Gransnet forums

News & politics

Tax and avoidance

(23 Posts)
Whitewavemark2 Mon 29-Jul-24 09:49:12

The system set up by the U.K. a century ago may be coming to an end and not before time imo.

“Britain created a loophole that made it a tax haven less than a century ago, when the House of Lords ruled in a case involving a UK company that traded in Egyptian land. The 1929 decision allowed foreigners to set up companies in the UK that would not be considered UK resident under British law because they were controlled from overseas. Crucially, they could be shielded from taxation at source because they were incorporated abroad. That judgment sent history scurrying towards the creation of an “offshore world” of tax havens through which nations compete to offer the least possible corporate tax and the greatest possible secrecy.

Many countries, led by the African Group, are seeking a right to tax economic activity where it takes place. If enacted, this could see the convention, legally binding on contracting states, to require multinational corporations to pay tax where they employ staff and do real work, instead of in tax havens where they hide profits. Many countries, led by the African Group, are seeking a right to tax economic activity where it takes place. If enacted, this could see the convention, legally binding on contracting states, to require multinational corporations to pay tax where they employ staff and do real work, instead of in tax havens where they hide profits.

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, pointed out this month: “Tax avoidance has impeded governments all over the world from providing basic services to their citizens, contributing to global inequality, which is at an all-time high. Fewer than 3,000 people hold nearly $15 trillion – equivalent to the annual GDP of Germany, India, Japan, and the United Kingdom combined.”

The U.K. through its dependents and overseas territories is responsible for 25% of tax dodging.

Historically the U.K. began this mess and should show responsibility and help clean it up.

It is time for principles to be put over profit

Dinahmo Mon 29-Jul-24 10:57:15

Good idea. Thanks WWM2

Whitewavemark2 Mon 29-Jul-24 11:08:43

It’s not my idea😄😄.

I think it is hoping to be amended by the UN.

The USA, U.K. and EU initially tried to block it, but I think that our new government should support.

The rich nations have benefited from this rule for a century. Which means that poorer nations are not able to tax wealthy companies profiting from trade in their country, snd using this to fight climate change, poverty etc. for which we have largely been responsible.

GrannyGravy13 Mon 29-Jul-24 11:17:15

I would like to know how many of the Leaders of these so called deprived countries have squirrelled away their money in offshore accounts…

They need to sort out the corruption and HR’s issues on their own doorsteps.

I do agree that there needs to be a discussion as to when and where taxes are payed in relation to where the money was generated.

Whitewavemark2 Mon 29-Jul-24 11:22:14

GrannyGravy13

I would like to know how many of the Leaders of these so called deprived countries have squirrelled away their money in offshore accounts…

They need to sort out the corruption and HR’s issues on their own doorsteps.

I do agree that there needs to be a discussion as to when and where taxes are payed in relation to where the money was generated.

But I think that the principle of taxing where the economic activity/supply takes place should remain key.

How that country deals with their revenue is not for us to judge.

We are not “giving” these countries anything - it is imo rightfully theirs, and not ours.

Grantanow Mon 29-Jul-24 14:32:12

However much the UK cleans up tax evasion and avoidance I'm sure there will be escape hatches for bigwigs of all kinds.

HousePlantQueen Mon 29-Jul-24 14:46:06

But I think that the principle of taxing where the economic activity/supply takes place should remain key

Absolutely!

choughdancer Mon 29-Jul-24 15:07:00

HousePlantQueen

*But I think that the principle of taxing where the economic activity/supply takes place should remain key*

Absolutely!

I agree! Let's hope the new government does something about this.

Chocolatelovinggran Mon 29-Jul-24 15:12:45

Why would anyone disagree with the statement of taxing where the activity takes place ? I can't see where corruption/HR breaches is relevant in this matter. That is a conversation for a different forum, surely?

Whitewavemark2 Mon 29-Jul-24 15:27:06

Chocolatelovinggran

Why would anyone disagree with the statement of taxing where the activity takes place ? I can't see where corruption/HR breaches is relevant in this matter. That is a conversation for a different forum, surely?

No, because that is exactly what is not happening in many countries in the world.

So a company sell its goods/services in this country, generating income and profit, which is normally taxed by this country, but because they are registered and controlled overseas no tax is due at present in this country.

More information

“Last year, the EU Tax Observatory said that, in 2022, corporations shifted $1tn – 35% of the profits they earned outside their home countries – to tax havens, with governments losing out between $240bn and $600bn annually. In 2023, the seven biggest US pharmaceutical companies paid no tax in America on global profits of more than $40bn. Wealthy nations are complicit in such avoidance. Despite growing corporate profits, the effective tax rate companies face worldwide has declined by a third since 1975. Poor nations, desperate for cash to deal with environmental and fiscal crises, are the biggest losers. Lower-income countries’ tax losses ($47bn) are equivalent to half of their public health budgets.”

GrannyGravy13 Mon 29-Jul-24 15:31:41

As I said in my previous post there needs to be a worldwide discussion on where taxes are paid in relation to profit generated.

No point in doing the U.K. acting unilaterally as it would simply drive big conglomerates elsewhere.

GrannyGravy13 Mon 29-Jul-24 15:32:23

No idea where doing came from 🤷‍♀️

Chocolatelovinggran Mon 29-Jul-24 16:02:31

Sorry WWM - I didn't make myself clear.
I was referring to the post by GrannyGravy of 11.17, which I misunderstood. I see GG has clarified her point at 15.31 and I agree with this.

spabbygirl Wed 31-Jul-24 12:49:57

Whitewavemark2

GrannyGravy13

I would like to know how many of the Leaders of these so called deprived countries have squirrelled away their money in offshore accounts…

They need to sort out the corruption and HR’s issues on their own doorsteps.

I do agree that there needs to be a discussion as to when and where taxes are payed in relation to where the money was generated.

But I think that the principle of taxing where the economic activity/supply takes place should remain key.

How that country deals with their revenue is not for us to judge.

We are not “giving” these countries anything - it is imo rightfully theirs, and not ours.

great explanation whitewallmark2 which I sort of knew but not as clearly as you put it. Is this why some people wanted to leave the EU? I know there were rumours about the EU changing the current practice some time before they did it.
Its a good move to correct a long term injustice, as I see it.

David49 Wed 31-Jul-24 14:30:39

One of the large beneficiary countries is Ireland their low company tax rate is home for many EU businesses.

You cannot compel any sovereign state to comply with UN rules or laws so it’s a nonsense.

Probably the largest avoidance is done by online companies trading overseas, Google Ebay Starbucks and the rest are skimming billions from everyone.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 31-Jul-24 15:01:27

David49

One of the large beneficiary countries is Ireland their low company tax rate is home for many EU businesses.

You cannot compel any sovereign state to comply with UN rules or laws so it’s a nonsense.

Probably the largest avoidance is done by online companies trading overseas, Google Ebay Starbucks and the rest are skimming billions from everyone.

Be pleased if you would explain why you think the UN initiative is nonsense.

So at present, by convention companies are allowed to register their company in a low tax regime country, and declare their activities in that country in which they are registered. Often this is merely an address.

All trading activity and profits may be made in another country, but at present no tax is due in that country because of the loophole.

The UN are looking to overturn that convention and accepted practice. A lot of countries will support this.

David49 Wed 31-Jul-24 15:09:46

Be pleased if you would explain why you think the UN initiative is nonsense.

Because there will always be countries that do not adopt that policy.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 31-Jul-24 15:13:49

David49

Be pleased if you would explain why you think the UN initiative is nonsense.

Because there will always be countries that do not adopt that policy.

Yes of course, but if the principle is laid down that the tax is due on where the actual supply is made - including services - then countries in say Africa can tax that supply and gain revenue, and not watch that revenue disappear, or go to another usually wealthy country.

David49 Wed 31-Jul-24 15:25:41

It will be interesting to see if the US adopts the principle that online “profit” is paid in the country of trading

Madmeg Wed 31-Jul-24 17:53:28

I always understood that a company was taxed in the country in which its decisions were made, e.g. the place where board meetings were held. I agree this might not be the most appropriate place to tax but it is not simply anywhere that the tax rate is low.

There is also the complicated of double tax relief where a company is taxed on its activities in a particular country but given a deduction for tax paid in other countries.

Dinahmo Wed 31-Jul-24 23:11:03

Madmeg

I always understood that a company was taxed in the country in which its decisions were made, e.g. the place where board meetings were held. I agree this might not be the most appropriate place to tax but it is not simply anywhere that the tax rate is low.

There is also the complicated of double tax relief where a company is taxed on its activities in a particular country but given a deduction for tax paid in other countries.

It's not that complicated. It's similar to that used for individuals. I'm resident in France and as such am liable for tax on my world wide income (if I had any). If I had a UK employment pension - NHS, teaching etc the UK would tax it at source - but I would also have to declare it in France and it would be included in the calculation of my French tax liability. I would receive a credit against my French liability for the tax deducted in the UK so that I would not pay tax on the same income twice.

jocork Thu 01-Aug-24 09:33:40

I became aware of Starbucks not paying tax in the UK so decided to withhold my business from them. However sometimes it can be difficult to boycott a company because the alternatives are much less convenient. Yesterday I drank a starbucks coffee for the first time in years as I was on a long drive and felt myself about to fall asleep at the wheel. It was the last point to stop before the motorway, with just petrol and a starbucks. I didn't enjoy the coffee but I needed to have it. However the lady behind the counter was lovely and the air conditioning was just what I needed. We need to make choices about who we give our business to though, and that means educating ourselves about these matters. I know I'm not aware of all the companies I should avoid as proper research is time consuming, but I try in my own small way.

Sadly the gap between the haves and have nots is widening as the rich find complex ways to increase their riches and the poor get further left behind. I would love to see these things change, but the big corporations will always find ways to get around paying as much tax as many would consider to be fair.

David49 Thu 01-Aug-24 09:54:27

Not that difficult, we don’t buy off Amazon at all, they don’t pay tax in the UK and they don’t treat employees or contractors well either.