I thought this was going to be amusing and indeed it is.
A household name has been deliberately loaded with debt so that it no longer has any profits to pay tax on.
Horrors! If someone doesn\’t make a profit then they don\’t pay profits tax.
But of course the people receiving the interest do pay tax upon said receipt, something they don\’t bother to mention.
The UK-based drinks giant Diageo plc has transferred ownership of brands worth billions of pounds, including Johnnie Walker, J&B and Gilbey\’s gin, to a subsidiary in the Netherlands where profits accrued virtually tax-free. Despite average profits of £2bn a year, it paid an average of £43m a year in UK tax – little more than 2% of its overall profits.
And a global company will pay tax in other jurisdictions no doubt: said taxes paid being deductible from UK tax.
Some UK-listed companies which have moved control to Dublin to benefit from Ireland\’s low-tax regime appear to have little real presence there.
Better have a word with the EU over that, that\’s the Bolkestein Directive. Where your HQ is is where you pay tax.
If the TUC estimate of £12bn is correct,
It isn\’t that\’s Richard Murphy\’s estimate which we have pointed out ad nauseam is incorrect.
Despite their efforts to shift profits out of the country and minimise UK tax, the companies enjoy a range of important benefits by being based in Britain and listed on the London stock exchange.
A question….do you actually have to be incorporated in the UK to be listed in London? I know that you don\’t if it\’s a dual listing, but for a primary listing, do you have to be?
I was thinking about trying to put together a refutation of their arguments and perhaps even taking it to a think tank for publication. But if this is going to be the level of their research perhaps it won\’t be necessary.
Anyway, whether or not that happens, try keeping an eye on their whole thing. Especially useful would be a description of any naughtiness….a naughtiness that the Guardian itself uses in its own accounts.