[Closed] Making big companies pay their tax, 'sweetheart' deals, and Vodafone's tax bill

[b][i]"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes..."[/i][/b]

Its bigger to go after one individual defrauding the benefit agency of £1,000 than going after a company avoiding £1 billion in tax.

It does grate ever so slightly when I get a letter from HMRC threatening to send bailiffs in to confiscate and sell items from my home to the value of three hundred and forty something quid. 😐

if only it was a simple as "not paying taxes".

Arguably they maybe ought to pay more taxes - but no-one here or in the press is in any position to know. But what do you expect in a nation with the biggest tax code documentation in the WORLD* when the complexity leaves all sorts of uncertainties as to tax liability.

Simplify the lot, and tax and recover transparently.

* seriously its longer than the indian one!

It's never been that simple for me. We all flipping know they [i]should[/i] pay [i]more[/i] tax. That much, though, is quite plain. I guess they can afford more expensive tax lawyers and accountants than HMRC. This constant obfuscation they perform, which eventually forces HMRC to do a deal is disgusting. The amounts in question are staggering.

The head of Revenue & Customs is to retire in the wake of revelations about his organisation's decisions to waive millions of pounds owed by corporations.

Dave Hartnett, 60, will step down as the permanent secretary for tax next summer, a spokesman said . He will leave with a pension pot worth £1.7m.

The question is, is it [u]his[/u] pension pot he's leaving with?

the complexity leaves all sorts of uncertainties as to tax liability.

That must be what it is then.

And I'm sure that without a doubt, companies such as Vodafone and Goldman Sachs are also regularly overpaying the odd £10 million in tax, what with all the uncertainties as to tax liability.

A friend of mine called me last week saying the Inland Revenue called him
and telling him he owes them £ 4,000.00p he looked into and confused that he does but
this was over years 2002 to 2004 ?

He asked why they did not contact him then ! They replied the Government are now asking
to just now go after the people that owe TAX below the £ 50,000.00p

Inland Revenue demanded the money he simply said I don't have it. They replied
get a loan out and he replied do you know how hard it is to get work right now !
They have now given a payment plan of One year But they constant call him to
see if he can pay the remainder.

The saga began a decade ago when Vodafone bought German engineering firm Mannesmann for 180bn euros.
Wanting to route the purchase through an offshore company to avoid paying UK taxes, it set up a subsidiary in Luxemburg where profits would be taxed at less than 1%.
But it was ruled that the deal broke anti-tax avoidance rules.

I thought this was a fairly common thing to do. Anyone know why Vodafone broke the rules?

Whats really wrong here is the revenue are attempting to prosecute the whistle-blower who put this info into the public domain

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/08/goldman-sachs-whistleblower-threatened-sack?newsfeed=true

I thought that the "behind the scenes" case here was that Vodafone used some "novel" interpretation of the law, whereas HMRC used an alternative interpretation of the law.

Nobody knows for sure who is right, so HMRC settled for a payment of X, rather than a long drawn out battle for Y that there was a fairly singificant chance HMRC would lose in court.

Nobody knows for sure who is right, so HMRC settled for a payment of X, rather than a long drawn out battle for Y that there was a fairly singificant chance HMRC would lose in court.

And this being a very common thing for businesses to do in the case of disputes, nothing that surprising about it.

I'm a little surprised that people are blaming Vodafone for this and not HMRC and the Government for their byzantine tax laws.

Quick edit: A friend of mine works on disputes at a large manufacturing company. He's seen as bringing in revenue for the company when he makes deals rather than losing them money. The chap from the HMRC seemed to be doing a similar thing, but maybe operating a little out of his remit.

Whats really wrong here is the revenue are attempting to prosecute the whistle-blower who put this info into the public domain

Poor wording TJ- 'attempting to prosecute'?

The department are investigating, understandable since confidential documents have been leaked to the Guardian, which is a completely different kettle of fish.

He told the National Audit Office and two parliamentary committees the bank's settlement had been agreed with a handshake by Dave Hartnett, the permanent secretary for tax at HMRC.

Mba believed the deal might be illegal and told them he was making the disclosure under whistleblowing legislation. His evidence led to Hartnett being accused of lying to parliament over his role in the Goldman Sachs deal, which he denied. But he admitted his organisation had made a mistake by approving the deal.

HMRC? I shit 'em! Bastards! At the height of the fianancial meltdown, we were having cashflow issues with the business due to a few clients folding on us. In fact we were desperately doing everything we could to keep our business afloat. We tried to discuss this with HMRC who weren't remotely *ing interested, to say the least!

In the end we paid our tax bill 3 days late due to this. 3 days! That's all. HMRC immediately slapped a £1,500 'surcharge' on us. Which really helped matters. It makes my *ing dick itch when I see Goldman Sachs, Vodaphone et al entering into cosy little arrangements, all decided with handshakes over lunch!

One rule for one.....

ernie - when I say complexity leads to uncertainty, I dont mean miscalculation, I mean different interpretations of tax law. As mrblobby says, if the code is overly complex (usually trying to do too much but also avoid unintended consequences, and failing) then in one corner it's a companies fiduciary duty to make a case for a lower tax interpretation and HMRC in the other corner trying it on from the other standpoint. Then when the handbags come out if a deal isnt done it's off to court and gin all round for the barristers (and then a precedent set which might not necc be in HMRC's favour).

We used to refer to clients who wanted to play that way as "aggressive with respect to taxation". i.e. willing to dance with the tax code and settle for a settle for a better deal either in court or out of court than a strictly conservative interpretation of the tax code might come out at.

Simplify the lot, publish tax calculations and payments,leave no corners to hide in, recover more tax.

HMRC? I shit 'em! Bastards!

Got to agree with you there Binners. They are happy to mercilessly screw small companies and individuals who can't afford to obfuscate their finances or enter into years of litigation. Yet are happy to do deals with big companies to avoid litigation and the potential for rulings against them setting precedents that may lose them more revenue. Does stink.

Doubt any government will ever be brave enough to simplify the lot.

The cleverest and best paid of my ex-colleagues in big law firms are tax lawyers. They are the geeks of the legal world.

It is, as Stoner says, hugely complex (hence the above geeks). And that makes it an ideal area for those who can afford it to take "riskier" approaches to mitigate against tax liabilities.

Heavy tax avoidance (evasion is just an interpretation of law) is a matter of morality. More so, however, is the accepted corporate culture that avoiding (or evading) taxes is the right thing to do.

Leaving aside the rest of his polemics, George Monbiot recently said this:

[url= http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12/12/unmasking-the-press/ ]Though benefit fraud deprives the Exchequer of £1.1bn a year(1) while tax avoidance and evasion deprive it of between £40bn and £120bn(2,3), the tabloids relentlessly pursue the petty crooks, while leaving the capos alone.[/url]

Though benefit fraud deprives the Exchequer of £1.1bn a year(1) while tax avoidance and evasion deprive it of between £40bn and £120bn(2,3), the tabloids relentlessly pursue the petty crooks, while leaving the capos alone.

nice bit of shitstirring rhetoric there by the Monbiot 🙂

Its not hard to accept that prosecuting illegality is going to be far more productive than pursuing immorality regardless of the different scales of the offences!

Bring the immoral into the illegal and THEN get shirty with evasion, rather than whining about avoidance.

then in one corner it's a companies fiduciary duty to [b]make a case for a lower tax interpretation [/b]and HMRC in the other corner [b]trying it on[/b] from the other standpoint.

I dont know the complexities of tax law [nor have I any reason to doubt Stoners view] but i would have to agree with DD

This constant obfuscation they perform, which eventually forces HMRC to do a deal is disgusting. The amounts in question are staggering.

Stoner even your own posts make it clear it may be evasion rather than avoidance so the legality is in question.

mleh.
I shall dust off my copy of My First Thesaurus and work on the neutrality of my delivery.
Im genuinely indifferent to levels of corporate taxation. I just get annoyed by idiots like Monbiot conflating avoidance and evasion, immorality and illegality. Its lazy and appeals to the same dog-whistling as Daily Mail style journalism on the other side.

Id really be quite happy to see a higher total corporate tax take, if it was done by making things simpler and more transparent and reducing the cost to the economy of tha mechanism of raising and paying taxes. Complex tax law wastes everybody's money, corporates and the governments.

I shall dust off my copy of My First Thesaurus and work on the neutrality of my delivery.

Monbiot conflating avoidance and evasion, immorality and illegality. Its lazy and appeals to the same dog-whistling as Daily Mail style journalism on the other side.

I think most people probably view them [avoidance/evasion] as just as bad

and they would be wrong and should be disabused of the idea.

It's akin to feeling the same about someone driving a gas-guzzling, earth-raping, but legal Humvee as someone driving a Prius with an out-of-date VED disc. If the nation find the immoral sufficiently abhorrent then have it made illegal. But dont treat it as illegal until then.

Hey, I never said Monbiot was a neutral on these things!

then in one corner it's a companies fiduciary duty to make a case for a lower tax interpretation and HMRC in the other corner trying it on from the other standpoint.

Technically, no company has a fiduciary duty. However, its directors do. And while they may claim their primary duty is to the shareholders (and so minimising cost). But, one of their duties is a wider one - to consider stakeholders and beyond. And that's where the moral dimension comes in.

