[mrkmcknz]

The UK press seems to have a field day when it comes to multi-national corporations not paying corporation tax.

We will no doubt shortly have a number of MPs telling us how unacceptable this is and that Facebook need to start paying up.

This all irks me a little.

362 Facebook staff on an average salary of say £65,000 will contribute at least £7,230,696.60 in taxes and NI to HMRC. Let's also not pretend that £65,000 is the average salary at Facebook UK, it's likely much higher.

Then we can look at those 'stock' bonuses that much of the article seems to point towards. There will likely be capital gains tax paid by employees on the sales of those assets down the line.

The UK has seen a strong economic recovery and remains a global financial centre and the business friendly tax policies of the UK likely contribute heavily towards this.

If I had a choice between Facebook paying £4,327 in corporation tax but employing over 350 highly skilled individuals in the UK, or relocating to somewhere like Dublin due to aggressive taxation policies. I know what I would pick.

[tomelders]

I utterly reject this argument

> 362 Facebook staff on an average salary of say £65,000 will contribute at least £7,230,696.60 in taxes and NI to HMRC. Let's also not pretend that £65,000 is the average salary at Facebook UK, it's likely much higher.

First of all, that's Facebook employees paying tax. Not Facebook. That's their money that they are taxed on and they pay it.

Secondly, no one is asking for Facebook to pay tax on nothing. They should pay it on profits. It was tax payers money that built the Great British Telecommunications Infrastructure that Facebook 100% depends on for it's operations here.

> If I had a choice between Facebook paying £4,327 in corporation tax but employing over 350 highly skilled individuals in the UK, or relocating to somewhere like Dublin due to aggressive taxation policies. I know what I would pick.

No one is going to give up all the money they can earn in a country that has one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the world. Facebook is not going to convince it's key employees to leave Britain, uproot their families and go live in the desert or china. Any threat by a company to leave one of the strongest economies in the world is a pathetic bluff.

[marknutter]

> First of all, that's Facebook employees paying tax. Not Facebook. That's their money that they are taxed on and they pay it.

Why is this distinction even relevant? Facebook then needs to pay its employees more to make up for the difference. No matter who the government taxes, everyone involved will shift their habits to compensate for it.

[netfire]

It's relevant because companies that are not multi-national can't afford to engage in these sort of tax reducing practices. If you want to get rid of corporate taxes altogether, that would be different, but suggesting that it's okay for Facebook to pay less than other companies because their employees pay income tax doesn't make sense. The tax code should provide a level playing field for all companies. You shouldn't get a break just because you can afford to move money around the globe.

[marknutter]

If we got rid of corporate taxes altogether it would be different, and it would likely "provide a level playing field for all companies". And I'm not sure why companies that are not multi-national can't afford to do this too.. if their corporate taxes are absurdly high like they are here in the U.S., they are free to offshore their operations just like U.S. companies do, or lobby their government to reduce or eliminate corporate taxes altogether. In that respect, the playing field is level because the global economy is now the playing field.

[netfire]

This just isn't true. Small businesses can't afford to hire accountants and set up and manage global offices and tax codes. That means small companies are disproportionately taxed for their profits.

In addition, isn't the whole point of corporate taxes to provide money to the country in which that business is making a profit? We may live in a global economy, but we don't all live in a single country. Businesses should be taxed appropriately for their revenues in a country or not be taxed at all. Saying that it's okay to avoid paying taxes because you can afford to move money offshore is hardly a level playing field and gives money to countries based on their advantageous tax codes, not to the profits achieved in that country.

[collyw]

Lets face it, if they haven't found a way to avoid that one.

[scanr]

> First of all, that's Facebook employees paying tax. Not Facebook. That's their money that they are taxed on and they pay it.

I'm reasonably confident that HMRC is entirely happy with corporations choosing to pay their staff more (and have those salaries taxed appropriately) rather than paying their employees less and paying corporation tax on the profits.

[forgotpwtomain]

But their employees get more isn't in the picture here - they just need to pay competitively with other British companies, whereas all the British companies that want similar talent but are not multi-national are at a distinct disadvantage, since they cannot recoup from avoiding the corporate taxes.

[bagacrap]

> That's their money that they are taxed on and they pay it.

The only reason Facebook doesn't have to pay taxes on that money is because they gave it to their employees (so it counts against profit). The money comes from FB profits, briefly goes to the employees, then to the government. Hence, the government is getting a cut of the money FB is making. What's the problem?

[tomelders]

The reason they paid such low corporation tax is because they funnelled that money into a country where they dont pay tax as a business expense. Im not sure what Facebooks specific set up is, but it will be something like this.

Facebook luxembourg provides a license for Facebook UK to use the facebook logo. The fee for that license just happens to coincide with all the profits Facebook UK made this year.

It's a fictional cost, and totally legal. But its still dirt bag behaviour.

[toyg]

> relocating to somewhere like Dublin

Afaik Facebook is still overwhelmingly based in Dublin, employing three times as many as in the UK. They likely hire in the UK the bare minimum they really need. So yeah, they've already "relocated" really.

This is the same for pretty much any European corporation, btw. Anyone who could leave for cheaper shores, did so in the '00s. What is left are the essential crews strictly necessary to the job of tapping one of the richest consumer markets on the planet.

The "employment threat" is basically toothless nowadays anyway, because "new economy" numbers are ridiculous in the great scheme of things -- 350 jobs won't change much of anything.

[s_dev]

Do you think they'd pay more or less tax in Dublin compared to £5k? Irelands 12.5% seems very reasonable considering its so close to its effective rate. France, Britain and Germany all allow massive write offs and loop holes that mean their effective rate is multiples lower than their stated corporate tax rate and this story will be forgotten by the Brits, Germans and French who'll turn around and repeat their condemnation of Ireland as a cheap tax haven when negotiating EU funding.

Starbucks get away with the same thing. Amazon intentionally doesn't turn a profit and so evades this whole situation altogether. Anyway Facebooks EMEA is already in Dublin.

[exDM69]

> Irelands 12.5% seems very reasonable considering its so close to its effective rate.

Very little of the actual profits of Facebook are actually subject to the 12.5% corporate tax of Ireland.

In a European corporate tax evasion scheme such as Facebook's, there's typically four to five legal entities in two or three countries. The branch making the actual profits (e.g. Facebook UK) pays their profits as "license fees" to an entity Netherlands or Luxembourg that has a flat-rate tax deal. This money is then transferred to the Irelands, where it stays for a few milliseconds before it is wired over to another corporate entity in NL/LUX ("license fees" again), subject to a flat rate fee, and then through ownership deals gets transferred back to Ireland. This trick is called the "double Irish with a Dutch sandwich", and there are dozens of similar, widely-employed schemes.

If this money is actually needed in the US, it gets funneled through one or two hops in Bahamas, Bermuda or Cayman Islands or so.

The net result is not 12.5%, more like (12.5%)^2 - (flat rates paid in NL/LUX). Effectively down to a few percent.

[orbifold]

Since this is well known, I'm really curious how a typical conversation about this scheme in one of the other EU countries looks like. Typical politicians are usually somewhat in the pockets of industry by getting payed for speaking engagements etc, but shouldn't they at least realize that it isn't really in the interest of their own country to let this happen?

[caskance]

Tax evasion is a crime. You're describing tax optimization.

[rmc]

It's always funny when Brits complain about foreign tax havens. The UK is a massive tax haven, with oodles of little overseas territories, or Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands.

[marrs]

Neither the Isle of Man nor the Channel Islands are a part of the UK.

[pjc50]

Urgh. This is part of the problem. They're Crown Dependencies. They're neither fully independent countries nor part of the UK. They're accountable to their own local electorates but host a lot of firms doing business that's really in other countries. They're ideal tax havens.

I am fond of the constitutional tweeness of Man, Sark, etc, but their situation really does need to be regularised.

[spacecowboy_lon]

The last time that was on the cards suddenly all the MP"s expenses got stolen then exposed by a news paper whose owners live on sark.

Not that I am saying the two are related of course Inocent Grin

[bpodgursky]

If the Isle of Man was invaded, the UK would be the one defending it.

The legal wordplay is irrelevant; it has no effective sovereignty if it cannot even put up a semblance of defending its own borders.

[JupiterMoon]

In general if we know about them (most people don't) we object to this just as much. NB the channel islands aren't strictly speaking a part of the UK.

[Marazan]

If they hold them for 5 years there is no Cap Gains tax to be paid on the shares.

Arguing that the tax employees pay should be taken into account when calculating a companies tax provision lacks merit. That's employees tax not the companies - this is especially true for companies such as Starbucks where if they were not monopolising high street space by abusing the tax system and small local coffee shop would happily take their space in a fungible manner meaning the employee tax payments would still take place and there would be no net loss for Starbucks not existing.

[ropiku]

The cap gain is only paid on the profit made when selling. RSUs are taxed as regular income when they are awarded. Most likely the employees are high rate tax payers so it comes out at 40-45% tax + National Insurance.

[spacecowboy_lon]

Sorry what is this RSU you speak of? tax on employee share options is quite different in the UK to the USA.

With a HMRC approved scheme CGT effectively goes away and you only pay CGT after your yearly allowance and only on a real gain - no massive tax bill on underwater share options.

[kd5bjo]

An RSU is more like a stock grant than a purchase option -- the company provides shares of stock to its employees according to a vesting schedule. The fair market value of the shares at the time of vesting is considered income, and there is no cost to the employee (other than income taxes).

I don't know if this is a US-only arrangement, or if it's used in other countries as well.

[ropiku]

The other repliers added more info, sorry.

You are correct about share options, on which your gain is only the price difference for which you pay CGT (or not). But the liquid tech companies (Google, FB, Twitter) give out direct stock which is taxed on their Fair Market Value at the time of vesting. RSUs are taxed the same way both in UK and US.

[drited]

RSU = restricted stock unit whether you're in the UK or the USA.

[spacecowboy_lon]

Never heard of RSU's in the UK context - UK taxation depends on if its an approved scheme or not.

[drited]

'If they hold them for 5 years there is no Cap Gains tax to be paid on the shares'

Why not?

[mootothemax]

>362 Facebook staff on an average salary of say £65,000 will contribute at least £7,230,696.60 in taxes and NI to HMRC.

Why should Facebook get to enjoy an advantage over 36 companies employing 10 people each at a similar average salary?

>If I had a choice between Facebook paying £4,327 in corporation tax but employing over 350 highly skilled individuals in the UK, or relocating to somewhere like Dublin due to aggressive taxation policies. I know what I would pick.

You'd prefer every large company to be based in the UK and not pay corporation tax?

Of course not.

Personally, I think we're long overdue another huge waste like DeLorean coming along.

[marrs]

    Why should Facebook get to enjoy an advantage over
    36 companies employing 10 people each at a similar
    average salary?

Let's turn it around. How would you go about taxing a corporation that didn't make much profit last year

[mootothemax]

>Let's turn it around. How would you go about taxing a corporation that didn't make much profit last year

From the article:

"[T]he firm also paid its 362 UK staff a total of £35.4m in share bonuses."

That says to me that it'd be worth trying to figure out how to reconcile that against "a pre-tax loss of £28.5m."

[the_mitsuhiko]

So you should not be entitled to bonuses when you work in the UK office because the UK office does not have enough revenue to make up for the cost of the workforce, but the same people in the SFO office should?

[mootothemax]

>So you should not be entitled to bonuses when you work in the UK office because the UK office does not have enough revenue to make up for the cost of the workforce, but the same people in the SFO office should?

1. I didn't say that.

2. What's to stop the SFO office issuing the bonuses?

[the_mitsuhiko]

> 2. What's to stop the SFO office issuing the bonuses?

That's basically what is happening? The company made a loss, so that money came from somewhere else to pay for it.

[marrs]

But those are shares. They have no monetary value until you try to draw a dividend or sell them, at which point you have to pay tax again.

The pre-tax loss is for the UK operation, not the global entity as a whole.

It seems that the real question is not about what Facebook UK's corporation tax bill should be but how we want to deal with global corporations as a whole and how we want to benefit from that relationship.

My gut feeling is that if you are dealing with the tiny arm of a very successful US company, you are not in much of a position to negotiate.

[domfletcher]

The thing is that is the employees that pay the the income tax _not_ Facebook. Facebook (and others) are still not paying the taxes on the the income they earn from operating in the UK no matter how many people they employ at high salaries.

The choice you present is a false one, the multiplier productivity effect that Facebook employees gain from operating in London as opposed to Dublin far outweighs what Facebook would end up paying in corporation tax under a more reasonable system.

[marrs]

You forgot the VAT that Facebook's UK clients have to pay, the VAT Facebook have to pay on their expenses in the UK, the council tax that they have to pay on their offices, the pension and NI contributions they have to make, etc, etc.

At the end of the day, they aren't a UK corporation, so why should their corporation tax by high?

To be honest, it's hard for me to really form an opinion on this when the information provided by the media is so superficial. For that reason I tend to share mrkmcknz's sentiment. It all smells too much of the kind of trolling that's institutionalised in the media now.

[switch007]

> 362 Facebook staff on an average salary of say £65,000 will contribute at least £7,230,696.60 in taxes and NI to HMRC

Let's not pretend all 362 Facebook staff are paying tax via PAYE.

[robk]

I'd be happy to pretend that. Most of Facebook UK staff are actually employed here as high value employees (engineers, sales). I'd be very surprised if there were many contractors here in the UK.

[100timesthis]

maybe stupid question: do you expect a lot of fake contractors or there is another way? Because if they are contractors they wouldn't be part of those 362 in staff right?

[marrs]

I think the parent is referring to contractors, who avoid PAYE but still have to pay dividend and corporation tax. The dividend tax rate is about to go up so the PAYE issue is about to become void.

[switch007]

Sorry, I was more thinking of the executives, whose large salaries would skew the average, and would have a complicated compensation package, and can afford accountants to do creative accounting. I do not know if there are executives included in that 362 employee figure.

[marrs]

oh right, good point. If only journalism wasn't in such a sorry state, we might know the answer to that question. They might be drawing a high salary, equally they might be drawing no salary at all and living as non doms.

[notahacker]

I don't think it's advocacy of "aggressive taxation policies" to argue that the corporation tax bill for a profitable multinational earning millions in UK revenue ought to be higher than the income tax bill for an individual person on the UK average wage. YMMV.

How many of Facebook's 362 UK staff would be unemployed for any significant period if they relocated to Dublin? How many would instead be adding value to a company that paid 20% corporation tax, whilst paying similarly high taxes on a similarly high salary?

[marrs]

I don't understand what you're arguing for.

If Facebook shut down UK operations then, for starters, Facebook would be paying no tax at all in the UK and Ireland would gain the difference.

If the Facebook UK staff relocated to Dublin then the loss to the UK economy would be exponentially worse.

[mootothemax]

>If the Facebook UK staff relocated to Dublin then the loss to the UK economy would be exponentially worse.

Can anyone say that for certain?

How do you know, for example, that the same staff they'd employ wouldn't end up working for a company that does pay a large amount of corporation tax, leaving the UK's tax coffers substantially better off than they'd be otherwise?

[marrs]

I'm not saying they wouldn't - I'm sure they probably would - but that wouldn't stop there being 362 fewer roles in the UK.

If the industry in the UK continues to grow then yes we would be better off, but the fear is that more companies would learn from Facebook's example and relocate, taking the growth with them.

[bkor]

That's why it has to be done across many countries so global companies cannot play one country against another. Your assumption that there are only two options doesn't apply.

[CraigJPerry]

It is right of the press to point out egregious transgressions.

EDIT for brevity.

[crdoconnor]

More trickle down economics!

Is it 1992 again?