George Osbourne and Vodaphone

[Robbie G]

I was in Churchill Square on Saturday when I saw a couple of young studenty types running into the Square, chased by coppers.

Hard to work out what the commotion was until we looked round and saw the police were pulling the railing down infront of the Vodafone shop. Then suddenly out of nowhere loads of protesters were in front of it chanting something that started "Vodafone, Pay Your Bills, something, something rhymes with Bills".

Surprised it hasn't been mentioned on here.

Saw some police outside the Vodafone shop in Western Road, but it seemed like only a small group of protesters.

 

[Mellotron]

It did look like there were a few "bandwagon jumping" protesters, ie. ones who had no idea what was going on but just like to be (in the words of jeremy from peep show, the perfect example of this sort of person) "for or against....something".

 

[Westdene Seagull]

But public companies like Vodafone should be much more open about their taxes, after all this is ultimately our money.

Agreed but if someone can be bothered ( and has a brain that understands tax ) it's not difficult to download accounts from Companies House to see how the company is behaving financially.

 

[beorhthelm]

it would be nice for a paper named "the independent" could offer the reasons why tax was not being paid and why they were let off it.

 

[Biscuit]

I'm sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation, the Tories would never act in such a two-faced way, dismantling public services while going easy to the tune of billions on big business. No doubt one of the usual suspects will provide it on here.

I think I'd like to hear one of the LibDem members of the Cabinet defend this. And I wonder why this hasn't had more bad press than it has. Maybe because they're such big advertisers for the newspapers...

Bang on. It is totally unfair.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Possibly, although I'd imagine a former HMRC chief would be well aware of a deal this size.

What this does represent however is the lack of openness in this country, everything in this is rumour, innuendo and supposition. If sums of this nature are being written off then we should be presented with facts as to the amounts and why they were written off. And we should get on-the-record quotes from tax officials, not unnamed sources.

To their credit, the Tories do seem to be pushing for a new level of openness - the publication of public bodies' spending is just a start. But public companies like Vodafone should be much more open about their taxes, after all this is ultimately our money.

It will all be in their annual accounts. And we did get a quote from a tax official. They said it was an urban myth. Funnily enough the media are more interested in the "cave in" quote. I wonder why?

 

[Joey Deacon's Disco Suit]

Bang on. It is totally unfair.

So... You took an urban myth and then vented your spleen, trotting out the usual party politics cliches. You're no different from the average Daily Mail reader in expressing ignorant prejudice.

 

[Gwylan]

It will all be in their annual accounts. And we did get a quote from a tax official. They said it was an urban myth. Funnily enough the media are more interested in the "cave in" quote. I wonder why?

He said that the amount of £6bn was an urban myth.

If it really was a former head of HMRC who said that it was "a cave-in" that's a pretty big story. There are only two who it could be: David Varney or Paul Gray (and Gray was the bloke who had to resign after the child benefit records went missing).

As for any money owed, it won't be in their annual accounts, if it were newspapers wouldn't be talking about a "reputed" or "believed to be" when it comes to tax liability.

 

[Joey Deacon's Disco Suit]

I'm sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation, the Tories would never act in such a two-faced way, dismantling public services while going easy to the tune of billions on big business. No doubt one of the usual suspects will provide it on here.

I think I'd like to hear one of the LibDem members of the Cabinet defend this. And I wonder why this hasn't had more bad press than it has. Maybe because they're such big advertisers for the newspapers...

It's clear that your mind is already made up. God forbid that you make an informed opinion based on the facts as and when they become available.

 

[Biscuit]

So... You took an urban myth and then vented your spleen, trotting out the usual party politics cliches. You're no different from the average Daily Mail reader in expressing ignorant prejudice.

The only difference being, whether it was 6 billion or 6 quid owed to HMRC, the Government are being lax on big business and at the same time dismantling public services. Does that seem fair to you?

I couldn't agree with the last sentence less.

 

[Simster]

it would be nice for a paper named "the independent" could offer the reasons why tax was not being paid and why they were let off it.

Why does it matter? The important fact here is not that they were let off it, but that they were let off it while India (a country with fewer resources than us) saw fit to chase them for a similar bill.

You're just attempting to deflect attention from the people at fault, purely because of your political leanings.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

As for any money owed, it won't be in their annual accounts, if it were newspapers wouldn't be talking about a "reputed" or "believed to be" when it comes to tax liability.

Indeed, the accounts won't show the amount of money owed BUT they will show the amount of profit and therefore it is possible to calculate how much they would owe in tax. Possibly not to the penny but it would be fairly obvious if it was closer to £1.25b than £6b.

