On 03/01/2016 08:09, MM wrote:

He could be offended. Because he sees it as a slight.

MM


You just ask him how long and will it be long enough to make tea.

On 03/01/2016 08:14, MM wrote:

How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere to the tax
laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed in such a way that
legal loopholes are created, then I would recommend anyone to use
them.


I never stated nor implied that what they were doing was in anyway
illegal. Immoral (in my opinion yes) but not illegal.
Despite what Lord Clyde says to avoid tax to that extent is immoral.

I agree that taking advantage of loopholes has been going on for
years^W as long as laws have existed, but that does not mean
people/companies should do it .

In message , soup
writes
On 03/01/2016 08:14, MM wrote:

How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere to the tax
laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed in such a way that
legal loopholes are created, then I would recommend anyone to use
them.


I never stated nor implied that what they were doing was in anyway
illegal. Immoral (in my opinion yes) but not illegal.
Despite what Lord Clyde says to avoid tax to that extent is immoral.

I agree that taking advantage of loopholes has been going on for
years^W as long as laws have existed, but that does not mean
people/companies should do it .

I'm not unsympathetic to the argument that Amazon (and other big
companies that do the same sort of thing, Boots was one IIRC) should pay
more tax to the UK (or other countries) they are operating in.

However, how should a company decide how much tax to pay, if it then
doesn't operate to minimise it's tax liability. What about the
shareholders? as presumably the company will be less profitable. What if
the company then is less competitive because it pays more tax than a
competitor
--
Chris French

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 18:40:40 +0000, Chris French wrote:

I'm not unsympathetic to the argument that Amazon (and other big
companies that do the same sort of thing, Boots was one IIRC) should pay
more tax to the UK (or other countries) they are operating in.

However, how should a company decide how much tax to pay, if it then
doesn't operate to minimise it's tax liability. What about the
shareholders? as presumably the company will be less profitable.

And that's the whole point.

Amazon has NEVER made a profit, anywhere in the world, until into 2015.

And, everywhere in the world, Corporation Tax is a tax on... profit.

"Huge" wrote in message ...

On 2016-01-03, Richard wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message ...

On 2016-01-03, stuart noble wrote:

[26 lines snipped]

The locksmith is unique in that the average person will probably only
need his services once or twice in their lifetime, at which point it
will be super urgent, and maybe in the middle of the night. Great that
there's someone out there to get you out of trouble, but expect to pay
through the nose.

When my elderly M-I-L locked herself out of the house, I did't mind that
the locksmith she summoned (and it occurs to me that I have no idea how,
since she didn't have a mobile) charged her £99 to drill out the lock and
fit a new one. What I did (and do) mind is that they fitted a
non-standard
lock that only they could supply keys for.

**** you, Totteridge & Whetstone Locksmiths.

(Oh, and I changed your stupid lock back for a standard one.)

Bit retarded aren't you.

**** off and die screaming, there's a good little wankstain.

Bit touchy for something with a 'nym of huge.
Huge.. pussy?

"Huge" wrote in message ...

On 2016-01-03, Richard wrote:
"Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote in message ...

Richard wrote:
"soup" wrote in message ...

On 02/01/2016 11:38, MM wrote:
Amazon sent an emergency
locksmith, who arrived 10 minutes ago. I'm rather surprised that he
hasn't got it open yet!



What would you do ? Open it in two minutes and get just the call-out
fee or spin the job out to sixteen minutes and get the call-out fee
and the first part of an hour that you are able to charge an entire
hour for.

I'd do the job I was asked to do, without ripping off the customer.

Then, you would starve.

I haven't yet.

More's the pity.

WTF? Think I was calling you a thieving ****e. Well, as they say, if the cap
fits...

On 03/01/2016 08:39, Rod Speed wrote:




I have never avoided tax completely like Amazon, Apple etc do all the time.

They don't do it all the time. They pay VAT, NIC, Road Tax, and Income
Tax for a start.

On 03/01/2016 11:32, stuart noble wrote:
On 03/01/2016 10:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
The AA seem to be the experts at opening vehicles without expensive
damage as they have a database of keys and how to create one.

