How to copy Starbucks and pay no tax

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 25 October 2012  |  Comments 46 comments

Creating your own company could mean dodging tax like US corporations. Here's how this scheme works.

How to copy Starbucks and pay no tax

Last week, coffee giant Starbucks got a roasting when a four-month investigation by news agency Reuters revealed that its British division has paid hardly any UK corporation tax.

Starbucks arrived in the UK in May 1998 and, over the next 14 years, racked up sales exceeding £3 billion. However, thanks to some ace accounting, Starbucks UK has paid just £8.6 million in corporation tax.

Normally, such a low tax bill would indicate a struggling business, even one in terminal decline. On the contrary, Starbucks is growing fast, adding 20-30 new outlets each year to its existing portfolio of 735 stores. So what's going on?

Playing 'pass the profits'

Starbucks has huge sales and hefty profit margins, so why isn't it paying UK corporation tax? The simple answer is that its parent company heavily reduces Starbucks' UK tax liability through massive deductions.

For example, Starbucks UK is entirely financed by debt from its US parent, to which it pays millions of pounds a year in tax-deductible interest. Also, 6% of Starbucks' sales are paid to its parent in royalty fees for using its brand, trademarks and intellectual property. In 2011, these royalties came to £26 million, helping to push the UK arm to a loss and completely avoid tax.

Of course, Starbucks is just one of scores of multinational corporations to game the UK tax system. Amazon, Facebook and Google use similar legal loopholes to transfer British profits to low-tax regimes, as we highlighted in Why I'm boycotting Amazon and where I'm going instead.

What if you could do the same? How would such a wheeze work and how low could your tax bill go?

Transform yourself into a company

Perhaps the best way to take total control of your tax affairs is to 'incorporate'. This involves setting yourself up in business as a private limited company and channelling all (or most) of your income through your own 'personal tax haven'.

By starting your own company, you can move away from being taxed as an employee and paying income tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs) through the PAYE (Pay As You Earn) system. Instead, your company get taxed on its profits after legitimate business expenses.

Meanwhile, to avoid income tax and NICs, you take a modest salary from your firm and boost your earnings with tax-efficient share dividends. Here's a practical example of how this works.

Make work less taxing

Let's assume that your company collects, say, £60,000 a year in fees from various clients. Of this, your business pays you a small salary of £107 a week, or £5,564 a year. As this is below the lower threshold for employee NICs, you pay no National Insurance on this wage. In addition, there is no income tax to pay on this mini-salary, as it falls within your personal tax allowance of £8,105.

Next, assume that your company has 1,000 shares, all of which you own. Every six months, you declare a cash dividend on these shares of, say, exactly £1.8455 per share. This gives you an extra £18,455 twice a year, which totals £36,910.

Share dividends are taxed much more lightly than earned income. In fact, thanks to a notional 10% tax credit, basic-rate (20%) taxpayers pay no tax on dividends. For higher-rate (40%) taxpayers, the tax is 32.5%, reduced to 22.5% after the 10% notional tax credit. However, this extra tax is paid only on the slice of dividends in the higher-rate tax threshold, which starts at £34,370 of taxable earnings.

In effect, you've received total earnings of £42,474 from the £60,000 paid to your private company. As all of this falls below the threshold for higher-rate tax of £42,475, it is entirely tax-free. In short, the score is: you 100%, HM Revenue & Customers (HMRC) 0%!

Make your company pay

While you pay zero personal taxes on the above earnings, HMRC will get its pound of flesh one way or another. It does this by charging your company corporation tax. In the above example, your company received £60,000 over the course of a year and paid you a salary of £5,564. This sum is offset against corporation tax, reducing the company profit to £54,436.

Although dividends don't reduce this profit any further, all legitimate business expenses do. For the sake of argument, let's say that your company offsets £4,436 in expenses against tax, reducing the final profit to £50,000.

The standard rate of corporation tax for small businesses is 20%, thus generating a tax bill of £10,000. This is the only tax paid by your company (except for VAT on purchases, of course).

What's more, your company is solvent, as it has spare cash remaining of £3,090, as follows:

Revenues

£60,000

Salary

-£5,564

Dividends

-£36,910

Expenses

-£4,436

Corporation tax

-£10,000

Surplus

£3,090

A river of red tape

Of course, not everyone can set up a company and start a business overnight. If you quit your job and return to the same firm as a consultant paid via your own private company, HMRC might take a dim view of this move. It could argue that you are an "employee at arm's length" and, under the provisions of an anti-avoidance rule known as IR35, could order you to pay tax as an employee.

Then again, if you're a genuine consultant or freelancer (as I am), then this sort of tax arrangement should be right up your street. Indeed, I ran my small business along these lines for six years, before overwhelming red tape and a bout of ill-health led me to become self-employed, rather than a company director.

Finally, if you do decide to set up your own company, then be prepared to be washed over by a flood of British bureaucracy. You must keep accurate records for HMRC and Companies House and, if you fail to file your company paperwork and pay its taxes on time, then expect to be fined thousands of pounds. Even so, this entirely legal tax loophole might work for you, as it does for millions of British workers.

More on tax:

Beware this tax scam

Eight top tax return tips

Tax havens and tax hells

The true cost of having a company car

How to get a tax refund

Would you use a tax avoidance scheme?

Ten ways to avoid Capital Gains Tax

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (46)

  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    Why do people call these 'legal loopholes'? They are clearly NOT loopholes, but application of the rules as they stand.

    Even if Starbucks don't make any profit due to money transfers and internal finances, they still employ A LOT of people paying tax and NIC.

    Personally, I don't go for the Starbucks coffee as I don't subscribe to the rip-off coffee shop 'experience'. Experience? No it's just a cup of coffee with a large price tag, nothing more and nothing less.

    Report on 25 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  7 loves
  • MrFinanceMonkey
    Love rating 2
    MrFinanceMonkey said

    I think £107 per week is the lower earnings limit, not the 'primary threshold'. You could earn up to £146 per week befor you would have to pay NICs.

    Also, you would pay yourself a salary of £8,105 and pay the NICs at 12% instead of corporation tax at 20%, but I suppose the point of the article is to pay no income tax, rather than no tax at all.

    Report on 26 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Tanni
    Love rating 91
    Tanni said

    Clever accounting is no different than a politician avoiding to answer a question...says it all.

    Report on 28 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    There is no such thing as clever accounting. Applying tax law as it stands in the correct manner is just accounting. If you generate income via a company and the company pays tax you are still paying your way. Any business generates wealth in numerous ways via it's suppliers and customers even if there are few employees. The wage slaves who resent that fact only feel that way because they don't have the courage to control their own destiny. Spending time whining about anyone in business is pointless, let's be concerned with the real parasites who don't want to work at all.

    Starbucks choose to pay their taxes in the USA, but as a USA company which happens to employ a lot of people in the UK I think they have every right to move profits wherever they choose, if the alternative were to not employ so many here.

    Report on 28 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • yocoxy
    Love rating 132
    yocoxy said

    It would be interesting to see the comparison if the £42k were earned in the normal way.. Deduct the personal allowance, pay 20% tax and 8% NIC on the taxable earnings and is this so far away from the £10k paid in the example above?

    Oh and if we want Starbuucks to declare profits in this country we need to have competitive tax rates. Another reason why Labour's high tax strategy was flawed.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Talent
    Love rating 77
    Talent said

    What I don't understand is why so many people pay so much for poor quality coffee. Sheep, I guess. Now if they were to offer a Goroka bean coffee and lower the price and not ask so many questions before serving.... I may, just may, partake :-))

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • Gordon123
    Love rating 1
    Gordon123 said

    Electricblue - It never ceases to amaze me how many people are taken in by the propaganda and false/misleading statistics put out by the government and newspapers. We have 2.5 million out of work, with around 400,00 jobs going. Do the maths. Also many in work are part time but would prefer a full time job. We are never told the number of people who don't want to work, and their cost to the country ... the reason is because it is a pittance compared to the money lost through tax avoidance. Much easier for politicians to blame the unemployed for all the country's problems rather than tackle real issues.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    What is the difference between Starbucks 'ace accounting' to avoid tax legally and increase income and the unmarried mother who has another baby to legally increase her income by claiming more benefits. They are both immoral parasites. People believe what they want to believe, but it doesn't make it right. The rich read advice like this article and have accountants and the left wing politically correct advisors on Labour councils hand out advice and apartments to single mothers. The rich moan about the poor and the poor moan about the rich. Some people get stuck in the middle and just keep creating wealth for both lots of parasites to enjoy.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • This_is_me
    Love rating 24
    This_is_me said

    I don't see how anyone can say that a huge business that employs lots of people and provides goods and services that people want is a parasite. That is a lot different from the spongers on benefits.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • ronat42
    Love rating 62
    ronat42 said

    Anyone who studiously avoids paying their fair share of taxes to support the system that provides the infrastructure and security that allows them to survive and prosper is a parasite.

