Who set up our current tax laws!

[Leeds Spur]

You're actually wrong, entry doesn't have a price. As long as you believe in the European free market, Amazon can base itself in any country in the EU and ship to the UK and then pay absolutely nothing to HMRC.

It's not a free market.

There are conditions and costs of entry.

They should be paying full UK VAT.

 

[Richie]

It's not a free market.

There are conditions and costs of entry.

They should be paying full UK VAT.

Again, companies don't pay VAT, consumers do, but who's to say VAT isn't currently being paid? The article says Starbucks paid nothing in tax, which clearly does not include VAT because I don't think for a second they have found a way around paying it. Nor would they care about trying to avoid it, because it's just passed on to the consumer in higher prices

If I order a book from Amazon.fr, I have no customs duties or import VAT payable. One of you may have to be more knowledgeable than me as to what constitutes import VAT in comparison to regular VAT. Perhaps HMRC will bill amazon.fr for the 20% VAT, I'm not sure.

 

[Leeds Spur]

According to the SEC filings, UK sales that year were between £2.3bn and £3.2bn. Amazon in the US has earned an average 3.5% profit margin over the past three years.

UK sales over the past three years, according to the SEC filings, were between £7.6bn and £10.3bn. If the same profit margin was applied, this would have generated taxable profits of £266m-£360m and yielded notional UK corporation tax of up to £100m.

However, in the nine years between 2003 and 2011, the UK-registered company has reported a cumulative net tax bill of just £3m – of which £1.9m was incurred in 2011. This is not the tax actually paid to HMRC; that information is not available because the UK company is not required to produce a cash flow statement.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Again, companies don't pay VAT, consumers do, but who's to say VAT isn't currently being paid? The article says Starbucks paid nothing in tax, which clearly does not include VAT because I don't think for a second they have found a way around paying it. Nor would they care about trying to avoid it, because it's just passed on to the consumer in higher prices

Correct - I meant corporation tax not VAT.

Amazon should be paying hundreds of millions in tax.

You can argue if corporation tax should or shouldnt exist....but it does, and these cretins should be paying it.

 

[southstand1882]

I'm with Leeds on this one.

Paying tax on profits CLEARLY does not work as its open to creative accounting

If a multinational corporation like Starbucks cannot make a fudging profit, they should fudge off and be replaced

OR

It can pay tax on their revenues

Perhaps give corporations 12 months grace (to cook their books). Then all bets are off, you pay tax on your revenues.

World financial crisis solved.

 

[Richie]

I'm with Leeds on this one.

Paying tax on profits CLEARLY does not work as its open to creative accounting

If a multinational corporation like Starbucks cannot make a fudging profit, they should fudge off and be replaced

OR

It can pay tax on their revenues

Perhaps give corporations 12 months grace (to cook their books). Then all bets are off, you pay tax on your revenues.

World financial crisis solved.

Paying tax on revenues? So you are committing any high volume-low margin company to go bust.

 

[jts1882]

I think I read that most of Amazon's European sales are from Luxenbourg and/or Ireland. So even though the book is delivered in England it is shipped from abroad or the order is taken abroad so the revenue applies to that country and they pay the taxes in that jurisdiction.

Edit: here ...

Amazon faces UK corporation tax probe

Amazon, the world's largest online retailer, is facing an investigation by British tax authorities, it has been reported.

By Richard Blackden, US business editor
6:48AM BST 05 Apr 2012

The company disclosed the investigation in a filing with US financial regulators. It was alleged that the company recorded sales of more than £7.6bn in Britain over the past three years without paying corporation tax.

Amazon does not disclose how much tax it pays in Britain.

However, its main UK subsidiary, Amazon.co.uk, is regarded as a "service company" rather than a retailer.

That means that the British company provides services to a parent company based in Luxembourg, where the tax rate is lower, the Guardian said.

HM Revenues & Customs declined to comment on whether it was examining Amazon. The report added that the investigation could be a routine audit.

The report cites a filing Amazon made in America that says its "effective tax rate in 2011, 2010 and 2009 was lower than the 35 per cent US federal statutory rate, primarily due to earnings of our subsidiaries outside of the US in jurisdictions where our effective tax rate is lower than in the US.

"Such earnings primarily relate to our European operations, which are headquartered in Luxembourg."

Amazon could not be reached for comment.

Amazon, founded by Jeff Bezos in Seattle, has grown to become one of the most influential retailers in the world.

It has also pushed into computer storage, publishing and its array of Kindle devices compete with Apple's iPad in the expanding tablet market.

The company has already been battling with several states over the collection of a sales tax that Amazon is required to pay in states where it has physical operations.

In California, where the dispute has been most heated, the company was given a one–year reprieve on collecting sales taxes on purchases made in the state.

Or how about Apple: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/b...x-states-and-nations.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Richie]

I think I read that most of Amazon's European sales are from Luxenbourg and/or Ireland. So even though the book is delivered in England it is shipped from abroad or the order is taken abroad so the revenue applies to that country and they pay the taxes in that jurisdiction.

Which is exactly my point. The UK arm of Amazon is little more than a delivery service, the company is based in Luxembourg because of it and therefore pays it's taxes to Luxembourg where taxes and regulation are much more beneficial.

 

[Seedy Ron]

Boots are the same JTS, HQ is technically some Swiss PO Box now.

 

[jts1882]

Which is exactly my point. The UK arm of Amazon is little more than a delivery service, the company is based in Luxembourg because of it and therefore pays it's taxes to Luxembourg where taxes and regulation are much more beneficial.

But don't you think that is a legal con?

The idea that Amazon.co.uk (note the domain ) is just a "service company" is a mechanism to avoid taxes on UK sales and profits (they also pay VAT at Luxembourg's 3% rate for good subject to VAT). Its a distortion of free market economics as high street book-sellers cannot use the same mechanism. If different agents are subject to different rules, you can't have a free market.

 

[jts1882]

Boots are the same JTS, HQ is technically some Swiss PO Box now.

Most of the multi-nationals so the same.

I read that there is a building in the Cayman Islands that host the registered offices of 1500 companies. Some of these companies hold the patent rights, expecially lucrative patents for things like drugs, so nationally based companies can pay royalties to the Cayman companies. This robs the tax payer.

The problem is that only big corporations can benefit, the same ones who move jobs off-shore. Small businesses that create jobs have to pay their share of the taxes and some. Likewise income taxes have to be higher because the big corporations aren't paying their share. These loopholes distort the market in favour of the big corporations, reducing jobs and increasing taxes on small business and the consumer.

 

[Richie]

But don't you think that is a legal con?

The idea that Amazon.co.uk (note the domain ) is just a "service company" is a mechanism to avoid taxes on UK sales and profits (they also pay VAT at Luxembourg's 3% rate for good subject to VAT). Its a distortion of free market economics as high street book-sellers cannot use the same mechanism. If different agents are subject to different rules, you can't have a free market.

I disagree, it's a great example of the free market at work. Amazon goes to a country that is free to compete on tax and regulation thus getting a better deal and passes those savings on to the consumer.

I have no problem with it, because I doubt Amazons Luxembourg office is shipping solely to the UK. I imagine it is the basis for all of Amazons European operations, so they likely ship to all EU countries from there. They are a Luxembourg company regardless of the domain name registration, we have no right to ask them to pay corporation tax over here any more than we have a right to ask French or German companies to pay UK corporation tax simply for doing business in the UK.

 

[Seedy Ron]

I doubt Amazons Luxembourg office is shipping solely to the UK.

I doubt the Luxembourg office ships anything, anywhere.

 

[jts1882]

I disagree, it's a great example of the free market at work. Amazon goes to a country that is free to compete on tax and regulation thus getting a better deal and passes those savings on to the consumer.

I have no problem with it, because I doubt Amazons Luxembourg office is shipping solely to the UK. I imagine it is the basis for all of Amazons European operations, so they likely ship to all EU countries from there. They are a Luxembourg company regardless of the domain name registration, we have no right to ask them to pay corporation tax over here any more than we have a right to ask French or German companies to pay UK corporation tax simply for doing business in the UK.

So you are happy to pay higher taxes and have higher unemployment in the UK?

It's not a great example of a free market. Its allowing some companies to operate with an advantage that other companies don't have, in this case a larger internet company over smaller traditional bookstores. That's a perversion of the free market.

And we do have a right to charge foreign companies corporation tax for business done in this country. That is how the system is supposed to work. If they were publishing the books in Luxembourg, then it would be different, but a lot (most?) of the books are published in the UK. So they are printed in the UK, shipped in the UK, and delivered to UK consumers. That is called doing business in the UK and profits on that business are liable for tax.

 

[scaramanga]

So you are happy to pay higher taxes and have higher unemployment in the UK?

It's not a great example of a free market. Its allowing some companies to operate with an advantage that other companies don't have, in this case a larger internet company over smaller traditional bookstores. That's a perversion of the free market.

And we do have a right to charge foreign companies corporation tax for business done in this country. That is how the system is supposed to work. If they were publishing the books in Luxembourg, then it would be different, but a lot (most?) of the books are published in the UK. So they are printed in the UK, shipped in the UK, and delivered to UK consumers. That is called doing business in the UK and profits on that business are liable for tax.

The UK has the right to compete with Luxembourg by setting more competitive tax rates - it chooses not to.

We, as voters, have the right to vote for a party that will do so. On the whole, we choose not to.

 

[Leeds Spur]

I'm with Leeds on this one.

Paying tax on profits CLEARLY does not work as its open to creative accounting

If a multinational corporation like Starbucks cannot make a fudging profit, they should fudge off and be replaced

OR

It can pay tax on their revenues

Perhaps give corporations 12 months grace (to cook their books). Then all bets are off, you pay tax on your revenues.

World financial crisis solved.

Yep. Just create a licence and do a windfall tax if they get funny.

And nuke Switzerland.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Paying tax on revenues? So you are committing any high volume-low margin company to go bust.

Yeah. Amazon are well poor.

If they wanna play silly buggers so can we

 

[Leeds Spur]

I think I read that most of Amazon's European sales are from Luxenbourg and/or Ireland. So even though the book is delivered in England it is shipped from abroad or the order is taken abroad so the revenue applies to that country and they pay the taxes in that jurisdiction.

Edit: here ...




Or how about Apple: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/b...ates-and-nations.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Yep. Them to. All of these ****s need to pay up or fudge off

 

[southstand1882]

Paying tax on revenues? So you are committing any high volume-low margin company to go bust.

So increase the prices then

Do you know what a billion is?

If you earn a pound a second, it would take you about 11 days to earn a million

How long do you think it would take to earn a billion?

Surely you must see that it's a brick state of affairs that a company can turnover a billion pounds and not pay tax

 

[Leeds Spur]

The UK has the right to compete with Luxembourg by setting more competitive tax rates - it chooses not to.

We, as voters, have the right to vote for a party that will do so. On the whole, we choose not to.

gonad*s. What's the population of Luxembourg? Easy to undercut a country with 62 million when you're a little mountainous tinkleant place.

Another one on the nuke list. As well as Lichtenstein.