Avoiding tax Barclays style
Discussion
Is there anyone on here who can tell me how Barclays bank avoided the massive tax bill, I'm thinking I could maybe employ some if these tactics myself. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/18/guardi...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/18/guardi...
Nothing particularly odd about what they did.
In UK Corporation Tax rules, if you make a loss in one year, you can carry forward the loos against profits in the next (or future) years. Businesses do it all the time. Indeed, it would be a dereliction of duty by the directors to fail to utilise losses such as this correctly.
As an accountant, if I missed a simple tax point like that I would deserve to be fired.
In UK Corporation Tax rules, if you make a loss in one year, you can carry forward the loos against profits in the next (or future) years. Businesses do it all the time. Indeed, it would be a dereliction of duty by the directors to fail to utilise losses such as this correctly.
As an accountant, if I missed a simple tax point like that I would deserve to be fired.
TheCoolerKing said:
Is there anyone on here who can tell me how Barclays bank avoided the massive tax bill, I'm thinking I could maybe employ some if these tactics myself.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/18/guardi...
Easy. Start your own business, lose £50k, make £50k profit the next year. Avoid paying tax. (Give or take.)http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/18/guardi...
You could also take a look at how the Guardian has structured itself to minimise it's tax too. Along with every hippy's favourite bank, The Co-op. They managed to only pay 1.88% Corporation Tax last year, despite all their busienss being UK based.
Or is that not in vogue with you hippies at the moment?
Or is that not in vogue with you hippies at the moment?
As usual, the media etc has jumped on a story and reported it in a biased way. It reads as if the profit and the tax paid is all UK. This is not so. The profit quoted in the media is on their worldwide business before worldwide tax, and the tax is what's been paid here. Barclays makes 60% + of its profit overseas so that means the uk profit was very much less that the headline figure quoted. They also pay overseas taxes which is offset against their total tax bill calculated in the UK.
There is also the matter of losses carried forward from the previous year which are credited against the subsequent year's profit, as with any other company.
So, look at everything and the amount of UK corp tax paid relating to the actual UK portion of income/profit is reasonable. But, of course, this doesn't sell newspapers.
And were not bailed out by the past government, ie you and me.
R.
There is also the matter of losses carried forward from the previous year which are credited against the subsequent year's profit, as with any other company.
So, look at everything and the amount of UK corp tax paid relating to the actual UK portion of income/profit is reasonable. But, of course, this doesn't sell newspapers.
And were not bailed out by the past government, ie you and me.
R.
The Leaper said:
As usual, the media etc has jumped on a story and reported it in a biased way. It reads as if the profit and the tax paid is all UK. This is not so. The profit quoted in the media is on their worldwide business before worldwide tax, and the tax is what's been paid here. Barclays makes 60% + of its profit overseas so that means the uk profit was very much less that the headline figure quoted. They also pay overseas taxes which is offset against their total tax bill calculated in the UK.
There is also the matter of losses carried forward from the previous year which are credited against the subsequent year's profit, as with any other company.
So, look at everything and the amount of UK corp tax paid relating to the actual UK portion of income/profit is reasonable. But, of course, this doesn't sell newspapers.
And were not bailed out by the past government, ie you and me.
R.
Get out of here with your common sense. Don't you know they're fat cats and they rape children? You Tory Scum.....There is also the matter of losses carried forward from the previous year which are credited against the subsequent year's profit, as with any other company.
So, look at everything and the amount of UK corp tax paid relating to the actual UK portion of income/profit is reasonable. But, of course, this doesn't sell newspapers.
And were not bailed out by the past government, ie you and me.
R.
TheCoolerKing said:
I hear what you're saying but why did the bank go to such lengths to keep public documents out of the public domain if its no big deal.
They didn't. They published their accounts - as the law stipulates. They disclosed the figures on those accounts - as the law stipulates.
How is this news?, or god forbid is this the guardian jumping on the bank bashing bandwagon.
It's almost as stupid as bob geldof spouting his rubbish about the cancellation of 3rd world debt etc etc, when he himself uses every tax rule and treaty to enable him to pay a tiny amount of uk tax.
It's almost as stupid as bob geldof spouting his rubbish about the cancellation of 3rd world debt etc etc, when he himself uses every tax rule and treaty to enable him to pay a tiny amount of uk tax.
4Q said:
Isn't Barclays the only bank that DIDN'T go under..??
If so, WHY are people jumping all over them?
I'm not a fan of people who needed tax money to bail them out kicking the arse out of it with my dosh, but as far as I'm concerned Barclays can do whatever they like!
Grandstanding, banker bashing, and the usual complaints about companies (and people) who avoid tax in a fully legal fashion. I doubt it's anything more sinister than that.If so, WHY are people jumping all over them?
I'm not a fan of people who needed tax money to bail them out kicking the arse out of it with my dosh, but as far as I'm concerned Barclays can do whatever they like!
As for the tax money aspect, Barclays will have benefited (to some extent) from the widely-held assumption, backed up I must admit by nothing more than the recent evidence of people's own lying eyes, that the government will bail out banks in the future as well as in the past. This of course leaves them (slightly more) free to indulge in more risky (and more profitable) behaviour. So you could look upon this as them failing to pay tax on the benefits they've received from government largesse. No money was directly spent on Barclays, but they've received some of the benefit of any money being spent at all in the first place. Agree (or not) if you like, but the argument has at least some merit.
(I don't think it's directly relevant here, anyway, but it adds an touch of crowd-pleasing "bankers steal from public purse" into the mix.)
Don't know.
Limited company accounts (especially PLC accounts) have a whole raft of disclosure requirements set out in both Company Law and accounting and auditing standards.
As long as companies comply with these legal and ethical requirements, I can't see what the problem is.
If people are unhappy with the level of disclosure in statutory accounts, they should argue for a change in the law.
Indeed, Company Law is always in a pretty constant state of flux (don't I know) and it's a constant battle to keep up with the never ending changes to disclosure requirements.
Limited company accounts (especially PLC accounts) have a whole raft of disclosure requirements set out in both Company Law and accounting and auditing standards.
As long as companies comply with these legal and ethical requirements, I can't see what the problem is.
If people are unhappy with the level of disclosure in statutory accounts, they should argue for a change in the law.
Indeed, Company Law is always in a pretty constant state of flux (don't I know) and it's a constant battle to keep up with the never ending changes to disclosure requirements.
R1 Loon said:
You could also take a look at how the Guardian has structured itself to minimise it's tax too. Along with every hippy's favourite bank, The Co-op. They managed to only pay 1.88% Corporation Tax last year, despite all their busienss being UK based.
Or is that not in vogue with you hippies at the moment?
I was about to say, I don't think the 'tax avoidance' drum is one The Guardian wants to be banging too loudly.Or is that not in vogue with you hippies at the moment?
http://order-order.com/2010/12/05/polly-missed-gua...
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/the...
In fact, their hypocrisy is breath-taking.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff