I doubt the Guardian was running scams like setting up a front company in a tax haven, then saying that all the staff had been ‘seconded’ to that arm of the company, so they wouldn’t have to pay any tax or NI on they’re ****ing great big, whopping and obscene bonuses!

Which is exactly what Goldman Sachs were up to. And which was subsequently ruled illegal. Yet they still fought it every step of the way, and still never paid they’re full wack of tax.

Same as Vodaphone, and probably countless others we don’t know about

I can’t believe that you’re that moronic as to defend that position!
You do realise the concept of taxation, don’t you? Because they’re not paying, it means we have too.

And that makes my ****ing dick itch!!!!

TandemJeremy – Member
tax on turnover not profits if you want

Lol

If they are attempting to hide profits overseas. fuzzy – basically don’t let teem getaway with it. Make a profit here, pay a fair tax on it. turnover is much harder to hide

I am waiting for some of these large companies to come together and launch a satellite which they will define as their ‘base’ at a tax rate of 0%. Then move all profits to that haven and export all losses to any country which will minimize any tax they have.

That’s one thing I would ban – moving your losses to the best place for tax purposes. Plain greed.

And what binners said.

*awaits right-wingers to turn up and cry “Will nobody think of the children!?”*

I can’t believe that you’re that moronic as to defend that position!

It’s the duty of every right-winger to defend the indefensible. Hence his automatic defence of greedy financial institutions who like to charge their customers interest, but not pay interest on money due themselves.

There is no apparent comparison between the behaviour of the Guardian and the behaviour of Goldman Sachs. The “mate, do a quick search” suggestion by mcboo, proves he cannot provide the evidence – if all that it required was a “quick” search, then he would do it himself, he certainly appears enough time on his hands to argue the toss.

Criticism of the Guardian by mcboo appears not to be based on fact, but as is so often the case on here, more motivated by a deep and widespread general hostility towards the Guardian. The Guardian’s pseudo-left stance undoubtedly conflicts seriously with mcboo’s farcical right-wing agenda. Therefore the need to make unsubstantiated allegations against the Guardian.

Re Guardian – if a company had owned 49.9% of Autotrader it wouldn’t have been taxable (as companies selling subsidiaries/ joint ventures generally don’t pay tax on the gain, nor do they get tax relief if they sell at a loss). My guess would be that GMG owned Autotrader via something that wasn’t a company, and did something to get the same treatment on the sale of their interest in Autotrader that a company would normally get. Trust law is similar to company law in that the trustees have a statutory duty to protect the assets of the trust, and paying more tax than necessary won’t cover that. And consider who wrote trust law – yes, it’s back to the Government.

I do like the suggestion that a company can just send it’s income offshore at will – simple fact is, it can’t be done at the drop of a hat. The UK has reasonably “high walls” around its tax system so income earned here will pretty much definitely taxable here. There are all sorts of laws that stop you blatantly declaring income earned in the UK abroad.

For a start there are international rules on transfer pricing (the prices companies pay each other for goods and services) that ensure companies in the same group pay third party prices for things (so subsidiary one can’t sell subsidiary two something on the cheap to move profits around).

There are also rules on “controlled foreign companies” that mean a UK company with subsidiaries outside the UK has to demonstrate they have a real business there – if it can’t, the company’s profits are deemed to have been paid up to the UK parent and taxed at a punitive rate.

That said, it’s not perfect and some things are easier to do than others (or more worthwhile). For example transferring intellectual property (patents and copyright for example) to Luxembourg where income from such income is taxable at a low rate. By paying the Lux company a royalty for use of its IP (so you have a tax deductible expense in the UK and income taxable at a lower rate in Luxembourg) you move profits and save tax. BUT you might well find you have to pay some tax upfront on the value of the IP when it leaves the UK, which will conveniently not be mentioned by critics.

Most of the companies that have gone offshore in recent years (WPP and Shires for example) are UK headquartered, but only have a small part of their business in the UK. It simply doesn’t make sense for a predominantly UK company to move its tax residence offshore as it will still pay a lot of UK tax.

you move profits and save tax. BUT you might well find you have to pay some tax upfront on the value of the IP when it leaves the UK, which will conveniently not be mentioned by critics.

so we dont mention the fact that when they save tax they pay less tax …you sure about this ?

Thanks for cropping that there, really helpful. I am making the point that to send assets out of the UK tax system, you often have to pay an “exit charge” based on the value of the asset when it is moved.

So say I had a patent owned by a UK company and it’s worth £0.5m and I want to transfer it to Luxembourg, I will probably pay tax on at least part of the £0.5m when it leaves the UK. I will then pay Luxembourg tax instead of UK tax on the income it generates.

So it’s not a massive tax-saving scam – it’s an up-front cost in the UK for lower tax in future.

And there are risks in doing this – for example the UK rate might come down (as it is doing – heading for 23%) and the special Lux rate could well go up or be abolished, so overall it is a possibility I could end up worse off.

Stu – I’ll lend you a fiver if things get rough. 😉

Do as I say not as I do ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/insideguardian/2008/mar/06/isgoingoffshoregoingoffme

<sniff> <sniff>

cfinnimore – Member
I just want to work & be paid. Eventually, a house and a missus and a kid would be nice.
The rich and elite can do what they like, I only care about my lot and right now “my lot” is not enough.

I’m 24.

Maybe I should try harder…

This is the way it is now, normal hard working folk who will most likely struggle for the best part of their lives despite having an attitude that most of us would commend in our own kids. I have no idea how my own children will ever be able to afford to buy a house, I could spunk my pension & give them a deposit, or I could let them fend for themselves like I had to, except I had it a lot easier than the current generation do.

I think a lot of folk on here don’t appreciate that…

Cheers.