Court of public opinion 1..............Starbucks 0

[Guest pelmetman]

:D

 

Starbucks pays UK corporation tax for first time since 2009

 

The move follows protests against large corporations' tax affairs

 

The rise of 'tax shaming'

Starbucks agrees to pay more tax

Coffee giant Starbucks has paid £5m in UK corporation tax - its first such tax payment since 2009 - the company has announced.

 

A company spokeswoman said it had listened to its customers and would pay another £5m later this year.

 

The move follows pressure from politicians and campaigners, and an agreement by world leaders last week to clamp down on corporate tax avoidance.

 

Starbucks has only reported taxable profit once in 15 years in the UK.

 

It announced late last year it would pay more corporation tax after a public outcry and an investigation by MPs.

 

"We listened to our customers in December and so decided to forgo certain deductions which would make us liable to pay £10m in corporation tax this year and a further £10m in 2014," a Starbucks spokeswoman said.

 

 

Starbucks reportedly paid just £8.6m in corporation tax in the UK over 14 years and nothing in the last four years - despite sales of £400m last year.

 

As part of its tax affairs, the firm transferred some money to a Dutch sister company in royalty payments, bought coffee beans from Switzerland and paid high interest rates to borrow from other parts of the business.

 

During an investigation into corporate tax avoidance, the company's global chief financial officer told a committee of MPs last year that the tax deal struck with Dutch authorities was "an attractive reason" for basing operations there.

 

A spokeswoman said the company was now "undertaking measures to make Starbucks profitable in the UK".

 

She added unprofitable stores would be closed or relocated and there would be a "greater reliance on franchised and licensed stores".

 

The Public Accounts Committee of MPs said last year it "found it difficult to believe" Starbucks "was trading with apparent losses for nearly every year of its operation in the UK".

 

Amazon, Google.................next?...... B-)

[BGD]

I'm intrigued by all of this stuff.

 

I get a VERY strong whiff of hypocrisy from UK Politicians, who are after all the people who have made the tax regulations in the UK.

 

 

 

That Company already pays hundreds of millions of pounds in other taxes in the UK anyway.......Business rates, VAT, Employers national insurance, road fuel taxes, taxes on imported raw materials etc brought in from any country outside of the EU, taxes on electricity and gas used, etc etc etc.

 

Why should any Company pay more tax than it is required by the laws of the country to do?

 

Do you, or I, or any other individual choose to pay more tax than they are legally required to? I think not.

 

 

Companies are in business, and exist, in order to maximise profit and return on capital to their owners: those people/pension funds etc, who are risking their money every day by lending it to that Company via the owning of shares in it.

They do not exist, per se, in order to provide employment, or as some sort of social service. This Company has NOT broken ANY UK tax laws. It has done what any private sector Company damn well should; and that is to minimise its tax burden within the laws of the country of operation.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Valid points Bruce ;-).....................we all know its Legal *-)..............is it moral ;-)...............for multi national businesses to be allowed to decide how much tax they would like to pay? 8-).....

 

If "everyone" could have a chat with their local tax inspector to discuss how much they'd like to pay..............now that would be fair :D.......

 

A level playing field would be nice *-)..............and perhaps not having the head honcho's of major tax avoiding companies as advisers for the HMRC would be a start ;-)

 

 

 

You couldn’t make it up – new chair of HMRC is former KPMG senior partner

 

POSTED ON JULY 3 2012

 

After the scandals surrounding HMRC during the Hartnett era you’d think a new culture was needed in the organisation. One that was strongly pro-tax, against abuse and tax avoidance and that indicated a new, straight talking, down the line approach to big business with not a hint of cosiness or chumminess attached.

 

So who has just been appointed as the new chair of HMRC? Ian Barlow.

 

Who’s he, I hear you say.

 

He’s the former senior partner of KPMG, London.

 

Yes, that’s the KPMG present in every major tax haven in the world.

 

The KPMG who signed off a bank’s accounts astrue and fair in 2008 knowing it was bust, as they admitted to the House of Lords.

 

The KPMG who were fined $455 million in US a few years back for selling abusive tax schemes.

 

The KPMG who along with other such firms likes to sell “effective supply chain management services” – oherwise known as shifting profit into tax havens.

 

You couldn’t make it up.

 

So much for a culture change. Under the Tories it’s still jobs for the boys.

 

- See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2012/07/03/you-couldnt-make-it-up-new-chair-of-hmrc-is-former-kpmg-senior-partner/#sthash.S4RZGDpZ.dpuf

[BGD]

"Valid points Bruce .....................we all know its Legal ..............is it moral ...............for multi national businesses to be allowed to decide how much tax they would like to pay? .....

 

If "everyone" could have a chat with their local tax inspector to discuss how much they'd like to pay..............now that would be fair ....... "

 

 

 

 

 

But Dave - that is the situation at the moment.

 

Starbuck's have consistently paid ALL of the taxes that under UK tax laws they are required to do, and yet still the Politicians whine about it.

So, Starbucks have gone to HMRC and VOLUNTEERED to pay some MORE UK tax, OVER AND ABOVE what UK laws require them to do.

 

It is NOT a situation where a Company "decides how much tax to pay" within the amounts required by law at all.

This is a situation where a Company has AL:READY paid ALL the taxes it's required to poay under UK laws, and is now VOLUNTEERING to pay more on top.

 

 

 

It is just like you paying all the taxes you're required to do by UK law; then some jealous competitor puts round public rumours that the amounts you paid weren't "fair"; so to try to stop your business being damaged by those, you voluntarily write a cheque to HMRC for another (say) £5,000.

 

That's £5,000 less retained profit, so £5,000 less to spend on dividends to shareholders who are funding you; or £5,000 less to spend on advertising to drum up new business, or to spend on employee bonuses/pensions/pay rises/recruitment or whatever else within the business.

 

It is simply £5,000 more than is legally required from you being extracted by the Government to be squandered within the Public Sector.

 

 

 

The only "fair" amount of tax to pay is the amount required by law............then the playing field really is "fair" for everyone.

Politicians blackmailing some companies into paying even more than is required by law strikes me as pretty immoral.

 

The only reasons why a lot of ordinary people support this blackmail instead of seeing through it, is that most people do not think the issues through more; and more importantly everyone's idea of "fair" taxation is: other people should pay more, but not me.

[Guest pelmetman]

BGD - 2013-06-23 3:13 PM

 

"Valid points Bruce .....................we all know its Legal ..............is it moral ...............for multi national businesses to be allowed to decide how much tax they would like to pay? .....

 

If "everyone" could have a chat with their local tax inspector to discuss how much they'd like to pay..............now that would be fair ....... "

 

 

 

 

 

But Dave - that is the situation at the moment.

 

Starbuck's have consistently paid ALL of the taxes that under UK tax laws they are required to do, and yet still the Politicians whine about it.

So, Starbucks have gone to HMRC and VOLUNTEERED to pay some MORE UK tax, OVER AND ABOVE what UK laws require them to do.

 

It is NOT a situation where a Company "decides how much tax to pay" within the amounts required by law at all.

This is a situation where a Company has AL:READY paid ALL the taxes it's required to poay under UK laws, and is now VOLUNTEERING to pay more on top.

 

 

 

It is just like you paying all the taxes you're required to do by UK law; then some jealous competitor puts round public rumours that the amounts you paid weren't "fair"; so to try to stop your business being damaged by those, you voluntarily write a cheque to HMRC for another (say) £5,000.

 

That's £5,000 less retained profit, so £5,000 less to spend on dividends to shareholders who are funding you; or £5,000 less to spend on advertising to drum up new business, or to spend on employee bonuses/pensions/pay rises/recruitment or whatever else within the business.

 

It is simply £5,000 more than is legally required from you being extracted by the Government to be squandered within the Public Sector.

 

 

 

The only "fair" amount of tax to pay is the amount required by law............then the playing field really is "fair" for everyone.

Politicians blackmailing some companies into paying even more than is required by law strikes me as pretty immoral.

 

The only reasons why a lot of ordinary people support this blackmail instead of seeing through it, is that most people do not think the issues through more; and more importantly everyone's idea of "fair" taxation is: other people should pay more, but not me.

 

But who makes the laws Bruce? ;-)..................and who has the money to lobby, and the friends in high places at the HMRC 8-).................big business*-)..........

 

So its hardly surprising that our tax laws favour big business >:-)...........

 

As far as I'm concerned any profit made in the UK, should incur the same tax as any other business in the UK..............ie a level playing field ;-)

[BGD]

1. "So its hardly surprising that our tax laws favour big business ........... "

 

2. "As far as I'm concerned any profit made in the UK, should incur the same tax as any other business in the UK..............ie a level playing field ".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. UK tax laws (I assume you are referring only to Corporation tax and somehow ignoring the myriad other direct and indirect taxes paid by businesses trading in the UK) do NOT favour big business at all.

 

They in fact favour small businesses, as they are the ones who make maximum percentage "win" from the Corporation tax allowance.

 

 

 

 

2. You should thus be very happy with and support Starbucks, because they've gone even further than what you want to be the case.

Your "level playing field" is for a company to be required by law only to have to pay the required amount of UK Corporation Tax on it's UK operations profit-before-tax.

But Starbucks has indeed consistently paid ALL of the UK Corporation taxes due on any and all Profit-Before-Taxation on it's UK operations; and then ON TOP OF THAT is paying ADDITIONAL Corporation tax this year and next year.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

BGD - 2013-06-23 3:53 PM

But Starbucks has indeed consistently paid ALL of the UK Corporation taxes due on any and all Profit-Before-Taxation on it's UK operations; and then ON TOP OF THAT is paying ADDITIONAL Corporation tax this year and next year.

 

 

As I'm a sole trader and not a limited company, I don't have the advantage of being able to run my business at a loss for 14 years *-)...................even though I'm a skinflint I still need some money :D

 

Maybe some people don't have a problem with these large companies sending their profits abroad, so that they can borrow back their own money and charge themselves interest on it *-)..............thus reduce their tax liability to nuffink 8-)

 

 

[BGD]

pelmetman - 2013-06-23 5:12 PM

 

BGD - 2013-06-23 3:53 PM

But Starbucks has indeed consistently paid ALL of the UK Corporation taxes due on any and all Profit-Before-Taxation on it's UK operations; and then ON TOP OF THAT is paying ADDITIONAL Corporation tax this year and next year.

 

 

As I'm a sole trader and not a limited company, I don't have the advantage of being able to run my business at a loss for 14 years *-)...................even though I'm a skinflint I still need some money :D

 

Maybe some people don't have a problem with these large companies sending their profits abroad, so that they can borrow back their own money and charge themselves interest on it *-)..............thus reduce their tax liability to nuffink 8-)

 

 

 

 

And of course, as a sole trader, whose whole business doesn't need to be fully and independently audited, at your own expense, every year, and with almost none of the onerous reporting requirements of a limited company or plc, we can be confident that, unlike any other sole trader, you've never ever ever done any work for cash-in-hand, "no receipt no VAT", and that every penny of your sales has at all times gone through the books in order that you pay in full all of the UK tax that the law obliges you to. ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

BGD - 2013-06-23 5:55 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-06-23 5:12 PM

 

BGD - 2013-06-23 3:53 PM

But Starbucks has indeed consistently paid ALL of the UK Corporation taxes due on any and all Profit-Before-Taxation on it's UK operations; and then ON TOP OF THAT is paying ADDITIONAL Corporation tax this year and next year.

 

 

As I'm a sole trader and not a limited company, I don't have the advantage of being able to run my business at a loss for 14 years *-)...................even though I'm a skinflint I still need some money :D

 

Maybe some people don't have a problem with these large companies sending their profits abroad, so that they can borrow back their own money and charge themselves interest on it *-)..............thus reduce their tax liability to nuffink 8-)

 

 

 

 

And of course, as a sole trader, whose whole business doesn't need to be fully and independently audited, at your own expense, every year, and with almost none of the onerous reporting requirements of a limited company or plc, we can be confident that, unlike any other sole trader, you've never ever ever done any work for cash-in-hand, "no receipt no VAT", and that every penny of your sales has at all times gone through the books in order that you pay in full all of the UK tax that the law obliges you to. ;-)

 

What ever are you suggesting Bruce? :$.......................I do have an accountant who has looked after my books for 2 decades now ;-) ...................as for cash, its overrated as there's little you can spend it on without attracting the attention of the HMRC......................besides as a sub contractor I never see the stuff now days :-( ...................even my pouffe empire is all internet based..............so not exactly a convenient way to be paid cash..............as my recent sale to a customer in Luxembourg proves ;-)...............800 squid for a pouffe B-) .................but if I delivered it myself for cash, I'd end up out off pocket :-S

 

PS..............You raise a good point though Bruce ;-)...............why should the average self employed bloke not do a few cash jobs on the side.................when they see the legal tax abuse big businesses are allowed to get away with >:-)

 

I note that the black economy is growing here, whats it like in the PIGS is any ones guess :D

[BGD]

In at least some parts of PIGS-land it's fantastic! (Allegedly ) ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

BGD - 2013-06-23 8:18 PM

 

In at least some parts of PIGS-land it's fantastic! (Allegedly ) ;-)

 

Therein lies our lords and masters problems ;-)...................they have sold the family silver, looked after their rich mates ;-) ......................and expect the hoi polloi to pick up the tab *-).............

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

BGD - 2013-06-23 8:18 PM

 

In at least some parts of PIGS-land it's fantastic! (Allegedly ) ;-)

 

Looks like the UK small business community is a haven of propriety by comparison :D...........

 

Serious tax evasion reports fall to five-year low

 

There have been protests against large corporations' tax affairs

 

Cases of serious tax evasion reported by local tax offices are at their lowest level in the last five years, according to law firm Pinsent Masons.

 

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) defines tax evasion as "serious" when the sum involved is higher than £50,000 or it is worthy of prosecution.

 

Serious cases identified by local HMRC offices fell 16% between the two most recent tax years.

 

The report comes as governments have vowed to cut corporate tax evasion.

 

HMRC's local offices reported 2,888 suspected cases of tax evasion, down from 3,456 in the previous 12 months, it said.

 

However, this is only one avenue used to highlight and report tax evasion.

 

Specialist teams, and campaigns to disclose offshore cases could also pinpoint evasion cases.

 

As a result, the law firm was unable to conclude whether evasion as a whole was rising or falling.

 

It said that HMRC has stepped up its anti-evasion efforts considerably in recent years, including having new powers, such as being able to impose penalties of up to 200% of the original tax owed if an individual does not declare any income or capital gains that has been hidden from HMRC in an offshore bank account.

 

'Tools'

There have been threats of more focus being placed on prosecutions for evasion, and there was a suggestion that this could be preventing some evasion that might have taken place otherwise.

 

"This decline in suspected tax evasion doesn't tally with the rhetoric from some quarters that the British economy is being undermined by a chronic under-collection of tax revenues," said Phil Berwick, a partner at the law firm.

 

"HMRC has plenty of tools at its disposal to catch tax evaders which serves as a huge deterrent to those considering tax evasion."

 

Pinsent Masons advises clients who may face investigations into their tax affairs by HMRC. Mr Berwick admitted that by the very fact of its secretive nature, it is almost impossible to quantify the total amount lost to tax evasion.

 

Last week, the G8 major economies agreed new measures to clamp down on money launderers, illegal tax evaders and corporate tax avoiders.

 

And on Sunday, US coffee giant Starbucks said it has paid £5m in UK corporation tax - its first such tax payment since 2009. It announced late last year it would pay more corporation tax after a public outcry and an investigation by MPs.

 

Starbucks has only reported taxable profit once in 15 years in the UK.

 

"International co-operation has been stepped up significantly as HMRC has striven to curb tax evasion," Mr Berwick added.

 

"Tax evaders are now realising that HMRC has a much greater ability to tackle evasion, even if individuals conceal their assets abroad."