum and BMW?

So despite BMW being German based they still pay UK tax on their products sold in the UK...

Its almost like he can smell BMW!

 

[RDM]

If these major companies didn't avoid paying so much tax, maybe we could afford to have better services and national infrastructure (or tax cuts for us plebs if that's what you prefer). Someone has to make up the money the big corps are not paying ( i guess that'll be you and me then).
Just a thought.

Alternatively their goods and services will increase in price so once again it is you and me that end up paying...

 

[wozzizname]

Alternatively their goods and services will increase in price so once again it is you and me that end up paying...

Alternatively, smaller companies, that can't afford to employ KPMG tax avoidance specialists, find they can't compete against the big boys, go out of business and without the competition the tax avoiders can raise their prices.

 

[Pudney]

No, it isn't. It might be treated differently by the law, but it's the same thing. Hiding income from one place by moving it to another place is still hiding it, especially when nothing is actually moving.

If I set up a standing order to move my wages from a UK account to a Cayman Islands account which I could access from the UK as easily as a UK account, should I get my income tax refunded? I shouldn't be paying tax on Cayman Islands money, should I?

If you don't understand the difference between hiding and moving income I have no interest in discussing anything related to tax with you..

GAAR/Avosion stuff

That's a very long blurb. You do realise a GAAR is under consultation at the moment? And has been since the first coalition budget.

 

[Floogie]

You do realise a GAAR is under consultation at the moment? And has been since the first coalition budget.

Yes I do.

If you look into the proposals, its utterly inadequate due to its limited scope. I don't feel it even counts as a 'general' rule, hence why I ignore it as a GAAR. Aaranson (who wrote the report) said himself that:

"I have concluded that introducing a broad spectrum general anti avoidance rule would not be beneficial for the UK tax system."

This alleged GAAR would only pick up the very worst schemes and also have the effect of further widely legitimising some 'tax avoision' behaviour as sensible tax planning.

Of course an adequate GAAR, which the public increasingly demand, would never have resulted from a proposal devised by a lawyer who earns from this industry in only ever defending tax avoiders and a government which is backed by corporate interests. No wonder the CBI supports it.

 

[Pudney]

Yes I do.

If you look into the proposals, its utterly inadequate due to its limited scope. I don't feel it even counts as a 'general' rule, hence why I ignore it as a GAAR. Aaranson (who wrote the report) said himself that:

"I have concluded that introducing a broad spectrum general anti avoidance rule would not be beneficial for the UK tax system."

This alleged GAAR would only pick up the very worst schemes and also have the effect of further widely legitimising some 'tax avoision' behaviour as sensible tax planning.

Of course an adequate GAAR, which the public increasingly demand, would never have resulted from a proposal devised by a lawyer who earns from this industry in only ever defending tax avoiders and a government which is backed by corporate interests. No wonder the CBI supports it.

Just checking, your initial post made it seem like there wasn't one being debated not that the current proposals are inadequate.

Have to say either way I'm waiting to pass judgement, these things have a habit of changing extensively from one moment to the next.

 

[Floogie]

Just checking, your initial post made it seem like there wasn't one being debated not that the current proposals are inadequate.

Have to say either way I'm waiting to pass judgement, these things have a habit of changing extensively from one moment to the next.

Sorry about that. I just don't recognise the proposals as a 'true' GAAR at all for the reasons I gave. Of course I should also state for clarity that while a GAAR is a very important component, it needs to be part of a raft of measures to tackle this problem, some of which need to be European-wide.

 

[Tefal]

Alternatively, smaller companies, that can't afford to employ KPMG tax avoidance specialists, find they can't compete against the big boys, go out of business and without the competition the tax avoiders can raise their prices.

the don't really compete with the little guys as much as they compete with the other big guys.

 

[aardvark]

Christine Lagarde has said that she has no sympathy for the Greeks and that they should pay their taxes.

I haven't seen any reference to her feeling the same antipathy towards the likes of Boots, Vodafone, Amazon, the Arcadia Group or any number of tax-dodging exiles such as Murdoch and Ashcroft.

you read the guardian too much - which ironically dodges tax itself.