This is one of the major topics that should be decided the general election in this country. If one of the parties had a proper plan for removing these loop holes and generating many billions of additional tax revenue, they'd get my vote. Instead we're faced with debates on whether UKIP are suitable to represent the country and how labour are taking back the working class.

I don't think they need a plan, as I understand it the HMRC could assess tax bills on Vodafone or anyone, and leave them to pay and then appeal. The question to me is why they don't. Given that they hold the ultimate card of being able to enact into law, retrospectively, any loophole a court might find anyway.

A cynic might suggest that they are all mates together and will do alright out of it, in one way or another.

Pretty much spot on, the whole tax system needs an overhaul from top to bottom, sadly no one will, far too many jobs for the boys in both directions.

[url=http://www.medact.org/campaign/alliance-boots-campaign/Alliance Boots[/url

Sad to see that from the days of a socially responsible employer like The Boots Pure Drug Company, we now get to the British taxpayer subsidising the finance required to leverage a buyout

I try to boycott them. Since they became private equity owned I have no time for them. We use a local, independent pharmacist. As to the rest of the junk they sell, you can get it elsewhere.

Daveo. What Vodafone is doing is nothing like tax avoidance so don't compare them to Gary Barlow. Vodafone do not have to enter a scheme number on their CT600 as there is no scheme, Gary Barlow will have had to disclose the scheme. Vodafone are doing nothing wrong. I bet there are self employed people on here complaining about Vodafone, yet who will do cash in hand jobs. Good on Vodafone I say. They are a plc and whilst they have to consider all stakeholders, the main aim of a plc is to increase shareholder wealth which is what it is doing, I don't see the problem

Regards

King James

So you are comfortable with the fact that companies can get away with paying zero corporation tax while upwards of 1,000,000 UK citizens (some of whom are possibly employed by the same companies) are relying on foodbanks and taxpayer subsidies to sustain them?

maybe they should be better at budgeting and not expect a free ride?

Lol

too many people spend beyond their means, and then blame someone else when the bills come in.

Please explain just how trhe fook you budget for not getting a pay rise in ten years, while the cost of most things has gone up exponentially?

Or how do you budget for divorce or illness etc?

Vodafone are avoiding tax by organising their business to do just that. The fact Barlow and Vodafone adopt different ways of doing it is completely irrelevant.

The general consensus is that avoiding tax is wrong. The legal view is if what is done is simply a mechanism to avoid tax it is also illegal. So I so no reason why Vodafone's actions could not be viewed as nothing other than a tax avoidance measure and so be open to challenge in the courts.

The fact you don't see the problem is rather disturbing. The mantra of increasing shareholder wealth is the biggest excuse not to consider all stakeholders particularly a companies employees but especially the tax man.

You get a better job/more skills/more hours?

What does that have to do with companies paying/not paying tax?

Yes becausae it really is that simple isn't it?



You brought up the budgeting scenario. We have a welfare state that could be better funded if corporations and individuals paid the tax due without spending mega bucks on an army of lawyers to simply look for loopholes.

This, except that it's even easier since as I said HMRC could just ignore the scam,raise an appropriate assessment which Vodafone would have to pay, and if they wanted to persuade a court that this wasn't a scam, it would be their right.

More accountants really, from the big 4, who do the rounds of bigwig in tax department, cushy sinecure in a tax giant. You often have the crazy situation where tax accountants that set up taxes advice the government about them, and senior Whitehall tax figures ned up earning big bucks at iether the companies that benefited from the HMRC's largesse while they were in control, or the beancounters who came up with the wheeze. The circular connections are many and very worrying. Private Eye lists some of them every week.

No, life isn't simple, you have to work hard to get rewards, not sit on your arris taking handouts!


And if fewer people were fleecing the system, it would be better provisioned.

Except its not an excuse is it. What Vodafone are doing is not only legal, but also acceptable in the eyes of the tax man, UKGAAP, IASB and the companies act 2006. Is it right morally? Probably not, but morality never increased share prices. A company that doesn't consider all stakeholders will not perform very well, generally, but to put the needs of the tax man in front of the needs of its shareholders is suicide!

It's the same for wealthy individuals, who spend 6 months or more out of the country and become non resident, purely to pay their tax at a lower rate in another country. All they are doing are taking advantage of the system and looking after number one.

Why was there no uproar about individuals, creating limited companies, and getting their money out by way of a small weekly wage of , topped up by dividends? that way they pay less tax than they would if they were a sole trader or in a partnership? Whilst its not as lucrative as it once was,they were still exploiting the system, meaning the UK received less tax.

We can argue about this all day long, but at the end of the day, every single person would pay less tax if they had the opportunity to do so. Vodafone are no exception.

Regards

King James

Amen - big companies most definitely included. Not heard it for a while, but we are all still in it together, aren't we?

Very true.

No personal responsibility.

If individuals could opt out of any taxes they would. And if millions of people did that the country would collapse. The government would rightly stop that from happening.

Massive corporations are opting out of paying billions of pounds of taxes and the government are cutting back on public services as a consequence.

Trolls on her claim that the corporations are merely acting sensibly. Don't know why people are feeding the trolls.

I think it's difficult for HMG and the IR to counter big business and their crooked accountants. But they could at least try. But it's far easier for the government to make the individual taxpayer pay even more for a great deal less.

38 Degrees have a new campaign against the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership. I confess I have never heard of it but according to them the USA and EU are considering signing it and they say that one ramification is that companies will be able to sue governments who introduce new laws that can impact company profits. This would perhaps seem a way of the USA protecting the interests of all those companies that prefer not to pay tax over here? Seems if it goes ahead it'll be anther assault on democracy - with people through their governments having little say over what happens in their country and instead being at the mercy of potentially rapacious and immoral businesses. So, if say, a new law was brought in against the equivalent of tobacco advertising a foreign company could sue our government (ie us) for loss of profits, even if most of us wanted a ban. The USA and EU have totally destroyed democracy in recent years.

Members of Parliament being lobbied and pressurised and often paid (sponsored) to introduce binding laws, rules and regulations that will suit large businesses or private investors with no regard to how this will effect individual citizens ?

Whatever next.

The Australian government is being sued by Philip Morris the tobacco company because the government has introduced a law to force cigarettes to be sold in plain packaging.

The basis of the case is that it infringes a bi-lateral investment agreement with Hong Kong.

So the government decided cigarette packaging was one of the last major marketing tools for an industry that it views as having a direct negative impact on public health so chose to legislate in this way and the response from the company is to try and use a trade agreement to overturn it. It is also citing loss of profit as a valid reason to challenge the law, so profit comes before public health and iof they win the Australian government won't be allowed to act in the public interest on health issues if doing so reduced a companies profits.

This is where we are headed if the TTIP agreement mentioned by Dally goes through as is.

As to this being the EU who will be responsible if it does, don't kid yourselves. Our own corporation friendly government isn't exactly kicking up a fuss in opposition to it.

Crooked? I'm sorry, please can you explain why someone is "crooked" for staying within the boundaries of the law? It's not the accountants or the corporations who are are fault here, its the tax system within the UK and until things are changed (which won't happen) it will carry on being exploited.

Regards

King James