You do the maths:

Offshore dependency takes 1% CT, we get nowt

We get 20% CT and give the dependency 2%

We're 18% better off

I think you are being very naive here in suggesting we can force firms to pay up by shaming them into it. Matalan were pursued by one of the petition lobby groups, 38 degrees I think, following on from the disaster in India where hundreds of workers died when a factory producing for them collapsed to offer meaningful compensation.

They coughed up token amount and I bet virtually no one outside those who subscribe to 38 degrees even knew about this. Matalan simply toughed it out. It is not a tax issue but a useful example that shows the limit of any indignation and how it can force companies to change policy.

Eventually people tire of constantly trying to force companies to behave ethically and morally via campaigns and petitions. They are useful for drawing attention to unscrupulous practice but ultimately the only way to ensure a consistent and fair approach is by regulation.

Your idea that it is impossible to close loopholes is based on what exactly? It is certainly true tax law lags behind the effects of globalisation but the Yanks have done a pretty good job recently of going after companies who want to relocate for tax purposes. They didn't do that by offering them sweeteners. Boots won't be relocating back here any time soon but there is nothing to stop legislation being drafted that removes the ability to take such large companies private so they can relocate to dodge taxes for example.

For many people there now is little alternative to Boots. Here in Wincanton, we had a Boots in the high street and an independent a few doors down. About four years ago Boots bought the independent and they traded together for a year or so. Boots then closed the former independent at the same time as they opened a dispensary adjoining the new health centre.

So, unless people are willing to do what I do and drive 7 miles to an independent chemist in a nearby village, the choice is Boots or Boots.

Boots also operate many dispensaries in hospitals. I don't know how true it is but I read the other day that while the NHS dispensaries are subject to VAT, private companies operating dispensaries in the NHS are not

Not sure how true that is but I know from dealing as an NHS supplier that they have to pay VAT on supplies and cannot register as a business to claim it back, they are classed as an end user by HMRC rather than a business - it was one of the bargaining tools they tried to use to screw a discount when (like all businesses) you quote your prices as Nett plus VAT, they always come back whining that they can't reclaim the VAT and can you knock something off, I didn't dare use the line that my father used to use with lots of success, "Yeah, if you pay cash we'll knock the VAT off, and I mean cash not a bloody cheque"

Who is being naive now - you cannot pass legislation to stop large firms being taken private - you are saying shareholders can't sell their shares in these companies unless the government says its OK.

If it were so easy to close these loopholes every government would be doing it. The 14% tax that Obama has just offered on overseas earnings is that not a sweeter!! Apple is a good example of how well the US government is doing when it comes to collecting the taxes the largest company in the world should be paying? Obama is a socialist and he thinks he can bully the likes of Apple, Facebook, Google into complying - he has no chance they are far to clever and can afford the very best brains to resolve these technical financial issues. When you are talking

The only way this works is if you can get uniformity across the globe that is never going to happen, there will always be countries like Ireland that need tax revenues and are prepared to offer attractive rates to get their hands on the cash.

You don't need tax uniformity if you have tax transparency and country by country reporting.

A company simply pays the tax, at the prevailing rate of the country they book their revenues. Revenues that do not include overt or covert transfer pricing margins

The government has published draft tax legislation to implement the new tax on diverted profits which has been referred to as the 'Google tax'. The introduction of a new Diverted Profits Tax which was announced in the 2014 Autumn Statement will target multinational enterprises with business activities in the UK who 'enter into contrived arrangements to divert profits from the UK by avoiding a UK taxable presence and/or by other contrived arrangements between connected entities'. The Diverted Profits Tax will be applied using a rate of 25% from 1 April 2015 and is expected to raise £1.4bn over the course of the next five years. linky The CBI says it's "unfortunate" that the govt. has decide to 'go it alone', so that's all good.

The government has published draft tax legislation to implement the new tax on diverted profits which has been referred to as the 'Google tax'. The introduction of a new Diverted Profits Tax which was announced in the 2014 Autumn Statement will target multinational enterprises with business activities in the UK who 'enter into contrived arrangements to divert profits from the UK by avoiding a UK taxable presence and/or by other contrived arrangements between connected entities'. The Diverted Profits Tax will be applied using a rate of 25% from 1 April 2015 and is expected to raise £1.4bn over the course of the next five years. linky The CBI says it's "unfortunate" that the govt. has decide to 'go it alone', so that's all good.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:The government has published draft tax legislation to implement the new tax on diverted profits which has been referred to as the 'Google tax'. The introduction of a new Diverted Profits Tax which was announced in the 2014 Autumn Statement will target multinational enterprises with business activities in the UK who 'enter into contrived arrangements to divert profits from the UK by avoiding a UK taxable presence and/or by other contrived arrangements between connected entities'. The Diverted Profits Tax will be applied using a rate of 25% from 1 April 2015 and is expected to raise £1.4bn over the course of the next five years. linky The CBI says it's "unfortunate" that the govt. has decide to 'go it alone', so that's all good. Is that all its going to raise - 280m a year - there will be individuals who saved that let alone multi national corporations - some of the Russians in London come to mind

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:The government has published draft tax legislation to implement the new tax on diverted profits which has been referred to as the 'Google tax'. The introduction of a new Diverted Profits Tax which was announced in the 2014 Autumn Statement will target multinational enterprises with business activities in the UK who 'enter into contrived arrangements to divert profits from the UK by avoiding a UK taxable presence and/or by other contrived arrangements between connected entities'. The Diverted Profits Tax will be applied using a rate of 25% from 1 April 2015 and is expected to raise £1.4bn over the course of the next five years. linky The CBI says it's "unfortunate" that the govt. has decide to 'go it alone', so that's all good. Is that all its going to raise - 280m a year - there will be individuals who saved that let alone multi national corporations - some of the Russians in London come to mind

It's not what it's expected to raise that's the point, if tax is paid on all 'diverted profits' then that's all good.

Unless you suggest the tax should be at 200% or something to make it worthwhile?

Something is being lost in translation here - the numbers people on here are talking about are for this tax dodge are "allegedly" huge, whilst £1.4bn is a big number it isn't huge in terms of the tax avoidance taking place in this area. It nnis estimated this tax dodge is worth £12-15bn a year so to recover £1.5bn of £60bn seem paltry?