We all know that Stuart Rose, the leader of "Britain Stronger In Europe" loves the EU because is helps to avoid corporation tax and M&S, during Rose's term of office is famous for opening up cross border relief in the EU.
Nestle, Siemens and many other European and EU Corporations use EU tax law to fiddle their tax. They pay almost no corporation tax in the UK. This is why companies such as Siemens desperately want the UK to stay in the EU (See The EU is Good for Business says Siemens UK Boss). The table below shows how European companies (blue) such as Siemens pay very low corporation tax compared with UK companies (yellow).
No wonder Siemens thinks the EU is "good for business"! You have got to ask yourself why the pernicious British press and BBC always talk about corporation tax avoidance by American companies when European giants such as Siemens, BASF, Nestle, Total etc. are also cashing in. The UK media are so biased they seem to be owned by the EU.
UK Companies that are well embedded in the EU, such as Rolls Royce Aerospace, Astra Zeneca, Diageo, Lloyd's, Vodaphone, HSBC, BP also paid very little or no corporation tax in 2014 and companies such as Airbus, which are EU financed and largely based elsewhere in the EU, use the cross border shunting of profits out of the UK to avoid tax. (Airbus is a Franco-German-British company that is currently under investigation for serious fraud).
It is obvious from the table that the takeover of British companies by overseas corporations has a devastating effect on tax revenues (Kraft took over Cadburys and now effectively pays no corporation tax). It may astonish the UK reader to know that UK law allows the government to ban such takeovers in the case of non-EU companies such as Kraft (but not EU companies).
Use http://tinyurl.com/od6lwa4 to link to this article in twitter or click the twitter box below.
Here is an excerpt from Membership of the EU: pros and cons) explaining what happens:
How Corporations pay low tax
The recent tax avoidance scandals involving Starbucks, Google etc. are due to EU rules, not international agreements outside the EU.
According to international agreements Corporates are allowed to play with intra-company transfers of cash from country to country only in certain restricted circumstances: "International tax rules allow companies to deduct royalty payments to associated entities, provided they are at "arms length".(Reuters Special Report: Starbucks's European tax bill disappears down $100 million hole).
Notice that these charges and payments must be "at arms length", according to international rules Starbucks can charge another company for using its logo and recipes but cannot charge itself except in exceptional circumstances.
It is European Law, not international law, that allows transfers that are not at "arms length". The Reuters article goes on to say:
"European Union rules allow the transfer of such fees within the bloc without tax deductions, but require withholding taxes to be levied when the fees are moved outside the bloc."
Individual countries, such as Holland etc., get around the problem of witholding taxes:
"But Dutch tax law allows companies to send royalty fees earned in other countries on to tax havens without incurring taxes."
This means that companies can trade in Britain, charge the British part of their company millions for the priviledge of trading, take these millions in Holland without tax then transfer them to Bermuda, the USA etc. The European Union has designed its tax system to allow this tax avoidance.
8/5/15
Nestle, Siemens and many other European and EU Corporations use EU tax law to fiddle their tax. They pay almost no corporation tax in the UK. This is why companies such as Siemens desperately want the UK to stay in the EU (See The EU is Good for Business says Siemens UK Boss). The table below shows how European companies (blue) such as Siemens pay very low corporation tax compared with UK companies (yellow).
 |
| CT Paid in UK 2012 |
No wonder Siemens thinks the EU is "good for business"! You have got to ask yourself why the pernicious British press and BBC always talk about corporation tax avoidance by American companies when European giants such as Siemens, BASF, Nestle, Total etc. are also cashing in. The UK media are so biased they seem to be owned by the EU.
UK Companies that are well embedded in the EU, such as Rolls Royce Aerospace, Astra Zeneca, Diageo, Lloyd's, Vodaphone, HSBC, BP also paid very little or no corporation tax in 2014 and companies such as Airbus, which are EU financed and largely based elsewhere in the EU, use the cross border shunting of profits out of the UK to avoid tax. (Airbus is a Franco-German-British company that is currently under investigation for serious fraud).
It is obvious from the table that the takeover of British companies by overseas corporations has a devastating effect on tax revenues (Kraft took over Cadburys and now effectively pays no corporation tax). It may astonish the UK reader to know that UK law allows the government to ban such takeovers in the case of non-EU companies such as Kraft (but not EU companies).
Use http://tinyurl.com/od6lwa4 to link to this article in twitter or click the twitter box below.
Here is an excerpt from Membership of the EU: pros and cons) explaining what happens:
How Corporations pay low tax
The recent tax avoidance scandals involving Starbucks, Google etc. are due to EU rules, not international agreements outside the EU.
According to international agreements Corporates are allowed to play with intra-company transfers of cash from country to country only in certain restricted circumstances: "International tax rules allow companies to deduct royalty payments to associated entities, provided they are at "arms length".(Reuters Special Report: Starbucks's European tax bill disappears down $100 million hole).
Notice that these charges and payments must be "at arms length", according to international rules Starbucks can charge another company for using its logo and recipes but cannot charge itself except in exceptional circumstances.
It is European Law, not international law, that allows transfers that are not at "arms length". The Reuters article goes on to say:
"European Union rules allow the transfer of such fees within the bloc without tax deductions, but require withholding taxes to be levied when the fees are moved outside the bloc."
Individual countries, such as Holland etc., get around the problem of witholding taxes:
"But Dutch tax law allows companies to send royalty fees earned in other countries on to tax havens without incurring taxes."
This means that companies can trade in Britain, charge the British part of their company millions for the priviledge of trading, take these millions in Holland without tax then transfer them to Bermuda, the USA etc. The European Union has designed its tax system to allow this tax avoidance.
8/5/15
Comments