Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Philanthropists give millions to charity, but not the Revenue

from: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/money/tax/article4088121.ece

HM Queen Elizabeth II and musician Gary Barlow on stage during the Diamond Jubilee concert

When David Cameron defended Gary Barlow by highlighting how much the singer did for charity, the Prime Minister tapped into a wider tendency among the super rich to chose philanthropy over the taxman.
Mr Cameron applauded Barlow’s participation in Children in Need, which raised more than £6 million in 2009. However, a year later Barlow and his Take That band mates Howard Donald and Mark Owen, along with their manager, Jonathan Wild, invested the first chunk of £66 million into the Icebreaker tax scheme.
Dozens of billionaires and multimillionaires minimise the amount of tax that they pay to their governments at the same time as donating hugely to good causes. Sir Philip Green, the Top Shop fashion mogul, saved about £285 million in capital gains tax when his company, Arcadia, paid out a £1.3 billion dividend tax-free to his Monaco-based wife, Tina.
Yet Sir Philip has given millions of pounds to charity, including recently pledging £100,000 to help London’s poorest people. In 2012 he estimated his contribution in direct and indirect tax at £2 billion.
Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, billionaire owners of the Telegraph newspaper group and high-end hotels, are residents of Monaco, a tax haven. They have donated £16 million to children’s hospitals and were knighted for their support for medical research.
Sir Frederick has said that the brothers left the UK for health reasons 23 years ago and continued to pay personal tax in this country for 18 of those years. “[Our]charitable donations far outweigh what we would have paid in tax if we had remained residents of the UK,” he said.
Philanthropy experts said that many super-rich people believe in a “smaller government” but still want to give something back.
“Some believe they know how to spend their money better,” said Beth Breeze, a director at the University of Kent’s Centre for Philanthropy. “When you pay tax, you feel out of control. You don’t have a say beyond the broad colour of the government. But donors can give their last penny to dogs, if they like, rather than cats. It’s about exercising personal choice.”
Dr Breeze pointed out that some billionaires, such as Warren Buffett, have called for higher taxes on the super-rich. “Some philanthropists feel cross about waste in the public sector,” she said. “But most people don’t like paying tax, whether they are rich or not.”
Theresa Lloyd, the author of the book Why Rich People Give, said there was no evidence that philanthropists avoided taxes more than anyone else. “On the contrary, the people I interviewed are good community citizens,” she said. “Having said that, seeing the difference that their money can make is undoubtedly for some very satisfying. It’s a sense that ‘I’m more effective and could make things happen more quickly’.”
Albert Gubay, the Welsh founder of the discount chain Kwik Save, whose wealth is close to £1 billion, has lived on the Isle of Man since 1971. In 2010 the devout Roman Catholic passed his companies into the hands of a trust, pledging to donate all bar £10 million to good causes.
Leanne Wood, Plaid Cymru’s leader, has questioned whether Mr Gubay’s wealth might have done more good had he remained resident on the British mainland. “By becoming a tax exile on the Isle of Man, Mr Gubay has boosted his personal fortune at the expense of the state,” she said in 2011. According to a profile in the Daily Express, Mr Gubay’s business mantra is: “Every penny wasted in business is a penny lost for the charity pot.”
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Amazon's UK tax bill 10 million pounds on $7 billion sales

from: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/09/uk-amazon-com-britain-tax-idUKKBN0DP0Q920140509

A parcel travels along a conveyer belt at Amazon's new distribution centre in Brieselang, near Berlin November 28, 2013. ''  REUTERS/Tobias Schwarz
A parcel travels along a conveyer belt at Amazon's new distribution centre in Brieselang, near Berlin November 28, 2013. ''
CREDIT: REUTERS/TOBIAS SCHWARZ

Amazon.com Inc filed accounts on Friday showing a UK tax bill of 10 million pounds despite $7.3 billion sales in Britain, because the company reports most of its European profit in a tax-exempt Luxembourg partnership.
Amazon.co.uk Ltd reported a 56 percent rise in profit to 17 million pounds during 2013 on a 13 percent rise in UK revenues, which one academic said could mean the company came under pressure from the UK tax authority to change its tax arrangements.
Corporate tax avoidance has become a hot topic in Europe following revelations in the past couple of years about how companies like Apple and Google pay little tax in many of their main markets.
Amazon said it follows all the tax rules in every country where it operates. Apple and Google also say they pay all the tax they should. HMRC declined comment.
All Amazon customers in Europe contract directly with and pay Luxembourg based Amazon companies for the goods and services they buy. These companies reduce their taxable income by paying fees to a tax exempt partnership, also based in the Grand Duchy.
Amazon.co.uk is funded by its Luxembourg-based affiliates. The rates of such inter-company remuneration are usually agreed with the UK tax authority. In 2013, intercompany fees paid to Amazon.co.uk Ltd rose 40 percent to 449 million pounds.
The result was that Amazon's current tax bill for 2013 was its biggest ever.
"It's possible Amazon may have come under pressure from HMRC (the UK tax authority) to adjust their inter-company agreements," Prem Sikka, Professor of Accounting at Essex University said.
The amount of money Amazon.com Inc reports through the tax-exempt partnership that sits atop its European corporate structure has dropped sharply in the past two years, after the U.S. tax authority tightened rules it felt were being abused to shift profits.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Take That stars face the music after tax ruling

from: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/10/take-that-stars-face-the-music-after-tax-avoidance-ruling

Gary Barlow, Howard Donald and Mark Owen among investors likely to face hefty tax bills after tribunal decision
barlow take that tax tribunal ruling
Gary Barlow is among investors who may face hefty tax bills following the ruling. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA
Around 1,000 wealthy investors including Take That's Gary Barlow, Howard Donald and Mark Owen could face hefty tax bills after a tax tribunal on Friday ruled that a partnership in which they invested was a tax avoidance scheme.
Barlow's Larkdale LLP is just one of 51 so-called "Icebreaker partnerships", affected by the decision of Judge Colin Bishopp in a landmark victory for HM Revenue and Customs. Investors could now face substantial tax bills as a result of the decision.
Bishopp ruled: "The underlying, and fundamental, conclusion we have reached is that the Icebreaker scheme is, and was known and understood by all concerned to be, a tax avoidance scheme."
He accepted the partnerships were carrying on the trade of the exploitation of intellectual property rights, often in the creative industries, but said their main aim was to secure tax relief for members. Icebreaker partnership investments included aspiring pop acts, publishing ventures and the sale of "personal alarms".
In evidence, some unnamed Icebreaker partners had earlier told Bishopp they had a genuine interest in the exploitation of rights, that they took an active role in the partnerships, and that they were aiming to make a profit from these ventures. They claimed: "Tax advantages were incidental to and not the principal reason for their having decided to join a partnership."
The judge did not agree. "We are, indeed, quite satisfied that no serious and even moderately sophisticated investor, or one with a competent adviser, genuinely seeking a profit, even one willing to engage in a high-risk venture, but 20 unmindful of any possible tax advantage, would rationally have chosen an Icebreaker partnership."
Through the partnerships, wealthy investors were claiming lucrative tax losses. In some cases Icebreaker scheme partners were attempting to claim tax relief on losses of up to five times more than they invested in the partnerships.
Take That manager Jonathan Wild was also a member of the Larkdale partnership. Other band members, Jason Orange and Robbie Williams, were not Icebreaker investors.
Details of the scheme emerged in 2012 in a Times investigation. At the time Take That's lawyers insisted the bandmates believed the investments were legitimate enterprises and not schemes designed to avoid tax, and that all four named paid "significant tax". There has been no suggestion of any illegality.
Last night HMRC said: "We have put in place generous reliefs to support genuine business investment and our tax reliefs for the creative industries work well, enabling the UK's world-class film, television and video production companies to compete on the global stage.
"But we will not tolerate abuse of the system by people trying to dodge their tax obligations."
It is not clear whether the judgment will be appealed.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Capitalism simply isn't working and here are the reasons why

From: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/12/capitalism-isnt-working-thomas-piketty

