So, a question: should the group have been able to enjoy £103 million of tax subsidies for its losses because other companies in the Arcadia Group were presumably able to offset these against liabilities owing?

Is there good reason why the state should support continually loss making companies in this way?

Is a time limit on the number of years during which losses will be supported appropriate?

Would this sum have been better used helping clear the pension deficit?

I think these are appropriate questions to ask.

They’re ludicrous questions to ask.

Seriously, he’s suggesting that companies that make a loss should pay a tax on profits they’ve not made. And given those losses what money to close the pension gap?

16 thoughts on “What?”

  1. The guy knows nothing. Trading losses are only allowable if a company carries on a business with a view to making a profit, which is a bit subjective. If it habitually makes a loss then so be it, but the losses should be allowable if the profit intent is still there

  2. Farming losses are in a world of their own! Buy a house with land sling a few sheep on it and claim loss relief against your other income for many years to come

  3. When it suits Murphy, it is outrageous that groups of companies are not taxed as a whole, when it suits him, it is outrageous that groups of companies are taxed as a whole .

    Why the unending inconsistencies in the fat twat’s analysis can’t be noticed by the media that use him as a tax ‘expert’ is beyond belief.

  4. @Julian Howe

    *sigh* how do these myths perpetuate? See sections 66-70 ITA 2007 and HMRC Business Income Manual 85601 et seq.

  5. “Farming losses are in a world of their own! Buy a house with land sling a few sheep on it and claim loss relief against your other income for many years to come”

    Well that just proves you’re an idiot.

  6. What AndrewC said.

    Country by country is predicated on the company not being the true commercial entity; he has claimed this expressly many times. Thus transfer pricing is not fit for purpose he says. And yet the corollary is unacceptable to him when the reality he insists upon means less tax is paid.

    Wanker.

  7. He’s really not got to grips with the fact that corporation tax is a cumulative profits tax.

    He just sees – Tax=good. Corporation=bad. Therefore corporation tax = doubleplus good. Why is this corporation thus not being taxed?

  8. How about loss-making steel plants, “Is there good reason why the state should support continually loss making companies” of that kind?

  9. Ironman

    Absolutely – he’s a professional polemicist – like something out of the Daily Mirror during the Thatcher years – and as AndrewC says, it speaks much about the ‘Quality Press’ that no-one barring some bloggers are calling him out on these and myriad other inconsistencies in his analysis – or reporting that those that do are haughtily dismissed as ‘trolls’ or blocked on Twitter for calling attention to his ignorance

  10. Is there a good reason why the state (through the hypothecated licence fee) should support a broadcasting company that would otherwise lose bilions a year, an interesting question not least because it provides an occasional platform for some ludicrous views on taxation and economics?

  11. Alex

    In an era of Sky, BT Sport, Netflix, Amazon Prime and any number of independant producers what exactly is Public Service Broadcasting?

  12. As some comments have suggested that Murphy has made a profit in his recent house move will he be paying tax on that or taking the ‘tax subsidy’

Leave a Reply

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