4 ms·

It's mentioned in the article: > contracts with customers were signed with Palantir’s US companies, which in turn paid a service fee to local country subsidiar

It's mentioned in the article: > contracts with customers were signed with Palantir’s US companies, which in turn paid a service fee to local country subsidiaries to deliver the work. Similar trick are used by many companies, for example Starbucks UK conveniently paid £40m in "royalty and license fees" to the parent company resulting in a £35m loss in the UK. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/15/starbuckss-uk-retail-business-paid-no-corporation-tax-last-year https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/15/starbuckss-...

Nursie 3mo ago
There's a coal mine here in Australia (NT I think) run by a company called Adani. When it was being proposed they did the usual "but think of all the taxes!" song and dance to get it approved. It's never posted a profit despite about a billion in annual revenue, and so never paid a penny of corp tax. Personally I think the tax authorities ought to take the line that a company posting losses like this is clearly not a viable, ongoing concern and ought to be wound up. If Starbucks UK is a loss-making venture, they should have some explaining to do when they're opening new branches.
- bko 3mo ago
  > Personally I think the tax authorities ought to take the line that a company posting serial losses like this is clearly not a viable, ongoing concern and ought to be wound up. Tax authorities don't need to do this. Investors will. Where will the money come from? If there's no future prospects, it will cease operations. > If Starbucks UK is a loss-making venture, they should have some explaining to do when they're opening new branches. I like how discussion of taxes turned everyone into a fierce defender of profit maximization. Nothing about adding back to the community, paying decent wages, etc.
  - Nursie 3mo ago
    > If there's no future prospects, it will cease operations. That's the point, there are plenty of future prospects, but the company is playing accounting games to hide the profits. > I like how discussion of taxes turned everyone into a fierce defender of profit maximization. No, we're just calling bullshit on the whole thing because we're tired of wealthy multinationals dodging taxes in our countries. That's how they should be contributing.
    - perpetuallunch 3mo ago
      There are counties that have zero percent corporate profits tax. Be like them and the corporations won’t have a need to offshore their profit. The alternative is One World Government, which, in its lesser form, empire, has a nasty habit rapidly turning quite sour.
      - Nursie 3mo ago
        This has to be one of the most ludicrous, cartoonishly libertarian things I've ever read. No thanks! I'd rather have a functioning society!
  - Swenrekcah 3mo ago
    > I like how discussion of taxes turned everyone into a fierce defender of profit maximization. Nothing about adding back to the community, paying decent wages, etc. You are fundamentally missing the issue. What most of these multinationals do is to extract value from the places they operate but then move all the profit (in the books) to another tax jurisdiction, thereby not contributing to the community where they operate. Furthermore this undercuts local businesses, further impoverishing the area. Global commerce and cooperation unlocks some truly great opportunities but the finance people can really bring ruin if allowed free reign.
    - bko 3mo ago
      What value do they extract? They provide a good or service to denizens. Unless of course you believe in a serf model of government in which people are an asset of the state and everything should serve the states goals.
      - perpetuallunch 3mo ago
        This is increasingly, and worryingly, becoming an ideology people are being swept up by. It doesn’t help that there are Card Carrying Socialist activists in our public school system in Australia, indoctrinating kids in to a politically and economically bent out of shape ideology. I don’t believe many Australians are aware of just how dangerously few steps away from the mouldy bread and rotting fish head soup lines version of “equality” we really are. Since when has government, of any sort, been a reliable arbiter of truth or wisdom? P.J. O’Rourke would be turning in his grave. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. Socialists in Schools: https://www.victoriansocialists.org.au/campaigns/socialists-in-schools https://www.victoriansocialists.org.au/campaigns/socialists-...
        Swenrekcah 3mo ago
        The dangerous ideology is that giving money and power to corporations is any better than the government. The government in a free democracy is ultimately controlled by the people, is supposed to (and usually does) work for the people, to protect the environment where that is necessary, protect people from being exploited by too powerful corporations, etc. None of this is socialism, this is in fact the system that made the US great in the years after WW2. Also I am neither Australian nor socialist.
- Swenrekcah 3mo ago
