Meanwhile France and Italy are still living in hope. Unfortunately hope doesnt pay the bills.
Nor does 130 million very well. Lucky HMRC only takes that attitude with Cameron and Osborne's friends and Jeff can't come to a similar "arrangement" too.
i said they paid the required amount of tax there - why are you so bothered about Irish Tax rates?
Because it shows a pattern of behaviour. Cosy deals don't bring in much tax.
What evidence? - please show this evidence.
?? You want evidence that France and Italy think much more tax is due than HMRC do?
HMRC will not reveal details of any taxpayer under confidentiality Law - if you want the Law changed then campaign for it, dont whinge on obscure internet forums.
It's an arrangement, they could have made one of the conditions that some of the principal agreements could be disclosed to justify Google paying far less tax than Jeff. Maybe then a concerned citizen could show how Google were more established in the UK than the agreement would suggest.
Indeed, back to Jeff's complaint, why aren't us ordinary tax payers treated like Google?
You can be - although for your average person it is not easy. If memory serves you are an IT Contractor - same as I was. Well it was IT contractors who developed the first Tax investigation insurance - and it is well worth investing in it - if one is outside the traditional PAYE. Where PAYE is your only source of income the opportunities for questioning the tax paid is somewhat less, OK practically non-existent.
Back during my campaign days something like 0.1% of investigations went entirely in favour of the taxman - for a few of the others they actually negotiated a settlement - precisely what Google did - but it does help to have your own Rottweiler on your side. The insurance - which can be as cheap as £100 p/a ensures that the cost of that representation is not burdensome.
(As a comparison those not represented it was more like 50/50, roughly the same with the IR IR35 helpline which I would not touch with a ten-foot bargepole)
Whatever you wish to impute applies equally to the UK, France or Italy, it is, er, argument neutral.
Very true - it was a reference to being under the thumb of large corporations - I'm no more that than I will meekly accept that what the tax authorities say is the absolute truth - a lot of the time it is not
You can be - although for your average person it is not easy. If memory serves you are an IT Contractor - same as I was. Well it was IT contractors who developed the first Tax investigation insurance - and it is well worth investing in it - if one is outside the traditional PAYE. Where PAYE is your only source of income the opportunities for questioning the tax paid is somewhat less, OK practically non-existent.
Back during my campaign days something like 0.1% of investigations went entirely in favour of the taxman - for a few of the others they actually negotiated a settlement - precisely what Google did - but it does help to have your own Rottweiler on your side. The insurance - which can be as cheap as £100 p/a ensures that the cost of that representation is not burdensome.
(As a comparison those not represented it was more like 50/50, roughly the same with the IR IR35 helpline which I would not touch with a ten-foot bargepole)
As an IT contractor I'm in IPSE (the rebranded Professional Contractros Group, PCG) and have Tax Insurance. But I try not to stretch things so my profit and tax percentages would raise no eyebrows in HMRC.
Your figures for investigations in favour of the taxman are interesting but I doubt I could negotiate a settlement as favourable as Google's appears to be.
Very true - it was a reference to being under the thumb of large corporations - I'm no more that than I will meekly accept that what the tax authorities say is the absolute truth - a lot of the time it is not
As an IT contractor I'm in IPSE (the rebranded Professional Contractros Group, PCG) and have Tax Insurance. But I try not to stretch things so my profit and tax percentages would raise no eyebrows in HMRC.
Which was where the Tax Investigation Insurance was created back at the start of the last decade and I spent 6 years on the CC. I gave up my membership when I went perm
It was one of the PCG who coined the phrase 'bargepole mandatory environment' for some of the more extreme tax avoidance strategies since the risk far out weighed any benefit.
Your figures for investigations in favour of the taxman are interesting but I doubt I could negotiate a settlement as favourable as Google's appears to be.
Most do not make that kind of money but in a dispute negotiating is a possibility
Nor does 130 million very well. Lucky HMRC only takes that attitude with Cameron and Osborne's friends and Jeff can't come to a similar "arrangement" too.
Hey - £130million is better than nothing - which is what France and Italy have.
?? You want evidence that France and Italy think much more tax is due than HMRC do?
back to living on hope I see
It's an arrangement, they could have made one of the conditions that some of the principal agreements could be disclosed to justify Google paying far less tax than Jeff. Maybe then a concerned citizen could show how Google were more established in the UK than the agreement would suggest.
Why should HMRC have to justify anything to you ? - they are Independent of Government influence and mandated by Law to keep individual tax affairs private. The Queen appoints Commissioners of HMRC who have responsibility for handling individual taxpayers’ affairs impartially. This means that ministers have no involvement in taxpayers’ cases.
Hey - £130million is better than nothing - which is what France and Italy have.
Actually it's only 100 million, 30 million was income tax. And it's still not an option for Jeff, settle for far less than appears due just to save HMRC having to fight for the money. Do you think they're going to ask you nicely what you'd like to pay?
back to living on hope I see
So will you still think it's a good deal if France and/or Italy get their money?
Why should HMRC have to justify anything to you ?
Er, because they are a public body!
- they are Independent of Government influence and mandated by Law to keep individual tax affairs private. The Queen appoints Commissioners of HMRC who have responsibility for handling individual taxpayers’ affairs impartially. This means that ministers have no involvement in taxpayers’ cases.
Why should HMRC have to justify anything to you ? - they are Independent of Government influence and mandated by Law to keep individual tax affairs private. The Queen appoints Commissioners of HMRC who have responsibility for handling individual taxpayers’ affairs impartially. This means that ministers have no involvement in taxpayers’ cases.
Although ministers celebrate the deal as "vindicating" the government's aproach on tackling tax avoidance.
Are we to believe Osborne was celebrating his legislatory influence over HMRC?
Just to confirm - you work in IT as a contractor which is a legal tax arrangement that means you pay less tax than an employee and you are complaining about Google using legal tax arrangements?
Actually it's only 100 million, 30 million was income tax. And it's still not an option for Jeff, settle for far less than appears due just to save HMRC having to fight for the money. Do you think they're going to ask you nicely what you'd like to pay?
Jeff is perfectly at liberty to base himself in Ireland like Google and therefore pay Irish levels of tax.
So will you still think it's a good deal if France and/or Italy get their money?
Well they have been waiting 5 years for this extra money to arrive so how long are you thinking they should wait?
Er, because they are a public body!
You really think that?
Yeah - because HMRC always set taxes for individuals and companies based on demands from Cameron - can you get any more paranoid?
People may cite apple because they are a huge and high value company. But they are all at it. Did anyone see the documentary the other week about the Cayman Islands? Almost all large corporations, Tesco being one, use tax haven and holding companies to avoid tax.
Almost all large corporations, Tesco being one, use tax haven and holding companies to avoid tax.
And sometimes for good reasons. But one possible 'quick fix' may be to close the debt/loan scams. So a profitable subsidiary is loaned money/given debt by another, and the profits magicked away as interest payments.. Often waaay above fair market rates. That trick seems pretty common, and a plainly artificial construct given historically low interest rates.
A harder challenge would be transfer valuations for brands, logos, IPR etc.
Just to confirm - you work in IT as a contractor which is a legal tax arrangement that means you pay less tax than an employee and you are complaining about Google using legal tax arrangements?
Or have I missed something?
Yes, lots. I have been employed as an IT consultant by one of the worlds' largest IT firms, a 500 person multinational IT firm and now my own IT company. I have paid the same tax each time.
Osborne wants to protect his buddies in big business over smaller businesses (who don't donate to the Tories and won't give him a juicy directorship when he leaves office) so I may well soon pay more tax working for my own firm than if I worked for a lager company.
Jeff is perfectly at liberty to base himself in Ireland like Google and therefore pay Irish levels of tax.
No, he can't. Because, like Google, his business is transacted here. Only big firms like Google, with significant Govt influence, can do business here and claim it's somewhere else.
Well they have been waiting 5 years for this extra money to arrive so how long are you thinking they should wait?
Has Osborne had his cheque yet either?
Yeah - because HMRC always set taxes for individuals and companies based on demands from Cameron - can you get any more paranoid?
Not just me:
“very close relationship probably made it very difficult for HMRC to be aggressive in its tax settlement with the company”
No, he can't. Because, like Google, his business is transacted here. Only big firms like Google, with significant Govt influence, can do business here and claim it's somewhere else.
The Single Market applies to everyone and every company within the EU
Has Osborne had his cheque yet either?
Care to place a wager on who gets paid first?
Not just me:
“very close relationship probably made it very difficult for HMRC to be aggressive in its tax settlement with the company”
Shit - opposition politicians criticising the Government, who would have thought!
The Single Market applies to everyone and every company within the EU
But is interpreted very differently.
Care to place a wager on who gets paid first?
It's who gets paid the most that counts. I can't say to HMRC I'll give you a fiver now instead of 500 quid next year, only companies like Google can do that.
Shit - opposition politicians criticising the Government, who would have thought!
It's who gets paid the most that counts. I can't say to HMRC I'll give you a fiver now instead of 500 quid next year, only companies like Google can do that.
I vote for andykn to be the UK's tax assessor for business and personal with a 101% tax rate with no reclaimable expenses, just let him work everyones taxes out, no rules or appeals and if he's pissed off his tree and decides someone making 20k a year owes a few hundred trillion in tax then its up to them to sell off the body parts and family members to pay for it on some illegal Chinese body auction site (other nationality sites are available for selling harvested organs)
We'll have the country rolling in money in months.
I vote for andykn to be the UK's tax assessor for business and personal with a 101% tax rate with no reclaimable expenses, just let him work everyones taxes out, no rules or appeals and if he's pissed off his tree and decides someone making 20k a year owes a few hundred trillion in tax then its up to them to sell off the body parts and family members to pay for it on some illegal Chinese body auction site (other nationality sites are available for selling harvested organs)
We'll have the country rolling in money in months.
I'd be happy with 20% on what people make here rather than artificially shifting abroad. You don't seem to understand what's going on here.
I'd be happy with 20% on what people make here rather than artificially shifting abroad. You don't seem to understand what's going on here.
But being an IT contractor surely you understand the tax system and all its intricate ways so you can claim pretty much everything back other than the air you breathe (least it was until the tax man decided that there was too much urine extraction going on and got the rules changes) but at the time pretty much everything was claimable for so what you want is for revenge since you can't claim for shoe leather via every step you take at the office...still remember one demanding a receipt from the vending machine company since he'd brought a 20p choccy bar and thus needed paperwork.
Yep i'm one of the salaried IT people who consider most consultants seagulls.
But being an IT contractor surely you understand the tax system and all its intricate ways so you can claim pretty much everything back other than the air you breathe (least it was until the tax man decided that there was too much urine extraction going on and got the rules changes) but at the time pretty much everything was claimable for so what you want is for revenge since you can't claim for shoe leather via every step you take at the office...still remember one demanding a receipt from the vending machine company since he'd brought a 20p choccy bar and thus needed paperwork.
Yep i'm one of the salaried IT people who consider most consultants seagulls.
When I first went contracting I thought "Yay, I can claim my mobile against tax, internet, laptop, travel to and from clients' sites...".
But then I realised that, before, my employer PAID all those things. And claimed them against tax. Just like I do, no difference. In fact, that's what I use for guidance as to what I can claim, whatever I claimed as a consultant for a larger firm.
But the tax office knows what a contractors expenses are, that's how they can calculate the flat rate VAT scheme percentage. If my company tax return shows too far above that I'll get audited.
Comments
You can be - although for your average person it is not easy. If memory serves you are an IT Contractor - same as I was. Well it was IT contractors who developed the first Tax investigation insurance - and it is well worth investing in it - if one is outside the traditional PAYE. Where PAYE is your only source of income the opportunities for questioning the tax paid is somewhat less, OK practically non-existent.
Back during my campaign days something like 0.1% of investigations went entirely in favour of the taxman - for a few of the others they actually negotiated a settlement - precisely what Google did - but it does help to have your own Rottweiler on your side. The insurance - which can be as cheap as £100 p/a ensures that the cost of that representation is not burdensome.
(As a comparison those not represented it was more like 50/50, roughly the same with the IR IR35 helpline which I would not touch with a ten-foot bargepole)
Very true - it was a reference to being under the thumb of large corporations - I'm no more that than I will meekly accept that what the tax authorities say is the absolute truth - a lot of the time it is not
Your figures for investigations in favour of the taxman are interesting but I doubt I could negotiate a settlement as favourable as Google's appears to be. Fair enough.
Which was where the Tax Investigation Insurance was created back at the start of the last decade and I spent 6 years on the CC. I gave up my membership when I went perm
It was one of the PCG who coined the phrase 'bargepole mandatory environment' for some of the more extreme tax avoidance strategies since the risk far out weighed any benefit.
Most do not make that kind of money but in a dispute negotiating is a possibility
Hey - £130million is better than nothing - which is what France and Italy have.
back to living on hope I see
Why should HMRC have to justify anything to you ? - they are Independent of Government influence and mandated by Law to keep individual tax affairs private. The Queen appoints Commissioners of HMRC who have responsibility for handling individual taxpayers’ affairs impartially. This means that ministers have no involvement in taxpayers’ cases.
Although ministers celebrate the deal as "vindicating" the government's aproach on tackling tax avoidance.
Are we to believe Osborne was celebrating his legislatory influence over HMRC?
Just to confirm - you work in IT as a contractor which is a legal tax arrangement that means you pay less tax than an employee and you are complaining about Google using legal tax arrangements?
Or have I missed something?
Jeff is perfectly at liberty to base himself in Ireland like Google and therefore pay Irish levels of tax.
Well they have been waiting 5 years for this extra money to arrive so how long are you thinking they should wait?
Yeah - because HMRC always set taxes for individuals and companies based on demands from Cameron - can you get any more paranoid?
Osborne was looking for a bit of good news - its what politicians do.. ;-)
And sometimes for good reasons. But one possible 'quick fix' may be to close the debt/loan scams. So a profitable subsidiary is loaned money/given debt by another, and the profits magicked away as interest payments.. Often waaay above fair market rates. That trick seems pretty common, and a plainly artificial construct given historically low interest rates.
A harder challenge would be transfer valuations for brands, logos, IPR etc.
Oops!
I dare say he's taking a steb back from his comments after he was the only vocal politician to see the good in it.
Yes, lots. I have been employed as an IT consultant by one of the worlds' largest IT firms, a 500 person multinational IT firm and now my own IT company. I have paid the same tax each time.
Osborne wants to protect his buddies in big business over smaller businesses (who don't donate to the Tories and won't give him a juicy directorship when he leaves office) so I may well soon pay more tax working for my own firm than if I worked for a lager company.
“very close relationship probably made it very difficult for HMRC to be aggressive in its tax settlement with the company”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/27/cameron-too-close-to-google-say-critics-130m-tax-deal
The Single Market applies to everyone and every company within the EU
Care to place a wager on who gets paid first?
Shit - opposition politicians criticising the Government, who would have thought!
No - the Law is quite plain.
No - the Law is quite plain
Now you are being paranoid again.
We'll have the country rolling in money in months.
I'd be happy with 20% on what people make here rather than artificially shifting abroad. You don't seem to understand what's going on here.
But being an IT contractor surely you understand the tax system and all its intricate ways so you can claim pretty much everything back other than the air you breathe (least it was until the tax man decided that there was too much urine extraction going on and got the rules changes) but at the time pretty much everything was claimable for so what you want is for revenge since you can't claim for shoe leather via every step you take at the office...still remember one demanding a receipt from the vending machine company since he'd brought a 20p choccy bar and thus needed paperwork.
Yep i'm one of the salaried IT people who consider most consultants seagulls.
When I first went contracting I thought "Yay, I can claim my mobile against tax, internet, laptop, travel to and from clients' sites...".
But then I realised that, before, my employer PAID all those things. And claimed them against tax. Just like I do, no difference. In fact, that's what I use for guidance as to what I can claim, whatever I claimed as a consultant for a larger firm.
But the tax office knows what a contractors expenses are, that's how they can calculate the flat rate VAT scheme percentage. If my company tax return shows too far above that I'll get audited.
And I won't get to negotiate what I pay.
EU single Market rules are identical for the UK, Italy and France. (the clue is in the name)
That Vince Cable believes the same, doesn't mean that you are not paranoid ;-)