And, yes, making the immorality evasion would do the trick nicely. But can you imagine HMRC agreeing to a wholesale reform of the system they have spent so long building up..?!

Technically, no company has a fiduciary duty. However, its directors do

pedant. 😉 but yes, I stand corrected.

And Id emphasise that their "primary duty" is to their shareholders as you say. As for the "wider duty" you invoke, it's more usually framed as a "do no harm" duty rather than a positive "do good to all" duty isnt it? Afterall it cant be a company's (or it's directors) duty to do good to those it doesnt come into contact with, but it's perfectly acceptable to expect them not to harm anyone.

So as long as they don't kill anyone, they have discharged their duty to the society they operate in and profit from?

Brilliant! How could a society possibly request more than that?

usually framed as a "do no harm" duty rather than a positive "do good to all"

So as long as they don't kill anyone

you'd make TJ proud young padawan 😉

I'm gradually learning from the master. Would you like me to repeat it a few times? More stridently maybe? Some links perhaps?

😀

What a coincidence - I got my tax bill this morning. I'm self employed and I don't have an issue with paying tax. However, the tax dodging activities of some of these corporations and individuals [i]really[/i] gets my goat.

Given that Sir Philip Green is a supporter of, and advisor to, the current Govt., I don't expect them to start retrieving what's owed (well, maybe not by companies that supported their election campaign anyway!)

and they would be wrong and should be disabused of the idea.

It's akin to feeling the same about someone driving a gas-guzzling, earth-raping, but legal Humvee as someone driving a Prius with an out-of-date VED disc. If the nation find the immoral sufficiently abhorrent then have it made illegal. But dont treat it as illegal until then.

no wiki: no fact.
them's the rulz.

avoiding your tax burden by either legal or illegal means

If you define "burden" as tax due, then its a legal obligation. You cant "legally" avoid a tax obligation.

[s]If you want to widen the definition of "burden" to be "as much tax as possible give or take whatever George Monbiot thinks is right, and maybe the odd allowance for interest charges but that is it, and definitely no offshore stuff unless its really a factory over there and stuff but anyway, well make it up to a round number and then say that's the moral obligations and its exactly the same as the legal obligation but we dont know how to write it down like that without getting a in a muddle oh well.... "...then you can keep on moving the goal posts as much as you like as long as the write kind of people are acting illegally for your purposes then?[/s]

EDIT superfluous after your edit 🙂

Try George Monbiot first, at least he'd make like he cared what you were saying 🙂

Complex tax law wastes everybody's money, corporates and the governments.

... though it does keep a lot of taxation lawyers employed both at HMRC and big corporates!

I do not know the details of the Vodafone case and haven't got time to find it out. I am also not in favour of a tax system that focuses more on collection from individuals than corporates. However, I am a little bemused by the concept that any company has a obligation, moral or otherswise, to pay anything other than the minimum legal amount of tax. What company has, as part of its strategy, an objective to maximise its tax rate?

Companies have their customers, their employees and their shareholders to satisfy? If any of those parties feels that the company is paying insufficient tax then they can protest - boycott products, leave, sell the shares/vote at AGM etc. Beyond that, I am not sure what else can be done.

Of course, if the legislation is wrong and/or Vodafone is deliberately evading tax, then that is another stroy.

Actually when it comes to corporate responsibility - as has been proved this week, you can quiet happily kill absolutely shit-loads of people, maim loads more, and still be taken on board as a main Olympic Sponsor

mrblobby - Member
Complex tax law wastes everybody's money, corporates and the governments.
... though it does keep a lot of taxation lawyers employed both at HMRC and big corporates!

And made Barc and some of its senior personnel an awful lot of money 🙁

you can quiet happily kill absolutely shit-loads of people, maim loads more, and still be taken on board as a main Olympic Sponsor

What have those bastards at Thomas Cook done now?

I was thinking Budweiser. Have you ever tried it? GAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!

you can quiet happily kill absolutely shit-loads of people, maim loads more, and still be taken on board as a main Olympic Sponsor

Hmm that could indeed apply to a few of the official sponsors.

Hmm that could indeed apply to a few of the official sponsors.

Dow Chemicals

[url= http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/ioa-to-lodge-protest-over-london-olympic-sponsor-dow/1/164530.html ]a little incident in India[/url]

There is a fundamental difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Tax evasion is illegal and is actually generally prosecuted under the theft act. Tax avoidance is not and there is no clear definition of what it is. In my view, there is no all encompassing concept, it is an individual judgement. For instance, some would maintain that purchasing a bike for occasional commuting (but mainly for other use) though the cycle to work scheme is avoidance, others would not. Different transactions will elicit different reactions, some uneducated because they have no knowledge of how the tax system works and some educated and prejudiced (most tax professionals, in my considerable experience, have particular prejudices). The only final arbiter we have is the courts and there is a long line of “tax avoidance” cases.

The fundamental determinate in these cases, is whether the legislation as laid down by parliament is to be interpreted as suggested by HMRC or as put forward by the taxpayer. It is as simple as that, either something is within the law or not.

As far as morality is concerned, isn’t the fundamental problem that the executive is incapable of putting together a system that only the well (and expensively) advised can get to grips with.

P.S. The tax lawyers are geeks generalisation is exactly that, although there was certainly one major firm where the quality of the advice was inversely proportional to the quality of the suit.

Hold on, we've gone from tax avoidance, to binners' business woes, to directors' duties, to arguing polemics, to Thomas Cook killing people at the Olympics..! 😯

Gotta love STW. We might all agree that tax should be simpler and fairer, but we'll have a bloody good argument anyway..!

P.S. The tax lawyers are geeks generalisation is exactly that, although there was certainly one major firm where the quality of the advice was inversely proportional to the quality of the suit.

On the contrary - some of the guys (and girls - at least I think they were) I worked with made actuaries look positively outgoing..!

PS Am ex-corporate lawyer - described by a colleague (pensions lawyer - more geek) as "the second hand care salesmen of the law". She had a point.

Everyone, given the opportunity, will pay as little tax possible.

When you run a business, Tax is like a war of attrition with HMRC. You do everything you can to pay the minimum, knowing full well that HMRC will bend you over and go in dry at the merest whiff of an opportunity. Its a mutual understanding!

What annoys me is that certain companies now seem exempt from the second part of that bargain, while ruthlessly pursuing the former

The straightest path is never the most fun OMITN 🙂

Binners - the revenue do throw the book at big companies, but they have more resources to withstand the assault. Likewise there are occasional special deals - there was a long period when HMRC refrained from doing any deals with large companies, however the chancellor was running out of cash so the head of the section was moved on and great deals (from the taxpayer perspective) got done by everyone to clear the backlog.

Its crazy really that most tax avoidance seems to be funneling funds through front companies in tax havens. I read that News International do this and pay less than 1% of their income. Completely legally. By simply employing the cleverest and most devious bastards in the world as tax lawyers.

The thing is, most tax havens are British territories. If any government was serious they could not stop, but greatly reduce, the amount of tax avoidance. If they were serious

I'm not holding my breath though

Companies have their customers, their employees and their shareholders to satisfy? If any of those parties feels that the company is paying insufficient tax then they can protest - boycott products, leave, sell the shares/vote at AGM etc. Beyond that, I am not sure what else can be done.

Have you read the OP's link to the Financial Times teamhurtmore ? You seem to be suggesting that the status quo is about as good as it's likely to be, and yet the link states :

[i]The news comes ahead of a report next Tuesday by the Public Accounts Committee of MPs which will raise serious concerns about the so-called “sweetheart deals”.[/i]

So the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has "serious concerns" with regards to sweetheart deals. That doesn't sound as if all's well at HM Revenue and Customs to me.

ernie - I think THM was referring to avoidance policies within companies, not necessarily the sweetheart deal process. It takes two to tango and it's surely got to be more effective having the govt change the manner by which HMRC engage with companies than consumers bleating on the steps of an AGM.

For me its simple, we don't make the rules, HM Government does. If they happen to make rules that can be 'read' in differing ways, is it our fault?

And on a more personal level, having been a party to an 'agreement' with HMRC after I'd been ex-pat they took a very pragmatic view - worked for both parties.

And now as a company director, its my responsibility to ensure that the company returns the maximum to its shareholders, consequentially keeping tax paid to a minimum.

On the contrary - some of the guys (and girls - at least I think they were) I worked with made actuaries look positively outgoing..!

Well then we will have to agree to disagree, there is in my experience some truth to this generalization in the medium size law firms where the tax guys were considered as a necessary evil by their main business streams. In the major (or specialist) firms, where they are often major income generators in their own right, it does not hold.

Ernie - yes, I read the link after making my post. So depending on the outcome, I hope that the appropriate sanctions are taken and "sweetheart deals" properly assessed. I am not defending VF (and frankly no very little about it).

Just stirring a little bit 😉 with the general comments, although I believe them. But my usual sparring partner didn't take the Friday bait. He knows when to ignore me these days!!

If a common man has to pay 100% of its TAX back.
Then that should apply to every other business and if that Business can't pay there
TAX then they do not have a Business.