I wonder if Ritchie has this in his tax gap?

European judges have forced Britain to pay back billions in tax to multinational companies, overturning the decisions of British chancellors going back more than 40 years.
The Mail on Sunday has established that major corporations including tobacco giants, insurers and hoteliers have been awarded payments running into hundreds of millions of pounds from HMRC in the past year as a series of long-running lawsuits reaches a climax.
In the most extraordinary case, HMRC handed £620 million to British American Tobacco (BAT) after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled it taxed the company too heavily for more than 26 years. That bill could double if interest is added.

If you add up all that might (and “might” has a pretty elastic meaning here) have to be paid back it’s £43 billion by the Mail’s numbers. And to answer the headline no, of course this doesn’t appear in Ritchie’s numbers. But it rather shouldn, shouldn’t it?

Not just how much tax should the bastard companies be paying but the true figure, after the amount that bastard HMRC is over charging?

12 thoughts on “I wonder if Ritchie has this in his tax gap?”

  1. Ritchie’s position is corporations getting refunds are being unjustifiably enriched at the expense of the public purse. Of course.

    Aren’t interest payments from HMRC just calculated on simple interest as well?

  2. Oh well, that’ll be a bit of Keynesian stimulation for the economy. Does the village idiot approve of Keynesian stimuli?

  3. And therein lies the problem. The system is so complex that there is no certainty. The tax liability is at the whim of politicians and lawyers. And there lies the unjust enrichment.

  4. Oh noes, the evil BAT will be getting a tax refund after decades of insane taxation.

    Although I am not trying to defend big tobacco here, 500% tax, or more, of the 1990 price of a pack of fags is included in the current price. Got to love a popular regressive tax.

    Sadly the number of smokers has greatly dropped so numpties will think it can work on any business. I’d point that out to Ritchie but he’ll just delete the comment.

  5. What’s fairly disgusting – altho hardly a surprise – is that the Mail article always refers to the companies being “paid” such and such an amount. “Refunded” would be a better word.

  6. I think the murphy logic goes something like

    Tax paid+stuff I think should be paid=tax that should be paid
    Tax that should be paid less tax paid = tax gap

    Therefore reducing the tax paid (by giving court ordered refunds for overcharging) increases the tax gap

Leave a Reply

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