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

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.

I was having trouble picking one from the list that could be used ironically 😯 . Thomas cook seemed to be the only one, unless theyve been doing in chavs on package holidays and nobody told me 🙂

Dow Chemicals

a little incident in India

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 :

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”.

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.