Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

It would be a massive step forward if that ever came to pass and benefit quite a few countries who are getting screwed silly by the multinationals.

Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

Thomson holidays has just announced it's yearly profits. Was stated they don't pay corporation tax either:frown:

I don't do Starbucks and have never ordered anything from Amazon but if I did I would boycott them...not sure if I could boycott google, how else could I prove that my OH is wrong:rofl:

Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

A Tui spokesman added: "We have no profits chargeable to UK corporation tax because they are all eliminated due to capital allowances, losses brought forward from prior years as a result of restructuring, and cost incurred as a result of the ash cloud in 2010.

Perfectly legitimate ,been there done it. On a much smaller scale:rofl:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20590961

However keep a watch on them in future years.;)

Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

I watched the interview and got the impression that they could stand any outstanding liabilities of companies they had taken over against their own profits to reduce tax, yet not necessarilly be responsible for those same liabilities.

Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

the typical Mother not responsible for the daughter mentality whilst taking all the profits up the pyramid.

I can understand it giving a bit of flexibility for the small business that suffers losses etc but these mega-corps play it to the maximum, leading me to believe it should be limited to a certain turnover. However, the financial definition of an SME
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/polic...n/index_en.htm
will include a number of "large" companies.

One from the corporate history books was GEC, back in the Arnie Weinstock days, where the Mother at the top of the pyramid was primarily the holder of the money. He even started his own untility companies, selling Gas Water & Electricity to Group companies at a profit, charging them rent on the group owned properties as well as on any properties rented. All profits went up the pyramid and it was apportioned out like "dole money" to those that needed it.

`

Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

Just received my first order from Marks & Spencers new euro website. Very pleased prices in euros compared very well to the £ prices on the UK site, free delivery and a 20% introductory discount.
Then I spotted on the delivery note that this very British Company has set up its new euro arm to be registered in Dublin :thumbdown:

Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

Is that a problem? Why would it want its euro business HQ'd in a non euro country?

There's no such thing as a British company these days, they are all multinational! And at least M&S pays its fair share of corporation tax in the UK (27%).

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/t...p-8395967.html

Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

perhaps Dublin offered larger incentives than anywhere else in the EU.

`

Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

Maybe but I don't think so, they've had stores in Ireland for ages, and M&S Online was available there (in euros) long before it was launched in Spain.

Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

I imagine the incentive is that the corporation tax is cheaper. The product is all shipped from the UK. They've stopped shipping to europe from the UK website. Presumably to make sure all non UK sales go through the irish HQ now.
Of course Pocaloca is right - most companies these days are multinationals. If M &S are expanding good for them. I don't have a problem with it. I just think it's interesting that everyone is bashing US companies when UK ones are doing the same thing.
Wonder what will happen if the UK govt tries to change the tax rules.

Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

IIRC Dell's EU operations (including UK) are in the Freeport area at Dublin Airport. Dublin is also the home for many International company operations including McAfee

I am sure there are good commercial reasons for doing what they have done, after all many companies, Boots and BodyShop have EU specific websites. (although should not be surprising as the Alliance side of Alliance Boots is larger than the UK portion, but owned by KKR of the US)

Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

Isn't this the point? perhaps I was misleading in my use of the :thumbdown: It wasn't so much a :thumbdown: against M&S but against all the fuss about who pays tax where. Half the companies that people think are British are owned of partially owned by foreign companies anyway.

The other day there was a big 'news' item about Virgin Airlines. Delta Airlines bought 49% of it. What was the headline - Branson only has 51% now. BUT he only had 51% anyway because Delta bought their stake from Singapore Airlines so in terms of 'british' ownership nothing had actually changed.

Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

I think the thing in UK has been that some of the overseas Co's haven,t been paying the required tax and using the system to avoid it. Which I believe is not illegal but deemed unethical? There are various tax incentives in place in the EU, corporation tax etc put in place by different countries, so I don't suppose we should be at all surprised when these companies make use of them, ethical or not.

Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

Not surprising, but definitely not ethical! It really isn't fair on small businesses who pay the full rate of tax. How many independent cafes have been put out of business by Starbucks? It's supposed to be a "free market", but the odds are stacked against the little guy.

Now, thanks to pressure from groups like UK Uncut at least we know what's going on and can choose not to use these companies.

Re: Tax Avoidance ?
 

the same thing applies to maritime business.
The British Merchant Navy is just a shadow of its former self, but there are still ships ploughing their furrows through the seas, only they are larger, and more importantly owned by multi-nationals, registered and operated from the most cost effective off-shore location.....

Branson still has the majority holding and airlines are chopping and changing to get their hands on lucrative landing slots around the world.

Alliance Boots have their registered office in Zug, Switzerland, with the operational hq in Nottingham, but as said earlier KKR own the bulk of the company.

The problem is that it is big business for accountants to handle such companies business, assisting them to shuffle their registration and profits around the world. IMO if you operate in the UK, Spain, Belize, then the profits generated should be taxed in that country. That is the only way the customer gets any form of buy back in the form of (theoretically) reduced personal taxation.
It is right to say that companies like Starbucks etc who charge massively for their product that are not paying any tax have a positive advantage over Rosies Tea House on all fronts. They have the money in the back pocket to advertise nationally instead of the local WI and Church free sheets. Also they can afford to make the corporate brand sit up and beg.

see my earlier comment about GEC - if the daughter co is buying from the mother co and mother is off-shore then not only does that money go off-shore but also daughter gains tax relief on costs, even though they are off-shore.

perhaps in another life I should come back as a corporate cost and management accountant
:sneaky: