This Issue Is Very Taxing

[Bazile]

Well that's good of them

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20624857


//John Whiting, director at the Chartered Institute of Taxation, told the BBC that Starbucks was trying to protect its image.//


//"I mean, you can say Starbucks depends on its coffee....but a real key thing they depend on, is what people think about them, the trust. Do they like the image they portray?" //

I wonder if Amazon and Google are also now be considering if they like the image they portray .

[LazyGun]

Its good to see that companies can be persuaded to amend their practices in the face of public pressure.

It is clear that this change in heart has come about as a consequence of the threat of consumer action and the negative publicity, and one can only hope that other multinationals follow suit.

I would hope that HMRC still vigorously audits their returns though.

"The extra tax payments will be funded by not claiming "tax deductions for royalties or payments related to our intercompany charges", Mr Engskov said"

Many have pointed out that these royalty payments and intercompany charges are artificial constructs designed to avoid tax.

What is worrying is the suggestion that they will fund these extra payments entirely through changes to the working practices for its employees, rather than from its profits and dividend payments to shareholders......

[emmie]

what makes me want to throw up, not only the coffee, which i think is execrable, is that they bleat on about not making a profit, how can that possibly be. Stick the boot into them and others like Amazon, why should we get whacked every which way for tax, whilst they find every loophole going.

[lcg]

disgusting....as if £10m a year is a decent amount of tax to pay and will make people who have boycotted their stores to come back. personally, i would like to see people vote with their wallets and feet - i know i have x

[Hopkirk]

Why should Google and Amazon follow suit?

It is very easy to switch coffee shops, but the others don't have such obvious competition.

[emmie]

Hopkirk, that is the thing, those two have cornered the market.

[mazie]

I was up in Edinburgh this past week and the Starbucks that we normally use were very quiet compared to 6 months ago. We couldn't get a seat in Costa !

[anotheoldgit]

Whereas everyone should pay their fair share of tax, does anyone believe that if these companies are forced to pay the going amount, it will make any difference to 'the guy in the street'?

No, but how it will affect the 'guy in the street' is the fact that these companies prices will rise, and we all know who will be paying then.

[Goodsoulette]

I agree with AOG :O, I like it, I still go there, its not stopped me getting the off coffee there. I worked for them for a fair while, their rates of pay are much better than Costa so maybe they could shaft their employees for a bit of dosh.

[Zeuhl]

These companies were complying with the rules laid out by HMRC

If HMRC don't know how/ or can't be bothered to engineer or enforce those rules better then that is their fault not the taxpayer's.

So Starbucks will offer up £10 mill - yippee

Pardon me if I'm not over impressed - the government only need another 20 organisations like that and they will have made up the money they p1ssed down the toilet with their West Coast Rail tendering cock-up!

[jno]

as Hopkirk says, Starbucks have rivals.

Anybody here going to stop using Chrome as their browser, to teach Google a lesson?

[venator]

Two sides to the question!

BP and Glaxo both use this dodge to bring their profits into the UK.

Presumably HMRC will come down on them like a ton of bricks...

That's HMRC, who transferred many of their office buildings to an offshore company using another dodge some time ago.

Will they require themselves to pay back the tax they've dodged?

Oh look - a flying pig...

[Zeuhl]

Well the MPs say what these corporations is legal but 'immoral'

Oh yes, those will be the same MPs who complied with their expenses rules even though they knew they were morally bankrupt

[jno]

worse than that, Zeuhl, they didn't - and don't - know it.

[venator]

Tax avoidance is a major UK industry, employing top barristers, solicitors and accountants. They get the best brains because that's where the money is.

The second raters are in the Civil Service, shutting the stable doors...

[venator]

If HMRC could afford a subscription to Private Eye, they could sack half their investigative deadlegs.

[Bazile]

Just as a matter of interest - what do these companies pay in taxes , in other European countries / USA , where they have a prescence ?

[venator]

Peanuts in America, sausages in the EU, i should think.

[Zeuhl]

jno

point taken

This whole issue reminds me of working for a large multinational years ago

there was a team of people who constructed the salesforce remuneration and bonus plan

from day 1 the salesforce found ways to make the rules deliver what they wanted

the head office team took pride in engineering and managing the system to get what they wanted - not in whining that people were cheating

I employ accountants to ensure our firms avoid every penny in taxes we can - our profitability is my primary responsibility. If it is legal it is ethical.

[Zeuhl]

bazile

companies headquartered in some us states eg Nevada
pay no tax at all

[pdq1]

Geo Osborne has just reduced the Corporation tax to 21% in his Autumn statement. This tax is like a race to the bottom to see how low a country is willing to reduce it. The US corporation tax is 40% but that does not stop countries from evading it in the States. I wonder why that is...would they be prevented from doing so? Thes multinationals stink! Look at Fords recently moving their plant to Turkey. Not buying a cup of coffee at Starbucks is futile but if we stopped buying Ford cars that will cause them to sit and think.