Tax avoidance ....while services cut ?

[Feck]

http://www.channel4.com/news/topshop-pr ... eens-taxes

and what the police are doing to help !

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/0 ... ver-police



http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/

[Santa_Claus]

Good one. way too much business in the UK.

Everyone should work for the council.

[Feck]

Good one. way too much business in the UK.

Everyone should work for the council.

Troll !

[charlou]

But seriously, this

Scotland Yard has deployed undercover officers to spy on a network of activists whose viral campaign against tax avoiders threatens to close down hundreds of shops in the run-up to Christmas. The surveillance officers were first used at a protest in October, the Guardian can reveal, despite an assurance given to parliament last year that only officers in full uniform gather intelligence at protests.

umm WTF? Why the sneaky attempted deception?

[Feck]

umm WTF? Why the sneaky attempted deception?

Because obviously people pointing out that big companies are defrauding the nation is a terrorist act ! And the police are there because protesting is virtually illegal now .

[charlou]

Protecting tax evaders while cutting back on services ... No wonder they want to be sneaky.

[Santa_Claus]

Just clicked on the links - websites don't actually explain how this tax bill arises. I suspect because they don't understand.

Most corporate tax planning involves accountants and lawyers simply because the tax laws are so f#cking complex - the motivation is usually not to dodge tax, but simply to make sure what is due is paid and is known BEFORE deals / investments are made. Only an idiot would run a business without knowing the tax consequences beforehand. But because tax can be so complex their can often be no simple black & white answers - so disputes arise, and are settled through legal processes. IMO a far better approach than arbitrary decisions via Twatter, based on the principles of ignorance and snot fair.

[Feck]

so Santa what you are saying that because the actual deals stuck by top companies are secret then we cannot comment , do small businesses get to farm out their wealth to tax havens and then NEGOTIATE how much tax they pay !
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... sour-taste

[Feck]

Where does the £6 billion figure come from?
The story first originated in the current affairs magazine Private Eye (1273, 3-16 Sept, 2010) and then spread to other outlets. Read the story here.

The issue started when Vodafone bought the German engineering company Mannesmann a decade ago for €180bn, using an offshore company in Luxembourg. Private Eye says:
An epic legal battle began, with Vodafone resisting the taxman’s efforts to get all the information on the deal and arguing through the courts that the British laws striking out the tax benefits of its deal were neutered by European law which granted, Vodafone claimed, the freedom to establish anywhere in the EU (including its dodgiest tax havens) without facing a tax bill.
The battle continued until last year when the HM Revenue & Customs’ (HMRC) head Dave Hartnett, known to be “friendly” to big multinationals, moved the case to a department more willing to cut a deal.
The fruits of these talks, conducted without consulting HMRC’s litigators and specialists in the tax law concerned on the chance of success in the courts, was a bill for Vodafone of £800m, with another £450m payable over five years and, remarkably, an agreement that the arrangement can carry on into the future with a promise of no challenge from HMRC. The Eye understands that the settlement also swept up several other Vodafone tax avoidance schemes.
The amount of money forgone is estimated to be £6 billion.

Vodafone owe money not just to the UK taxpayer but also in India, where a court rejected their appeal (reg. reqd.) and asked them to pay $2 billion in tax for buying an Indian company. The charity Action Aid says that money could feed lots of starving people in India.



But the HMRC said it was an ‘urban myth‘?
One former Revenue & Customs official familiar with the case told Private Eye it was an “unbelievable cave-in”.

As ThisisMoney.co.uk explains, the man who negotiated on behalf of Vodafone for its tax settlement – John Connors – had worked at HMRC until April 2007. When Vodafone hired him, he simply moved to the other side of the negotiating table on this matter.

As Richard Murphy said at the Guardian, days after it was announced, Osborne was promoting Vodafone in India – a visit that must have been agreed before the tax announcement was made on 23 July.

Forbes magazine blog also says there is a lot that doesn’t sit right with the issue.

The settlement also signalled a “more conciliatory approach” at the HMRC, said the Financial Times in July, and coincided with Chancellor George Osborne’s pledge to make Britain “open for business”. Osborne said the rules, demanding multinationals are more transparent about their tax structures, added too much red tape.

The watered down deal allows the HMRC to claim ‘success’ at wringing something out of Vodafone at least. No wonder they want to dismiss this as an ‘urban myth’.

[Santa_Claus]

so Santa what you are saying that because the actual deals stuck by top companies are secret then we cannot comment

You can comment all you like. can even tax companies and folk as much as you want.

[Feck]

The tax levels are set by Parliament who are meant to be accountable .You can argue about the levels if you like but for you to call it Ignorance and snot fair is typical .

Dodgy under the table moves by a company that put it's UK work force on a pay freeze and fired 500 of them this year and have our Governments support for not paying their taxes in India now as well . You think that's all fair and right ?

And as for taxing 'folk' the tax burden for individuals might be less if international companies actually paid the taxes that they should do ?
And you think it's ok for parliament to be lied to about what the police actually do ?

How is any of this democratic ?

[Azathoth]

Invade monaco. Tax the fuck out of it. Problem solved

[PsychoSerenity]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11918873

Police in Brighton made 16 arrests in the city, where protesters glued themselves to the windows of a Topshop store.

[Meekychuppet]

Just clicked on the links - websites don't actually explain how this tax bill arises. I suspect because they don't understand.

Most corporate tax planning involves accountants and lawyers simply because the tax laws are so f#cking complex - the motivation is usually not to dodge tax, but simply to make sure what is due is paid and is known BEFORE deals / investments are made. Only an idiot would run a business without knowing the tax consequences beforehand. But because tax can be so complex their can often be no simple black & white answers - so disputes arise, and are settled through legal processes. IMO a far better approach than arbitrary decisions via Twatter, based on the principles of ignorance and snot fair.

Once again you manage to demonstrate the understanding of a simpleton. If you think that this bollocks is true then you are so far gone it's hard to imagine what manner of nonsense ploughs though your head. Are you REALLY trying to suggest that companies do not minimise their tax liability so that more money goes in their collective back pocket?

Although I have to say that so far I've read your alleged expertise on various aspects of the law, government spending, cuts and fiscal policy, and now you claim to know how every corporation in UK thinks and operates.

Why are you here? You could make millions consulting in thew business world.

Wait, I forgot. You're full of shit.

[Pensioner]

Just clicked on the links - websites don't actually explain how this tax bill arises. I suspect because they don't understand.

Most corporate tax planning involves accountants and lawyers simply because the tax laws are so f#cking complex - the motivation is usually not to dodge tax, but simply to make sure what is due is paid and is known BEFORE deals / investments are made. Only an idiot would run a business without knowing the tax consequences beforehand. But because tax can be so complex their can often be no simple black & white answers - so disputes arise, and are settled through legal processes. IMO a far better approach than arbitrary decisions via Twatter, based on the principles of ignorance and snot fair.

Once again you manage to demonstrate the understanding of a simpleton. If you think that this bollocks is true then you are so far gone it's hard to imagine what manner of nonsense ploughs though your head. Are you REALLY trying to suggest that companies do not minimise their tax liability so that more money goes in their collective back pocket?

Although I have to say that so far I've read your alleged expertise on various aspects of the law, government spending, cuts and fiscal policy, and now you claim to know how every corporation in UK thinks and operates.

Why are you here? You could make millions consulting in thew business world.

Wait, I forgot. You're full of shit.

Come on Meeky give the guy break. I will leave it up you which leg you deicide to jump on.