Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Pays No UK Income Tax, Under Investigation

New submitter artciousc writes with news that Amazon is dodging taxes in the UK. From the article: "Regulatory filings by parent company Amazon.com with the U.S. securities and exchange commission show the tax inquiry into the UK operation, which sells nearly one in four books sold in Britain, focuses on a period when ownership of the British business was transferred to a Luxembourg company." Clever trick there: "The UK operation avoids tax as the ownership of the main Amazon.co.uk business was transferred to a Luxembourg company in 2006. The UK business is now owned by Amazon EU Sarl and the UK operation is classed only as an 'order fulfilment' business." The HMRC is investigating the legality.

15 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Taxes and trade are complicated by explosivejared · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would be really difficult to structure a tax with the incidence falling solely on setups like the one Amazon has here, especially since the UK is part of the single market. This is most likely an issue that would have to be solved in the European Courts rather than by the UK government. I doubt that a few hundred million pounds in lost tax revenue would persuade the courts to force a major restructuring of trade. I am not expert on European jurisprudence though.

    This is a legitimately complex issue of tax avoidance. Most of the time when people howl about corporations paying low effective tax rates it's because they don't realize all of the exemptions for favored industries (green and bio tech, aerospace, etc.) and absorbing losses create that outcome. Here we have a government stretched thin on revenues up against the framework of European economic integration.

    --
    I got a catholic block.
    1. Re:Taxes and trade are complicated by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, if indeed it is legal, then there's nothing wrong with it.

      I see nothing wrong with playing within the rules to try to benefit yourself as much as possible.

      I do it on my personal and business taxes. Nothing even close to underhanded or sneaky, but I have no qualms about trying to use every legal means to reduce my tax burden any way I can.

      If they would cut all the deductions, loopholes, etc...and just do simple, flat type taxes...everyone would pay less over all...it would make some that don't pay taxes (people and companies) pay at least a little. And I don't have a problem with that either...everyone should have some skin in the game, even if it is just $1US or 1 Euro if over there.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Taxes and trade are complicated by PraiseBob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if indeed it is legal, then there's nothing wrong with it.

      Legally ok may still be morally wrong. Personally I think making over $3 billion, and doging all taxes falls into the morally wrong category.

      Legally speaking, companies only have an obligation to their shareholders. Morally speaking, companies have an obligation to their communities.

    3. Re:Taxes and trade are complicated by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Morally speaking, companies have an obligation to their communities.

      Saying an amoral entity should exhibit morals is like saying an atheist should respect God. Ain't gonna happen. Atheists don't believe in God, and have no reason for rspect, and it would be stupid to expect it. Amoral corporations don't believe in right and wrong, only in legal and illegal, and to expect them to have compassion or any sense of social responsibility is equally stupid.

    4. Re:Taxes and trade are complicated by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What if Caesar demands 100%? Or if caesar orders us into a concentration camp, because we're asian? What then Jesus?

      BTW most of Jesus' words are not his words. They were written decades after his death by church members who had never met the man. (Just like the story about George Washington chopping-down a cherry tree.) (Or the story about King Arthur.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    5. Re:Taxes and trade are complicated by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Informative

      Morally speaking, companies have an obligation to their communities.

      - that's a load of crap. Companies have an obligation to make money for themselves, that's all, they have no obligation whatsoever to anybody to provide anything, and they only provide something because they want to make money, and that's the best way to have this done.

      Anything that companies do is either approved by the market, which buys into it, or it's rejected by the market, and the company fails.

      No consumer has an 'obligation' to a company to buy its product, no company has an 'obligation' to any consumer beyond what it clearly states in contract.

    6. Re:Taxes and trade are complicated by greg1104 · · Score: 4, Informative

      This has nothing to do with things like offets for favored industries. Large companies now move the various parts of their business to whatever location gives the best net tax situation. Multinationals construct structures like the Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich to place sub-companies for minimal tax. Techniques like Transfer pricing are aggressively used to move the profit to the right place to tax it minimally. Games are played with repatriation too.

      If none of the options are good, they lobby for the specific incentives they need. US companies operate in Delaware because the state legislature there passes whatever the companies ask for in return for the business. Been that way since the 80's. The Cayman Islands and the Bailiwick of Jersey are popular offshore locations because they bend laws to whatever companies ask them to. Even a low rate on a lot of money is still a lot of money relative to a small country or state.

      Yes, this is all legal, but it's only legal because the companies have gotten the laws they lobbied and or bullied for. The result is that we're in a race to the bottom on taxation, where business flows to whoever is running the lowest margin government--which unsurprisingly is usually with the most favorable legislative kickbacks too.

      Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole The World takes 350 pages to outline just how that happened over the last hundred years, it's a great read for those interested what I'd call "financial tech". The minute you allow companies to influence lawmakers by things like lobbyists and campaign contributions, the inevitable result is making what those companies want legal. The corporate side is unsurprising given that corporations are by definition immoral. The fact that voters are ignorant to how they are being conned is really the problem here. The lawmakers who are complicit and benefitting in all of these schemes shouldn't just be voted out, they should be prosecuted as traitors for hire.

    7. Re:Taxes and trade are complicated by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amoral corporations don't believe in right and wrong, only in legal and illegal, and to expect them to have compassion or any sense of social responsibility is equally stupid.

      And it's this kind of thinking that is destroying capitalist nations like the US and the UK (I'm british, btw). You know, it's within living memory that large corporations switched to focusing solely upon short term shareholder 'value', back in the 70's and 80's. Before that, many big companies recognised they were only part of a giant collection of people, and that shitting in their own front yard was of short-term value only. Where they paid their workers sufficiently so that they could buy the very products they made. Where training, looking after your workers and ensuring a good work-life balance rewarded you with happier and thus better performing and more loyal employees. Where they recognised the social value of investing, via taxes and direct contributions, into the social lifeblood of their communities - schools, roads, hospitals. Where CEO's were stewards of their companies, not just there to strip much as much personal compensation as possible then get the hell out before anyone asked awkward questions.

      Of course, not all companies were like that. But now, virtually none of them are. the 'Greed is Good' mantra has won.

      In 1953 - "When he was asked during the hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee if as secretary of defense he could make a decision adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered affirmatively but added that he could not conceive of such a situation "because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa". Can you imagine a CEO of a current multinational - or one of the big casino banks - saying that with a straight face now?

      We should expect more than 'I can get away with it because it's within the letter of the law'. No, we should damn well DEMAND it.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  2. Order fulfilment business? by Picass0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's a very broad and legally vague concept.

    If Amazon succeeds I expect many other international businesses to incorporate in the UK and attempt the same. In fact, they would be fools not to.

  3. And Amazon EU Sarl is probably just a PO Box... by Tasha26 · · Score: 3, Informative

    They learnt from the best: Topshop, Boots, HSBC (UK)...

  4. The reason why Amazon should pay taxes is simple.. by danielrendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...taxes pay for things from which enable Amazon to have a business at all. Amazon can sell books to us because we're a reasonably literate population. They can get stuff distributed because we have a good road / rail network which is maintained. We have mechanisms in place to dispose of the masses of card packaging that Amazon use. We have employees who are kept reasonably healthy by the NHS (I'll understand if American readers are confused on this point - we have a decent health care system, America doesn't). All of these are the result, essentially, of taxpayer-funded state investment. So, by not paying taxes, Amazon are benefiting directly from such investment without contributing to it which, I would argue, is unfair and parasitical. I saw a great suggestion recently which was that if all of these anti-tax companies really wanted to put their money where their mouths are, they would set up shop in some crummy backward little country that doesn't bother with taxes and consequently has very little in the way of infrastructure, health, literacy etc. That's what small (or no) government gets you. If they decide they'd rather do business somewhere more advanced, they can damn well pay their fair share for the upkeep of the place.

  5. Reverse Engineering the Tax Analysis by wol · · Score: 4, Informative

    OK. Reverse engineering a bit and filling in gaps in the media reporting, here is my educated analysis. If you, as a UK consumer, buy a book from amazon.co.uk, you are actually hitting servers in Luxembourg and buying the book from a Luxembourg company. Letâ(TM)s call it Amazon Lux. Current EU VAT rules mean that if you are downloading a e-book, Amazon Lux only charges the Luxembourg VAT rates on the sale and hands that VAT over to the Luxembourg government. (This rule is expected to change in two years.) If you are buying a dead tree version, then Amazon Lux has to charge UK VAT rates on the sale and hands that VAT over to the UK government.

    There is a separate Amazon subsidiary in the UK, which operates a warehouse and shipping operation. Letâ(TM)s call it Amazon UK. Amazon Lux pays Amazon UK to operate the warehouse and perform the shipping. Typically this is done on a cost-plus basis, so Amazon UK is probably recovering its costs and getting a profit margin of 5-10%. Amazon UK will be paying UK income taxes on this small profit margin.

    The tax treaty between the UK and Luxembourg states that if the only thing a Luxembourg company has in the UK is an agent that distributes stuff or stores stuff in a warehouse, then the UK government wonâ(TM)t treat that Luxembourg company as âoedoing business in the UKâ. Amazon Lux can take this position because they claim that the actual âoesaleâ event happened at the servers in Luxembourg when you made the final click on Amazon Luxâ(TM)s website. If this position is valid, then any profit on the sale above and beyond the cost-plus margin at Amazon UK is only taxable in Luxembourg. (And remember that the cost-plus margin is taxed at Amazon UK, not Amazon Lux â" the legal entity that actually entered into the transaction with the consumer.)

    The complicating historical question is whether Amazon could move its historical business operation out of the UK to Luxembourg without paying an exit tax. EU law allows free movement of business and capital, but the issue of whether you can bail out of a country to a lower taxed country without any tax consequences is a bit of a muddle right now.

    --
    If you think deeply enough, you will have no single direction for your outrage.
  6. Re:No income taxes were paid? Good. by thoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real civilisation cannot be bought with taxes.

    The real civilisation is created in the free market with people making everyday voluntary decisions on what to buy, making everyday voluntary decisions on what to work on, what to produce, how much to save, where to invest, etc.

    So where does public infrastructure fit into this scheme, especially the funding of it? How are the following funded: roads, sanitation systems, legal and judicial system, police, etc? Is that funding to be entirely voluntary as well?

  7. Don't get it. by taxman_10m · · Score: 4, Insightful

    About 50 people so far have given some variation of, "Well, if it's all legal then it must be ok." It's not troubling to anyone that they worked within the law to create a fiction, which is that they don't really operate or exist in the UK? It's wrong because it isn't true. Like in the USA we had Reagan redefine ketchup as a vegetable or something. I say this almost ever time this topic comes up, but it really seems to me that libertarians are nothing more than the useful idiots of big business. Sure, they like to think they support business in general, but it's always big business they rise to defend. As if Amazon needs defenders.

  8. Re:The reason why Amazon should pay taxes is simpl by Patch86 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that Amazon (a US company based in Luxembourg) are tax exempt, while local companies that employ local people and contribute to local society are not. Amazon has a price advantage by virtue of a £0 tax bill, and UK-based companies can't compete.

    You need to either tax Amazon or stop taxing local companies in order to restore competitive balance. As colossal tax cuts for big business aren't top of the agenda in the middle of a painful economic slump and massive budget deficit, the former option needs to be investigated.