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."

19 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Can someone explain how multinationals work? by metrix007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With companies like Google or Coke or Sony, is it one company....say Sony is a Japanese company, that incorporates businesses in many countries which are owned by the Japanese company, and just funnel the money back into the Japanese parent corp? What is to stop the independent company from doing its own thing or making different decisions?

    Or in the case of Google, how do they have say over the UK iteration of the company? Are they all controlled by the same people? What are the relationships?

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    1. Re:Can someone explain how multinationals work? by hughbar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Great word bludgers! I think you may have meant bu**ers and I agree. Apart from how to tax them, we need to have a debate about whether we want these currently untaxable, intrusive, search-solely-for-profit [rather than search-for-general-utility in the economic sense] eavesdroppers in the middle of Kings Cross. Personally I preferred it as a red-light area.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
    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 91degrees · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have the feeling that it's actually HMRC not enforcing the rules that actually exist, because they're letting the companies dictate what the interpretations are.

    4. Re:Can someone explain how multinationals work? by iserlohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what are the moral implication of funnelling money through a tax haven that has no real purpose other than to reduce tax load? It may be legal, but is it moral?

      This is the reason that I have avoided doing the same. Obviously, if your main base of business is in your own country, the corporation tax should also go back to you country to fund public expenses in your country, as opposed to a country which has nothing to do you your business apart from having low tax rates.

      There are some people that go even further than that. They roam around Europe with no fixed abode, claim non-domiciled status and can avoid the majority of dividend tax. There is more to being honest than staying within the boundaries of the law.

    5. Re:Can someone explain how multinationals work? by queazocotal · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      If you are a large corporation, do you:
      A) Pay a hundred million in tax.
      B) Pay 20 million in legal research to find completely legal loopholes and ways to arrange your corporate structure so you can pay 10 million in tax.

      There is then the wrinkle that to not do 'B' may be against your shareholders best interests.

    6. 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);}
    7. Re:Can someone explain how multinationals work? by towermac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Over here, I am called a conservative, but yes; we are classical liberals.

      As your simpler, dumber brother on the other side of the pond; please allow me to condense your thought into a sound byte so we can understand it over here:

      If a billion dollar building in downtown London is cheaper than the tax, then the tax is too high.

    8. 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
    9. Re:Can someone explain how multinationals work? by dkf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is then the wrinkle that to not do 'B' may be against your shareholders best interests.

      I wouldn't really say there's much of a maybe about it... and as far as I know isn't it a legal requirement that you can't do anything against their best interests?

      But there's usually a way to spin virtually anything that management want to do as being in the shareholders' best interest. The issue is that shareholders have a very large range of interests, many of which will be directly divergent from one another, and there's a need to have many different strategies over many spans of time.

      In practice, the fiduciary responsibility regulations only really have real bite in limited circumstances where the actions of management may verge on the fraudulent (e.g., selling substantial parts of the company for much less than their fair value to another company owned by the CEO; whether or not that's technically fraud, it's still seen as clearly wrong). Most of the time, so long as management are trying to do the best for the company as they see it, they're not on the hook for fiduciary responsibility violation.

      If you want to identify real problems, point your finger at investment firms that just want a fast return on their money and care nothing for the success of the businesses that they invest in. All they do is try to force everyone else to act like as big a corporate psychopath as they are. (This is why businesses run by their founding entrepreneurs often do better: they don't just focus on boosting their share price or returning dividends over the next 3 months, but instead actually build the business.)

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    10. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. One trick is through sales by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ireland and say Spain have radically different tax rates over profits over a sale. So... what can you do if you are devoid of all morals?

    Say the product in Spain sells for 100 dollars but really costs 10 to produce in China. Then Ireland buys it from China for 10 and sells it to Spain for 99.99. The sale in Spain then to the consumer is for 100, giving the Spain division a 1 cent profit.

    Of course, since you are making so little money in Spain, you do claim all the subsidies and tax breaks you can to support your struggling business.

    The fact is that our society is run on the principle that everyone is nice, that everyone is going to try their best to live together and play well with each other. The order keepers can NEVER check everyone doesn't speed, doesn't run red lights, gives the right of way. AND we NEED that, just imagine HOW hard it would be to travel anywhere if you couldn't at least somewhat count of right of way, people stopping for signs and keeping a similar speed. Remember that those who hate the speed limit ONLY talk about the MAX speed limit, the speeders NEVER complain about SLOW vehicles being banned from certain roads. No speed limits means you can drive ANYTHING ANYWHERE.

    It is the same with taxes, it would be un-workable to check everybody, so the system relies on most people paying their tax neatly.

    Evil people/Republicans often claim the rich pay the majority of the tax burden... apart that from the fact it ain't as a big a burden if you are rich, that is only logical, those who have the majority of the money, pay the majority of the taxes. The hidden lie (you know it is a lie because a Republican said it) is that the rich SHOULD be paying FAR more. But countless loopholes make the likes of Romney have a taxrate of 11%. No wonder he wants to see a birth certificate but does not want to show his tax records. If the rich payed their due share (who benefits more from police patrols, the rich guy with police guard or the poor guy living in a police no-go area) there would be far more tax-revenue AND then EVERYONES taxes could come down. If one rich guy avoids paying 1 million, that is a LOT of minimum wage workers who have to make up the difference because no Republican tax avoider would think of spending less on the army.

    Tax avoidance is a gigantic business, the economy of Ireland practically runs on it. And that is the huge problem, there is ALWAYS someone who benefits when society is harmed.

    The funny thing is that any call for chance will get you millions of piss-poor Republicans living on benefits saying you shouldn't tax the rich! Willing slaves. Because one day YOU may own a slave, you defend your own slavery. The American Dream, the ultimate brainwash.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:One trick is through sales by batkiwi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't find claiming 90+% of the profit from ireland as legit if 0% of the work involved was done there.

    2. Re:One trick is through sales by towermac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is another explanation for your apparent dichotomy, but I believe your vitriol for "Evil people/Republicans" is blinding you to it.

      You defined the problem: The cost of doing business in Ireland and China is far cheaper than Spain (and the US and other places). There are two solutions to that, although you only see the one of going after Ireland and the people who do business across borders. You could try to make it cheaper to do business in Spain. You can't magically lower the cost of commodities and land, but you can cut taxes. Especially if that was one of the major costs of doing business.

      11% would be a decent tax, especially on a guy making millions. Romney's, like mine, was actually closer to 14%; which means about $7,000 for me, millions and millions for him. What's your moral justification for making either one of us pay a higher percentage than the other? Don't envy his stuff, man. Don't vote based on envy, which is simply self-justified greed.

      The corporate rate over here is 35%. That's not a tax, that's a freakin' partner. It's obviously too high. "Tax" is supposed to be an incidental cost, not a major portion of a transaction. I'm not talking opinion here, the proof is in the facts. All these companies holding money offshore; they don't get to have that money either. It's still their money, but while it sits in the Caymans, not really earning enough interest to cover inflation; they don't get to have it, use it, spend it; just like we don't get to tax it. Google needs a billion dollar building in London about as much as you or I do. Hell, I guess that's better than it sitting in a damn bank somewhere though.

      The fact that they would rather do without their own money, rather than have it, and pay the tax on it, proves the tax is too high. And if they are truly as greedy, and covet their money as much as you say, then you can trust their judgement on this one.

    3. Re:One trick is through sales by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. The moral course of action is to pay sales taxes where you sell the product and corporate tax where you actually operate your business. Which is certainly not Ireland.

    4. Re:One trick is through sales by divisionbyzero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      11% would be a decent tax, especially on a guy making millions. Romney's, like mine, was actually closer to 14%; which means about $7,000 for me, millions and millions for him. What's your moral justification for making either one of us pay a higher percentage than the other? Don't envy his stuff, man. Don't vote based on envy, which is simply self-justified greed.

      You are focused too much on the absolute value of the dollars. The moral justification is that beyond a certain number those millions of dollars have less value than your $50,000. In other words basic necessities take up a far larger percentage of your income than Romney's. The additional tax revenue from people like Romney helps pay for the social costs of company's like his that force other companies to pay their workers substandard wages and benefits and thus turn to the government for help in order to increase profit margins to give people like Romney even more money. Do you see how this cycle works? If companies paid their employees a more reasonable wage, a so-called living wage, I could see the case for lowering taxes.

      As for the rest of your post, competing on taxes is a downward spiral that leaves governments unable to take care of their people in order to export wealth out of the country. A certain amount of tax competition help keep things lean but it's better to compete on things like education and infrastructure that hard to replicate. The reason tax competition is so popular is that it just takes some paper shuffling rather than real investments in a country's future.

  4. $1 billion will buy you some excellent tax lawyers by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They'll personally pick up that $1 billion wherever you want, and hand it back to personally wherever you want it. All perfectly legal. Oh, they will want a small "taste" of that $1 billion. Hell, they'll take it to the Moon or Mars for you. The first manned colonies there will be tax shelters.

    Or they could mint some $1 billion platinum coins, and take them in their pockets on flights from London to San Francisco.

    Evading taxes, is never a problem for big corporations. Now that they are investing $1 billion in the property in London, the rent rates in that neighborhood will surely skyrocket. Who owns, or partially owns, the real estate in the area . . . maybe Google, as well . . . ?

    Buy up some cheap real estate in a distressed area, and then build something big there. The cheap real estate suddenly becomes quite valuable. A nice business plan . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  5. Actually "Occupy WS" was the media creation ... by drnb · · Score: 3, Informative

    We used to call them "Wall Street Bankers", but then the Tea Party arose and convinced people (perhaps with the aid of a new source of funds) that WS wasn't the real problem.

    Actually the Tea Party's roots are in reigning in gov't spending. It was in fact an organic grass roots movement. They went after Bush and the Republican controlled Congress when they were spending like mad. However it eventually became co-opted to a degree by the Republican party.

    It was Occupy Wall Street that was a creation:
    "The Canadian anarchist group Adbusters initiated the protest with assistance from the Manhattan-based public relations firm Workhorse, who was well-known for its successful work on client brands including Mercedes and Saks Fifth Avenue."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_wall_street
    And like the Tea Party became co-opted to a degree, though by the Democratic party.