Not sure why they would call a normal locksmith, unless they are to
cheapskate to sign up their drivers to a motoring organisation of course
:-)
Brian

"MM" wrote in message
...
An Amazon Logistics delivery van came earlier to deliver a parcel. I
noticed that the van was still parked outside, blocking my drive, 30
minutes later. I asked the driver what was the problem, and he said
he'd locked his keys in the back of the van. Amazon sent an emergency
locksmith, who arrived 10 minutes ago. I'm rather surprised that he
hasn't got it open yet!

I don't need to go anywhere in a hurry, but as a matter of interest,
is it THAT difficult to open a van nowadays?

The locksmith is working on the side door, not the rear. (Not the
passenger door, the side door to the storage area.)

MM


The locksmith is unique in that the average person will probably only
need his services once or twice in their lifetime, at which point it
will be super urgent, and maybe in the middle of the night. Great that
there's someone out there to get you out of trouble, but expect to pay
through the nose.

An acquaintance of mine lost his house key fairly late on a Sunday
evening. IIRC he had proper five lever mortise locks. Before I
discovered that we had a local guy, I had started thinking about which
window to break or force. The local man had him in inside an hour for
£60 or thereabouts with no damage to doors or locks. His number is now
in all our phones.

In message ,
newshound writes
On 03/01/2016 11:32, stuart noble wrote:
On 03/01/2016 10:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
The AA seem to be the experts at opening vehicles without expensive
damage as they have a database of keys and how to create one.

Not sure why they would call a normal locksmith, unless they are to
cheapskate to sign up their drivers to a motoring organisation of course
:-)
Brian

"MM" wrote in message
...
An Amazon Logistics delivery van came earlier to deliver a parcel. I
noticed that the van was still parked outside, blocking my drive, 30
minutes later. I asked the driver what was the problem, and he said
he'd locked his keys in the back of the van. Amazon sent an emergency
locksmith, who arrived 10 minutes ago. I'm rather surprised that he
hasn't got it open yet!

I don't need to go anywhere in a hurry, but as a matter of interest,
is it THAT difficult to open a van nowadays?

The locksmith is working on the side door, not the rear. (Not the
passenger door, the side door to the storage area.)

MM


The locksmith is unique in that the average person will probably only
need his services once or twice in their lifetime, at which point it
will be super urgent, and maybe in the middle of the night. Great that
there's someone out there to get you out of trouble, but expect to pay
through the nose.

An acquaintance of mine lost his house key fairly late on a Sunday
evening. IIRC he had proper five lever mortise locks. Before I
discovered that we had a local guy, I had started thinking about which
window to break or force. The local man had him in inside an hour for
£60 or thereabouts with no damage to doors or locks. His number is now
in all our phones.

My FIL managed to get a key stuck in our lock (it was the wrong key). We
weren't at home at the time, oherwise I could have probably broken in.

He called a lock smith and It was IIRC a similar price. Anyway, at the
time I thought it reasonable enough
--
Chris French

newshound wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I have never avoided tax completely like Amazon, Apple etc do all the
time.

They don't do it all the time.

Some like Amazon did with the corporate income tax being
discussed in the context you carefully deleted from the quoting.

They pay VAT,

Plenty of them didn’t until the law was changed.

NIC, Road Tax, and Income Tax for a start.

The Australian govt has just exposed Apple
as paying no income tax what so ever.

With the usual bull**** from Apple on why they didn’t.

Apple has just been massively fined by Italy for tax fraud
with that fool Cook trying to claim that they have always
paid all that they owe.

It’s a bit more complicated with Amazon because they
have only recently made a profit anywhere, but its far
from clear how accurate that official claim is and how
much of it is just more defrauding of the income tax
system world wide.

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 19:39:16 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"MM" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 20:07:45 +0000, soup
wrote:

On 02/01/2016 19:35, Richard wrote:
"soup" wrote in message ...

On 02/01/2016 11:38, MM wrote:
Amazon sent an emergency
locksmith, who arrived 10 minutes ago. I'm rather surprised that he
hasn't got it open yet!
What would you do ? Open it in two minutes and get just the call-out
fee or spin the job out to sixteen minutes and get the call-out fee and
the first part of an hour that you are able to charge an entire hour
for.
I'd do the job I was asked to do, without ripping off the customer.

When Amazon stops ripping off Britain then I would worry about cutting
them a square deal.

How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere to the tax
laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed in such a way that
legal loopholes are created,

It isnt a legal loophole,

Are they breaking any *law*?

Er, no they are NOT! Therefore all they are doing is exploiting a
legal loophole just like you do when you talk to your accountant about
saving tax. No one *donates* tax, which is what that silly woman
Margaret Hodge seems to want from big corporations.

its actually a problem with forcing
multinationals to pay the tax they should be paying when
its so easy to appear to be earning the profit in the jurisdiction
that pays no corporate income tax or a much lower rate of that.

Again, are they breaking any *law* by situating their business in
another country?

No, they are not!

Everyone in government is ****ed because the corporations can emply
better accountants.

then I would recommend anyone to use
them. Did YOU never try to save tax?

I have never avoided tax completely like Amazon, Apple etc do all the time.

Either you avoid tax or you don't. It's like, no one can be a little
bit pregnant.

MM

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 20:15:57 +0000, newshound
wrote:

On 03/01/2016 08:39, Rod Speed wrote:




I have never avoided tax completely like Amazon, Apple etc do all the time.

They don't do it all the time. They pay VAT, NIC, Road Tax, and Income
Tax for a start.

And they employ large numbers of British workers who pay tax! And sell
to even larger numbers of British consumers who pay VAT!

All hail to the Amazons of this world.

MM

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:53:56 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

newshound wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I have never avoided tax completely like Amazon, Apple etc do all the
time.

They don't do it all the time.

Some like Amazon did with the corporate income tax being
discussed in the context you carefully deleted from the quoting.

They pay VAT,

Plenty of them didn’t until the law was changed.

Ah, you see! What they were doing previously was *legal*, that's what
you're trying to say, is't it?

NIC, Road Tax, and Income Tax for a start.

The Australian govt has just exposed Apple
as paying no income tax what so ever.

Who cares what Australia does?

With the usual bull**** from Apple on why they didn’t.

It's not bull****, it's patiently pointing out (trying to) to people
like you, who want to punish them for doing business and employing
lots of people, that they are keeping to the tax laws, which may
expose loopholes.

Apple has just been massively fined by Italy for tax fraud
with that fool Cook trying to claim that they have always
paid all that they owe.

Fair enough. If any company (or individual) breaks the tax laws of a
particular country, that country has every right to pursue them. Now,
why not address the situation as it regards *Britain*, because, like
Australia, I don't care what Italy does.

It’s a bit more complicated with Amazon because they
have only recently made a profit anywhere, but its far
from clear how accurate that official claim is and how
much of it is just more defrauding of the income tax
system world wide.

Yeah, well, let's wait and see whether Amazon is prosecuted anywhere,
shall we?

Your beef sounds like a different version of Operation Yewtree.

MM

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 08:44:08 +0000, MM wrote:

its actually a problem with forcing
multinationals to pay the tax they should be paying when its so easy to
appear to be earning the profit in the jurisdiction that pays no
corporate income tax or a much lower rate of that.

Again, are they breaking any *law* by situating their business in
another country?

No, they are not!

Amazon, no - because they owe no corptax on no profits. But there are big
question marks over the legality of some of the corptax deals done.

The companies aren't actively breaking the law - because the law has made
a deal that allows, say, Starbucks or Fiat/Chrysler to base in NL/Lux
respectively, and pay a very small amount of corptax.

The deals themselves have been judged illegal, though. The illegality is
not on the part of Starbucks or Fiat/Chrysler - but on the part of the
government making the deal. Basically, it's illegal state subsidisation.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/...fiat-chrysler-
tax-bill-ec-rule-deal-illegal

As usual, it's a case of a poltically-motivated meme (in this case, anti-
corporate) taking a small nugget of reality and making a big fat over-
simplification-to-the-verge-of-a-lie out of it.

On 3 Jan 2016 11:56:00 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2016-01-03, MM wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 20:07:45 +0000, soup
wrote:

On 02/01/2016 19:35, Richard wrote:
"soup" wrote in message ...

On 02/01/2016 11:38, MM wrote:
Amazon sent an emergency
locksmith, who arrived 10 minutes ago. I'm rather surprised that he
hasn't got it open yet!
What would you do ? Open it in two minutes and get just the call-out
fee or spin the job out to sixteen minutes and get the call-out fee and
the first part of an hour that you are able to charge an entire hour for.
I'd do the job I was asked to do, without ripping off the customer.

When Amazon stops ripping off Britain then I would worry about cutting
them a square deal.

How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere to the tax
laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed in such a way that
legal loopholes are created, then I would recommend anyone to use
them. Did YOU never try to save tax?

As Lord Clyde, Lord President of the Court of Session, noted (in Ayrshire
Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929] 14 Tax Case 754, at 763):

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other,
so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to
enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his
stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take
every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the
purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in
like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly
can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

Hats off to that old lord for stating the obvious.

By comparison, you have Margaret Hodge.

I firmly believe it is in *every* taxpayer's interest to avoid any tax
wherever possible as long as it complies with the letter of the *law*.

MM

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 08:53:13 +0000, MM wrote:

I firmly believe it is in *every* taxpayer's interest to avoid any tax
wherever possible as long as it complies with the letter of the *law*.

Except, apparently, Amazon.

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 17:47:30 +0000, soup
wrote:

On 03/01/2016 08:14, MM wrote:

How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere to the tax
laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed in such a way that
legal loopholes are created, then I would recommend anyone to use
them.


I never stated nor implied that what they were doing was in anyway
illegal. Immoral (in my opinion yes) but not illegal.

You can't be convicted of that! In my opinion, giving extra to the
revenue is immoral.

Despite what Lord Clyde says to avoid tax to that extent is immoral.

I agree that taking advantage of loopholes has been going on for
years^W as long as laws have existed, but that does not mean
people/companies should do it .

Why on earth not?

MM

On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:04:02 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , soup
wrote:

On 03/01/2016 08:14, MM wrote:

How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere to the tax
laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed in such a way that
legal loopholes are created, then I would recommend anyone to use
them.

I never stated nor implied that what they were doing was in anyway
illegal. Immoral (in my opinion yes) but not illegal.
Despite what Lord Clyde says to avoid tax to that extent is immoral.

I agree that taking advantage of loopholes has been going on for
years^W as long as laws have existed, but that does not mean
people/companies should do it .

This is cock, I'm afraid. What you're saying is, that when the company
submits its tax return, and the Revenue is happy with it, they should
pay more anyway. To whom, then? Which country? And how much? And who
decides how much?

Since the answers to these questions are entirely arbitrary (within
some limits), it's stupid to make vague assertions like you do.

And yet Margaret Hodge, always on Amazon's back, makes such assertions
*all* the time. Starbucks was eventually brought to the position that
they were practically forced to *donate* tax!

MM

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 10:12:04 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

The AA seem to be the experts at opening vehicles without expensive damage
as they have a database of keys and how to create one.

The locksmith stated after the van drove away that there is NO master
key, NO copies. The only way to get in is by drilling out the lock.

MM

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 15:26:08 +0000, Bill
wrote:

In message , MM
writes
An Amazon Logistics delivery van came earlier to deliver a parcel. I
noticed that the van was still parked outside, blocking my drive, 30
minutes later. I asked the driver what was the problem, and he said
he'd locked his keys in the back of the van. Amazon sent an emergency
locksmith, who arrived 10 minutes ago. I'm rather surprised that he
hasn't got it open yet!

I don't need to go anywhere in a hurry, but as a matter of interest,
is it THAT difficult to open a van nowadays?

The locksmith is working on the side door, not the rear. (Not the
passenger door, the side door to the storage area.)

MM


Has he got it open yet?

Nope. The van driver has moved in and we're just having breakfast. A
lot younger than me, though.

MM

On Monday, 4 January 2016 09:47:31 UTC, MM wrote:
Nope. The van driver has moved in and we're just having breakfast.

I'm sure we're all very happy for you both :-)

A lot younger than me, though.

"Old enough to shave, old enough to shag" as my old granny used to say.

Owain

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 04:49:55 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Monday, 4 January 2016 09:47:31 UTC, MM wrote:
Nope. The van driver has moved in and we're just having breakfast.

I'm sure we're all very happy for you both :-)

A lot younger than me, though.

"Old enough to shave, old enough to shag" as my old granny used to say.

Men or women?

MM

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 10:12:06 AM UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
The AA seem to be the experts at opening vehicles without expensive damage
as they have a database of keys and how to create one.


When the AA opened my car (keys locked inside) he asked me to look away as he did it. It took him about 15 seconds.

Robert

MM Wrote in message:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 04:49:55 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Monday, 4 January 2016 09:47:31 UTC, MM wrote:
Nope. The van driver has moved in and we're just having breakfast.

I'm sure we're all very happy for you both :-)

A lot younger than me, though.

"Old enough to shave, old enough to shag" as my old granny used to say.

Men or women?

MM


Whatever cranks your handle, cheeky ;-) ;-)

--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

In article ,
MM wrote:
How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere to the tax
laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed in such a way that
legal loopholes are created,

It isnt a legal loophole,

Are they breaking any *law*?

Er, no they are NOT! Therefore all they are doing is exploiting a
legal loophole just like you do when you talk to your accountant about
saving tax. No one *donates* tax, which is what that silly woman
Margaret Hodge seems to want from big corporations.

But can you be sure they ain't breaking any law? For that you'd need
access to all their accounts world wide and an army of accountants to
check them.

It remains a fact that most would expect a company trading in the UK to
pay UK taxes, rather than shift money round the world in some form of
creative accounting. Remember if such companies avoid paying UK tax, the
burden becomes that much greater for those who do pay it.

--
*Dancing is a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:23:03 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It remains a fact that most would expect a company trading in the UK to
pay UK taxes

Which just shows how little most people understand the modern global
world.

"A company trading in the UK" might be a UK company - or it might be a
German company or a French company or wherever. If they're in the EU,
then that means that they'll be paying corptax in the country they book
their profits in. Free movement of capital, free movement of goods, free
movement of services - three of the four basic tenets of the 1957 Treaty
of Rome, along with free movement of people.

A non-EU company trading in the EU would typically have an EU subsidiary,
which would trade with the parent - and it would be the profits of that
subsidiary which would be taxed wherever.

A non-EU company who only do a small amount of trade here would be
subject to all sorts of import duties and VAT paperwork, which would make
trading here very expensive.

If ever the UK is ****ing stupid enough to leave the EU and not remain
within EEA or EFTA or some similar free-trade network, then UK businesses
will be non-EU businesses for the other EU/EEA/EFTA markets. And if we
stay within EEA/EFTA, there's absolutely no point in leaving the EU.

MM wrote
Rod Speed wrote
MM wrote
soup wrote
Richard wrote
soup wrote
MM wrote

Amazon sent an emergency locksmith,
who arrived 10 minutes ago. I'm rather
surprised that he hasn't got it open yet!

What would you do ? Open it in two minutes and get just the call-out
fee or spin the job out to sixteen minutes and get the call-out fee
and
the first part of an hour that you are able to charge an entire hour
for.

I'd do the job I was asked to do, without ripping off the customer.

When Amazon stops ripping off Britain then I
would worry about cutting them a square deal.

How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere
to the tax laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed
in such a way that legal loopholes are created,

It isnt a legal loophole,

Are they breaking any *law*?

Separate question entirely to whether they are ripping Britain off.

Er, no they are NOT!

Try telling that to Italy which has just massively fined
Apple for doing just that. Don't be TOO surprised
when they just laugh in your pig ignorant face.

Therefore all they are doing is exploiting a legal loophole

There is no legal loophole. Its actually a problem with forcing
multinationals to pay the tax they should be paying when
its so easy to appear to be earning the profit in the jurisdiction
that pays no corporate income tax or a much lower rate of that.

just like you do when you talk to your accountant about saving tax.

I don't have an accountant and don't talk to anyone about saving tax.

No one *donates* tax,

Not every operation flouts the tax law like Apple and Amazon
do so they end up paying no corporate income tax at all.

which is what that silly woman Margaret Hodge
seems to want from big corporations.

She actually wants them to pay the corporate income
tax that is due. And so do plenty of others too.

its actually a problem with forcing multinationals to pay
the tax they should be paying whenits so easy to appear
to be earning the profit in the jurisdiction that pays no
corporate income tax or a much lower rate of that.

Again, are they breaking any *law* by
situating their business in another country?

Apple and Amazon etc clearly have quite a bit of their business
in Britain and various other countrys where they claim to be
producing no net income. That is clearly a bare faced lie.

No, they are not!

Must be why Apple has just been massively fined in Italy.

Everyone in government is ****ed because the
corporations can emply better accountants.

Everyone in govt is ****ed because operations like
Apple and Amazon are clearly profitable operations
in a country like Britain and should be paying
corporate income tax on those profits and they aren't.

then I would recommend anyone to use
them. Did YOU never try to save tax?

I have never avoided tax completely like Amazon, Apple etc do all the
time.

Either you avoid tax or you don't. It's
like, no one can be a little bit pregnant.

Wrong again. And I do not avoid tax.

MM wrote
newshound wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I have never avoided tax completely like Amazon, Apple etc do all the
time.

They don't do it all the time. They pay VAT,
NIC, Road Tax, and Income Tax for a start.

And they employ large numbers of British workers who pay tax!
And sell to even larger numbers of British consumers who pay VAT!

And operations like Apple and Sky should be paying
corporate income tax on their massive profits as well.

All hail to the Amazons of this world.

You're a fool.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 18:42:44 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

If ever the UK is ****ing stupid enough to leave the EU and not remain
within EEA or EFTA or some similar free-trade network, then UK
businesses will be non-EU businesses for the other EU/EEA/EFTA markets.
And if we stay within EEA/EFTA, there's absolutely no point in leaving
the EU.

Erm, yes there is. The clue is in the name. That is "European *Union*"
vs. "European *Free* *Trade* *Area*". We didn't sign up to, and don't
want, "ever closer union".

And you don't think that changes that apply across the whole EU will
filter to the EEA or EFTA almost immediately? Of course they will, even
if they aren't actually legally binding as part of the EEA/EFTA.

Here's a clue for you: The EU automotive emission rules, along with
pretty much all the other European standardised vehicle construction regs,
are now legally binding in Australia, Russia and most other countries
outside the immediate spheres of influence of Japan or the US. And even
they're getting ever closer to the EU regs. Quite simply, they've
realised that they're ****ing in the wind trying to do anything else. The
world is a small place now.

And lets not have any twaddle about how Norway has to implement all the
EU rules anyway. It may have to in order to access the Common Market,
but that's another story.

And what would be the point in being an EEA or EFTA member and not
"accessing the common market"?

The main difference is that none are (currently) part of the EU single
VAT market. If the UK left that, it would just mean an extra layer of
bureaucracy for anybody trying to trade between the UK and the EU.

Unless, of course, you think that post-BrExit UK would ditch the current
VAT framework for something different...?

MM wrote
Rod Speed wrote
newshound wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I have never avoided tax completely like
Amazon, Apple etc do all the time.

They don't do it all the time.

Some like Amazon did with the corporate income tax being
discussed in the context you carefully deleted from the quoting.

They pay VAT,

Plenty of them didn't until the law was changed.

Ah, you see! What they were doing previously
was *legal*, that's what you're trying to say, is't it?

Not with the corporate income tax being discussed.

NIC, Road Tax, and Income Tax for a start.

The Australian govt has just exposed Apple
as paying no income tax what so ever.

Who cares what Australia does?

Its what Apple does that is being discussed.

With the usual bull**** from Apple on why they didn't.

It's not bull****,

Corse it is. Apple's operations in Australia are clearly very
profitable indeed. They should be paying income tax on
those massive profits.

it's patiently pointing out (trying to) to people like
you, who want to punish them for doing business

Even sillier than you usually manage. Pay the income
tax that is due is no more punishing anyone for doing
anything that PAYE income tax on individuals is. Its
just not possible to do that with operations like Apple
that can lie about what their costs are so they appear
to be making no profit when in fact they are making
a massive profit instead.

and employing lots of people,

And avoiding paying the income tax that
is due, by lying about what their costs are.

that they are keeping to the tax
laws, which may expose loopholes.

There are no loopholes involved.

Apple has just been massively fined by Italy
for tax fraud with that fool Cook trying to claim
that they have always paid all that they owe.

Fair enough. If any company (or individual) breaks the tax laws of
a particular country, that country has every right to pursue them.

And that is what Apple and Amazon are doing in Britain,
by lying about the cost of doing business so that they
claim to have no profit so they don't have to pay any
income tax on that profit. That is a bare faced lie with
both Apple and Amazon.

Now, why not address the situation as it regards *Britain*,

Not possible because Britain is too stupid to publicly announce
what income tax both Apple and Amazon are paying.

because, like Australia, I don't care what Italy does.

More fool you when that exposes what those operations are doing.

It's a bit more complicated with Amazon because they
have only recently made a profit anywhere, but its far
from clear how accurate that official claim is and how
much of it is just more defrauding of the income tax
system world wide.

Yeah, well, let's wait and see whether
Amazon is prosecuted anywhere, shall we?

That's only because multinationals can lie about their
costs so that their profits show up in jurisdictions which
have no corporate income tax or much lower rates of
corporate income tax.

Your beef sounds like a different version of Operation Yewtree.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Next you will be claiming that swiss bank accounts
have nothing whatever to do with tax fraud.

MM wrote
soup wrote
MM wrote

How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere to the tax
laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed in such a way that
legal loopholes are created, then I would recommend anyone to use
them.

I never stated nor implied that what they were doing was in
anyway illegal. Immoral (in my opinion yes) but not illegal.

You can't be convicted of that! In my opinion, giving extra to the
revenue is immoral.

More fool you.

Despite what Lord Clyde says to avoid tax to that extent is immoral.

I agree that taking advantage of loopholes has been
going on for years^W as long as laws have existed, but
that does not mean people/companies should do it .

Why on earth not?

Because someone else has to pay what those tax cheats
don't given that govt keeps adjusting the tax system to
raise the revenue that needs to be raised or runs up even
bigger deficits that we all have to pay for when they do.

With multinationals that can shift their costs anywhere
they like, its just not possible to have legislation that
forces them to pay the income tax where the profits
are actually produced.

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:04:02 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , soup
wrote:

On 03/01/2016 08:14, MM wrote:

How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere to the tax
laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed in such a way that
legal loopholes are created, then I would recommend anyone to use
them.

I never stated nor implied that what they were doing was in anyway
illegal. Immoral (in my opinion yes) but not illegal.
Despite what Lord Clyde says to avoid tax to that extent is immoral.

I agree that taking advantage of loopholes has been going on for
years^W as long as laws have existed, but that does not mean
people/companies should do it .

This is cock, I'm afraid. What you're saying is, that when the company
submits its tax return, and the Revenue is happy with it, they should
pay more anyway. To whom, then? Which country? And how much? And who
decides how much?

Since the answers to these questions are entirely arbitrary (within
some limits), it's stupid to make vague assertions like you do.

And yet Margaret Hodge, always on Amazon's back, makes such assertions
*all* the time. Starbucks was eventually brought to the position that
they were practically forced to *donate* tax!

Even sillier than you usually manage., Starbucks clearly doesn't have all
those shops in Luxembourg.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-01-04, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

[37 lines snipped]

I've asked before and I'll ask again, in case one of you smoke-blowers
can enlighten me: if a company submits its tax return and the Revenue
is happy, just what are you expecting to happen? That the company
decides to pay a larger amount than the tax bill says? How much bigger?
In which country? Who decides how much bigger?

Also bear in mind that such behaviour may well be against the law.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Also ask the smoke-blowers how much extra they sent the Exchequer last
year. I've never had an answer that amounts to anything other than
"none".

Don’t need to send any extra when you haven't been defrauding the tax
system.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:23:03 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It remains a fact that most would expect a company trading in the UK to
pay UK taxes

Which just shows how little most people understand the modern global
world.

"A company trading in the UK" might be a UK company - or it might be a
German company or a French company or wherever. If they're in the EU,
then that means that they'll be paying corptax in the country they book
their profits in. Free movement of capital, free movement of goods, free
movement of services - three of the four basic tenets of the 1957 Treaty
of Rome, along with free movement of people.

A non-EU company trading in the EU would typically have an EU subsidiary,
which would trade with the parent - and it would be the profits of that
subsidiary which would be taxed wherever.

A non-EU company who only do a small amount of trade here would be
subject to all sorts of import duties and VAT paperwork, which would make
trading here very expensive.

OK so far.

If ever the UK is ****ing stupid enough to leave the EU and not remain
within EEA or EFTA or some similar free-trade network, then UK businesses
will be non-EU businesses for the other EU/EEA/EFTA markets. And if we
stay within EEA/EFTA, there's absolutely no point in leaving the EU.

Erm, yes there is. The clue is in the name. That is "European *Union*"
vs. "European *Free* *Trade* *Area*". We didn't sign up to, and don't
want, "ever closer union".

Time will tell on that don't want claim. Bet the majority vote to stay in
the EU.

