Google Settles Decade-Long Tax Dispute In UK (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Alphabet, Inc., parent company to Google, has agreed to pay $185 million to settle UK taxes going back to 2005. The company has also agreed to adopt a new approach to taxes in the UK going forward. While this is a sizeable figure, many believe it is too little, and constitutes a sweetheart deal between the government and Google. Matt Brittin, the President of EMEA Business and Operations for Google, was a participant in a televised hearing today in which UK lawmakers questioned the $185 million settlement. He stated, "We find ourselves in the position where we are paying the tax that the tax authorities told us to pay."

Comments

Re:Old news

[smallfries]

So a company that controls a sizeable portion of the flow of information through the largest communications network in the world. Vast power over the importance and presentation of image. And it was given a sweet tax deal by a group of people whose careers depend entirely on their image as presented in the media.

It may be old, but was it ever news?

Re:Proves there's strong incentive for tax avoidan

[serviscope_minor]

Why would anybody pay more then they were legally required?

Because most people have some degree of moral backbone and understand that the letter of the law is not the same as morals.

Most people don't take advantage of tax loopholes. Most people just have tax deducted from salary in the completely normal way and pay no more thought to it. Some people fill in a tax return and take advantage of a few rebates here and there if applicable[*]. Now, some people screw around with offshore shell corporations to reduce their taxes. That's an option open to many people but most simply don't bother.

So yeah, most people probably pay more tat than they're legally required because the combination of hassle and the skeezy feeling that you're being a bad person when you find some cheat to lower your taxes just is not worth it.

[*] Please don't try to insult my intelligence by claiming that rebates (which are intended by the government and there to promote certain kinds of behaviour) are equivalent to loopholes which are by definition unintended.