Slashdot Mirror


Google Invests $1 Billion To Build New London HQ

redletterdave writes "Google just purchased a 2.4-acre plot in the King's Cross Central development in London, where the company plans to build a brand-new, 1 million square foot office. Google reportedly invested about £650 million ($1.04 billion) on the property, which, when finished, will be valued at more than £1 billion ($1.6 billion). While Google traditionally leases its overseas offices, the company's decision to buy rather than rent in this case was likely tax motivated, since Google can't repatriate its cash to the U.S. without paying a hefty tax."

5 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Re:A new way to add new building to your city? by Shimbo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Except it's to avoid US tax they are doing this. Reuters article.

  2. Re:Can someone explain how multinationals work? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Informative

    You'd have to address this issue in the rest of Europe as well, at the very least. Companies are being taxed on profit so they do anything to reduct that profit. As far as I know, companies can freely funnel money around in Europe (same for goods, services and labor) so they incorporate in a tax haven and send all the money there, reducing their UK profit to zero. Getting it across the pond is a little harder, but there are ways like labeling funds as "management fees" or fees for using the parent companys patents.
    Most of the talk I've heard about doing something about this centered on convincing tax havens to raise their taxes, but as long as there is one around, doing so is pointless. And as a country, there are advantages to being a tax haven.

    As a freelancer, I incorporated a few years ago and was surprised at how easy it is to reduce ones profit on paper, even for a small 1 man firm. And it's easy to set up a company nowadays, a few phone calls and a signature is all it takes; I'm considering setting up a company on Cyprus and sending my revenues there to enjoy an even lower tax rate. One of our royals was discovered doing the same thing, and after some public outcry, Internal Revenue hastened to proclaim that the whole thing was fully legit. So I do not feel bad about dodging taxes, not with IR approval and a royal endorsement.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  3. Re:Can someone explain how multinationals work? by burisch_research · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bludger: Australian slang for someone who lives off government handouts, and who refuses to work.

    --
    char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
  4. Re:Can someone explain how multinationals work? by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Informative

    The unfortunate fact is that tax laws are fucking complex, and contain loopholes smart people can find and exploit.

    And why are there loopholes? Look into it, and you'll find that it's basically a massive patchwork of hacks to maintain favourable exemptions for certain industries that are politically important/give politicians a lot of money. The tax system could be massively simplified to eliminate those loopholes, but it's in nobody who counts' interest to do so - companies would pay more tax, politicians wouldn't be able to manipulate the system to scratch the back of companies' "lobbying" them, and individuals, well, since when have they counted anyway?

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  5. Re:Can someone explain how multinationals work? by RLU486983 · · Score: 5, Informative

    bu**ers = buggers

    bugger (noun)
    1. Informal. a fellow or lad (used affectionately or abusively): a cute little bugger.
    2. Informal. any object or thing.
    3. Often Vulgar. a sodomite.
    4. Chiefly British Slang.
    - a. a despicable or contemptible person, especially a man.
    - b. an annoying or troublesome thing, situation, etc.