And lets not have any twaddle about how Norway has to implement all the
EU rules anyway. It may have to in order to access the Common Market,

No they do not.

but that's another story.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
MM wrote:
How on earth is Amazon ripping off Britain? They adhere to the tax
laws to the letter. If the tax laws are constructed in such a way that
legal loopholes are created,

It isnt a legal loophole,

Are they breaking any *law*?

Er, no they are NOT! Therefore all they are doing is exploiting a
legal loophole just like you do when you talk to your accountant about
saving tax. No one *donates* tax, which is what that silly woman
Margaret Hodge seems to want from big corporations.

But can you be sure they ain't breaking any law? For that you'd need
access to all their accounts world wide and an army of accountants to
check them.

HMRC can always demand to audit them.

But can do nothing about the lie Apple tells about what the hardware they
sell costs them.

It remains a fact that most would expect a company trading in the UK to
pay UK taxes,

They do pay UK taxes, so what is your problem.

That they lie about the profit they make in the UK.

rather than shift money round the world in some form of
creative accounting.

If it's legal, what is your problem.

That it's a lie.

Remember if such companies avoid paying UK tax, the
burden becomes that much greater for those who do pay it.

That's true for any entity which avoids tax, whether an individual or a
corporation.

Duh.

I've asked before and I'll ask again, in case one of you smoke-blowers
can enlighten me: if a company submits its tax return and the Revenue
is happy,

It isn't. The problem is that there is no way to stop them lying about
their costs with multinationals.

just what are you expecting to happen?

That they stop lying about their costs and start paying the tax they are
required to pay on their profits.

That the company
decides to pay a larger amount than the tax bill says? How much bigger?

The tax that is due on their real profits.

In which country?

In the country the profit is made in.

Who decides how much bigger?


The tax law.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 20:50:29 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

HMRC can always demand to audit them.

But can do nothing about the lie Apple tells about what the hardware
they sell costs them.

Apple Europe are an Irish company. They post their EU-wide profits in
Ireland, and pay Irish corporation tax on them. If the Irish tax man
wants to audit them, he'll audit them.

If they "lie", then that's a lie between the Irish and US offices, and
should be picked up on an audit of the US paperwork by the IRS.

If Apple Europe choose to set intra-country prices at a point that allows
them to shift profits from Europe to the US, then that's their choice.
They'll pay the corporation tax on the profits in the US, but they'll pay
import duties etc on the declared imported values. If they choose to
shift those profits to another tax jurisdiction, then that's their
choice, so long as all relevant taxes are accounted for in the right
places.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 20:50:28 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

Erm, yes there is. The clue is in the name. That is "European *Union*"
vs. "European *Free* *Trade* *Area*". We didn't sign up to, and don't
want, "ever closer union".

Time will tell on that don't want claim. Bet the majority vote to stay
in the EU.

There's a poll out today. UKIP's highest rating on anything is on
migration - 29% think they're the party best placed to deal with that
subject.

Which, of course, means 71% don't.

Meanwhile, Nigel Farage's "assassination attempt" claims over his car
wheels being "loosened deliberately" is starting to look like something
Volvo recalled V70s for, five years ago.

Huge wrote:
On 2016-01-04, Mike Lander wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

[21 lines snipped]

HMRC can always demand to audit them.

But can do nothing about the lie Apple tells about what the hardware they
sell costs them.

You can prove this, can't you?

Yep. That's the only way quite literally hundreds of billions of bucks
ended up in Ireland where they sell only a tiny subset of their devices at
the retail level.

[53 lines snipped]

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:55:14 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

HMRC can always demand to audit them.

But can do nothing about the lie Apple tells about what the hardware
they sell costs them.

You can prove this, can't you?

Yep. That's the only way quite literally hundreds of billions of bucks
ended up in Ireland where they sell only a tiny subset of their devices
at the retail level.

sigh It's really not a very hard concept, yet you seem to have UTTERLY
failed to grasp it.

It's either deliberate pig-headedness, or you're very stupid. Which is it?

Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:55:14 +0000, Mike Lander wrote:

HMRC can always demand to audit them.

But can do nothing about the lie Apple tells about what the hardware
they sell costs them.

You can prove this, can't you?

Yep. That's the only way quite literally hundreds of billions of bucks
ended up in Ireland where they sell only a tiny subset of their devices
at the retail level.

sigh It's really not a very hard concept,

Yep, clearly too much for you tho. Look up profit shifting some time.