    It's as simple as that!

    As far as the procedures described in the article are concerned, Gordon Brown made a clumsy and badly implemented effort to outlaw these activities early in his spell as chancellor and this simply encouraged an equal effort to get around the laws. I know of one of the contractors in the computer industry who still boasts of turning over £100K plus yet pays virtually no tax. If he's doing it thousands more are. Surely it would be beneficial to use some of the savings from the reduction of unproductive sections of the civil service to attack this problem then we could possibly have the burden of paying for the civil service and benefits system distributed more fairly.

    In an ideal world where the population was free from freebooters, criminals and self serving bureaucrats we should need less regulation and taxes to pay for same leaving more of our wealth circulating in wealth producing activities but that's an education matter.

    Oh dear, where is my medication?

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • marram
    Love rating 46
    marram said

    @Mike10613 - It might be a small point to remember, but for every single mother there HAS to be a single father. And if she's claiming benefits, that means the single father is not taking his responsibility.

    And THAT is the fault of the 'permissive' society which thinks that there is something wrong with teaching children what is bad and what is good in terms of general behaviour and the basics of sexual morality. They grow up without principles. And those parents who DO choose to teach their children right from wrong are pilloried as mind controllers.

    I get truly sick and tired of individuals on this website who almost invariably pair the word 'benefit' and 'scrounger' or 'sponger' or 'parasite'. They are simply reinforcing the Tory Government strategy of demonising ALL benefit claimants. Many people are on benefits because they have no choice. Life does not ALWAYS go to plan. Sickness, death, redundancy... do I need to go on? Have a little mercy.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • nosbort
    Love rating 125
    nosbort said

    @ronat42

    you are correct, anyone who doesn't pay their fair share of tax is doing the wrong thing, however, you have to remember that the tax paid by a company is defined in law and as long as the law is correctly applied then, by definition, the correct amount of tax is being paid, ergo the company is paying its fair share of tax. It is also a legal requirement upon a company to make its shareholders the most money possible and making the most efficient use of the tax system is therefore not optional, but required of a company.

    The real problem is that our rates of corporation tax are too high, if the rate was lower then companies like Starbucks would move their profits TO the UK to pay the lowest rate of corporation tax available to them and we would benefit as a nation. This is one of the things that the Labour party needs to understand and it applies to higher rate income tax too, as demonstrated in the 1980s if you reduce the rates then it is no longer worth spending money on avoiding the tax and the result is that a lower rate yields a higher return.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 142
    MK22 said

    The problem is that individuals who are UK tax payers are quite happy for this to continue. The rich who live "off shore" and companies like Starbucks, Vodaphone, Amazon etc are looked upon as good eggs whereas those who cheat the benefits system are not. Read the above posts. If we really thought not paying tax was wrong and/or immoral or both, we'd stop buying the goods. And as to saying nothing can be done, it would be quite easy to require any "charges" from a non-UK company to be charged to the accounts at the market rate. And if there is no market, like the cost of using a corporate logo, the charge to the accounts would be zero. But as people in the UK clearly don't want this to happen, it never will and we will continue our slide into the 4th world.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • tadpole
    Love rating 6
    tadpole said

    I have one question about this tax avoidance - It may be legal, but is it moral?

    I very much doubt it! It is based on a selfish disregard for the wider community.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • rsharp
    Love rating 8
    rsharp said

    No one else has pointed it out, so I will:

    "Next, assume that your company has 1,000 shares, all of which you own. Every six months, you declare a cash dividend on these shares of, say, exactly £1.8455 per share. This gives you an extra £18,455 twice a year, which totals £36,910."

    Sorry, but £1.8455 x 1,000 shares = £1,845.5; so you either need 10,000 shares or a dividend of £18.455, otherwise your dividend income is just 10% of the figures quoted.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • r
    Love rating 67
    r said

    Ahh! Starbuck's back in the news again. Has anyone considered that corporation tax is an outdated tax now that we have increasingly global trade? It is only companies that operate wholly in the UK that pay the full amount of CT; these are usually the smaller companies so it is a tax that now discriminates against UK smaller companies. Starbuck's and the likes are not breaking the law - it is the law that cannot be enforced as we want and therefore it is a bad law.

    Also, consider Vodafone, Amazon, Ebay, and loads of other companies that trade across borders; they are paying absolutely loads of tax into this country. They employ a lot of people so there is income tax and NIC; they transport goods either into their shops or out to their customers; this provides work for our transport structure and Post Office which also pays ICT, NIC, loads of fuel tax, Road Tax and above all, they pay VAT on most of what they sell. The "only" thing they are reducing is CT and they are doing it legally!

    r.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • cowbutt
    Love rating 5
    cowbutt said

    To those questioning the morality of this approach to self-employment, consider the following:

    - Success is not assured; one could invest plenty of time, effort and capital, but find that the market is unwilling to buy from one's business at a sustainable rate. If one closes down as a result, no redundancy is payable, nor is there a guaranteed price for assets that are liquidated. I'm not even sure that one is entitled to Job Seekers Allowance afterwards.

    - During dry periods, a self-employed person is not entitled to JSA. There is no paid sick leave.

    - Various employee protection laws don't apply to the self-employed; the Working Time Directive, for instance.

    - If a self-employed person is negligent, customers can have a legal claim against them, or their limited company if using this arrangement. Whilst a limited company acts to protect the self-employed person's personal assets, corporate assets are at risk.

    - If successful, a new company can contribute to the growth of the wider economy and produce employment for others.

    In short, I perceive these tax perks as indicating governments' awareness of the risks and opportunities inherent in self-employment and doing what they can to attempt to make self-employment less unattractive than it would naturally be. The growth of self-employment in the UK over recent decades shows this has been somewhat successful. I firmly believe that all self-employed people are entitled to use these structures, and only if they are not prepared to deal with the additional laws, bureaucracy and paperwork should they not do so.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • RichardSowler
    Love rating 17
    RichardSowler said

    Good point MrFinanceMonkey. Just one problem: you have to add employers' NIC at 13.8%, so, with employees' Class 1 at 12% the total damage is 25.8%, and you are better off with income tax at 20%.

    Also, back to the original article, the company can register for VAT and get back VAT paid on its expenses. However, clients have to be charged VAT, and this make make you uncompetetive - it depends on your market. However, if your supplies are exempt (e.g. you are an insurance brioker) you will not get back VAT on the expenses - or be able to charge it to your clients. (Of course, if your turnover is above the registration threshold you have no choice and registration is compulsory.)

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Basia02a
    Love rating 43
    Basia02a said

    The Starbuck example is not an exception amongst US companies at least. 20 years ago I discovered that the company I worked for did exactly this. A customer uniquely did a credit check on us(the UK Subsidiary) as a supplier before signing a contract and the check was poor, as the UK arm had always may a large loss. This was due to royalties etc paid to the US owner. At around the same time the Global company had just been judged the most profitable company in the world by profit per employee!

    In all this controversy, I would be interested to know if UK companies do the same thing, ie have their Chinese,US subsidiaries making a loss so they pay no tax there?

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • yocoxy
    Love rating 132
    yocoxy said

    Just one thought.. There's some comment on here about companies with x revenue, y turnover... That's irrelevant for tax purposes (or for the purpose of making the owner(s) rich). The only thing that is relevant here is profit.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    The Starbucks example is NOT tax avoidance. Why should an American corporation not choose to keep it's primary profit centre in the USA? I'm far more disgusted with the antics of Ebay and Paypal who take huge amounts of money out of the UK but are registered in Switzerland and Ireland. I have commented in the past that the very wealthy have to spend their money somewhere and it only misses tax at one stage, which in the scheme of things isn't as significant as if they simply moved residence to one of the fixed tax countries like Gibraltar or the Isle of Man. We don't have the right to simply steal wealth and the morality issue is irrelevant for those who didn't even make their money out of the UK or who are not UK citizens. Let's stop acting as if we are doing them such a favour being the only civilised country on the planet where they could base their wealth.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • marram
    Love rating 46
    marram said

    @yocoxy: Interesting remark that. Profit is the only relevant thing. Actually, you could sum up the modern world in that one sentence!

    My last post was a bit off the point but I would like now to comment on the actual article.

    Starbucks is likely not doing anything illegal. However, one has to ask some searching questions. If they are, as it appears, a subsidiary of the US company, why do they have to pay royalty fees? This is an area which perhaps the Taxman needs to address. Are those fees strictly correct? That depends very much on the actual nature of the relationship with the parent company. If it exists as a sort of nationwide franchise, then it's probably reasonable to pay royalty fees. But if it is truly a part of the Starbucks operation, then surely this is not right, and appears to be nothing more than a ruse to cheat the UK taxman. Also, is the tax-deductible interest being charged to the UK subsidiary a reasonable rate, given the prevailing interest rates? Or, again, is it a ruse to cheat the taxman?

    It seems strange to allow this to happen, yet Rafael Nadal was told if he played too many tournaments in the UK he would have to pay tax, not just on money earned in the UK, but on his worldwide earnings! This despite the fact that not only is he not a British national but is domiciled in Spain! As a result, the British public were deprived of seeing him play at Queens' this year.

    Yet British owners of British firms can buy a house abroad and avoid UK tax! The whole situation is insane.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LiamT
    Love rating 45
    LiamT said

    each company should be forced to pay tax on profits it makes in this country. if they kick up a fuss tell them to setup shop somewhere else and let tax paying companies thrive.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    LiamT,

    That is entirely the point of what is being said here. Companies reduce the profit they make in one country by loans, royalties etc to pay to the parent company in a more tax favourable country. They declare the profit somewhere else and pay the lower tax on that profit in that country.

    Perfectly legal under the current rules.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • norcoastactivist
    Love rating 15
    norcoastactivist said

    High time the rules were changed, but then again I expect that many members of both the government and its opposition would oppose such a simple solution as they probably have a vested interest to do so. Yet again 1 rule for the rich and 1 for the poor.

    Report on 29 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • robertlarkman
    Love rating 4
    robertlarkman said

    Copy Starbucks and pay no tax! I have a better idea, let's boycott Starbucks and show them what we think of companies that take the money and run. No more megabucks for Starbucks!

    Report on 30 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • Arblaster
    Love rating 41
    Arblaster said

    If they are, as it appears, a subsidiary of the US company, why do they have to pay royalty fees?

    I suspect it is because the British Starbucks are a UK firm, and they pay royalites to the American Starbucks for the use of the name. If you remember back to a supermarket chain called Safeway, they were a British firm called - as I recall - Argyle. I should think that they, too, paid the American Safeway for the use of their name.

    Report on 30 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    Ebay is registered in Luxembourg. Their situation is a disgusting flouting of cross border transaction rules because Luxembourg benefits from VAT on transactions which have nothing whatsoever to do with that country. Private individuals are paying 15% in VAT on their fees straight to Luxembourg. Absolutely outrageous.

    Report on 30 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Arblaster
    Love rating 41
    Arblaster said

    Ebay is registered in Luxembourg. Their situation is a disgusting flouting of cross border transaction rules because Luxembourg benefits from VAT on transactions which have nothing whatsoever to do with that country. Private individuals are paying 15% in VAT on their fees straight to Luxembourg. Absolutely outrageous.

    Totally agree. I am told that it also makes it difficult to sue the company in Britain. For this, and other reasons, I refuse to do business with ebay or paypal.

    Report on 31 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • marram
    Love rating 46
    marram said

    @Arblaster - That was the point of my question. Are they a British firm with a different name, using the Starbucks name for trading purposes, or are they actually part of and owned by Starbucks?

    The example of Argyle - Safeway you quoted is straightforward, it is a franchise, and the Argyle company is not owned by Safeway. Therefore royalties are in order.

