Facebook pay no Corporation Tax AGAIN
Discussion
sidicks said:
Says the person who established a new thread to decry Facebook for (shock horror) paying wages to its staff which lowered its taxable profits...!
If you want to keep an argument going, you should just read back through the last 10 or so pages of your involvement and it'd be almost the same as if I could still be bothered to respond. scorp said:
Since we have a few financial bods apparently in this thread, can someone explain to a financial illiterate what is going on? Are the medias headlines deliberately misleading ?
Facebook paid no corporation tax due to:A) having high expenses (wages and associated costs) which are deducted from turnover to reduce taxable profits
B) having losses carried forward from previous years.
Of course this is entirely standard accounting practice and consistent with what any other company would do.
The 'hard of thinking' are keen to be outraged at a company not paying Corporation tax because they simply don't understand the basics of tax and accounting.
sidicks said:
Facebook paid no corporation tax due to:
A) having high expenses (wages and associated costs) which are deducted from turnover to reduce taxable profits
B) having losses carried forward from previous years.
Of course this is entirely standard accounting practice and consistent with what any other company would do.
The 'hard of thinking' are keen to be outraged at a company not paying Corporation tax because they simply don't understand the basics of tax and accounting.
Thanks for the reply.A) having high expenses (wages and associated costs) which are deducted from turnover to reduce taxable profits
B) having losses carried forward from previous years.
Of course this is entirely standard accounting practice and consistent with what any other company would do.
The 'hard of thinking' are keen to be outraged at a company not paying Corporation tax because they simply don't understand the basics of tax and accounting.
Is it the same for Starbucks? That's a company that looks like it actually makes profit (Stores everywhere, full of customers, etc).
scorp said:
Since we have a few financial bods apparently in this thread, can someone explain to a financial illiterate what is going on? Are the medias headlines deliberately misleading ?
Facebook paid no corporation tax due to..A - Siphoning profits made in the UK via a Irish tax haven subsidiary.
B - Fabricating pumped-up costs to sell back to itself in order to negate profits.
The "hard of thinking" are generally too stubborn to acknowledge the legitimate outrage behind a company that reports £900m global profit, with a huge UK footprint, yet pays no Uk corp. tax.
CamMoreRon said:
Facebook paid no corporation tax due to..
A - Siphoning profits made in the UK via a Irish tax haven subsidiary.
B - Fabricating pumped-up costs to sell back to itself in order to negate profits.
Absolute rubbish.A - Siphoning profits made in the UK via a Irish tax haven subsidiary.
B - Fabricating pumped-up costs to sell back to itself in order to negate profits.
CamMoreRon said:
The "hard of thinking" are generally too stubborn to acknowledge the legitimate outrage behind a company that reports £900m global profit, with a huge UK footprint, yet pays no Uk corp. tax.
Time and time again you demonstrate how little you know.scorp said:
Is it the same for Starbucks? That's a company that looks like it actually makes profit (Stores everywhere, full of customers, etc).
Starbucks did the same, although by charging themselves enormous license / franchise fees and selling beans to themselves for a zillion pounds each to fabricate a loss.They actually agreed to "artificially" increase (i.e. stop manipulating profits quite so extremely) their tax contributions in order to try and win back custom.
CamMoreRon said:
Starbucks did the same, although by charging themselves enormous license / franchise fees and selling beans to themselves for a zillion pounds each to fabricate a loss.
They actually agreed to "artificially" increase (i.e. stop manipulating profits quite so extremely) their tax contributions in order to try and win back custom.
More lies.They actually agreed to "artificially" increase (i.e. stop manipulating profits quite so extremely) their tax contributions in order to try and win back custom.
Starbucks bought their coffe from their subsidiary at a price close to market price, [b]ad required under UK transfer pricing rules. Plus of course the cost of the coffee is small in comparison to the overall cost etc.
sidicks said:
More lies.
Starbucks bought their coffe from their subsidiary at a price close to market price, [b]ad required under UK transfer pricing rules. Plus of course the cost of the coffee is small in comparison to the overall cost etc.
Did they pay a tax rate similar to that of a local UK coffee shop ?Starbucks bought their coffe from their subsidiary at a price close to market price, [b]ad required under UK transfer pricing rules. Plus of course the cost of the coffee is small in comparison to the overall cost etc.
sidicks said:
More lies.
Starbucks bought their coffe from their subsidiary at a price close to market price, [b]ad required under UK transfer pricing rules. Plus of course the cost of the coffee is small in comparison to the overall cost etc.
Read this: Not LiesStarbucks bought their coffe from their subsidiary at a price close to market price, [b]ad required under UK transfer pricing rules. Plus of course the cost of the coffee is small in comparison to the overall cost etc.
You know I'm right, you just don't want to admit it. We established that earlier when you refused to acknowledge the reasoning behind OECD's calls for fairer tax law. Now you're just clutching the one straw you can still hold on to - denial.
You're making yourself look incredibly ignorant.
CamMoreRon said:
Read this: Not Lies
You know I'm right, you just don't want to admit it. We established that earlier when you refused to acknowledge the reasoning behind OECD's calls for fairer tax law. Now you're just clutching the one straw you can still hold on to - denial.
You're making yourself look incredibly ignorant.
Once again, you produce articles that don't support your claims...You know I'm right, you just don't want to admit it. We established that earlier when you refused to acknowledge the reasoning behind OECD's calls for fairer tax law. Now you're just clutching the one straw you can still hold on to - denial.
You're making yourself look incredibly ignorant.
1. Few (sensible) people would argue that there is value in the Starbucks name - 6% of revenue seems ok
2. The article says nothing about the cost of coffee purchased (see transfer pricing rules)
3. All companies can offset debt interest against profits
CamMoreRon said:
sidicks said:
More lies.
Starbucks bought their coffe from their subsidiary at a price close to market price, [b]ad required under UK transfer pricing rules. Plus of course the cost of the coffee is small in comparison to the overall cost etc.
Read this: Not LiesStarbucks bought their coffe from their subsidiary at a price close to market price, [b]ad required under UK transfer pricing rules. Plus of course the cost of the coffee is small in comparison to the overall cost etc.
You know I'm right, you just don't want to admit it. We established that earlier when you refused to acknowledge the reasoning behind OECD's calls for fairer tax law. Now you're just clutching the one straw you can still hold on to - denial.
You're making yourself look incredibly ignorant.
"We seek to be good taxpayers and to pay our fair share of taxes ... We don't write this tax code; we are obligated to comply with it. And we do."
"There is no suggestion Starbucks has broken any laws. Indeed, the group's overall tax rate - including deferred taxes which may or may not be paid in the future - was 31 percent last year, much higher than the 18.5 percent average rate that campaign group Citizens for Tax Justice says large U.S. corporations paid in recent years."
You yourself have said you avoid tax by having an ISA/Pension this is no different. You follow the laws as they are set out.
sidicks said:
Once again, you produce articles that don't support your claims...
1. Few (sensible) people would argue that there is value in the Starbucks name - 6% of revenue seems ok
2. The article says nothing about the cost of coffee purchased (see transfer pricing rules)
3. All companies can offset debt interest against profits
Yes, of course the methods are legal.. but being legal doesn't do anything to disprove that they are using these methods to siphon profit out of the UK and in to tax havens - please tell me EXACTLY how this isn't true.1. Few (sensible) people would argue that there is value in the Starbucks name - 6% of revenue seems ok
2. The article says nothing about the cost of coffee purchased (see transfer pricing rules)
3. All companies can offset debt interest against profits
Their entire business structure is artificial - created by very expensive tax lawyers and accountants to wipe out their profits in the UK and make them elsewhere. While they are very clever, they do sometimes take the piss a little too much:
Article said:
Accounts filed by its UK subsidiary show that since it opened in the UK in 1998 the company has racked up over 3 billion pounds ($4.8 billion) in coffee sales, and opened 735 outlets but paid only 8.6 million pounds in income taxes, largely due because the taxman disallowed some deductions
Article said:
Over the past three years, Starbucks has reported no profit, and paid no income tax, on sales of 1.2 billion pounds in the UK. McDonald's, by comparison, had a tax bill of over 80 million pounds on 3.6 billion pounds of UK sales. Kentucky Fried Chicken, part of Yum Brands Inc., the no. 3 global restaurant or cafe chain by market capitalization, incurred taxes of 36 million pounds on 1.1 billion pounds in UK sales, according to the accounts of their UK units.
I didn't want to get sucked back in to this argument, but you are deliberately misleading people.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.
Further: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.
1.HMRC can go back 6 years if they wish to investigate a case. If they find any tax evasion in those 6 years they can then go back another 6 years, and so on for ever.
2.Accounting profit does not equal taxable profit. Accounting for such things as fixed assets and goodwill is very different for accounting and tax purposes. An example is Vodaphone another company the pay more tax brigade likes to pick on. For a number of years Vodaphone made profits but paid no tax. The reason is they had paid a fortune for 3G licences and when these proved to have little value they wrote them off for accounting purposes, but for tax purposes the cost was still being amortised for a number of years.
3.The rules on which previous losses can be allowed against future profits are very complex and are unlikely to follow account statements.
4.HMRC has vast powers of investigation. They can issue assessments at any time and when they do so the burden of proof is reversed and the tax payer has to prove the assessment is not correct.
5. As for artificial scheme look at the “Ramsey” principle to see how HRMC can ignore artificial steps in a scheme.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff