More generally, nearly all FTSE 100 companies a global enterprises which are headquartered here for histoic reasons. Most earn on a modest proportion of their revenues here (which partly accounts for why the FTSE 100 index has been rising rapidly whilst the UK economy is in the doldrums. The companies' econoic fortunes are largely not dependent on their UK operations.

[url=http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/03/06/looking-forward-to-the-stock-market-crash-that-is-coming-our-way-soon/Best get ready for the next crash[/url (from the same author: the comments are interesting

Of course it will drop back signifcantly. The reason, in my long-held view and what he hints at, is that there is a constant stream of money coming into the system as savings / pension contributions. It has to find a home. The main categories will be shares, bonds or commercial property. So they get asset price booms in each and then they drop back when their values become out of line with some level of "reality" (whatever that may be).



The fact is that historically (no guarantee in future) stockmarket returns have far-performed property, etc over the long-term. There is a good reason to suppose they always will under our economic system - namely that in the long-term asset prices should bear some relation to GDP. as companies are the main driver of economic performance the leading ones should outperform GDP growth slightly. In today's world "our" leading comany's derive large parts of their revenue in areas of the world enjoying must faster GDP growth than the UK (even in our better times) so you could expect their performance to exceed UK GDP quite significantly over time. The same cannot be said for other asset classes such as property whose value is likely to be more atuned to UK economic growth.

It would only look reasonable if their UK (or US) operations have actually lost money. Which if they had they wouldn't be paying UK Corporation Tax.

They MUST pay tax. End of. It's disgraceful the way larger corporations seem to have governments by the short and curlies, often threatening to close places down and thereby increasing unemployment.









Or. You could always buy shares in them. A quick look shows they've more than doubled in the last year. Rich people would have and pension funds probably have also.

Did you read what he wrote? It is essentially about how multinational companies attribute profits across the group and his conclusion is the UK should be attributed with a much higher profit than it has been.



Regardless of that HSBC is head-quartered here which means it's a UK bank which in turn means if it ever needed bailing out it would be the UK who would have to do it. It also means as it has it's HQ here there are extra costs on the balance sheet which will reduce profits somewhat.



We all know companies can offset costs and losses against profit and in HSBC's case they faced a bill for miss-selling PPI to the tune of £1.2bn . However the issue is not that companies [ican[/i offset this or that against profit in accounting terms but [ishould[/i a UK company that makes over £13bn profit be allowed to use such practices to pay next to no tax here?



The same applies to Rolls Royce. The old argument of "Well it's not illegal and they are just maximising shareholder benefits" is past it's sell by date politically.

In principle, a company can still lose money and pay corporation tax (they do not get taxed on accounting profits).

Have they lost money in the UK?

I read somewhere that their UK and US operations had not been profitable. Whether that was all activities and whether or not it was an actual loss I do not know as I guess you don't. However, it is entirely feasible given the amount of losses RBS has incurred. Furthermore, as I said it could pay tax here without making a profit. As was said above £1.2 B / $ 1.2 B of fines would reduced accounting profits but not taxable ones. So they could make, say 0.5B loss here but pay tax on 0.7 B (all other things being equal).

I did and what he wrote, as I explained, was deliberatley slanted to achieve a conclusion he wanted. If his averaging had have been detrimental to his argument he would have considered things on a more realistic basis. He should know better.

Until there is a global tax system that will be the case. Governments choose to be grabbed by the short and curiles they can easily be tough if they wish. Look at the way the US has treated European banks, BP, etc. The fact that our government is so soft is not the fault of the companies it is due to inept politicians and a wet electorate.

Yeah, I know. Poor form ain't it?