    Report on 31 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Misty
    Love rating 2
    Misty said

    One thing that shows that we are not all abreast of the tax situation in this country is the many comments that Starbucks pay NI. I wonder how many staff they pay NI for? It is a fallacy that if they employ staff they are paying tax in that they pay NI as I believe a huge majority of their staff are part time and therefore may not reach the NI threshold. I believe that a number of companies keep their contracted hours down so that staff do not trigger NI and therefore the company does not have to pay NI. I think this is prevalent in many of our supermarkets. As many comments on this site bemoan the complications of the UK tax system I wonder if anyone will ever get to grips with it!

    Report on 31 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Philmo
    Love rating 2
    Philmo said

    Unbelievable!

    Why is it that the system prevents HMRC using its teeth with full vengance?

    Why is it that HMG, LA's, Quangos, privatised utilities etc continue to be staffed by idle, backside covering, bovine excrement producing, wannabe project managers who don't actually do anything constructive and spend far too much time and taxpayers' hard-earned protecting their inequitable super pension schemes?

    Apologies to the few who do have a work ethic!

    Report on 01 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • gfourmoney
    Love rating 0
    gfourmoney said

    The real problem here is the tax system. In my view we should abolish all corporation and personal income taxes, dramatically reduce the welfare state and then the government to the minimum required for home security and foreign policy and then charge just very high sales taxes on luxury items to cover these small government spending needs.

    That way everyone gets off taxes until they spend. Poor people pay no taxes until they start buying luxuries like the higher earners. Even American companies doing business in UK have to spend on things in the UK so would be taxed. Job done. Not easy. Not conventional, but find a better way by all means.

    Report on 01 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • minniedaminx
    Love rating 0
    minniedaminx said

    As r points out, this - and all the controversy surrounding companies like Vodafone - is a problem caused by globalization. In technical terms, domicile is no longer fit for purpose. I've argued this for several years and I can't be the only one to say so.

    The obvious alternative is to use activity rather than domicile as the basis for taxation (with exceptions for those with relatively small sales in particular territories, natch). No change for the vast majority of UK companies, but a major intake for the UK treasury from the multinationals.

    How difficult would it be to shift to such a system? Not very: for some years, non-EU businesses have been required to register for VAT in at least one of the EU member states, collecting VAT from their customers and passing it on to the relevant tax authority like the natives. And then voila! Deficit, what deficit?

    The problem is one of politics. If anyone can manage the herding cats trick, then they might have a chance of getting worldwide acceptance of this kind of change. Next question: how many policiticians worldwide receive donations from multinational corporations and individuals whose incomes would be affected by such moves?

    Report on 01 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Kapulski
    Love rating 5
    Kapulski said

    Hang on. Most of this is simply untrue. The principal reason that Starbucks UK has paid so little in the way of Corporation Tax is that (in spite of its headline sales) it hasn't actually been very profitable. And that's mainly because, in a highly expansionist mood, it took on hundreds of prime high street leases at the height of the property boom, at rental levels it now deeply regrets. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of accounting arrangements.

    There's no secret about this. Nor is there anything untoward in the fact that the British operation pays a royalty to the parent company for the UK franchise, just like any franchise operation anywhere in the world, at a rate which is absolutely within industry norms.

    Where's the tax avoidance in that?

    Report on 01 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • RobinCambs
    Love rating 1
    RobinCambs said

    I'm sorry Cliff, however I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "be prepared to be washed over by a flood of British bureaucracy". I've been a co-director running a business for over five years, employing 7 people and it's nowhere near as painful as you make it sound. And these days, as you almost point out, it is very unlikely that an individual could do what you have set out and IR35 would most likely kick in.

    Report on 01 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • lizzie1410
    Love rating 2
    lizzie1410 said

    Do you want to comment on the morals of this activity? Do we not all, as individuals and as corporations benefit from 'society' which is funded by taxation? Do we all benefit from the education, health services, police and defence, street lighting, rubbish collection, social services which is funded by taxation? And is it not right that the you only pay a lot of tax because you earn a lot? People on lower incomes bear the brunt of taxation because they cannot afford tax avoidance/evasion/planning, call it what you like. The government spends millions (of taxpayers money) trying to stop corporations and wealthier individuals from 'minimising' their tax bills. Do people and corporations have no sense of honesty? No sense of admitting that they are lucky to be wealthy/be making a profit and make an honest contribution to society in line with the law instead of constantly looking for loopholes?