 

[beorhthelm]

Why does it matter? The important fact here is not that they were let off it, but that they were let off it while India (a country with fewer resources than us) saw fit to chase them for a similar bill.

You're just attempting to deflect attention from the people at fault, purely because of your political leanings.

completely wrong. im asking for more information, to see the full story. is there a legitimate reason for them to withhold the tax, prehaps its from overseas earnings that dont apply for taxation, prehaps its offset against previous loses, etc? we see dispute over the amount, so is there maybe a quite legitimate reason for not paying? It seems that many are simply accepting a story and opposing it purely because of their political leanings.

The fact India has chosen a different path is irrelevent, they are their own counrty with their own tax laws and administrators who decide how to apply their rules.

that peice was so one sided, it simple accepts the position as a given with no background for the read to judge the merit of if it is right or wrong. tax not paid = evasion = bad. end of.

 

[Gwylan]

Indeed, the accounts won't show the amount of money owed BUT they will show the amount of profit and therefore it is possible to calculate how much they would owe in tax. Possibly not to the penny but it would be fairly obvious if it was closer to £1.25b than £6b.

In theory, yes. But we all know how company accounts don't give the full picture. Just look at Enron and WorldCom for examples of companies whose reports presented a glowing picture of health just before massive bankruptcies.

completely wrong. im asking for more information, to see the full story. is there a legitimate reason for them to withhold the tax, prehaps its from overseas earnings that dont apply for taxation, prehaps its offset against previous loses, etc? we see dispute over the amount, so is there maybe a quite legitimate reason for not paying?

I agree. That's why I was saying that there should be more openness. Vodafone might have behaved perfectly legitimately but we don't know as it's all hidden.

 

[glasfryn]

I'm sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation, the Tories would never act in such a two-faced way, dismantling public services while going easy to the tune of billions on big business. No doubt one of the usual suspects will provide it on here.

I think I'd like to hear one of the LibDem members of the Cabinet defend this. And I wonder why this hasn't had more bad press than it has. Maybe because they're such big advertisers for the newspapers...

this

 

[El Presidente]

Or pushing a company for some money through the courts and forcing them to pay could mean that the company withdraw all major operations from the UK resulting in a loss of tax far greater than what the government were chasing in the first place.
No I don't know the facts just some guess work

Do you honestly think Vodafone would withdraw from the UK, given that they have 12 million subscribers here?

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

Do you honestly think Vodafone would withdraw from the UK, given that they have 12 million subscribers here?

HSBC have probably more customers and they are re-locating to the far east for tax purposes. It's easy-peasy for these PLCs to move base.

Anyway, we have in this thread the usual rag-tag of bitter lefties who are indulging in a mutual wankathon without knowing even a small part of the facts. You tell 'em comrades!


*gonna start a revolution from my bed*:guitar:

 

[BLOCK F]

Usual Left wing outrage mainly based on drivel.....nothing new for our 'brothers' on NSC!

 

[ROSM]

HSBC have probably more customers and they are re-locating to the far east for tax purposes. It's easy-peasy for these PLCs to move base.

are they? The Chief executive is now based in asia but the registered office is still in the UK.

 

[beorhthelm]

at the risk of introducing some information to the procedings, albiet from one side, here's Vodafones PR.

so from this and reading around a few commentries/newpapers, its an outstanding tax bill from 2000, following a change in the rules to close a loophole. the detail is still not clear, presumbably they have been contesting this issue for the past 10 years, or since the law was changed that made it due. maybe thats their point, it was retrospective change and not due? or maybe they argued over the amount. its not clear. it seems odd they should have a £2.2b set a side if they didnt expect to pay anything, likewise its too small if the liability might be £6b.

it seems the £6b number is unattributable other than possibly a private eye story - they are good for a laugh, but are they tax accountants? in the end, my conclusion is Vodafone and HMRC came to an arrangement to close the matter rather than continue to pay legal fees, suggesting both sides knew the other was half right. we'll never know what they should have paid, but we do know they paid £1.2b - which is £1.2b more than paid if there was no agreement. so is it right? im not sure, as there isnt and will never be the full details in public.

HMRC have apparently seen fit to adopt a new policy of settlement in this area, so i trust the protestors are out in force when IT Widgets of Doncaster and Dresden make a similar settlement.

i will also point out that back in the years following the Mannesmann merger, they posted a record loss due to the drop in value of intangible assets/goodwill (iirc). i wonder if they had not moved funds through Luxembourg then the profit this tax is on would have been swallowed up there anyway? one for corporate accountants.