Big Firms Ready To Flee Over Tax

[Golden Shower]

Not pleasant reading but inevitable. One day we'll learn that high taxes and big, interfering governments do not work.

DOZENS of major British companies are working on plans to move their headquarters overseas in an effort to escape Chancellor Gordon Brown's war on tax avoidance.

Big firms ready to flee over tax

[The Masked Tulip]

Brown is, IMPO, destroying British businesses. He has, IMPO, devastated the once thriving IT and Oil Engineering sectors concentrating on taxing the self-employed individuals instead of the big corporates they work for. His IR35 was a disaster for tens of thousands working in those sectors - and also the wider UK economy - whilst, suspiciously, people like Hewitt went off to India to, IMPO, export UK jobs to India.

Now, having drained the small self-employed business person dry he has no other choice than to go after the big corporates and, interestingly, the luvvies. Anyone else read the story in the Sunday Times today about him now going after luvvies who use agents and not only changing the intrepretation of their tax rules but also back-dating it? Some luvvies might end up owing MILLIONS.

[Guest]

Hmmm. Big news. And quite bearish from you, Golden.

Does moving HQ abroad affect where a company's stock is listed?

[The Masked Tulip]

Does moving HQ abroad affect where a company's stock is listed?

No.

[dog]

Not pleasant reading but inevitable. One day we'll learn that high taxes and big, interfering governments do not work.

Big firms ready to flee over tax

IR35 is another one. This has done permenant damage to engineering design in the UK. The big engineering design houses have shifted their centre of gravity much closer to Ireland and many of the UK design offices have now shut down. IR35 was not only grossly unfair but very confusing. Contractors in the UK now live with the sword of Damacles hanging over them. At any time they can be reclassified as as a disguised employee on the whim of taxman and face punitive retrospective charges.

[patprimer74]

Not pleasant reading but ...

What d'you mean - 'Not pleasant reading...' ? It's absolute standard fare for Daily Fascist readers - and, you've obviously enjoyed it so much that you want to share it with others. What d'you expect? Compliments to a Labour Chancellor from the Daily Fascist?

How come there are more people in paid employment in this country today than at any time in our history? Is it because we have an anti-business government? Look at some real facts and stop reading tripe that feeds your obvious bias.

...and the connection with HPC is...?

p

[FreeFall]

How come there are more people in paid employment in this country today than at any time in our history?

I believe that about 700,000 of them are employed directly or indirectly by government....in addition to those that were already working for them in 1997.

Is it because we have an anti-business government?

I think anti-business is too strong. The government have just been victim to the continuing globalisation issue which has been reducing the tax coffers, so they keep having to raise tax burden on people and companies paying it.

[MarkG]

I believe that about 700,000 of them are employed directly or indirectly by government....in addition to those that were already working for them in 1997.

And don't forget the vast numbers employed by the housing bubble: builders, EAs, mortgage lenders, etc.

[FollowTheBear]

My understanding of corporate tax is that companies pay tax in whatever country they sell their goods. In other words, an insurer based in Holland selling it's products in Britain will pay substantial tax on profits acquired in Britain. The advantage of moving to a low tax country is pretty slim.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[MarkG]

The advantage of moving to a low tax country is pretty slim.

So why do you think so many companies are based there? I worked for one company whose 'world headquarters' was just a plaque on a wall in Bermuda, because of their tax laws.

Certainly they'll have to pay some taxes in other countries where they do business, but if profits are all booked in Bermuda then they won't be paying tax on those profits to the British government.

Similarly, at least as of a few years ago, some companies were producing products in the West and selling them over the web from Panama, where the profits ended up and where they don't pay tax. Provided the companies were set up properly it was perfectly legal at that time.

Edited June 4, 2006 by MarkG

[FollowTheBear]

Certainly they'll have to pay some taxes in other countries where they do business, but if profits are all booked in Bermuda then they won't be paying tax on those profits to the British government.

I believe they do have to pay tax on profits in Britain. For example, a foreign car company selling cars in Britain will have a network of dealers which will pay tax on their profits like any UK-based company.

[MarkG]

For example, a foreign car company selling cars in Britain will have a network of dealers which will pay tax on their profits like any UK-based company.

That's because those dealers are based in Britain.

If they sold the cars over the web from Panama instead and jumped through the hoops to remain legal, there'd be no UK profits to tax.

[Europa]

I believe they do have to pay tax on profits in Britain. For example, a foreign car company selling cars in Britain will have a network of dealers which will pay tax on their profits like any UK-based company.

Some of them did find a way round this Nissan, for example, had a habit for a number of years of selling its goods from Britain to its subsidiaries in lower tax areas at cost price or below; as a result, virtually no tax to pay in Blighty. I see to remember, though, that the Inland Revenue took a dim view of this.

Actually, does anyone know if this is still going on?

[FollowTheBear]

Some of them did find a way round this Nissan, for example, had a habit for a number of years of selling its goods from Britain to its subsidiaries in lower tax areas at cost price or below; as a result, virtually no tax to pay in Blighty. I see to remember, though, that the Inland Revenue took a dim view of this.

Actually, does anyone know if this is still going on?

I don't know about the past but today there are rules which demand that transactions within a company are made at market price, not at a discount.

[patprimer74]

I believe that about 700,000 of them are employed directly or indirectly by government....in addition to those that were already working for them in 1997.

What about the other 1.5 million new jobs?

Perhaps those who want a smaller public sector should explain where the cuts should come from. Perhaps:

less police officers?

less nurses?

less doctors?

less armed forces?

less firemen?

less teachers?

At least we now have the Tory Party confirming that they have no intention of cutting taxes and, presumably, government spending. A new consensus, perhaps?

p

[FollowTheBear]

What about the other 1.5 million new jobs?

Perhaps those who want a smaller public sector should explain where the cuts should come from. Perhaps:

less police officers?

less nurses?

less doctors?

less armed forces?

less firemen?

less teachers?

At least we now have the Tory Party confirming that they have no intention of cutting taxes and, presumably, government spending. A new consensus, perhaps?

p

It was mentioned on Question Time last Thursday that perhaps the tories were actually getting out of date saying this. I think a consensus is emerging among the UK population that we are paying too much tax and a more efficient public sector is a real possibility.

By the way, a smaller public sector can be achieved without job losses - just by cutting the massively expensive pension they all get and being made to take more out of their own wages like everyone else has to. But then this government couldn't stomach a fight with the unions.

[FreeFall]

Perhaps those who want a smaller public sector should explain where the cuts should come from. Perhaps:

less police officers?

less nurses?

less doctors?

less armed forces?

less firemen?

less teachers?

Perhaps the mass of people employed in the red tape brigade preventing all of the people you've listed from doing their jobs to the best of their capability.

[BuyingBear]

Gordy is also planning to upset quite a few media luvies :-

Brown targets celebrities’ tax perk

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2209808,00.html' rel="external nofollow">

Robert Winnett and David Leppard

GORDON BROWN wants to recoup millions of pounds from celebrities as part of a Treasury drive to reclaim an estimated £97 billion underpaid in tax each year.

HM Revenue & Customs is mounting a test case against Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan, the chat show hosts, that will set a legal precedent for television presenters, authors and footballers.

It claims that they have wrongly written off the cost of employing agents against their tax bills and wants to recover a six-figure sum to cover the period back to the late 1990s.

It could affect thousands of big names such as J K Rowling, the author, Jamie Oliver, the television chef, and Frank Lampard and Michael Owen, the England footballers, according to tax experts. In total the Revenue is hoping to recover hundreds of millions of pounds.

[Time to raise the rents.]

Interesting what the result of too much interferance can be.

And so many of you want the govt to interfere with the housing market. I don't think you know what you'd get in return for the interferance.

[oldmisery]

oh first the kill productivity, now they tax to death. how many times have they been down this road? remember when we were called the sick man of europe? personally my experience of the public sector is that no initiative is asked so none is shown. its ok giving all this money to the nhs. but i want high productivity and high results. the problems of the past are being bought back by our visionary one eyed jock

[BuyingBear]

And so many of you want the govt to interfere with the housing market. I don't think you know what you'd get in return for the interferance.

Quite the opposite, a free market in housing devoid of government interference would solve so many problems.

[FollowTheBear]

Interesting what the result of too much interferance can be.

And so many of you want the govt to interfere with the housing market. I don't think you know what you'd get in return for the interferance.

Government planning restrictions are one very big way the government already sticks it's nose in.

[Sledgehead]

First, excuse me if this post is unintelligible: basically I can onlt see half of it due to this SH!T foum.

megaflop asked : Does moving HQ abroad affect where a company's stock is

Masked said "No", but companies list where : a ) they have business, b ) they can raise capital, c ) they have a head office, d ) it is tax efficient. FTSE100 companies now do as much business outside the UK as in it, in many cases, MORE. Now look at UK investors. Pension funds seem hell bent on piling all their money into gilts (hence the reason for the elevated prices of long dated gilts), private investors are as skittish as hell and prefer vastly over inflated property and the investment banks have offices all over the world. So raising capital here is also no longer a reason for staying. By moving they will no longer have top brass in the same country a, let alone town as bankers and financiers. Far better to get brokers and nbankers in the same place as your head office. And we already know that Gordon Brown loves to tax the city (£5bn pa dividend tax credit robbery, windfall tax on anything that produces less than pedestrian profits.

So, will it mean a delisting from London? Not necessarily, but almost inevitably. It's not as if it makes sense to raise cash in a country where all we have is debt. Why not list in Japan instead?

Of course this was all set in motion when Gordie chose to BRIBE the britsih public with company money. The vast transfer of wealth from stockmarket to property has made raising funds in the UK unappealling, whilst rewarding householders with bumper capital gains. Now we ALL get to pay for it with rising taxes to make up for those missing corporate taxes.

I used to have arguments (believe it or not) over which is more fundamental to the existance of man : property or jobs. Looks like we are on the road to finding out.

[theChuz]

I used to have arguments (believe it or not) over which is more fundamental to the existance of man : property or jobs. Looks like we are on the road to finding out.

Remind me to buy you a beer at some time

[Sledgehead]

Interesting what the result of too much interferance can be.

And so many of you want the govt to interfere with the housing market. I don't think you know what you'd get in return for the interferance.

Er-hem: what the hell do you think has occured over the past 9 yeasr if it hasn't been interference?

No government could have more skillfully engineered the transfer of wealth from one asset class to another than this one. It has all been done by DIRECT taxation of corporates. Utlity winfall taxes, the £5bn a year tax grab from company dividends that has sent pension funds diving for cover. (you may be surprised to hear that pension funds have barely benefitted fron FTSEs resurgence, thanks to their concerns over pension liability funding -

thanks again to legislation REQUIRING them to put less money into equities). Or maybe we could consider the cost of 3g licences (now that Vodaphobe has reported massive write downs of assets). Perhaps we should talk about the wholesale theiving of RailTrack by the gov?

And now let us consider where the money has gone. Ridiculous shared ownership bribes, a massive hike in public sector employment that has fed into housing. Or consider the effect of swinging the axe into UK plc: serial cutting of interest rates that produced a wall of cheap borrowed funds. If only

Wake up TTRTR: this is the point at which we all start to see there is a cost entailed in spending our future.

(sorry if the grammar is all over the place: I can only see half of this cos of theis f-awful site.