    Report on 01 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • muira
    Love rating 30
    muira said

    copy starbucks??..why bother leaving the house,and the hassle of parking & queuing

    buy some cheap and cheerful coffee,some coffee essence,coffee mate..shaving foam

    warm some milk up in the microwave,and stick a kenwood cheffette into the gunge

    then drink whilst setting fire to a fiver every cupful..same outcome,no one either pays or dodges tax..

    Report on 01 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • qwertybed
    Love rating 2
    qwertybed said

    ....and if you go the self employed way do you think any bank will give you a mortage on a salary of 5.5K? As has been mentioned you can't be self employed if you work for only one firm or client, and if money gets tight at the firm you now consult for you will be first in line to make savings without any protection a long term employee may enjoy.

    I'm self employed and have been for 8 years, there are some benefits and some drawbacks, another drawback is when you get back from 2 weeks on the beach you have earnt £0 for the last fortnight and you need to budget to have your tax money ready to pay in January, not a great month to have spare cash!

    Report on 01 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • softbeaut
    Love rating 0
    softbeaut said

    I think the title of the article is misleading. It should be 'pay less tax' as in the example (ignoring VAT which can either be reclaimed or not depending on the business) the effective tax rate is 16.66% (of the £60000). It does not matter if it is personal or company tax. You as the earner of the income are only interested in the NET amount in your pocket.

    Bear in mind that you are still likely to pay 20% tax (i.e. VAT) with that extra income you are now going to spend! It is more a case of be taxed now or later. Maybe use your ISA allowances with this 'extra' income to avoid paying more tax.

    Also I agree with RobinCambs HMRC makes it relatively easy to be a small company compared with when I started over 10 years ago, especially with the move online. It is in clear English with notes and fields that do the calculations for you!

    Report on 03 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Tanni
    Love rating 91
    Tanni said

    Clever accounting to avoid or evade taxes is not a good ethical practice. To reduce the taxable profit by creating royalties and other costs to reduce the amount of tax paid is in a sense another type of fraud and avoidance. To be based in some tax haven for tax purposes shows you the lack of ethics and morals in big business. Many big businesses based in and around Canary Wharf pay very little tax as they hold our governments to ransom by claiming they will move abroad.

    To further use the unemployed as an excuse to justify benefit cuts and tax breaks is also misleading and criminal. The ones who blame the unemployed for the bad times etc need their heads checking as the unemployed are only a small percentage of the GDP. More money is lost via clever accounting and tax loop holes. Most businesses in the UK employ clever accountants and complicated business models to show less taxable profits. Shows you that our politicians have not got the betterment of the British people at their core values...the politicians have sold this countries soul to the big corporations. The sooner people realise this the better and stop sticking up for big business.

    We were a nation of shopkeepers; now the shops are closing. We were a nation which was number one in everything in the world from education to industry; not anymore as some people thinks its better to be in the top 20 in the world rather than the best. For 300 years we were number one, in the space of 100 years we have allowed negligent government policies ruin this countries sustainability at the express benefit of big business and the financial institutions. The future is bleak unless we, the people demand more sense from our so called elected officials.

    Report on 03 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • GaryDean
    Love rating 56
    GaryDean said

    Tanni makes a good point. The very vast majority of those claiming benefits are people who want to work. Yes there are those who abuse the system, but in this instance I believe it is a miniscule percentage. However when it come to big business abusing the system is common practice. It is the policy of big business to cut costs & increase profits at any cost. Therefore production has been shifted abroad & jobs have been outsourced. Not only have many lost their livelihoods because of this but by claiming benefits to survive & feed their families they are also taking the rap & penalised both in potential cuts & the stigma attached to being a claimant.

    Report on 04 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • edwardmk2879
    Love rating 57
    edwardmk2879 said

    Anyone on this post who really believes the solution to UK government debt, fairness and a balanced budget is more tax is deluded and doesn't understand the problem.

    We now have between one to five trillion pounds of debt depending on how you calculate it. There is the first problem. The government itself can't agree on how to calculate our debt. If you don't know what you owe, how can you plan to pay it back?

    Philmo gets it, in that the problem begins with government. Government itself has corrupted the system. There is an army of civil servants being paid unrealistically high salaries at national and local level. There is no pension pot set aside, so when they retire early due to stress at work on pensions that most of the public sector can only dream about, they continue to get paid from our taxes. Example..HIghly paid Manchester fire chief. Massive pay off at 'retirement', then re-hired as a highly paid consultant while drawing a pension from local rates. Thousands all over the country were playing the game with final salary retirement schemes prior to 2007, and we'll be paying for many of them for thirty years earning more in retirement than most earn while working. Gordon Brown's PFI initiative costing up to 7x the actual cost of building the infrastructure. Privatisation of profits via public debt, paid for by taxation.

    Companies not paying corporation tax is a pathetic red herring, not worth writing about. Just abolish corporation tax entirely and tweak taxes on consumption. NI is just income tax by another name, because there is no NI account. All income tax is a tax on jobs. There is no choice for government but to shrink. Government's chief expertise is in doing things in the most expensive way possible. More tax just feeds the beast. Then you get bigger nuclear weapons, bigger EU subsidies, bigger expense accounts, bigger public finance boondoggles. Then when the economy collapses under the weight of the government's excesses, they cut funds for the poor and disadvantaged and yell for more tax from companies and workers. Sickening really, but don't blame the companies. They are the life blood of the economy. Some reforms for sure, but the big picture is out of control government spending, not a lack of tax due to avoidance.

    Report on 04 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • r
    Love rating 67
    r said

    @edwardmk2879:

    That's one of the most sensible suggestions that I have heard on here. I have said for years that we need a new type of government - we need to get away from the traditional "left" and "right" wing politics because that is now tainted. We have seen numerous examples in the last 10 years alone of MPs and euro MPs with their noses in the trough. We have seen that our prime politicians end up with cream jobs and pensions in the EU after they lose office here. All of this taints their decisions even further.

    We do need to balance our books. We can do it as well. It can be done by cutting out unproductive expenditure - such as the near £54,000,000 our government gave to the EU every day of the year in 2011/12 - such as eliminating uncontrolled immigration - such as the wasteful foreign aid policy that gives money away without ensuring that it is needed or even gets to its destination. Government is massive - I am sure there are complete departments that are unproductive, outdated and could be removed.

    We need to set up the state pension scheme properly with personal accounts that are topped up by tax relief (as now) and support for when we are not working or are incapacitated. This will take 40 years to achieve in its entireity but, at that point, the state pension will no longer be a massive demand on the government. I believe it takes about 40% of the Social Service budget at the moment. Similarly, civil servants, the fire service and the police would have to fund thier pension budgets as well.

    Back to the topic. @tanni: some nice points but tax accounting has never involved ethics - it uses the letter of the law. Corporation tax is now antiquated because it cannot be applied to global companies - they will move their cash about to a cheaper place - so it disproportionally penalises the UK only company. It is a tax that cannot be applied as intended and is, therefore, a bad tax.

    @gfourmoney and @minniedaminx made some good points - maybe we need to change our focus from taxing income to taxing spending. Large corporations will not be able to avoid UK tax so easily. Obviously, our benefits system will need to be reviewed but that is not impossible.

    When will this happen? If our successive governments and, indeed, the western world, continue to produce money by QE, it will be forced on us because QE reduces debt by reducing the value of OUR savings and OUR pensions. One day, there will be a revolution!

    We need new thinking now.

    r.

    Report on 06 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • muira
    Love rating 30
    muira said

    @r

    what type of new government do you have in mind?

    the ones we have been subjected to,all appear to have some kind of university

    attendance history,which we assume is supplying the best qualified leaders for the job..

    could this culture they learn within these establishments be the root of the problem?

    as none either left or right appear to be able to solve what amounts to the running of a

    household budget,,albeit a rather large one..when they have been let out

    but are quite adept at as you say lining ones own pockets..

    oh and blaming the previous,supposedly best qualified learned gentlemen/women

    for the growing problems stacking up..power to the people i say..the university

    education is obviously not working..ready for the revolution when you are..

    Report on 06 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • yocoxy
    Love rating 132
    yocoxy said

    Great idea Tanni, lets rebuild the empire, go back to the class system of old and rule the world again!

    Report on 21 November 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Virgin Money Credit Card MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.99% fee) Representative 17.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 17.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 17.9% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV2