Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The protectionist EU...
#1
Doing what we have lacked the balls to do...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41497459
Reply
#2
(10-04-2017, 01:11 PM)Ossian Wrote: Doing what we have lacked the balls to do...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41497459

You mean Amazon paying the tax that was negotiated with Junker's Government

'The tax deal between Luxembourg and Amazon was struck in 2003.'

The findings were that it was "illegal under EU state aid rules". So Amazon paid what it was legally required to under the agreement and Luxembourg under Junker acted against EU rules. Shouldn't it be Luxembourg and Junker they should be going after ?
Reply
#3
Quote:At the time the deal was struck, Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission's president, was the prime minister of Luxembourg.

There's no need to comment further really is there?

(10-04-2017, 01:11 PM)Ossian Wrote: Doing what we have lacked the balls to do...

Not that 'we' had any authority to do it....
Reply
#4
(10-04-2017, 02:50 PM)Protheroe Wrote: Not that 'we' had any authority to do it....

The point I was making - as I'm sure you well know - is that successive UK governments have consistently failed to tackle the blurring of the line between legitimate corporate tax avoidance and what is, in effect, evasion by any other name.

I suppose, once we're free to do things our own way, this will be properly put to the test and we'll see an end to cronyism and shady deals hatched over expensive breakfasts.
Reply
#5
The Tory FG and FF are shitting it that Apple might fuck off out of Ireland. Which would indeed have some impact, in Cork especially

Around four-fifths of all corporate taxes for 2015 were paid by non-Irish businesses.
Reply
#6
(10-04-2017, 03:41 PM)Ossian Wrote:
(10-04-2017, 02:50 PM)Protheroe Wrote: Not that 'we' had any authority to do it....

The point I was making - as I'm sure you well know - is that successive UK governments have consistently failed to tackle the blurring of the line between legitimate corporate tax avoidance and what is, in effect, evasion by any other name.

I suppose, once we're free to do things our own way, this will be properly put to the test and we'll see an end to cronyism and shady deals hatched over expensive breakfasts.

And the point I was making is that if we'd have acted alone (on what authority I'm unsure) then Amazon / Google may have taken the UK to the European Court.

There's a very simple way to sort this out in the UK, abolish avoidable Corporation Tax and load unavoidable Payroll Taxes or Sales Taxes instead.
Reply
#7
I doubt that it would have reached the European Court, or anywhere near.

All that's needed is for the local revenue to take a fine tooth comb to the cross-border charges that are used as devices for reducing earnings in one jurisdiction and "placing them across the border", as a Flemish colleague of mine used to put it, and disallow any that look spurious. Yes, the businesses can appeal if they choose, but the process can become very extended, the tax authorities can dig in for a long game and, in the meantime, the tax is payable and has to be handed over.

This isn't a hypothetical situation I'm describing here, by the way; I saw it implemented first hand in a country which was, and remains, an enthusiastic member of the EU. Main thing was, they had the will.
Reply
#8
Abolish corporation tax and tax it at point of sale
I can't see that this is a hard one to solve
Reply
#9
(10-06-2017, 06:49 AM)Donegal Wrote: Abolish corporation tax and tax it at point of sale
I can't see that this is a hard one to solve

Completely agree. We should be simplifying the tax code as much as possible to do away with the need for 'fine tooth comb' investigation. It'd more than halve the size of the HMRC which is obviously why no-one there is in favour.

Adam Smith had it right on taxation - particularly the "Ease of collection" canon. You'll have to ask the HMRC the accountancy profession why tax is so complicated, but you know the answer to that already don't you?
Reply
#10
I don't disagree: revenue is much easier to tax than profits and a lot more transparent; but that doesn't excuse not dealing with the current situation for as long as it continues to exist.

I don't think the conservative right (small 'c' is deliberate) would be very keen on anything so radical. I'd be going after the landowners as well: tax land holdings and stop paying farming subsidies on the basis of acreage, which gives ranch style operators a big advantage over small producers. That would go down a bundle...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)