Seriously, do we have to be ruled by ignorant buffoons?
The committee said it was \”not clear\” whether the OECD reforms unveiled this month ahead of a G20 summit go far enough to stop big companies, such as Amazon, shuffling sales income from British customers to low-tax countries.
\”It is not yet clear how effective the proposed solutions will be or whether they can be achieved within the [two-year] timescale,\” the committee\’s report, published on Wednesday, said. \”In the meantime, the UK faces the prospect of losing much-needed revenue.\”
Amazon doesn\’t make profits, remember? A loss last year globally, a loss last quarter globally. There just aren\’t any profits to rightfully tax.
George Osborne had hailed the OECD tax reforms – potentially the most ambitious internationally-agreed tax changes since the 1920s – as an \”important step towards a global tax system that is fair and fit for purpose for the modern economy\”.
The OECD reforms promise to put a stop to Amazon routing its £4.2bn annual UK sales through Luxembourg, paying negligible UK tax along the way.
Companies are not taxed on turnover or economic activity. They are taed upon profits: and if you don\’t make any then you don\’t pay tax.
For goodness sake, if we had the Murphmeister\’s unitary taxation we\’d being issuing Amazon with sodding tax credits.
Lord MacGregor , chairman of the committee, said: \”There is a sense that corporation tax is voluntary for some multinationals… while small UK-based businesses go by the book and have to pay.\”
He said the government should consider introducing a destination-based cashflow tax, under which companies would be taxed on profits generated in the countries where their customers live.
But Amazon doesn\’t make any profits!
The committee also raised serious concern that HMRC, the only public body able to see corporate tax returns, has not publicly commented on these cases or the controversial tax deals it reached with Goldman Sachs and Vodafone.
Good grief. The GS case was whether GS should have paid interest on the tax owed or not. No one else in hte case had paid interest on the tax paid: so it\’s entirely arguable whether GS should have done or not. But that is what it was all about. And for £20 million or so. An amount that could indeed get swallowed in legal bills if GS had decided to fight it out.
Vodafone is even more silly as we know very well what the \”deal\” was. V simply didn\’t owe any tax, the £6 billion bill never existed. And V won on EU law as well. The settlement was that V brought some of those offshore profits into the UK in order to pay the dividend. An action which all agree makes those profits liable to UK corporate taxation. That\’s it. There simply isn\’t any controversy here. Well, except that manufactured by a few lying scum that is.
It\’s simply so annoying to find that those who rule the country just don\’t know the basics of what is available on numerous blogs for free.