Barclays could have been taxed between 25 and 30% had it not taken advantage of rules allowing it to offset losses linked to $9bn-worth of shares
Losses offset profits, ho hum…..
“We paid no corporation tax in Luxembourg in 2021 as our taxable profits were offset by substantial tax losses brought forward from prior years, and also due to dividend income not being taxable under Luxembourg law”, its 2021 report stated. “We have unused tax losses which are automatically carried forward, and available to offset against future taxable profits.”
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair: It is difficult to get a Guardian reporter to understand tax law when they can get a screaming headline about tax avoidance out of not understanding it.
Perhaps the grauniad could explain tax law in the context of a case study?
Like the Scott Trust for example
“Barclays could have been taxed between 25 and 30% had it not taken advantage of rules allowing it to offset losses linked to $9bn-worth of shares”
I expect they also took advantage of rules allowing them to offset expenses against income.
That’ll be the former Scott Trust, eh? Now the Scott Trust Ltd. WKPD tells me:
The Trust was established in 1936 by John Russell Scott …
The Trust was dissolved and reformed in 1948, as it was thought that the Trust, under the terms of the original Trust Deed, had become liable to tax due to changes in the law. …
In October 2008, it was announced that the trust was being wound up and its assets transferred to a new limited company named “The Scott Trust Limited” Five months after the signing of the new Trust Deed, John Scott died. After three years of legal argument, the Inland Revenue gave up its claim for death duty.
The board appoints itself .. . Neither workers at the newspapers nor readers participate in voting for board members.
I’ll wager good money that Kalyeena Makortoff could have pad more tax if she hadn’t used her personal income tax allowance.
BiND
Yep. But that’s different, because Reasons.