Seen the Starbucks profit thingie?

The story confirms everything that us sensible people were saying.

Starbucks UK is now in profit, as a result of having negotiated some leases downwards and disposing of others.

That is, there was no tax dodging, they simply weren’t making a profit as they’d overpaid for their leases.

Apologies from the phantasists, in 3…2….1

100 thoughts on “Seen the Starbucks profit thingie?”

  1. No, the story will be that as a result of his principled campaigning Starbucks have stopped their accounting shennanigans and reported the correct position and tax has been paid. Although not enough, but it is a start.

    Once again Ritchie has spoken truth to power and he has been vindicated.

    Candidly, any other explanation is neoliberal sophistry.

  2. It has been reported that their statement refers to ‘changes in accounting practices’ which doesn’t help.

  3. So you don’t think the negative press provoked a shift in accounting practice and therefore proving that the whole structure is purely there to avoid tax.

    What’s worse is that twats like you defend it.

    It’s hardly patriotic speaking as an ex UKIP failure.

  4. “Arnald

    So you don’t think the negative press provoked a shift in accounting practice and therefore proving that the whole structure is purely there to avoid tax.”

    It’s possible that negative press in 17th century Salem caused people to stop picking health-beneficial herbs early in the morning, not because they really were witches but because ignorant twats (your forefathers no doubt) were burning people at the stake for witchcraft.

    What’s worse is the way the ignorant twats must have gloated and cheered in smug self-satisfaction as another ‘witch’ burned.

  5. AC

    I’m sure there’s no gloating, just a mock surprise at such a change of direction. It maybe coincidence…but it really isn’t, is it.

    GlenDorran

    “Complying with EU tax laws?”

    Yeah, and with every other breath most people on here spit at the EU and its bureaucracy.

  6. Arnstie – you’re being very waspish rather early in the day which is great fun – if you could get a little originality in there too it would be ace.

    Example: that ‘UKIP failure’ bit? Yawnsville!

  7. “Yeah, and with every other breath most people on here spit at the EU and its bureaucracy”

    So?

    People are complaining about the behaviour of a company which appears to be implying with the law. If you have a problem then campaign to change the laws.

  8. I suppose the people on the other side of the renegotiation, the people who were charging “too much” for the leases, will now make less profit and pay less tax. I wonder if this is positive or negative for HMRC.

  9. Arnald:

    so you think that a company would renegotiate leases because they wanted to pay more tax, not because they wanted to make more profits?

  10. I suppose if the leases were key, the question would be if the leases were owned by another part of starbucks and their pricing was part of a tax avoidance scheme. I have no idea about the answer and not enough interest to actually look.

  11. “then campaign to change the laws”

    Which are EU laws, and support for the EU is usually taken for granted on Arnald’s side of things.

  12. Land Taxers such as myself were saying that Starbucks were being screwed by the property/land owners just like the young families in London.
    Since government of all parties have roped older voters into the landowning scam by offering them big tax free capital gains in their ratty little houses both retailers and young families are being right royally fucked. As also is the entire economy because consumers are paying too much in rent and mortgage repayments to buy the goods and services produced by the working population.
    You lot love it though.Or in extreme cases think that the landed interest in this country is being controlled by Stalin and his right hand man, Clement Attlee.

  13. “Murphy called on Starbucks to join the Fair Tax Mark scheme, of which he is a director”

    They should. The LHTD would then be duty-bound to defend them.

  14. If they were to apply, then surely either they are granted the mark and he has to start being nicer to them, or else he will have seen confidential details of their tax position and so will be conflicted out of commenting on them… 🙂

  15. @DBC
    “Since government of all parties have roped older voters into the landowning scam by offering them big tax free capital gains in their ratty little houses ”
    Couldn’t agree with you more.
    But why a Land Tax?
    What’s virtuous about cycling surplus value back to the governments?
    There’s a much simpler remedy. Cease credit creation. If there isn’t the money available to fund property price rises then property prices will not rise..

  16. GlenDorran

    “If you have a problem then campaign to change the laws”

    Isn’t that the point Murphy keeps making? He’s campaigning for laws to change.

    Jack C

    “and support for the EU is usually taken for granted on Arnald’s side of things”

    On certain things yes, but I can’t see how you’ve extrapolated about “taken for granted”.

    MB

    I’ve used the “failed UKIP” thing twice. How precious of you.

  17. “Arnald
    December 16, 2015 at 10:05 am

    So you don’t think the negative press provoked a shift in accounting practice and therefore proving that the whole structure is purely there to avoid tax.”
    Possible. Can you prove it?

  18. “Isn’t that the point Murphy keeps making? He’s campaigning for laws to change.”

    If that was all then I would have more sympathy, but thats not all he does.

    He shouts and blusters about individual companies’ behaviour despite not knowing their circumstances, and stays *just* on the right side of accusing them of criminality. Those accusations he leaves to the likes of UKUncut and other shrill voices.

    He stokes up the lynch mob with innuendos and speculation, and does nothing to correct their wild excesses.

  19. GD

    “and stays *just* on the right side of accusing them of criminality”

    And? Worstall does that type of thing all the time. And why are you defending behaviour? What have those companies got to do with you?

    anon

    “Possible. Can you prove it?”

    No, but I can support campaigns that call for greater transparency, to keep those companies honest.

    That’s hardly an extreme stance.

  20. Arny old iron

    Is it better to be a ‘UKIP failure’ or a stool pigeon do you think?

    Where have you been anyway – you went off the radar for a few weeks – reporting back to your paymasters?

  21. “What have those companies got to do with you?”

    Personally, I’ve nothing at stake with Starbucks, Amazon, Vodafone other than being a customer.

    My industry has been on the receiving end of similar smear jobs in the past. Spending time correcting misinformation and lies is expensive, time consuming and ultimately costs customers money.

  22. “There’s a much simpler remedy. Cease credit creation. If there isn’t the money available to fund property price rises then property prices will not rise..”

    @bis: Really? I know that house price inflation has been judged to have a relationship with mortgage availability, but I think that if credit was harder to get hold of from banks, you’d just see other kinds of borrowing emerge- mortgages between individuals, more businesses buying properties with corporate cash to house staff/ sole directors etc.

    Or to put in more simply: when legal lending falls, the sharks emerge

  23. @Arnald

    “I can support campaigns that call for greater transparency, to keep those companies honest”

    I thought it was HMRC’s job to keep companies honest about their tax affairs. Are you saying you’d understand a company’s tax affairs better than HMRC if you had the same access to information that they had?

    That’s quite a bold claim from someone who has so far on here demonstrated little understanding of the complexity of the UK tax system. I mean, I’m a full time tax professional with 28 years’ experience and I wouldn’t claim to understand it all.

    If a HMRC specialist in (say) patent box taxation said that a company had a clean bill of health, I’d accept their word. It’s a narrow, specialist field. But if only companies were more open you’d be able to tell if a tax comp was wrong or right? And the baying mob armed with bricks ready to smash a few shop windows would be hanging on your word? waiting for your verdict.

    Sounds like a great way to carry on.

  24. @Arnald”No, but I can support campaigns that call for greater transparency, to keep those companies honest.

    That’s hardly an extreme stance.”
    Do you think that the Inland Revenue is incompetent?
    BTW why do you think that people made a fuss about Starbucks but not Guardian media group not paying tax

  25. Oh for goodness sake. It’s not that the IR incompetent, it’s the laws that allow the loopholes. Loopholes need closing. Christ you’re thick sometimes. It’s a far wider issue but you insist on narrowing it down to the semantics of a sentence.

    Oh and AndrewC, when have I ever commented on the technical issues? My opinion that the rich are treated differently to everyone else is based on observation, not spreadsheets. Why are you always so dull?

    Like it or not, the conversation around tax cheats and sociopathic barstards like you defending them, has progressed.

    Laws need changing. That’s what campaigns are for. In these cases campaigns are fought against faceless MNCs, your witterings about how noble they are in the face of protest shows how deep you swallow.

  26. I don’t buy the Guardian, anon. I read a bit online because it has the best design, that’s about it.

    I understand that the GMG/Apax sale of [something about motoring?] and the fact that those headquarters are in Cayman fall right into the same bracket as all the others. Not sure how GMG got partnered with Apax PE, but the vehicle is def one that PE uses.

    The content of The Guardian is not overseen by GMG. It has criticised it’s parent company’s affairs. It is not hypocritical for a newspaper to attack tax dodgers. In fact better that than saying everything is right with the world.

    Of course it is.

  27. “My opinion that the rich are treated differently to everyone else is based on observation, not spreadsheets. ”

    But they aren’t treated differently.