thomas-piketty-economist-will-hutton
Thomas Piketty has mined 200 years of data to support his theory that capitalism does not work. Photograph: Ed Alcock for the Observer
Suddenly, there is a new economist making waves – and he is not on the right. At the conference of the Institute of New Economic Thinking in Toronto last week, Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty-First Century got at least one mention at every session I attended. You have to go back to the 1970s and Milton Friedman for a single economist to have had such an impact.
  1. Capital in the Twenty-First Century
  2. by Thomas Piketty, Arthur Goldhammer
  1. Tell us what you think:Star-rate and review this book
Like Friedman, Piketty is a man for the times. For 1970s anxieties about inflation substitute today's concerns about the emergence of the plutocratic rich and their impact on economy and society. Piketty is in no doubt, as he indicates in an interview in today's Observer New Review, that the current level of rising wealth inequality, set to grow still further, now imperils the very future of capitalism. He has proved it.
It is a startling thesis and one extraordinarily unwelcome to those who think capitalism and inequality need each other. Capitalism requires inequality of wealth, runs this right-of-centre argument, to stimulate risk-taking and effort; governments trying to stem it with taxes on wealth, capital, inheritance and property kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Thus Messrs Cameron and Osborne faithfully champion lower inheritance taxes, refuse to reshape the council tax and boast about the business-friendly low capital gains and corporation tax regime.
Piketty deploys 200 years of data to prove them wrong. Capital, he argues, is blind. Once its returns – investing in anything from buy-to-let property to a new car factory – exceed the real growth of wages and output, as historically they always have done (excepting a few periods such as 1910 to 1950), then inevitably the stock of capital will rise disproportionately faster within the overall pattern of output. Wealth inequality rises exponentially.
The process is made worse by inheritance and, in the US and UK, by the rise of extravagantly paid "super managers". High executive pay has nothing to do with real merit, writes Piketty – it is much lower, for example, in mainland Europe and Japan. Rather, it has become an Anglo-Saxon social norm permitted by the ideology of "meritocratic extremism", in essence, self-serving greed to keep up with the other rich. This is an important element in Piketty's thinking: rising inequality of wealth is not immutable. Societies can indulge it or they can challenge it.
Inequality of wealth in Europe and US is broadly twice the inequality of income – the top 10% have between 60% and 70% of all wealth but merely 25% to 35% of all income. But this concentration of wealth is already at pre-First World War levels, and heading back to those of the late 19th century, when the luck of who might expect to inherit what was the dominant element in economic and social life. There is an iterative interaction between wealth and income: ultimately, great wealth adds unearned rentier income to earned income, further ratcheting up the inequality process.
The extravagances and incredible social tensions of Edwardian England, belle epoque France and robber baron America seemed for ever left behind, but Piketty shows how the period between 1910 and 1950, when that inequality was reduced, was aberrant. It took war and depression to arrest the inequality dynamic, along with the need to introduce high taxes on high incomes, especially unearned incomes, to sustain social peace. Now the ineluctable process of blind capital multiplying faster in fewer hands is under way again and on a global scale. The consequences, writes Piketty, are "potentially terrifying".
For a start, almost no new entrepreneurs, except one or two spectacular Silicon Valley start-ups, can ever make sufficient new money to challenge the incredibly powerful concentrations of existing wealth. In this sense, the "past devours the future". It is telling that the Duke of Westminster and the Earl of Cadogan are two of the richest men in Britain. This is entirely by virtue of the fields in Mayfair and Chelsea their families owned centuries ago and the unwillingness to clamp down on the loopholes that allow the family estates to grow.
Anyone with the capacity to own in an era when the returns exceed those of wages and output will quickly become disproportionately and progressively richer. The incentive is to be a rentier rather than a risk-taker: witness the explosion of buy-to-let. Our companies and our rich don't need to back frontier innovation or even invest to produce: they just need to harvest their returns and tax breaks, tax shelters and compound interest will do the rest.
Capitalist dynamism is undermined, but other forces join to wreck the system. Piketty notes that the rich are effective at protecting their wealth from taxation and that progressively the proportion of the total tax burden shouldered by those on middle incomes has risen. In Britain, it may be true that the top 1% pays a third of all income tax, but income tax constitutes only 25% of all tax revenue: 45% comes from VAT, excise duties and national insurance paid by the mass of the population.
As a result, the burden of paying for public goods such as education, health and housing is increasingly shouldered by average taxpayers, who don't have the wherewithal to sustain them. Wealth inequality thus becomes a recipe for slowing, innovation-averse, rentier economies, tougher working conditions and degraded public services. Meanwhile, the rich get ever richer and more detached from the societies of which they are part: not by merit or hard work, but simply because they are lucky enough to be in command of capital receiving higher returns than wages over time. Our collective sense of justice is outraged.
The lesson of the past is that societies try to protect themselves: they close their borders or have revolutions – or end up going to war. Piketty fears a repeat. His critics argue that with higher living standards resentment of the ultra-rich may no longer be as great – and his data is under intense scrutiny for mistakes. So far it has all held up.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Google Agrees to Pay More Tax in UK

From: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/google-agrees-pay-more-tax-uk-1431068

Internet giant Google has put aside £24m to pay corporation tax in the UK following a review of the way the company pays its employees in shares that are billed through its Irish subsidiary. Google has some 2,000 UK employees; in 2011 they received £50m in US shares and they received a similar amount in 2012.
Although this share-payment scheme was legal, HMRC scrutinised the arrangements because the company claims the payments as tax-deductible but under new guidelines share payments must be counted as revenue. As a result, Google said in its 2012 accounts, the company had "made a provision of £24m for potential corporation tax for the years under review".
Google has faced persistent criticism over its tax arrangements. Last June the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of MPs called on the company to be investigated when former employee turned whistle-blower Barney Jones claimed the UK branch engaged in advertising sales, despite Google's insistence that sales took place in Ireland – a practice he described as immoral.
The company's highly contrived tax arrangement has no purpose other than to enable the company to avoid UK corporation tax.
Speaking about that arrangement, chairwoman of the PAC Margaret Hodge said: "Google brazenly argued before this committee that its tax arrangements in the UK are defensible and lawful. The company's highly contrived tax arrangement has no purpose other than to enable the company to avoid UK corporation tax."
Similar schemes have been adopted by other technology giants including Apple, Facebook and Amazon. In 2012, Apple's UK revenue was estimated at £9.5bn and Facebook's at £307m, yet neither paid any corporation tax. Amazon, which had revenue of an estimated £3.7bn, paid just £2.4m in corporation tax.
Whereas Amazon channels its financial transactions through Luxembourg, Google, Facebook and Apple base their European operations in Ireland, which has lower corporation taxes than in the UK. However, a spokesman for Google pointed out that the company pays much of its corporation tax in the US and it remains a significant contributor to the UK, paying around £150m in tax.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Starbucks to move Europe base to London, pay more UK tax

From: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/16/uk-starbucks-unitedkingdom-idUKBREA3F03820140416

 A paper cup is seen in Starbucks' Vigo Street branch in Mayfair, central London January 11, 2013. REUTERS/Stefan WermuthStarbucks Corp said on Wednesday it would move its European headquarters to London from the Netherlands and pay more tax in the UK as a result.
The world's largest coffee chain has endured widespread criticism over low tax contributions in Britain, since Reuters reported in 2012 that the company had told the UK tax authority it was lossmaking while informing investors that the British subsidiary was profitable.
Following the Reuters report, Starbucks was called to testify before a parliamentary hearing about its tax affairs, where it revealed it had agreed a deal with the Dutch tax authorities that allowed it pay "a very low tax rate" there.
"This move will mean we pay more tax in the UK," the company said in a statement, without giving further details.

Starbucks regional president Kris Engskov said London was "the perfect place to grow our European business".
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

The 67 People As Wealthy As The World's Poorest 3.5 Billion

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2014/03/25/the-67-people-as-wealthy-as-the-worlds-poorest-3-5-billion/

Oxfam International, a poverty fighting organization, made news at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year with its report that the world’s 85 richest people own assets with the same value as those owned by the poorer half of the world’s population, or 3.5 billion people (including children). Both groups have  $US 1.7 trillion. That’s $20 billion on average if you are in the first group, and $486 if you are in the second group.
Oxfam’s calculations of the richest individuals are based on the 2013 Forbes Billionaires list. I decided to take a closer look at this group of 85 in search of trends. That’s when I realized that they are by now a much wealthier group. The rich got richer.  And it was quite fast and dramatic. For example, while last year it took $23 billion to be in the top 20 of the world’s billionaires, this year it took $31 billion, according to Luisa Kroll, Forbes wealth editor, writing on Forbes.com.
As a result, by the time Forbes published its 2014 Billionaires List in early March, it took only 67 of the richest peoples’ wealth to match the poorer half of the world. (For the purpose of this blog, I will put aside the conversation about the importance of income inequality versus impoverishment. This has recently been skewing strongly toward recognition of the importance of income distribution and its inequality, most recently with the publication of Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty.)



Each of the 67 is on average worth the same as 52 million people from the bottom of the world’s wealth  pyramid. Bill Gates, the world’s richest man, with a net worth of $76 billion, is worth the same as 156 million people from the bottom.
Who are the 67? The biggest group—28 billionaires, or 42% of them—is from the United States. No other country comes close. Germany and Russia have the second-highest number, with six each. The rest are sprinkled among 13 countries in Western Europe, APAC and the Americas.
That the biggest group of the super rich comes from the U.S. should not be a surprise, as the country holds almost a third of the world’s wealth (30%), significantly more than any other country, according to the Global Wealth Databook, from Credit Suisse Research Institute. However, Europe, with a slightly bigger chunk of the world’s wealth (32%), produced substantially fewer of the richest. That is due to less dynamic economies, which do not equal the U.S. in how they foster innovation, on which many of the newest U.S. fortunes are based.
When comparing the ratio of the richest to the percentage of the world’s wealth held by each country, it is Russia that comes out the most lopsided, with its holdings skewed to the super rich. As a country, Russia holds only half a percent of the world’s wealth, and yet it has 9% of the 67 richest.
The 67 fortunes come from three main industries: technology (12), retail (12) and natural resources-based sectors such as oil and gas, mining and steel. The geographical split by industry illustrates the state and progression of the various economies. Almost all technology fortunes are recent and from the U.S. (Microsoft MSFT -0.4%, Oracle, Facebook). Retail is dominated by second- or third-generation Western Europeans. The majority of the rich whose money comes from natural resources are from emerging markets, with most of them from Russia.
The majority of the 67—40, or 60%, to be precise—are self-made.
Enhanced by Zemanta