to find the witch hunt against Starbucks, Amazon, Google etc laughable

The thread appears to have been lost.
Private Eye has been trying to get the HMRC to give it info about the number of tax ruses.
It says that HMRC has refused to respond, but of the thousands of major corporation tax ruses set up since 2004, not one has been taken to court or a tribunal.
All have been settled using light touch, often in breach of the department's rules and at immense loss to the taxpayers, i.e. you and me.

Jen The Head of HMRC Dave Hartnett was implicit in these ruses, as Private Eye exposed.
That is what is really shocking. Why hasn't the man been prosecuted?
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/tax-avoidance-party-dave-hartnett

Wow! This thread is a Gransnet Special for deviation.

We are now back on course with the reference to David Hartnett, who is now earning megabucks lecturing business conferences on 'tax planning' - ie. avoidance. I have waited for months for him to sue Private Eye but of course he hasn't dared because they have printed nothing but the truth.

Sorry, sensible posters got ahead of me.

SeL Have been in Bournville for a few days visiting with family .

Did you enjoy New York ?/

Where did you visit ?

How nice of you to remember Nonu Yes, had a lovely time thanks. You wished me sunshine and I got it. I stayed at the St Regis where there were lots of very thin, wrinkleless ladies...I enjoyed lowering the tone

Hope you enjoyed your family visit too!

We did , the "nips are getting Sooooooooooo excited about Christmas now .

Thje lovely part is they will "HERE" , lot work , but hey who cares , we will all muck in ..

They are a lot of very thin , unwrinkled {artifice or not ?] in New York aren"t there ? Unlike a lot of the rest of the States .

But , I am sure you kept the British Flag flying and did not let the side down !!

Anyway really glad you had a lovely time , and managed without the driving license ..

Interesting today Starbucks have today announced they have been in talks with HMRC re their tax position.

It is agreed they were committing no legal offence, a moral one yes. Perhaps the way to go is to 'name and shame'. I do worry about that to the degree some companies would be picked on whilst others would still get away with it. I guess that would be their choice to make though.

I think the likes of Boots for example would be quite damaged as a brand if targeted but that would have been upto them. Likewise any M.P, of whom there must be a few in all parties, should be targeted as with the Jimmy Carr case.

Would it work, who knows but it would be very interesting to watch. Starbucks having the bad press here and the fact France has issued a bill for millions in tax to be paid is certainly having to sit up and take notice though isn't it.

The French do seem to 'look after their own' in ways that we don't. They don't let people mess them around the way we do.

I think having a look at the MPs Register of Interests might be revealing. How many of them are on the boards of the tax avoiders? Or their wives?

It's very interesting that today sporting personalities are asking for tax breaks for them to be able to come to England to compete. They are adament that it costs them to compete here and they are staying away.

There is certainly a case to look at tax and remember that whilst it is obviously emotive to demand higher tax levels for higher earners it can have a detrimental effect and sometimes the bigger picture has to top public emotion.

it would take a b----y brave politician to take on the British Public over this though.

In an earlier thread "Boycotting Amazon", much of the content of this thread was also discussed, with opinions dividing in slightly different ways. I think it was generally agreed that while tax avoidance is not illegal, it IS immoral, though many seemed to think it was pointless to boycott Amazon and others, as it would make no difference.
Imagine my delight to see "roasted Starbucks caves in to taxman"as a front page headline on The Sunday Times today! Starbucks is feeling the effects of a consumer boycott, so there is hope that Amazon, Google and others may also succumb.
The petition being signed by the public to put pressure on the government to support the measures of the Leveson report is a further example of how "ordinary people" can effect change.
Of course the laws should be changed, but public pressure can enhance and hasten the passing of the necessary legislation.
It is not a "witch hunt" to boycott companies whose own accounts reflect the truth of the matter. And by all means, let's have a complete and accurate list!

YankeeGran 'witch hunt' was, I think the phrase I used. The point I was making was that these three companies, known to all, are a mere tip of the iceberg. So your call for a complete and accurate list is exactly what's needed.

Tax avoidance is rife in this country and it's legal. There are 1.5m people who have incorporated themselves, no doubt many are household names. Many British companies employ exactly the same strategies as Google, Starbucks etc. The largest IT company in this country for instance is HQed in India. Why wouldn't they? They have a statutory duty to their shareholders to make as much profit as possible. Any company who operates on a global basis has to have a legal entity in any country where it wants to do business - companies have multiple legal entities and can easily manipulate earnings so's that they end up in the lowest taxed country. Hence, no earnings here - plenty of revenue, but no earnings.

The US, as I'm sure you know, is much more rigourous in it's tax collection - ours has been easily duped.

I know, simplistically, many think companies should pay more - but they are, after all the only means of growing an economy and a major source of revenue for the counry, not to mention employment. I think we have to have a balanced view. Someone mentioned France; their economy is close on basket case status right now and heading downwards thanks to a rampant Socialist Government. We have to do everything possible to hold on to any company that does business here. Yes, Starbucks has made positive noises which is good...they know it's a fairly simple choice for people to make re their coffee shops. Less simple to boycott Google or Amazon perhaps. I think you mentioned earlier in this thread that you were boycotting Amazon and were ordering from Play.com (forgive me if it wasn't you) - Play.com are Japanese owned and operate from Jersey. It's not simple nowadays.

Starbucks are crumbling. (Although they want to talk to the government about how much tax they will pay. Wish we all had that option!)

Sel - hands up - yes it was me that said I was boycotting Amazon and buying from Play.com. I think I said that I wasn't sure of Play's tax position and had my fingers crosssed. Apparently that wasn't enough but at least I am spreading the damage rather than concentrating it in one place . (But in my own defense, I have just done most of my Christmas shopping at small independents on our high street)

My overall point is the exposure of the culture of tax avoidance that seems to have sprung up (perhaps not unrelated to the culture of greed that arose from The City) and while it may be unfair to name the few we know of, like the Saville case, the exposure of one has the potential to expose more - maybe all. And in the meantime all those avoiding tax become aware that there are moves afoot to close the loopholes, while at the same time understanding that the general public finds such practices unacceptable.

While I think we agree about most of this, unlike you, I m not afraid that any of these businesses will upstakes and leave as a result of changed tax positions. No one leaves a cash cow. They'll probably wind up negotiating something with Inland Revenue, a practice which I understand is not uncommon and probably has a lot to do with the incompetence of IR staff to deal with these complex tax matters.

The economy grows from small businesses, most of which pay all legally due taxes because they have no choice, being neither big enough nor rich enough to negotiate with the tax office or to employ expensive tax accountants. They've all had a rough time lately and I like to think that if everyone - and I do mean everyone - paid all legally due taxes, there might be more money to give tax breaks to those people enterprising enough to start their own businesses. Big oaks, etc.

YankeeGran I love it that you said 'hands up' It just seems somehow...right. I grew up watching Westerns so I now picture you in battered chaps

I do agree with your Saville anology and it seems to be happening. I believe 99% of FTSE companies use similar tax avoidance schemes, as indeed they would. If the method is there etc. And I agree, small companies are crucial to the growth of the economy and they don't have the options available to the large ones. It's actually quite amazing just how larges companies can do deals on tax rates, playing off one country against another and how quickly they can move. The 'move' isn't a physical one in many cases so it's easy.

Sel - A good laugh is not a bad start to the week, though the thought of me in chaps - of any kind - is a sobering one!

I am just sooo heartened that enough people in the general public have reacted in a way that has come to the attention, not only of the tax avoiders, but of the government as well. That these multi-nationals are coming under closer scrutiny by the tax office was headline news on BBC Radio 4 this morning. Apparently the govt is allocating funds to Inland Revenue for the specific purpose of examining this whole issue and determining ways to make the transfer of revenues abroad more difficult. If the tax office just enforced the laws currently on the books, it would be a start!

It just shows - and if more people had made their views clear, to their MP's and by a clear boycott - writing to the companies to tell them why - or talking to the manager at Cafés - the effect would have been even stronger.

That reminds me: I haven't had a reply from my MP about this issue of tax-avoiding companies. Has anyone else raised this with theirs?

I haven't either - but as I live abroad, that is not surprising. But they do take note - providing the same issue is mentioned by sufficient numbers.

I do wonder, out of all those here who said boycotting was silly and worthless, how many did write to their MP to express concern and dismay??? Well done you, Anno

It is worth noting that the Inland Revenue does not make the laws just tries to implement them. There is nothing an individual inspector can do if a company is working within the law. I believe six inspectors have been allocated to look at tax avoidance schemes. Pitiful.
It is not so much incompetence on the part of HMRC staff lower down in rank that bothers me but the suspicion of corruption higher up.

The one Show also confirming the huge impact the recent boycott has had- with Starbucks and Amazon now 'begging; to pay more taxes to save their business in the UK. The financial expert on the programme stating that a boycott is the only effective measure to force businesses to take note.

And with the added bonus that local cafés have seen a marked increase in business - again such a positive step towards stopping the 'cloning' of our cities and encouraging local initiative. Hurrah.

Love it when people power gets results

6 December 2012 Last updated at 15:32 GMT
Share this page

Email
Print

1.4K

Share
Facebook
Twitter

Starbucks agrees to pay more corporation tax
Starbucks logo Starbucks has been criticised for paying little UK tax
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

Tax avoidance schemes 'immoral'
EU clamps down on tax avoidance
Is tax avoidance moral? Listen

Coffee chain Starbucks has agreed to pay more UK corporation tax, after a public outcry over how little it pays.

Kris Engskov, managing director of Starbucks UK, announced that the company would pay "a significant amount of tax during 2013 and 2014, regardless of whether the company is profitable during these years".

The extra tax could amount to £20m over the next two years, he said.

But Amazon and Google, also under fire for paying little UK tax, held firm.
'Surprise'

Starbucks' announcement comes after much public anger over the revelation of how little corporation tax it pays in the UK, with some people saying they would boycott its outlets.

The company has paid just £8.6m in corporation tax in its 14 years of trading in the UK, and nothing in the last three years, despite UK sales of nearly £400m in 2011.

Starbucks admitted that the degree of hostility and emotion surrounding the tax issue had "taken us a bit by surprise" and that the move was an attempt to rebuild trust with its customers.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

I think what it demonstrates is that companies big or small do care about their reputation”

John Whiting Chartered Institute of Taxation

How do companies avoid their tax?

"Since we started doing business here, we have always organised our tax affairs according to the letter of the law," said Mr Engskov.

"[But] with the backdrop of these difficult times, in the area of tax, our customers clearly expect us to do more," he said.

Mr Engskov added that the company had found it difficult to make profits in the UK, which has "the most competitive espresso market in the world", despite "two million customers visiting us each week in hundreds of stores across the UK".

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

Starbucks has 760 outlets across the UK and says it contributes "£300m to the UK economy" each year.

In a statement Amazon said: "Amazon pays all applicable taxes in every jurisdiction that it operates within."

And Google said: "We comply with all the tax rules in the UK. We make a substantial contribution to the UK economy through local, payroll and corporate taxes."

Companies pay corporation tax on any profit they make in the UK, not their revenue or takings. Hence allegations that multinationals move money to other countries to reduce how much tax they pay in the UK.
'Reputational issue'

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

"I think what it demonstrates is that companies big or small do care about their reputation," he said.

"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?"

Sadly neither Amazon nor Google are budging- so they won't get my business.