  The worst part is that local competitors can’t use structuring like this to evade/avoid taxes, so eventually they go out of business.
  - Nursie 3mo ago
    Yep, that's definitely one of the worse negatives here, they use this stuff to outcompete small businesses. The tax games directly fuel the enshittification of the British high street into a Starbucks/Costa wasteland.
- perpetuallunch 3mo ago
  Carmichael coal mine in Queensland. Queensland has a payroll tax, I don’t believe this is can be offset against losses, see here for more info https://qro.qld.gov.au/payroll-tax/ https://qro.qld.gov.au/payroll-tax/ GST is payable on goods they use and services they consume. Mineral royalties are in Queensland https://qro.qld.gov.au/royalty/calculate-mineral/rates/ https://qro.qld.gov.au/royalty/calculate-mineral/rates/ Employees of said company are required to pay income tax on their earnings. So while it may be completely factual that a resource extraction company paid no tax on its corporate profits, it is not factually complete as there is tax revenue generated by the operation of the company. A company that manages to generate no taxable profit isn’t necessarily committing tax evasion, that’s a crime. It is most likely practicing tax avoidance, which any economically rational actor ought to do. Note, I’m not making a value judgement here. There’s plenty of good arguments to be made that Australia’s taxation system is in need of reform, and many that I’m in favour but are beyond the scope of this discussion.
  - Nursie 3mo ago
    I think it's very easy to make a value judgement here. In this case, at the time they were proposing the project, Adani promised around $22 billion in taxes and royalties, and the industry body talked about enough money to fund schools, hospitals and other infrastructure for near to a century. The royalties they pay are in the order of a few tens of million per annum, and they pay no corporation tax because of the accounting games they play. The company outright lied about the benefits it would deliver when it was trying to win permission for the project and is actively trying not to fulfil those promises. Now, does this all point to a need for better legislation? 100%, but good luck with that when so many politicians walk into 'consultancy' jobs in the sector when they leave office. (Also the whole "Oh but they pay income tax for their employees" is such weasel-worded nonsense. Sure they do, it's a cost of doing business. So does everyone else. They should also be paying significant royalties and corporation tax, and be slapped with hefty fines for the games they're playing with profit hiding)
    - perpetuallunch 3mo ago
      > but they pay income tax for their employee That’s definitely not what I said, nor how it works. If you’re going to mischaracterise something as simple as that, what faith should one place in any part of your comment being an accurate representation of the facts?
bko 3mo ago
This seems entirely reasonable. Suppose you're a company and you lost $100m over the last few years, so naturally you have a sizable tax deduction from future earnings. Even if you're profitable now, over the life of your business you've lost money so it makes sense you don't pay taxes until you make back that $100m you lost. If you begin selling in a different tax jurisdiction, that would be unfair that you have to start paying corporate taxes despite being unprofitable. It's not a brand new company and you're using the resources you built in the other country so royalty and licensing fee make sense. In other words, Starbucks brand name and operational efficiencies are assets that were developed in the US, so the US subsidiary should receive revenue from the service to the UK branch
- Nursie 3mo ago
  In a convenient amount that somehow just always exceeds the profits it makes, in perpetuity? Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on.
  - bko 3mo ago
    How is it convenient that they lost a lot of money in the past and it pays it's employees in stock? Yes, any company can pay 0 taxes by taking all the money that they made and setting it on fire, in perpetuity.
    - Nursie 3mo ago
      They could, but that's not what they're doing, they're moving the profit to a lower tax situation to avoid paying. Pure and simple.
- sevenzero 3mo ago
  >so it makes sense you don't pay taxes until you make back that $100m you lost LOL. You losing money with your business is no excuse to not pay taxes on profits you make after losing money. Just because you lost money doesn't mean you dont make profits until you earned back that money. Taxes should be paid every time you make money in the country your business operates in. Simple as that. Everybody benefits off of tax money.
throwaw12 3mo ago
I would have enforced different laws if necessary for such companies to tax them properly, because they are getting rich using my populations money, they should contribute back accordingly. If you threaten to leave the UK, sure go ahead, your market will be filled quickly. Same for Palantir.
Havoc 3mo ago
Delivering work is a bit more defensible that the IP based transfers that big tech loves so much

Nursie 3mo ago

There's a coal mine here in Australia (NT I think) run by a company called Adani. When it was being proposed they did the usual "but think of all the taxes!" song and dance to get it approved. It's never posted a profit despite about a billion in annual revenue, and so never paid a penny of corp tax. Personally I think the tax authorities ought to take the line that a company posting losses like this is clearly not a viable, ongoing concern and ought to be wound up. If Starbucks UK is a loss-making venture, they should have some explaining to do when they're opening new branches.

bko 3mo ago
> Personally I think the tax authorities ought to take the line that a company posting serial losses like this is clearly not a viable, ongoing concern and ought to be wound up. Tax authorities don't need to do this. Investors will. Where will the money come from? If there's no future prospects, it will cease operations. > If Starbucks UK is a loss-making venture, they should have some explaining to do when they're opening new branches. I like how discussion of taxes turned everyone into a fierce defender of profit maximization. Nothing about adding back to the community, paying decent wages, etc.
- Nursie 3mo ago
  > If there's no future prospects, it will cease operations. That's the point, there are plenty of future prospects, but the company is playing accounting games to hide the profits. > I like how discussion of taxes turned everyone into a fierce defender of profit maximization. No, we're just calling bullshit on the whole thing because we're tired of wealthy multinationals dodging taxes in our countries. That's how they should be contributing.
  - perpetuallunch 3mo ago
    There are counties that have zero percent corporate profits tax. Be like them and the corporations won’t have a need to offshore their profit. The alternative is One World Government, which, in its lesser form, empire, has a nasty habit rapidly turning quite sour.
    - Nursie 3mo ago
      This has to be one of the most ludicrous, cartoonishly libertarian things I've ever read. No thanks! I'd rather have a functioning society!
- Swenrekcah 3mo ago
  > I like how discussion of taxes turned everyone into a fierce defender of profit maximization. Nothing about adding back to the community, paying decent wages, etc. You are fundamentally missing the issue. What most of these multinationals do is to extract value from the places they operate but then move all the profit (in the books) to another tax jurisdiction, thereby not contributing to the community where they operate. Furthermore this undercuts local businesses, further impoverishing the area. Global commerce and cooperation unlocks some truly great opportunities but the finance people can really bring ruin if allowed free reign.
  - bko 3mo ago
    What value do they extract? They provide a good or service to denizens. Unless of course you believe in a serf model of government in which people are an asset of the state and everything should serve the states goals.
    - perpetuallunch 3mo ago
      This is increasingly, and worryingly, becoming an ideology people are being swept up by. It doesn’t help that there are Card Carrying Socialist activists in our public school system in Australia, indoctrinating kids in to a politically and economically bent out of shape ideology. I don’t believe many Australians are aware of just how dangerously few steps away from the mouldy bread and rotting fish head soup lines version of “equality” we really are. Since when has government, of any sort, been a reliable arbiter of truth or wisdom? P.J. O’Rourke would be turning in his grave. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. Socialists in Schools: https://www.victoriansocialists.org.au/campaigns/socialists-in-schools https://www.victoriansocialists.org.au/campaigns/socialists-...
      - Swenrekcah 3mo ago
        The dangerous ideology is that giving money and power to corporations is any better than the government. The government in a free democracy is ultimately controlled by the people, is supposed to (and usually does) work for the people, to protect the environment where that is necessary, protect people from being exploited by too powerful corporations, etc. None of this is socialism, this is in fact the system that made the US great in the years after WW2. Also I am neither Australian nor socialist.
Swenrekcah 3mo ago
The worst part is that local competitors can’t use structuring like this to evade/avoid taxes, so eventually they go out of business.
- Nursie 3mo ago
  Yep, that's definitely one of the worse negatives here, they use this stuff to outcompete small businesses. The tax games directly fuel the enshittification of the British high street into a Starbucks/Costa wasteland.
perpetuallunch 3mo ago
Carmichael coal mine in Queensland. Queensland has a payroll tax, I don’t believe this is can be offset against losses, see here for more info https://qro.qld.gov.au/payroll-tax/ https://qro.qld.gov.au/payroll-tax/ GST is payable on goods they use and services they consume. Mineral royalties are in Queensland https://qro.qld.gov.au/royalty/calculate-mineral/rates/ https://qro.qld.gov.au/royalty/calculate-mineral/rates/ Employees of said company are required to pay income tax on their earnings. So while it may be completely factual that a resource extraction company paid no tax on its corporate profits, it is not factually complete as there is tax revenue generated by the operation of the company. A company that manages to generate no taxable profit isn’t necessarily committing tax evasion, that’s a crime. It is most likely practicing tax avoidance, which any economically rational actor ought to do. Note, I’m not making a value judgement here. There’s plenty of good arguments to be made that Australia’s taxation system is in need of reform, and many that I’m in favour but are beyond the scope of this discussion.
- Nursie 3mo ago
  I think it's very easy to make a value judgement here. In this case, at the time they were proposing the project, Adani promised around $22 billion in taxes and royalties, and the industry body talked about enough money to fund schools, hospitals and other infrastructure for near to a century. The royalties they pay are in the order of a few tens of million per annum, and they pay no corporation tax because of the accounting games they play. The company outright lied about the benefits it would deliver when it was trying to win permission for the project and is actively trying not to fulfil those promises. Now, does this all point to a need for better legislation? 100%, but good luck with that when so many politicians walk into 'consultancy' jobs in the sector when they leave office. (Also the whole "Oh but they pay income tax for their employees" is such weasel-worded nonsense. Sure they do, it's a cost of doing business. So does everyone else. They should also be paying significant royalties and corporation tax, and be slapped with hefty fines for the games they're playing with profit hiding)
  - perpetuallunch 3mo ago
    > but they pay income tax for their employee That’s definitely not what I said, nor how it works. If you’re going to mischaracterise something as simple as that, what faith should one place in any part of your comment being an accurate representation of the facts?