    The rich,including large companies, are likely to have complex financial arrangements. Therefore paying accountants and lawyers to structure them correctly makes sense.

    The option of paying accountants and lawyers to structure your affairs is open to everyone. As most people are on PAYE then it doesn’t make any sense to do so.

  28. Mildly amused that the LHTD’s blog is blocked as unsuitable by the web filters of the Big 4 company whose network I’m using. Don’t tell him, for god’s sake, he’ll think that it’s a badge of honour because they’re scared of him talking truth to power or somesuch self-serving cobblers.

  29. Arnald,
    It’s the assumption of malice that’s wrong.

    Amazon will certainly attempt to minimise tax, as it’s a cost. Their business model is simple: Reduce costs = lower prices = more sales = more scope to reduce cost = lower prices, ad infinitum.

    I’m a couple of years out of date with Amazon, but do know that their internal targets for 2013 didn’t mention corporate profit at all (there were above 600 targets in total).

    Of course, it’s still a business, but consumers benefit whether tax is paid or not.

    CT is looking shaky in a global economy, however that does not mean that companies taking advantage (within the law) are doing anything wrong.

    Bullying and/or intimidating workers is not the solution. And turning a blind eye to favoured companies, such as GMG, Stemcor and the Co-op, does not signal virtue.

  30. @Arnald “Oh and AndrewC, when have I ever commented on the technical issues? My opinion that the rich are treated differently to everyone else is based on observation, not spreadsheets. Why are you always so dull?”

    A bit like how witches were found out by observing their birthmarks.

    If expecting accusations against people and calls for the law to be changed should be backed up by evidence is ‘dull’, I’d rather live in a dull world than one populated by foaming at the mouth retards.

  31. Jack C

    “It’s the assumption of malice that’s wrong.”

    Why? Is it ok for people to read malice into practically every woman on the planet, the SJWs, politicians, charities, human rights, the EU, socialists, columnists, Murphy, foreigners, and the rest, like they do on here?

    After all, tax dodging does deprive a country of revenue.

    “But they aren’t treated differently.”

    Yes they are. If you have the money then you get different treatment. It’s the same as if you walk into Harrods and declare yourself rich, you’ll get the works in order to sell you stuff.

    Don’t believe me? Have you seen the lengths finance companies will go to attract business? It’s a military operation, no expense spared.

    If I walked into the same private bank, for instance, I’d have to fight to get an application form.

    Don’t be naïve.

  32. “I’d rather live in a dull world than one populated by foaming at the mouth retards”

    Don’t bring Mr Ecks into this.

  33. Flatcap Army

    Should you be revealing that information on a thread where a Classic Stool pigeon is so prominent?

  34. Andrew C

    I think the kind of societies Lawrence of Beria would like to promote are best summed up by a quote from Beria himself:

    ‘You find me the man, I’ll find the crime’

  35. Oh for god’s sake. I was talking about equal treatment under the law; you are just observing that being rich opens up opportunities.

    Seriously, if that’s what you are complaining about then it’s you that’s naive.

    And don’t try to lecture me on how big finance companies work matey.

  36. Arnald,
    “Why? Is it ok for people to read malice into practically every woman on the planet, the SJWs, politicians, charities, human rights, the EU, socialists, columnists, Murphy, foreigners, and the rest, like they do on here?”

    Two wrongs don’t make a right, and all that. Besides, not everyone on here is guilty of that all of the time.

    As it happens, I find Murphy pretty loathsome, but I don’t regard his charitable funding and comfortable life as taking money from the starving poor.

  37. “After all, tax dodging does deprive a country of revenue.”

    Up to a point Lord Copper.

    Do you mean dodging as in legal avoidance?

    In Amazon’s case, tax minimisation reduces prices to consumers, and reduces CT due in Luxembourg. I doubt the UK is losing from this.

    More to the point, and this is very important: If a company is paying all of the tax due, then there is no tax avoidance. None. No money lost.To anyone.

  38. GD

    “And don’t try to lecture me on how big finance companies work matey”

    I’m not lecturing. I’m just saying what they do.

    Jack C

    “More to the point, and this is very important: If a company is paying all of the tax due, then there is no tax avoidance. None. No money lost.To anyone.”

    Yeah like a mining company paying tax in Jersey for their South African operations. Don’t be a dick.

  39. VP

    “I think the kind of societies Lawrence of Beria would like to promote are best summed up by a quote from Beria himself”

    You’re just fucking senile.

  40. @”Oh for goodness sake. It’s not that the IR incompetent, it’s the laws that allow the loopholes. Loopholes need closing. Christ you’re thick sometimes. It’s a far wider issue but you insist on narrowing it down to the semantics of a sentence.”
    If the IR doesn’t say “this or that loophole needs closing” then it is incompetent.
    Alternatively you could be wrong.
    @”The content of The Guardian is not overseen by GMG. It has criticised it’s parent company’s affairs. It is not hypocritical for a newspaper to attack tax dodgers. In fact better that than saying everything is right with the world.”
    Nothing to stop voluntarily paying the tax that was avoided.

    BTW I don’t drink at Starbucks or read the Guardian.

  41. Arnald,
    “Don’t be a dick”.

    Not sure what I earned that for?

    Anyway, I think you’re wrong. The only amount of tax due worth talking about is the legally required amount. Bringing in “morality” is specious, as then there’s an infinite number of possible answers.

    Do you think Amazon avoid tax, or not?

  42. Jesus wept. We have well qualified experts, with extensive experience, in the intricacies of corporate tax, arguing with a business support pawn from a Guernsey Government Quango which exists courtesy of the revenue paid largely by the Offshore finance industry.

    Don’t lower yourselves into inflating his ego by letting him think his deluded crap has any basis in reality. Ignore him and he’ll eventually fuck off and bother some other poor sods.

  43. “Alternatively you could be wrong.”
    .
    Or the IR knew about the loopholes and decided to do nothing about them. I guess that could be classed as incompetence, but turning a blind eye is more likely the outcome of regulatory capture.

  44. Can the IR do anything about loopholes because, be careful, one man’s loophole is another man’s tax policy?

    Isn’t that something for our beloved representatives in parliament?

    I thought the IR merely implemented the tax policy.

  45. Jack C

    Are Amazon sales and delivery made from the UK? Is it not a well known trick to avoid tax by making it appear that no profit is made from trading despite the huge sales. Their market advantage is tremendous, and they are brilliant sometimes, but the smoke and mirrors and accounting practices make the UK look like mugs for hosting them. Companies like those are the real parasites.

    Worzel

    Being an ‘expert’ is one thing, having judgement is another. The ‘experts’ on here are quite happy to allow as much chicanery as possible to deny the exchequers of those countries where the actual business takes place. You defend sharp practice and money launderers by association.

    Still, if that floats your boat, I’m happy to call you a wanker.

  46. bb

    “I thought the IR merely implemented the tax policy.”

    They are able to make deals with corps, aren’t they?

  47. Arnald

    So “a well known trick” means following EU law as intended?

    And the value of Amazon isn’t the tax it does or doesn’t pay; its value is that we all get to use Amazon if we so choose.

    I don’t think Amazon can in any way, shape or form be described as a parasite.

  48. @ Arnald
    The man-hating harpies are a tiny, repeat tiny, percentage of women on the planet.
    You really ought to get out more.

  49. “Arnald
    Are Amazon sales and delivery made from the UK? Is it not a well known trick to avoid tax by making it appear that no profit is made from trading despite the huge sales.”

    Many Amazon ‘sales’ are not Amazon’s at all. Amazon is a market place, you can offer goods for sale through the Amazon website. Amazon are agents, doing their agenty thing in Luxembourg. If you are a UK retailer selling through Amazon you will pay UK tax on your profits. Amazon will get a commission, taxable in Luxembourg.

    Other goods Amazon supply direct from overseas. If you order a book posted to you from a bookshop in Berlin, where should the bookseller’s profit be taxed? I’d say Berlin. If you want to say the UK because that’s where the customer is, what about all the stuff your hero Murphy talks about paying tax to support the infrastructure that supports business. How much will the UK have contributed to that Berlin bookshop’s infrastructure?

    It’s not a well known trick to make it appear no profit is made here in the UK. It’s a fact that no profit is made here in the UK.

    That you don’t know the above, that you obviously haven’t even considered it shows how far removed from the reality of the situation you are.

    And you want the company’s books opened up so you can sit in judgement in them?

    Might as well get a pig in to give a verdict on Michelin star cooking.

  50. @Arnald

    Yup, its within their remit. They don’t do deals the rules don’t allow them to. If there is any doubt, that’s what the courts are for. And sometimes they go to court too, and on top of that, sometimes they lose.

    Tax is ever more complicated, to the point that often not even the IR can be sure what is right and there the ball is clearly in the politicos’ court.

  51. ““I’d rather live in a dull world than one populated by foaming at the mouth retards”

    Don’t bring Mr Ecks into this.”

    “Scene: Outside the Grand Viziers Palace on the magic isle of Gurn-Sea. An obviously emotionally disturbed ragamuffin–Arladdin–once a Royal Informer–but now a penniless prostitute–sorry-destitute–rubs his Brass Neck and cries pitifully:

    “Oh–is there no one who can help me –for I am a simpleton fallen among the wise and I know not whereof I speak!”

    In a flash of smoke a dark figure appears–for today he is fashionably a person of colour–a magic Jinn:

    He speaks–

    “Call on me Oh Gurn-sea Fuckwit and–just like the Candyman–I appear.

    Ask for nothing
    For nothing you deserve
    But a job as a Barista
    And ever after you will serve
    Starbucks will prosper
    But you will fail and die
    To found one morning
    Face down in banoffee pie”

    The curse pronounced the Genie is gone leaving only a wailing, whining leftist behind.

    Next Week: Dick Murphington–Lord Mare of London.

  52. “but the smoke and mirrors and accounting practices make the UK look like mugs for hosting them”

    So we should turn them away?

    There are many companies that trade across borders, and they’ll have a base in one country. The UK hosts many of these, so be careful what you wish for.

    I’m not sure what the law is, but I wouldn’t have thought it legal for the UK to refuse Amazon a UK operating presence. Restraint of trade or something?

    Why-Oh-Why gets you nowhere in a law court.

  53. After all my work, wanker is the best you’ve got ? I don’t usually respond to mentalists, but in this case I’ll make an exception.

    Arnald, you’re like a puppy. You don’t know what the fuck is going on, you just know that if you shit all over the place, eventually somebody will pay you attention. If you had an ounce of integrity, you’d get out of the Offshore finance supported drain on Guernsey’s resources where you presently work, and fuck off to some socialist paradise where cunts like you can all shout platitudes about ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’ at each other whilst the country goes down the shitter.

    You don’t have ‘judgement’. Judgement would imply some level of knowledge. You have ill informed, primary school Level, class and wealth envy derived, ignorant anti-corporate, vague, opinion. I’m genuinely shocked that anybody with a modicum of intelligence would engage with you for any other reason that to insult you.

    Its like watching people wail on a sick animal. You’re not going to get better, and I struggle to understand why they feel good about beating you.

  54. “And you want the company’s books opened up so you can sit in judgement in them?”

    No, not me. The relevant authorities. That’s what they’re for.

    I’m aware how the third party arrangements work. Do the majority of transactions occur with the seller? Most often the seller will be buying shelf space in the warehouses.

    But what you’re saying here is that Amazon is just a big voluntary organisation there to deliver goods quickly, that they don’t gain anything by having its delivery centres in the UK and that they could do exactly the same in any country so we should be thankful etc etc shows how far up yourown arse you are.

    The very idea that a business running in the UK isn’t actually making any profit because of a three man office in Luxembourg is counterintuitive. You know damn well that Amazon does very well indeed in the UK. It would move if not, wouldn’t it? The UK tax laws allow this, though the practices should be challenged to see if they are properly legal. and campaigners want to shine some light on them.

    Your dogged defence of these poor put-upon companies is bizarre. You actually want people and corps to run down the UK. Maybe that would encourage a revolution led by Mr Ecks? You’d like that, wouldn’t you?

    Meanwhile you’ll snipe from a corner getting more and more bitter as you near death.

  55. In fact Numbnuts, this country run by me would turn out to be a Golden Age–a demi-paradise of freedom and prosperity. The only people upset would be leftist and RoP types who want their crazy evil imposed on others.

    You spend too much time listening to your own batshit
    propaganda Arnald.

  56. But the company’s books are open. They are obliged to be. Even my shi**y little company’s accounts are available for my competition to pore over.

    Given Amazon’s declared objective of total domination of the retail market and their decision to invest in growth, it is hardly surprising that they haven’t been making annual profits in many places.

    I know this subtlety escapes many of my leftie friends. But companies which do this (usually any large chain in growth phase) will have low profits. Gaining critical mass is the strategy. Amazon just take it to the extreme, so convinced of the superiority of their model.

    Why do people invest in them? Currently for the capital gain. As they get bigger and things go to plan, the shares go up. One day there may even be dividend.

    In the meantime, the personal income tax of the employees, the business rates, the NI contributions, the investment in warehousing, VAT paid on ‘leccie and other supplies etc. are all welcome, as is the real benefit:

    The ability to purchase ‘The Joy of Tax’ in less than 30 seconds without getting off the toilet!

  57. “The relevant authorities”

    That’s HMRC. Who do have access to or the power to get all the information they need.

    So you can stop frothing at the mouth about it and calm down.

    I’m not the one who sounds bitter, why should I be? The tax world’s far closer to how I want it to be than how you wish it was and I’m days away from my Christmas bonus, earned by saving my clients lots and lots of tax.

    Merry Christmas.

  58. @BiS
    By recycling the surplus, because inflationary, value of land back to the government by LVT, you can cut by a corresponding amount all taxes on productive effort whether on wages or profits. That is the line pushed by followers of American reformer Henry George who, believe me, was no Socialist, to say the least, being a diehard anti Chinese racist.
    You cannot abolish credit creation else the money supply would never expand to allow for the expansion in supply of goods and services.You can give the supply of credit back to the state by negating the private sector banks who create credit and charge interest on it while pretending to have lent on their customers’ savings.This would save a huge amount in the public sector borrowing requirement whereby the government pays the banks to create money which they could just as easily and more properly create themselves.
    This all a bit basic ,you know.
    For starters LVT is the tax simplifier’s tax of choice (see Mark Wadsworth) obviating tax fiddles such as those being argued about here.

  59. Arny Dream will do:

    I guess this is yet another thread where you have ‘conclusively won’ the argument despite being made to look utterly stupid and profoundly ignorant by more than a dozen posters – nice work!

  60. “The UK tax laws allow this”

    It’s EU tax law, I think, and there’s nothing the UK can do about it at this exact moment.

    Amazon are not actually making great profits. They’re re-investing it all.

    Do you actually have a change in mind that would solve the problem you think there is?

  61. DBCR:
    “You can give the supply of credit back to the state by negating the private sector banks who create credit and charge interest on it while pretending to have lent on their customers’ savings.”

    There’s no pretending, as I’ve pointed out to you before.

    As I’ve asked you before, entirely pleasantly, but you disappeared:

    1) You do realise that there are constraints on banks “creating” money?

    2) You do realise that there are constraints on governments creating money?

  62. That’s DBCR gone again. If you don’t want him around, just ask him a reasonable question.

    What an absolute twat.

  63. @JC
    What I am writing is orthodox beginners’ level Economics. You just offer ad hominem abuse at the shitting yourself with anger level.
    Give everybody a short reasoned critique of BoE Bulletin ” Money Creation in the Modern Economy” without throwing yourself on the carpet again.

  64. Evidently Arnald didn’t make the cut for tonight’s “Guernsey’s Got Talent” night in St. Sampson despite a rousing rendition of The Ballad of Gypo Nolan during the tryouts. Now he’s taking it out on us.

    It’s OK, Arnald, you’ll always have a career as confidential informant to fall back on…

  65. Having a warehouse in a country is not regarded as having a ‘presence’ which is the rule Amazon largely relies on in not being a UK company while still operating in the UK.
    This isn’t just a UK rule and as far as I can recall its not even a EU rule but a geographically wider rule in various tax treaties.
    Now we can all decide if we agree with this definition or not, but that’s irrelavent as its the law and Amazon and plenty of others (including UK companies with foreign warehouses) are doing nothing illegal or even ‘dodgy’.
    As for accounting changes there are a couple of reasons
    The standard on leasing is currently going through review and possibly Starbucks are adjusting their policy to match proposed changes/interpretations which is an entirely sensible approach.
    There may have been some change in the structure of the business or even the leasing arrangements that promoted changes
    Companies and auditors regularly review decisions about applying standards and occasionally make changes, standard due diligence and nothing suspicious
    There could likely be a few more reasons if some thought was put into it, though a good conspiracy doesn’t need facts
    Just occurred to me that Starbucks runs its own shops and franchises, not sure how that’s structured in the UK, but in the past they have taken over franchises and changes to that split of ownership/franchise (and if Starbucks held the lease not the franchisee) could easily lead to changes in accounting

  66. At the risk of either silence or a stream of ad hominem vitriol, I would invite Arnald (and others) for their opinion and analysis of the points that I have made on the ability of governments to tax MNCs and mobile individuals in our modern world https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-UN-deny-membership-status-to-tax-haven-states-if-they-are-considered-the-major-sources-for-money-laundering-mis-invoicing-and-other-illicit-money-flows/answer/David-S-Lesperance

  67. @ David S Lesperance
    You puncture the argument with your choice of definition of “tax haven”. Everything else is detail.

  68. Not really, john77, David’s definition omits the fact that “tax haven” jurisdictions deliberately legislate to create vehicles and structures that exploit loopholes in other jurisdictions’ tax rules.

  69. @ Arnald
    David’s choice of definition punctures the argument. You want to use a different definition of “aggressive tax havens”.
    Fortunately you do not get to control the English language.

  70. Bloke not in Cymru – it’s a combination of UK rules and OECD ones.

    The OCED model treaty says that maintaining a stock of goods for delivery is not a permanent establishment, and the specific treaties that the UK negotiates follow that model.

    I think it’s an obsolete view: it assumes that distance selling is an activity which is going to be only ancillary to your main business, which would require closer contact with customers. The internet has changed that underlying assumption.

  71. David SezLez–Who wants to join a bunch of fucking leftist crooks and wannabe world government power-grabbers like the UN anyway.

    Tax havens should spend a portion of their well-deserved wealth acquiring nuclear weapons–lots of them. So as to be ready to back down or thrash any socialist thieves who think to come calling.

  72. Not really, john77, David’s definition omits the fact that “tax haven” jurisdictions deliberately legislate to create vehicles and structures that exploit loopholes in other jurisdictions’ tax rules.

    So, Arnald, what you’re actually objecting to is that the jurisdiction’s exercise of self-determination doesn’t meet your lofty moral standards. Never mind that freedom always means freedom to differ.

    You really are a fascist cunt.

  73. Peasant

    I didn’t say any of that. I merely pointed out an omission in the definition.

    It is up to the country that is losing out to tax havens to close the loopholes.

    You are simple.

    Mr Ecks

    Are you impotent? Has it been a long time since you’ve had any sex?

  74. @Arnald

    ““tax haven” jurisdictions deliberately legislate to create vehicles and structures that exploit loopholes in other jurisdictions’ tax rules.”

    Can you give an example of this?

    No, I didn’t think you could.

    Tax rates are pretty much all that needs legislating to create an attractive low tax base for particular operations.

    Then you rely on applying tax legislation exactly as it is written. No loopholes required.

    You’ve admitted you don’t know anything about tax law or practice.

    I admit I don’t know anything about nuclear physics.

    But I don’t presume to tell anyone how nuclear reactors are designed and run whilst you claim to know how tax systems are designed and run.

  75. @JC
    Taking it at a nice basic level: Encyclopaedia Britannica 1981 ed. Vol12 p357 (This is what Arts graduates do: give quotes and attributions)
    “In the course of issuing money, commercial banks actually create it by expanding their deposits, but they are not at liberty to create all they may wish, whenever they wish, for the total is limited by the volume of bank reserves and by the prevailing ratio between these reserves and bank deposits – a ratio set by ,law regulation and custom.” Rather well put, wouldn’t you say?

  76. DBCR,
    Good to see that you’re catching up.

    We’ve had this conversation before. You have presented “banks creating money” as an amazing new discovery. I mentioned that I’d learnt about it in A-Level Economics (funnily enough, quite possibly in 1981). I couldn’t understand the mystery.

    However, there are constraints and I’ve been asking if you knew about them. Your quote answers that question rather well (and suggests you haven’t read it all the way through).

    There are also constraints on governments creating money.

    More to the point, you’re confusing money and value. I’m no expert on banking, but consider this:

    The money banks create has to have some sort of value or substance behind it. So, if I take out a mortgage, much of the money loaned to me may well be created out of thin air. However, there is real substance: a) the house being bought, b) my ability to pay the loan, c) the bank’s ability to provide customer’s deposits on demand and so on.

    Further, in a suitably competitive market, if banks can create money that’s going to mean lower costs for the banks and their consumers, as well as more widely available credit.

    So, the problem is what exactly?

  77. Dennis

    Looks like in Lawrence of Arabia’s mind we need to crack down on countries like Norway, New Zealand, Germany and Denmark which are ‘aggressively promoting tax avoidance’ – you really couldn’t make this shit up

  78. @Van_Patten
    I think there’s some kind of UN rule against interfering with the internal affairs of other nations – so Murphy and Co would have us expel Ireland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands etc from the UN so that the SJWs could go in and change their tax laws to prevent “tax competition”.

  79. @ Arnald
    Inheritance Tax is one of those areas where there is still double taxation. No country *can* legislate to prevent another country charging IHT on assets located within its frontiers.
    The FT agony aunt column has frequent queries about double liability for IHT on assets outside the deceased’s domicile.
    Try again.

  80. “Arnald

    AndrewC

    Inheritance tax avoidance?”

    I asked if you could give an example of a tax haven deliberately legislating to take advantages of loopholes in another country’s tax rules.

    saying ‘inheritance tax avoidance’ doesn’t quite answer the question does it.

    What legislation was enacted by which tax haven to take advantage of which tax ‘loophole’ in which other country?

    Why not just admit that you have no tax knowledge and are just repeating phrases you have read in newspapers but don’t know the meaning of?

  81. Looks like in Lawrence of Arabia’s mind we need to crack down on countries like Norway, New Zealand, Germany and Denmark which are ‘aggressively promoting tax avoidance’ – you really couldn’t make this shit up.

    I’m sure he’s informing on them all (to anyone who will listen) as we speak. That extra £20 helps keep the payday lenders away when you’re too much the loser to make a fair wage.

    And he’s more Gypo Nolan than Lawrence of Arabia.

  82. Thanks Pellinor and I agree the warehouse exemption is out of date, personally I think it would be a much better target for Murphy and his like to campaign on, says a lot that they don’t pick up on it

  83. So the best we got was a question about the motives behind all of the jurisdictions that attract the label of “tax haven” according to my definition? BTW, the tax competition motivation is covered further down. So do I take it that everyone agrees that I pretty much described the real world of taxation? If not, be specific as to where you think I erred.

    As for inheritance ta avoidance issue, I also covered this one in another Quora answer https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-inheritance-banned/answer/David-S-Lesperance

  84. @ David S Lesperance
    On IHT, I think you miss the obvious option of giving away to one’s heirs everything above the IHT threshold before one dies. [The UK has a sliding scale of tax on gifts within seven years of death – I don’t know the US rules.]

  85. The money banks create has to have some sort of value or substance behind it. So, if I take out a mortgage, much of the money loaned to me may well be created out of thin air. However, there is real substance: a) the house being bought, b) my ability to pay the loan, c) the bank’s ability to provide customer’s deposits on demand and so on.

    Further, in a suitably competitive market, if banks can create money that’s going to mean lower costs for the banks and their consumers, as well as more widely available credit.

    So, the problem is what exactly?

    Toxic debts, inflation and expensive housing. Maybe a construction bubble and its consequences.

  86. The US allows an annual 15K per person tax free gift. Above that eats into gift\estate tax “family unified credit”. Beyond the credit full gift/ estate tax. Therefore limited use for medium to large fortunes.

  87. “Toxic debts, inflation and expensive housing. Maybe a construction bubble and its consequences.”

    None of which are a direct result, so irrelevant.

    It must just be a knee-jerk thing.

  88. So if Tim reads these comments, then maybe you can start a new topic thread on my postings on tax havens and inheritance tax. That is assuming that I did cow Arnald et al. into silence with my stunningly obvious and unassailable analysis.

  89. @Jack C
    Plenty of problems with banks creating money :I) basic honesty The Banks should not talk about “lending” money when they’re not ; they have no claim on interest payments for thin air money ii) Banks should be under public control (see Ellen Brown) since they are creating and channelling the nation’s money supply non productively .eg. into real estate bubbles as UK Liberty says .These bubbles crash the system as regularly as clockwork requiring hardship from ordinary people to bale out the prattish privileged bwankers ;iii) it is ludicrous, so immensely attractive to right wing know nothings, for the government to have a public sector borrowing requirement off the banks when the banks phoney the corresponding” loans” up which the government could do more easily and more properly itself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *