Facebook pay no Corporation Tax AGAIN
Discussion
markh1973 said:
HMRC aren't satisfied - they probably haven't seen the tax return for that period yet (not required to be submitted until the end of this year and HMRC then have until the end of next to enquire which they won't because of the below).
Having looked at the accounts the UK Facebook company was tax profitable for the December 13 year end but those profits were offset by the losses they had brought forward.
The tax credit shown in the year was a prior year adjustment.
Useful information, but nothing that supports CamMoreRon's claims!!Having looked at the accounts the UK Facebook company was tax profitable for the December 13 year end but those profits were offset by the losses they had brought forward.
The tax credit shown in the year was a prior year adjustment.
sidicks said:
markh1973 said:
HMRC aren't satisfied - they probably haven't seen the tax return for that period yet (not required to be submitted until the end of this year and HMRC then have until the end of next to enquire which they won't because of the below).
Having looked at the accounts the UK Facebook company was tax profitable for the December 13 year end but those profits were offset by the losses they had brought forward.
The tax credit shown in the year was a prior year adjustment.
Useful information, but nothing that supports CamMoreRon's claims!!Having looked at the accounts the UK Facebook company was tax profitable for the December 13 year end but those profits were offset by the losses they had brought forward.
The tax credit shown in the year was a prior year adjustment.
k for thatJust thought I would present some actual facts
sidicks said:
markh1973 said:
Just thought I would present some actual facts
Generally not required in threads started by CamMoreRon!Good to know that HMRC aren't satisfied like the denialists state.. funny how that blanket assertion was rolled back pretty quickly when somebody said they had seen the accounts.
CamMoreRon said:
I'm touched that you care enough to mention me in every one of your posts.
Good to know that HMRC aren't satisfied like the denialists state.. funny how that blanket assertion was rolled back pretty quickly when somebody said they had seen the accounts.
I think (as ever) you misunderstand. No-one suggested that HMRC were dissatisfied. Just that, given the timing, we can't confirm that they ARE satisfied yet, although there is no reason to suspect that they won't be (I believe that the figures are broadly similar to the previous year).Good to know that HMRC aren't satisfied like the denialists state.. funny how that blanket assertion was rolled back pretty quickly when somebody said they had seen the accounts.
You do understand the difference?
sidicks said:
I think (as ever) you misunderstand. No-one suggested that HMRC were dissatisfied. Just that, given the timing, we can't confirm that they ARE satisfied yet, although there is no reason to suspect that they won't be (I believe that the figures are broadly similar to the previous year).
You do understand the difference?
I understand. But you believing by default that HMRC won't object because they haven't had time to review it yet is different to me calling foul play, how, exactly?You do understand the difference?
We're both firmly in the opinion camp, let's be honest.
CamMoreRon said:
I understand. But you believing by default that HMRC won't object because they haven't had time to review it yet is different to me calling foul play, how, exactly?
We're both firmly in the opinion camp, let's be honest.
My opinion is based on:We're both firmly in the opinion camp, let's be honest.
1. The accounts have been audited
2. The figures are broadly similar to the figures from the previous year which HMRC were happy with.
Your opinion is based on:
Absolutely nothing intelligible whatsoever.
Regardless, this is getting boring, you creating random threads accusing companies of inappropriate behaviour with not a shred of evidence to support your claims.
sidicks said:
My opinion is based on:
1. The accounts have been audited
2. The figures are broadly similar to the figures from the previous year which HMRC were happy with.
Your opinion is based on:
Absolutely nothing intelligible whatsoever.
Regardless, this is getting boring, you creating random threads accusing companies of inappropriate behaviour with not a shred of evidence to support your claims.
My opinion based on:1. The accounts have been audited
2. The figures are broadly similar to the figures from the previous year which HMRC were happy with.
Your opinion is based on:
Absolutely nothing intelligible whatsoever.
Regardless, this is getting boring, you creating random threads accusing companies of inappropriate behaviour with not a shred of evidence to support your claims.
1 - Amoral MNC's do this s
t all the time.2 - OECD call for tighter regulation & auditing.
Actually this is the first thread I have created.
If you're bored.. stop.. posting? You aren't going to change my mind with your posting style anyway.CamMoreRon said:
My opinion based on:
1 - Amoral MNC's do this st all the time.
2 - OECD call for tighter regulation & auditing.
Actually this is the first thread I have created. If you're bored.. stop.. posting? You aren't going to change my mind with your posting style anyway.
1. So you keep claiming, based on ignorance rather than evidence.1 - Amoral MNC's do this s
t all the time.2 - OECD call for tighter regulation & auditing.
Actually this is the first thread I have created.
If you're bored.. stop.. posting? You aren't going to change my mind with your posting style anyway.2. They have said nothing about Facebook and nothing about not being able to offset wages as costs against revenue or about carrying forward losses, the same basic rules that apply to every other company - small, large, local, national or international.
3. You also previously claimed that they weren't fling anything illegal. So are you expecting HMRC to object on 'moral' grounds?
You won't change your mind about anything as you refuse to read anything that contradicts your view, especially from those who know demonstrably more than you.
It must be very strange for you going through life as someone who actually knows about half of what they think they do!
Edited by sidicks on Monday 27th October 22:33
sidicks said:
1. So you keep claiming, based on ignorance rather than evidence.
2. They have said nothing about Facebook and nothing about not being able to offset wages as costs against revenue or about carrying forward losses, the same basic rules that apply to every other company - small, large, local, national or international.
You won't change your mind about anything as you refuse to read anything that contradicts your view, especially from those who know demonstrably more than you.
It must be very strange being someone who actually knows about half of what they think they do!
You must have heard more stories like this, surely? Every now and then one will be forced to pay back CT. Starbucks evern agreed to pay more CT to try and win back customers.. what does that say?2. They have said nothing about Facebook and nothing about not being able to offset wages as costs against revenue or about carrying forward losses, the same basic rules that apply to every other company - small, large, local, national or international.
You won't change your mind about anything as you refuse to read anything that contradicts your view, especially from those who know demonstrably more than you.
It must be very strange being someone who actually knows about half of what they think they do!
I never claimed OECD had said anything about Facebook; you're clearly mistaken. I just noted that it was interesting they were pushing for companies like that to pay more tax.
No.. I will read things that contradict my view when they're put to me in a reasonable and constructive manner. "You're stupid and ignorant and everything you say is wrong" is not a constructive argument. If you speak to me like that I'm just going to go out of my way to make things difficult for you.
CamMoreRon - you may like to add this to your Xmas wish list...!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Fina...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Fina...
CamMoreRon said:
You must have heard more stories like this, surely? Every now and then one will be forced to pay back CT. Starbucks evern agreed to pay more CT to try and win back customers.. what does that say?
Again you are misinformed. Starbucks were not forced to payback anything.CamMoreRon said:
I never claimed OECD had said anything about Facebook; you're clearly mistaken. I just noted that it was interesting they were pushing for companies like that to pay more tax.
Yet you were using it to support your claims about 2 posts ago...CamMoreRon said:
No.. I will read things that contradict my view when they're put to me in a reasonable and constructive manner. "You're stupid and ignorant and everything you say is wrong" is not a constructive argument. If you speak to me like that I'm just going to go out of my way to make things difficult for you.
Now you're making threats?!! You'd have trouble 'making things difficult' for a small child, so I'm not unduly concerned.Edited by sidicks on Monday 27th October 22:38
sidicks said:
CamMoreRon said:
You must have heard more stories like this, surely? Every now and then one will be forced to pay back CT. Starbucks even agreed to pay more CT to try and win back customers.. what does that say?
Again you are misinformed. Starbucks were not forced to payback anything.sidicks said:
CamMoreRon said:
No.. I will read things that contradict my view when they're put to me in a reasonable and constructive manner. "You're stupid and ignorant and everything you say is wrong" is not a constructive argument. If you speak to me like that I'm just going to go out of my way to make things difficult for you.
Now you're making threats?!! You'd have trouble 'making things difficult' for a small child, so I'm not unduly concerned.I think you and I are surprisingly alike.. clearly neither of us is going to drop this.
CamMoreRon said:
Don't be so melodramatic.. I mean I'm not going to listen to you if you have that attitude.
I think you and I are surprisingly alike.. clearly neither of us is going to drop this.
I think not - I avoid trying to make claims about things I don't understand, particularly when there is no evidence to support those claims,I think you and I are surprisingly alike.. clearly neither of us is going to drop this.
CamMoreRon
I'm not sure if you do or not but let's pretend you design suspension components for a multi national OEM.
Secondly let's pretend that the suspension you designed is used in a car that is made in an another country.
Thirdly let's pretend that said car is sold all around the world.
Were is the profit made?
It's not a trick question.
I'm not sure if you do or not but let's pretend you design suspension components for a multi national OEM.
Secondly let's pretend that the suspension you designed is used in a car that is made in an another country.
Thirdly let's pretend that said car is sold all around the world.
Were is the profit made?
It's not a trick question.
waterwonder said:
CamMoreRon
I'm not sure if you do or not but let's pretend you design suspension components for a multi national OEM.
Secondly let's pretend that the suspension you designed is used in a car that is made in an another country.
Thirdly let's pretend that said car is sold all around the world.
Were is the profit made?
It's not a trick question.
It is not a question anyone can answer since it is so vague. The profit on what exactly?I'm not sure if you do or not but let's pretend you design suspension components for a multi national OEM.
Secondly let's pretend that the suspension you designed is used in a car that is made in an another country.
Thirdly let's pretend that said car is sold all around the world.
Were is the profit made?
It's not a trick question.
btw, I agree with cam and am disgusted by the antics of both the tax avoiding trans-nat corporations and individuals, and the useless rulers that allow it to continue.
I just cant be bothered to trade pedantry on this thread.
Edited by NicD on Tuesday 28th October 06:26
NicD said:
It is not a question anyone can answer since it is so vague. The profit on what exactly?
btw, I agree with cam and am disgusted by the antics of both the tax avoiding trans-nat corporations and individuals, and the useless rulers that allow it to continue.
You are disgusted with companies and individuals complying with the law...?!btw, I agree with cam and am disgusted by the antics of both the tax avoiding trans-nat corporations and individuals, and the useless rulers that allow it to continue.
sidicks said:
NicD said:
It is not a question anyone can answer since it is so vague. The profit on what exactly?
btw, I agree with cam and am disgusted by the antics of both the tax avoiding trans-nat corporations and individuals, and the useless rulers that allow it to continue.
You are disgusted with companies and individuals complying with the law...?!btw, I agree with cam and am disgusted by the antics of both the tax avoiding trans-nat corporations and individuals, and the useless rulers that allow it to continue.
The entities make huge and costly efforts to artificially arrange their affairs to reduce or eliminate the tax due and perhaps stay within the letter of the law.
Not quite what you say, but here I am being drawn into specious arguments, so bye.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff