Just to prove that people really are losing minds over this, we have an insistence from a Professor of Practice that “I know that it will be claimed to be due to the intellectual property having been developed in the USA. But let’s be candid; IP is worthless without a customer and it is UK customers who create the value added in this country, and not the IP as such.”

It’s worth just savouring that. JK Rowling created considerable intellectual property with her books, but it’s the readers who provide it, so therefore JK must be paying tax everywhere else and not in the UK – or perhaps only in the UK on her UK sales. Or we could be using the standard international agreement that tax is paid where and by whom the economic value is created. JK in the UK under our rules and Facebook in the US under whatever their rules are.

7 thoughts on “Elsewhere”

  1. When the furore over Facebook’s corporation tax in the UK first erupted and the share options were pointed out, Soapy Jo made the point that paying more income tax was not an excuse for not paying enough corporation tax. An argument repeated on Snippa’s blog by the sycophantic Marco Fante. I realised then that Soapy was a few braincells short of the norm. Nothing he has done since has persuaded me otherwise

  2. So the Trivial Pursuit I got for Christmas in the late 80s, tax was paid in the UK (where Ritchie sold it to me), in Ireland (where Ritchie made it), in Barbados (where Ritchie licensed it from) or in Canada (where it was invented)?

  3. IP = Internet Protocol which is the communications protocol used to deliver packets of data from the source to the destination based on the IP Address (a series of digits) in the packet headers. It is if you like the post code system for correct delivery of stuff sent over the Internet.

    It has nothing to do with creating value.

    But without IP the ‘customer’ cannot receive anything.

    So what is the Professor of Practice yapping on about?

  4. Dio

    I did not know that Soapy Joe had said that – confirms he is an utter [email protected] though.

    However, for cross jurisdiction matters, Murphy has previously advocated just such effective double taxation. The fact that taxes are paid on income in one country is not enough for him to allow that they should not also be taxed on the same amount in another.

  5. Leaving aside.Murphy’ wankstain desire.to tax profits twice, the issue is where the profit is recognised for corporate income tax purposes. Recognising it where the customer is advantages traditional leading countries with mature markets over emergent nations, advantages Europe and North America and disadvantages Africa and Asia.

    What bastards these people are.

Leave a Reply

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