5 ms·

As much as I enjoy watching those three mess around on TV, I'm not giving tax-dodging Amazon £80 (~$125) a year for the privilege. Prime seems to have a poor UI

by johneth 11y ago

As much as I enjoy watching those three mess around on TV, I'm not giving tax-dodging Amazon £80 (~$125) a year for the privilege. Prime seems to have a poor UI (and from what I've read has an inferior service in the UK in terms of apps and content). I wouldn't benefit from the next day delivery because I don't order enough from them. Their (Clarkson, Hammond, May) audience will decrease wherever they ended up, but Amazon is probably their worst choice in that regard (compared to Netflix or even Sky). All I can assume is a lot of money was given to them, which suggests Amazon is aggressively expanding into Europe (where C, H, M are popular).

omonra 11y ago
To be fair, Amazon doesn't appear to be making any money to dodge taxes on :)
vollmond 11y ago
Are they doing anything illegal in their "tax-dodging"? If not, why would they ever choose to pay more? I've never understood the point of vilifying companies for using "loopholes" to pay less taxes. If there was a loophole that allowed me to pay less income tax, I would absolutely take advantage of it. Why give away more of my money than I have to? If you want them to pay more, close the loophole that allows them to pay less.
- century19 11y ago
  The tactics that some companies (I don't know about Amazon) use verge on abusive. I remember hearing about Vodafone being subject to a tax investigation regarding billions they had in accounts in Luxembourg. They hired key people in the investigation to hamper progress. E.g. http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/1774186/top-taxman-ditches-civil-service-mobile-giant http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/1774186/top-taxman-dit... I think in the end the HMRC took a deal on Vodafone's terms. Nothing illegal but I think you could vilify that behavior.
- justincormack 11y ago
  Almost certainly it was illegal, yes, certainly highly dubious process which at one point threatened to being down the European Commission president. The European Commission is investigating eg see [1] and Amazon have stopped doing it. Oh and Amazon's head of tax was Luxembourg Honorary Consul to the Seattle are, hum. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/15/amazon-luxembourg-tax-arrangements-scrutinised-brussels http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/15/amazon-lux...
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    "Almost certainly" apparently means that no one was able to conclude that it was illegal. If crimes had been committed, they would have been prosecuted, but there were no grounds. However, companies may still decide to change the way they do things, e.g. for PR reasons.
    - justincormack 11y ago
      No, "almost certainly" means the preliminary ruling found against Amazon/Luxembourg [1] but the final ruling has not taken place yet. It is not a matter of prosecution, they will have to pay back the money to Luxembourg. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/254685/254685_1614265_70_2.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/254685/25468...
      - ptaipale 11y ago
        Actually, the ruling is against Luxembourg. Not against Amazon. I just wish EU courts were even remotely as efficient in acting against states and enforcing the EU treaties in cases where the state is collecting tax more aggressively than what EU rules would allow.
- talmand 11y ago
  I've fought this battle for a long time. It seems for most it's just a way to speak of their grievances against a company they don't like. It's just pointing their finger at the company saying they obviously are an evil corporation because they choose to take advantage of stupidly written tax laws that are totally legal yet I choose to define them as something only bad people do. Despite the fact they likely use similar "loopholes" in their own taxes and justify it in some way.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    I can't use similar loopholes. Imagine an English person running an English business (eg, a tea shop with a single store and no online presence) in England. They want to advertise to people so they contact Google's English ad division and buy ads to be shown in England. They pay using English money, from their English bank account to Google's English bank account. Somehow this doesn't count for English tax, somehow it's Irish tax.
    - talmand 11y ago
      If it's covered by law and you qualify, you most certainly can use similar loopholes. That's the thing, many times what people call "loopholes" are actually badly written tax laws. Sometimes it is by mistake, sometimes it is intentional for potentially nefarious reasons. But if you qualify, you can do it. Otherwise, there are similar "loopholes" in complex tax codes. You just need to find them.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        You're treating it as binary - compliant or not compliant. But laws are tested in court. These companies claim to be compliant, but we don't know because UK tax authorities avoid court for all bit the most flamboyant evaders. No case law means we don't know if they're complying with law or not.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Tax systems are complex. There are deliberate loopholes - a company can register for VAT, for example - and there are unintended loopholes. Amazon, Google, Starbucks etc engage in very aggressive tax planning. They say it's all legal - they're not trying to evade tax, just avoid it. But because their schemes are so aggressive it might be illegal. We don't really know because the cases would have to go to court. Sometimes tax authorities will investigate, and will persuade a company that their aggressive tax plannin was unlawful, and then get some repayment of the missing tax. This usually means that the company avoids the court case and doesn't have to repay the total tax they avoided. No-one expects them to pay all their tax burden. People in the UK recognise that tax planning is a useful important activity. What we don't like is companies taking the piss. And as to why they should pay tax: they get the benefits from society that flow from taxes - educated workforce, police, road infrastructure, healthcare, etc etc. They should pay their share. Finally these companies will sometimes mention other taxes. So they'll talk about VAT or PAYE. But VAT is a tax the customer pays. The company collects it, but it's collected from the customer. And PAYE is (apart from the employer's contribution) a tax that the employee pays, again collected by the company. It's a scumbag move to reduce your tax payments to the minimum you can and then talk about the tax other people pay as if it's tax you pay.
SyneRyder 11y ago
Amazon might be looking to expand Prime Video into Australia as well, where Clarkson, Hammond & May have just finished touring Australia with their live arena show. They're so popular, they could sell tickets at $89 - $399 each: http://www.clarksonhammondandmaylive.com.au/ http://www.clarksonhammondandmaylive.com.au/
closetnerd 11y ago
Actually TopGear has pretty strong following in the US as well.

by johneth 11y ago

omonra 11y ago

To be fair, Amazon doesn't appear to be making any money to dodge taxes on :)

vollmond 11y ago

Are they doing anything illegal in their "tax-dodging"? If not, why would they ever choose to pay more? I've never understood the point of vilifying companies for using "loopholes" to pay less taxes. If there was a loophole that allowed me to pay less income tax, I would absolutely take advantage of it. Why give away more of my money than I have to? If you want them to pay more, close the loophole that allows them to pay less.

century19 11y ago
The tactics that some companies (I don't know about Amazon) use verge on abusive. I remember hearing about Vodafone being subject to a tax investigation regarding billions they had in accounts in Luxembourg. They hired key people in the investigation to hamper progress. E.g. http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/1774186/top-taxman-ditches-civil-service-mobile-giant http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/1774186/top-taxman-dit... I think in the end the HMRC took a deal on Vodafone's terms. Nothing illegal but I think you could vilify that behavior.
justincormack 11y ago
Almost certainly it was illegal, yes, certainly highly dubious process which at one point threatened to being down the European Commission president. The European Commission is investigating eg see [1] and Amazon have stopped doing it. Oh and Amazon's head of tax was Luxembourg Honorary Consul to the Seattle are, hum. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/15/amazon-luxembourg-tax-arrangements-scrutinised-brussels http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/15/amazon-lux...
- ptaipale 11y ago
  "Almost certainly" apparently means that no one was able to conclude that it was illegal. If crimes had been committed, they would have been prosecuted, but there were no grounds. However, companies may still decide to change the way they do things, e.g. for PR reasons.
  - justincormack 11y ago
    No, "almost certainly" means the preliminary ruling found against Amazon/Luxembourg [1] but the final ruling has not taken place yet. It is not a matter of prosecution, they will have to pay back the money to Luxembourg. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/254685/254685_1614265_70_2.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/254685/25468...
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      Actually, the ruling is against Luxembourg. Not against Amazon. I just wish EU courts were even remotely as efficient in acting against states and enforcing the EU treaties in cases where the state is collecting tax more aggressively than what EU rules would allow.
talmand 11y ago
I've fought this battle for a long time. It seems for most it's just a way to speak of their grievances against a company they don't like. It's just pointing their finger at the company saying they obviously are an evil corporation because they choose to take advantage of stupidly written tax laws that are totally legal yet I choose to define them as something only bad people do. Despite the fact they likely use similar "loopholes" in their own taxes and justify it in some way.
- DanBC 11y ago
  I can't use similar loopholes. Imagine an English person running an English business (eg, a tea shop with a single store and no online presence) in England. They want to advertise to people so they contact Google's English ad division and buy ads to be shown in England. They pay using English money, from their English bank account to Google's English bank account. Somehow this doesn't count for English tax, somehow it's Irish tax.
  - talmand 11y ago
    If it's covered by law and you qualify, you most certainly can use similar loopholes. That's the thing, many times what people call "loopholes" are actually badly written tax laws. Sometimes it is by mistake, sometimes it is intentional for potentially nefarious reasons. But if you qualify, you can do it. Otherwise, there are similar "loopholes" in complex tax codes. You just need to find them.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      You're treating it as binary - compliant or not compliant. But laws are tested in court. These companies claim to be compliant, but we don't know because UK tax authorities avoid court for all bit the most flamboyant evaders. No case law means we don't know if they're complying with law or not.
DanBC 11y ago
Tax systems are complex. There are deliberate loopholes - a company can register for VAT, for example - and there are unintended loopholes. Amazon, Google, Starbucks etc engage in very aggressive tax planning. They say it's all legal - they're not trying to evade tax, just avoid it. But because their schemes are so aggressive it might be illegal. We don't really know because the cases would have to go to court. Sometimes tax authorities will investigate, and will persuade a company that their aggressive tax plannin was unlawful, and then get some repayment of the missing tax. This usually means that the company avoids the court case and doesn't have to repay the total tax they avoided. No-one expects them to pay all their tax burden. People in the UK recognise that tax planning is a useful important activity. What we don't like is companies taking the piss. And as to why they should pay tax: they get the benefits from society that flow from taxes - educated workforce, police, road infrastructure, healthcare, etc etc. They should pay their share. Finally these companies will sometimes mention other taxes. So they'll talk about VAT or PAYE. But VAT is a tax the customer pays. The company collects it, but it's collected from the customer. And PAYE is (apart from the employer's contribution) a tax that the employee pays, again collected by the company. It's a scumbag move to reduce your tax payments to the minimum you can and then talk about the tax other people pay as if it's tax you pay.

SyneRyder 11y ago

Amazon might be looking to expand Prime Video into Australia as well, where Clarkson, Hammond & May have just finished touring Australia with their live arena show. They're so popular, they could sell tickets at $89 - $399 each: http://www.clarksonhammondandmaylive.com.au/ http://www.clarksonhammondandmaylive.com.au/

closetnerd 11y ago

Actually TopGear has pretty strong following in the US as well.