bko 3mo ago

This seems entirely reasonable. Suppose you're a company and you lost $100m over the last few years, so naturally you have a sizable tax deduction from future earnings. Even if you're profitable now, over the life of your business you've lost money so it makes sense you don't pay taxes until you make back that $100m you lost. If you begin selling in a different tax jurisdiction, that would be unfair that you have to start paying corporate taxes despite being unprofitable. It's not a brand new company and you're using the resources you built in the other country so royalty and licensing fee make sense. In other words, Starbucks brand name and operational efficiencies are assets that were developed in the US, so the US subsidiary should receive revenue from the service to the UK branch

Nursie 3mo ago
In a convenient amount that somehow just always exceeds the profits it makes, in perpetuity? Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on.
- bko 3mo ago
  How is it convenient that they lost a lot of money in the past and it pays it's employees in stock? Yes, any company can pay 0 taxes by taking all the money that they made and setting it on fire, in perpetuity.
  - Nursie 3mo ago
    They could, but that's not what they're doing, they're moving the profit to a lower tax situation to avoid paying. Pure and simple.
sevenzero 3mo ago
>so it makes sense you don't pay taxes until you make back that $100m you lost LOL. You losing money with your business is no excuse to not pay taxes on profits you make after losing money. Just because you lost money doesn't mean you dont make profits until you earned back that money. Taxes should be paid every time you make money in the country your business operates in. Simple as that. Everybody benefits off of tax money.

throwaw12 3mo ago

I would have enforced different laws if necessary for such companies to tax them properly, because they are getting rich using my populations money, they should contribute back accordingly. If you threaten to leave the UK, sure go ahead, your market will be filled quickly. Same for Palantir.

Havoc 3mo ago

Delivering work is a bit more defensible that the IP based transfers that big tech loves so much