Gransnet forums

News & politics

Google to pay £130 milion in backdated UK tax

(73 Posts)
Elegran Fri 22-Jan-16 22:15:49

Google to pay £130 milion in backdated UK tax Ten minutes ago

tanith Fri 22-Jan-16 22:17:48

Well that's a start I guess.

gillybob Sat 23-Jan-16 09:26:50

Which probably means they "owe" at least three times that amount and have (as many large corporations do) come to an agreement with HMRC.

It stinks. Did anyone watch the documentary on The Caymen Islands last night? All of the biggies have registered offices there in order to avoid paying Uk tax. Including Tesco, Amazon, Manchester United etc.

Jane10 Sat 23-Jan-16 09:40:51

Well that's £130 million we didn't have yesterday. Its a start!

petra Sat 23-Jan-16 10:06:08

It's an insult. If that 'gesture' happened in any other circumstance I would throw it in their face.
I would rather they stuck 2 fingers up than throw these crumbs.

Charleygirl Sat 23-Jan-16 10:07:18

I think I worked out this morning that Starbucks is paying less tax than I am! How can that be fair- especially as I am not paying 40%.

Jane10 Sat 23-Jan-16 10:19:08

Petra - its not like we couldn't use £130 million! It may not be all they are due but its setting a precedent that other big corporations might (should) follow. Its a multi million pound start!

Luckygirl Sat 23-Jan-16 10:34:37

The 6 year investigation into Google's tax fiddles probably cost as much as they are being asked to cough up!

GillT57 Sat 23-Jan-16 10:35:07

The important point is that the tax avoidance measures employed by Google, Starbucks et al are not illegal; immoral yes, but not illegal so surely the changes should be coming from the Treasury? I know I keep going on about it, but I pay more corporation tax than The Ritz.......bonkers. While governments of all hues look after their buddies and their future directorships it will always be thus. The only way we can force change is by refusing to use the companies involved, although this is very difficult when it comes to Google and Amazon who lets face it, are good at what they do. These sweetheart deals arranged between HMRC and companies stink. Yes, £130m is better than nothing, but we shouldnt be dependant upon companies deciding that it is good publicity to pay some tax, even though they dont have to. I would like to see someone, anyone, take on The Chancellor in The House of Commons and ask what he plans on doing to stop these loopholes. I would also like to ask how Osborne and Little have not only not paid any corporation tax for the past 12 years, but have also got a rebate!

granjura Sat 23-Jan-16 10:44:26

Hear hear Gill- people throw their arms up in the air in disgust- then say 'but I still use them because they are useful, I like their products, etc'!!! Just don't get it. Boycotts DO WORK - but totally agree that these loopholes should be closed legally.

durhamjen Sat 23-Jan-16 10:50:30

From Richard Murphy who was the first one to start writing about Google's tax affairs in 2009.
The £130 million is for over ten years back-tax.

durhamjen Sat 23-Jan-16 10:52:37

A follow up to the previous link.

durhamjen Sat 23-Jan-16 10:53:15

Richard Murphy is saying that the UK itself is a tax haven.

durhamjen Sat 23-Jan-16 15:00:28

Another company that does not pay tax. In fact it makes money from the taxman and the NHS.
This should not be acceptable.

durhamjen Sat 23-Jan-16 16:11:39

Gillybob, I watched the Cayman Islands programme.
Interesting watching the governor tout for her job.

The gist of the programme was that the tax haven was set up by the UK government in the 50s or 60s, and the UK government could change the law to close it down if they wanted to. However, they will not, will they? That's how Cameron senior made his money.

durhamjen Sat 23-Jan-16 16:26:13

Even Tory MPs are attacking it.

gillybob Sat 23-Jan-16 18:36:20

Oh Durhamjen it made me feel sick to see the poverty that poor lady was living in (the one that was about to lose her house) when just a short distance away it was business as usual for the multi millionaires and billionaires. With no welfare state to fall back on I felt really sorry for her.

Getting back to Google etc. it is fair to say that they have not paid any tax in 10 years and so the last labour government (2010) did not collect it from them either. I wonder how many champagne socialists exploit the tax rules? I honestly don't think the very rich of any political persuasion will be any better.

GillT57 Sat 23-Jan-16 19:56:47

Gillybob I dont think politicians of any hue come out of this tax avoidance scandal very well. This does not, of course, make it ok for the situation to continue. The difference now I think, is that we know about it, through Facebook Twitter or by links posted on GN ( thanks DJ). The situation with GE is truly disgusting, and I wish that someone in the opposition, anyone of any party, would stand up and challenge this situation and bring it to the notice of those who do not know. Although we can choose to not use Google, not use Amazon, not use Boots the Chemist ( the list gets longer and longer) we cannot choose to not be scanned by GE equipment. I am truly disgusted by this situation, time for another letter to my MP methinks.

durhamjen Sun 24-Jan-16 00:19:07

You can bet your life that Blair exploits it.
The first MP to do anything about it will get lots of kudos.
The present Labour party is at least taking notice of real economists. In fact they are going to organise classes for people who want to find out more about economics.
John McDonnell does not pretend to know more than he does, and is willing to learn from experts about how to finance the country. He says he has been campaigning about tax havens for over fifteen years.

I agree about GE and other private healthcare companies. Virgin takes profits offshore too. However, the problem with healthcare as with many other companies is that we do not know how much they make out of the NHS because of commercial confidentiality.
I think there is a debate in the Commons about making all companies that take profits from public money declare their finances in a more open way.
It should have been like that from the start.

I agree with you about that woman and her family, gillybob. The lesson is whether we are going to go that way, by making the UK itself more of a tax haven than it already is.

durhamjen Sun 24-Jan-16 22:12:46

It's a con. To do every country out of all the tax it is owed.
Typical Tory deal, to benefit business and not the tax payer.

whitewave Sun 24-Jan-16 22:15:32

HMRC are useless. To timid. It would never be allowed in USA.

durhamjen Sun 24-Jan-16 22:21:37

"Osborne & Little reported pre-tax profit of £722,000 on a turnover of £34 million and incurred a corporation tax charge of £179,000. But the accounts for the year to March 2015 showed it ended up paying precisely zero ‘United Kingdom corporation tax” as the company was able to claim for “timing differences” from previous years that offset the £179,000. In fact Osborne & Little has not had to pay any UK corporation tax for the last SEVEN years as it has claimed for “capital allowances”, “adjustments in respect of previous years” and historic losses – even as the company generated a total of over £200m in sales between April 2008 and March 2015.
Osborne & Little actually received a corporation tax credit of £12,000 in the year to March 2010, and the last time it handed over any corporation tax was for the year ending March 2008.
Nevertheless the unnamed highest paid director (almost certainly Osborne’s baronet father) got an inflation busting 18% pay rise to £684,000 just a year ago despite a flat financial performance."
- See more at:

Anyone buy Osborne and Little wallpaper or fabrics?

whitewave Sun 24-Jan-16 22:22:45

Too expensive

durhamjen Sun 24-Jan-16 22:22:55

That's why all the US firms are trying to relocate to the UK, whitewave.

durhamjen Sun 24-Jan-16 22:26:13

"A member of the Treasury Select Committee, Mark Garnier, says Google’s taxation issues are complex, the implication being that complexity is a mitigating factor.

I would have thought that transparency of tax requires transparency of accounting assumptions.

Luckily we now have the previous CEO of the British Bankers Association chairing the Office for Tax Simplification."

Is it a coincidence that Dickensian is on?