Skip to content

I seem to have had a busy media weekend.

Quotes on Nadhim Zahawi’s tax appeared in the Guardian and FT.

Discussion on Apple’s tax affairs were to be found in the Sunday Times and the Retail Gazette.

That second one, a comment elsewhere on it:

We’d thus suggest that it’s possible to think this misleading reporting on Apple’s corporation tax bill.

Richard Murphy, professor of accounting at Sheffield University’s management school, said he believed that Apple had claimed the full available tax relief from the scheme, without reflecting all the related costs in its accounts.

Ah, yes, we’d gently suggest that the Sunday Times be ever so slightly more selective in their choices of source on taxation stories. Some people are better at explaining the details of reality than others.

At which point we can come back to Spud:

that’s the problem with staffing campaign organisations with people who don’t know anything about the subject they’re campaigning about.

Suppose so really…..

13 thoughts on “Oh, right”

  1. I wonder what other campaigning organisations are staffed by people who don’t know anything about the subject they’re campaigning about.

    Don’t all shout at once.

  2. “It’s beholden on any politician to be transparent about financial affairs”

    Said Professor “no I’m not going to publish my tax returns” Murphy.

  3. “Apple used an employee stock option scheme to reduce the tax bill of its retail division to £796,000 last year”

    Elsewhere, my local fish & chip shop has been reducing its tax bill by buying fish and potatoes.

  4. Martin Near The M25

    People who received the shares presumably paid income tax (and bloody NI) on the full amount, which is more than the corporate tax would have been.

    Many tech stocks have gone down 20% this year. Can they claim that income tax back?

  5. Interesting to compare the Twitter comments on the tax affairs of the Tory leadership candidates from Dan Neidle to the unmitigated torrent of shite from Spud.

  6. “Can they claim that income tax back?”

    No. Income tax is based on the value when received. Thereafter it becomes a CGT matter.

  7. @Andrew C

    Is that right? I thought the company pays tax based on its value at grant, whereas the employee pays CG tax when/if exercised. If they lapse, there’s no employee tax

    Perhaps I just don’t understand it.

  8. @aaa

    I was talking about payment by shares.

    As you’ve mentioned granting and lapsing I assume you’re talking about share options. Taxation of those is going to depend on what type of option it is. Under an EMI (for example) the exercise price is set at grant. The difference between what is paid for the share and what it is sold for would be CGT in the hands of the employee. If it’s not a tax advantaged option scheme then it’s an income tax matter. The ‘option’ part of a non-tax advantaged option scheme is merely a pricing mechanism. The difference between what the employee pays for the share and what it’s worth when issued is taxed under income tax rules. Through payroll if it’s a Readily Convertible Asset (usually because the company is listed) and via P11D if not. Once in the hands of the employee, if the share goes up or down in value, it’s CGT rules that apply.

    But the company doesn’t, in any case, PAY tax based on the value of the share, it gets a tax DEDUCTION of the difference between the value of the share and the amount paid for it when the shares are allotted (Part 12 CTA 2009).

  9. Bloke in the Fourth Reich

    I once got called by a journalist from Die Welt with a question about covid statistics. I seem to have had a busy media decade. Hold the front page.

Leave a Reply

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