G7 taxation proposals vs zero-10

[SleepyJoe]

Expect the Big 4 accountants to oppose the G7 tax agreement – because collectively they are the backbone of the offshore world (taxresearch.org.uk)

[asitis]

8 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Although its blatantly obvious that corporations completely take the piss when it comes to their tax affairs, have to say I'm a bit uncomfortable with a global tax rate led by the US. Also a bit surprised by how much support and seemingly little criticism it seems to be getting.

Apparently Delaware are leading the drive for accountability in global taxation affairs.

To coin a Jim Royle phrase   MY Arse.

 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

57 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

We've been looking for that holy grail for some time now. I'm not sure a stream exists 

So why would they bother to have an operation here?

Was that actually a plan?

Yes it was a plan.

Bell recognised that the island needed to lead rather than follow when it came to changing what we do and how transparently we do it.

There was a call at the time to effectively put up the transparency barricades and tell other countries to do one and mind their own business.

Over the last decade or more the push for business has been far more heavily leaning towards non tax driven structuring and business.

The new proposals really don't look to bad for the Isle of Man.  They simply look bad for Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Apple.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

45 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

...even Boris Johnson was getting tax bills from the USA...

https://www.artiopartners.com/renounce/boris-johnson-pays-irs-tax-bill/

This actually just demonstrates how shit scared the USA are of the big five companies.  Hence getting other countries to do their dirty work for them.

[Derek Flint]

12 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Yes it was a plan.

Bell recognised that the island needed to lead rather than follow when it came to changing what we do and how transparently we do it.

There was a call at the time to effectively put up the transparency barricades and tell other countries to do one and mind their own business.

Over the last decade or more the push for business has been far more heavily leaning towards non tax driven structuring and business.

The new proposals really don't look to bad for the Isle of Man.  They simply look bad for Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Apple.

But why do it here if there is no tax advantage? Genuine qn. 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

Just now, Derek Flint said:

But why do it here if there is no tax advantage? Genuine qn. 

Why not? Expertise and infrastructure is good. Political stability.  

Take many large eGamers for example - they are already paying taxation in pretty much every jurisdiction they operate in.  Many have multiple licenses.  It's naive to think tax is the pure driver.

Privacy is where the island can continue to do well.   Plenty of business coming out of a lot of countries where the driver is simply privacy.  I saw a transaction recently done via the Isle of Man for a property purchase in Scotland by an Irish buyer.  Purely done here for privacy reasons.  No tax advantage at all.  Technically more expensive to do it the way they did.

It seems topical to continue to knock the island but a lot of positives have come about over the last decade and a half because the focus of government and businesses hasn't been purely about tax.

 

[Derek Flint]

10 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Why not? Expertise and infrastructure is good. Political stability.  

Take many large eGamers for example - they are already paying taxation in pretty much every jurisdiction they operate in.  Many have multiple licenses.  It's naive to think tax is the pure driver.

Privacy is where the island can continue to do well.   Plenty of business coming out of a lot of countries where the driver is simply privacy.  I saw a transaction recently done via the Isle of Man for a property purchase in Scotland by an Irish buyer.  Purely done here for privacy reasons.  No tax advantage at all.  Technically more expensive to do it the way they did.

It seems topical to continue to knock the island but a lot of positives have come about over the last decade and a half because the focus of government and businesses hasn't been purely about tax.

 

Is the expertise here (IOM) because of the tax structures, or in spite of them?

thats the rub for me.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

1 minute ago, Derek Flint said:

Is the expertise here (IOM) because of the tax structures, or in spite of them?

thats the rub for me.

I'm not sure that is even important.  What matters is what is here now and how it has evolved.    

[code99]

3 hours ago, Yibble said:

"Under Pillar Two, the G7 also agreed to the principle of at least 15% global minimum corporation tax operated on a country by country basis"

At this stage all we really have is a very high level (political) agreement. Nobody will have yet defined what could turn out to be thousands of details, principles and practicalities. Most likely there is no agreement around what ‘operates’ means. Does it mean the place where the sales are made from, or where the customer resides? If they decide that it means ‘where the customer resides’ then IOM based firms and individuals will generate sales with theoretical profits. If I, as an individual, purchase some software directly from Microsoft USA, could they ever link that purchase back to their ‘theoretical’ obligation to pay their fair share of taxes in the IOM?

Another point to consider is that presumably each member-state in OECD will need to pass a legislation through its own legislative body, in order to legally collect the tax. This could take a while. It is also possible it will lead to a decade of legal disputes and appeals which clog up various national and international courts.

Until there is more clarity about how this new tax is going to function in practice, everything will be pretty much speculation. This stuff is mind boggling and will take years to sort through.  As with all of these types of ‘grand ideas’ the only guaranteed winners are the armies of consultants and tax accountants.

[Derek Flint]

24 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

I'm not sure that is even important.  What matters is what is here now and how it has evolved.    

That is true, but past performance is no guarantee to future performance, as they say. 

[Yibble]

1 hour ago, SleepyJoe said:

Expect the Big 4 accountants to oppose the G7 tax agreement – because collectively they are the backbone of the offshore world (taxresearch.org.uk)

Yet more bollocks from point-and-laugh tax clown Murphy then. Remember he's the man that even Corbyn and McDonnell gave the cold shoulder to because even by their standards he 'lacked judgement'. 

I suspect the Big 4 will actually be very supportive of global tax systems reverting to a common rule book. Individual territories making up their own, populist driven, headline grabbing rules for taxing multinationals was very silly. Sorting out the mess that was creating was lucrative for the Big 4 of course. On balance though, accountants are likely to favour rational rules. What the Big 4 will do though is to point out the 'be careful what you wish for' consequences of whatever detail is proposed. Politicians and the G7 will be wise to listen. Anyone who listens to tax clowns such as Murphy and Hodge, or who treats them with anything other than ridicule and contempt, well deserves the ducking stool

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Why not? Expertise and infrastructure is good. Political stability.  

Take many large eGamers for example - they are already paying taxation in pretty much every jurisdiction they operate in.  Many have multiple licenses.  It's naive to think tax is the pure driver.

Privacy is where the island can continue to do well.   Plenty of business coming out of a lot of countries where the driver is simply privacy.  I saw a transaction recently done via the Isle of Man for a property purchase in Scotland by an Irish buyer.  Purely done here for privacy reasons.  No tax advantage at all.  Technically more expensive to do it the way they did.

It seems topical to continue to knock the island but a lot of positives have come about over the last decade and a half because the focus of government and businesses hasn't been purely about tax.

 

Why do e-gaming companies pay tax when most other companies pay zero?

[finlo]

3 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Why do e-gaming companies pay tax when most other companies pay zero?

To ease their conscience?

[Andy Onchan]

Just now, finlo said:

To ease their conscience?

In one.

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

Why do e-gaming companies pay tax when most other companies pay zero?

Probably because the tax rules in those countries require them to.  If they are licensed, presumably they are 'present' there and so tax resident.  Tax residency criteria vary around the world, so it is hard to be definitive, but you can bet there will be licence agreements, service agreements or similar arrangements which bring a large part of the revenue back to the centre.  Also, it will depend on whether there are separately incorporated subsidiaries, or they operate as branches.  Or even if there is the traditional holding and subsidiary company structure, or discrete apparently autonomous structures which are held together in a non-corporate way. 

It is very complex, and tax is a driver,  but so are asset protection, limitation of liability and privacy. 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Gladys