back to article Vodafone dodges UK corporation tax bill - AGAIN

Mobile carrier Vodafone defended its financial arrangements today as it coughed to yet another legal dodge of UK corporation tax payments by asking Brits to have some sympathy over the huge debt mountain it is sitting on. The multinational justified its actions by saying it was continuing to pump big sums of cash into Blighty …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We all know that increasing taxes always whips an ailing economy into shape.

  2. James Boag

    Hmmmm

    And the bastards at the tax office are chasing me for £20 from 5 years ago (with no proof other than you owe us cough up), Perhaps i should change my name to vodaphone ?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmmmm

      Perhaps you should pay your tax bill.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hmmmm

        And what if it is not a real tax bill?

        My parents were chased up for an unpaid tax bill, had it confirmed that it was a tax office mix up, and a week later got a letter saying they had to pay anyway, that there was no legal recourse to fight the tax office demand and no appeal procedure that they could use.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hmmmm

          There is always an appeal procedure.

          In the case of the tax office you can ask for an internal review or an independent tribunal.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Hmmmm

            That isn't what all of the correspondence, or any of the people on the tax phone line said.

            In the end it was easier and cheaper for them to just pay the (fictional) tax bill than hire someone who could deal with it.

            Which of course is what the tax office wants.

          2. Chris Parsons Bronze badge

            Re: Hmmmm

            Stop it! People want emotion, not fact. There is, of course, an appeal procedure. I was wrongly told I owed around £20k and they eventually backed down and apologised.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Hmmmm

              I'm sorry, this isn't emotion this is fact.

              And this fact that has cost my parents a substantial amount of their (already not enough) earnings this year.

              Well done for your 20K bill being dropped, it doesn't alter the fact they they were told in letter, and on the phone, that there wasn't one available to them.

              Whether that is legally true, or just what people who have little funds available for legal recourse is immaterial, it is what they were told and they don't have the funds for legal recourse, ergo, it was the reality for them.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Hmmmm

                It can also work in your favour though. I know someone who was sent a bill for 4,000 who queried it and ended up with a refund of 4,500. They are simply incompetent.

  3. Ye Gads

    Isn't this the same Vodafone...

    Who is getting £84 billion for it stake in Verizon? And is returning £22 billion to shareholders?

    What happened, did they lose all this money behind the sofa?

    Or do the use inter-company loans and other complex financial products that allow them to move their "official" profits to low/no tax jurisdictions?

    Yeah, thought so...

    1. NikT

      Re: Isn't this the same Vodafone...

      That's because companies are taxed on their profits, not on cashflow. The sale of the Verizon stake merely changes the asset that Vodaphone owns from being 45% of a JV to a smaller % of the Verizon parent business and a pile of cash. Unless the new shares + cash are valued at more than the original shares, no profit was generated by the transaction.

      It also happens that the sale is tax exempt as a 'substantial shareholding' , in just the same way that selling your house is tax exempt. It is because the law says it is.

      Nothing to see here, next story please.

      1. Ye Gads

        Re: Isn't this the same Vodafone...

        Yes and no. Substantial shareholding only applies to shares owned by UK companies and these shares are held by Vodafone Holland because of (you guessed it) the low tax Dutch tax regime.

        As such they would have been outside the 2002 Finance Act and "substantial shareholding". The reason HMRC is getting squat is because of the following:

        1) Previously the UK would have charged a foreign controlled company the difference between the tax it paid in the foreign jurisdiction and in the UK, but this was deemed contrary to EU law.

        2) Even after all this we would have still got them on any profits they tried to repatriate to pay off UK shareholders. This would have amounted to about £5 billion (or the cost of higher education for a year in the UK). But the law was changed in 2009 so that it's now perfectly OK to move money to the UK for dividend purposes and pay no tax on it.

        So, the story is that where there was once a tax obligation there isn't one. This is all recent. This is money would could have used to improve services/reduce the deficit (choose depending on political persuasion) but it's no longer considered chargeable.

        1. spib.burfank

          Re: Isn't this the same Vodafone...

          "the story is that where there was once a tax obligation there isn't one."

          You missed out the bit where there wasn't actually a tax obligation before either since UK law wasn't compliant with EC law on the taxation of Controlled Foreign Corporations in the EU. But hey, when you've got a narrative to run with then you gotta elide anything that contradicts it.

          1. The Stolly
            Thumb Up

            Re: Isn't this the same Vodafone...

            Thank you for enriching my vocabulary.

        2. BlackBolt

          Re: Isn't this the same Vodafone...

          Thanks to the Labour party for that particular law change.

          Shareholder payouts ARE taxed though (under the right conditions), so the UK will see some of the money from that transaction, thanks to a successful company bringing in a load of $$.

      2. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: Nothing to see here, next story please.

        Please stop discussing this and get back to work plebs!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Isn't this the same Vodafone...

      I'm no tax expert, but I expect that a portion of that £22billion will be paid to the taxman as individuals' capital gains tax.

      Only a small portion though, because many of the benifactors won't be UK residents or UK organisations so won'tpay UK tax.. Further, many will use some means to show no net capital gain, to avoid paying any tax onit. I know I would.

      1. spib.burfank

        Re: Isn't this the same Vodafone...

        "will use some means to show no net capital gain"

        Gosh, that's amazing. All this tax I had to pay and there was "some means" to not pay it. Perhaps you could tell me what that might be so I too can show no net capital gain?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Isn't this the same Vodafone...

        > I'm no tax expert, but I expect that a portion of that £22billion will be paid to the taxman as individuals' capital gains tax.

        A portion of the payout will be in the form of a special dividend which is counted as income so you will pay income tax on it. Basic rate tax payers (<£32,000 pa) will have to pay 10% in tax, higher rate (<£150,000) will pay 32.5% and those earning more than £150,000 will pay 37.5%. As for Jonny Foreigner, they will pay their tax in whatever country they happen to reside in.

        Another portion is in Verizon shares. You can either keep them or sell them. For as long as you keep them you will not be liable for tax, but any dividends on the Verizon shares will be taxed at 30% by the US Government (it is a US firm) but you can fill in a form (IRS W-8BEN) and have the tax reduced because you do not reside in the USA. If you sell the Verizon shares then you will be liable for capital gains tax on the profit you make.

    3. Rampant Spaniel

      Re: Isn't this the same Vodafone...

      One reason quoted for the high price paid (200% of the share price) was actually because of the tax liability, but perhaps it went to the patent company and not Voda uk?

    4. talk_is_cheap

      Re: Isn't this the same Vodafone...

      That £22 billion to shareholders will have involved taxes being paid by the receiver of the dividends being paid, or capital gains tax on share buy backs.

      No complex tax tricks are needed in the UK. Just borrow money and you can offset the interest payments against the tax, so the more debt you take on, the less tax you end up paying. This is something that the government is responsable for fixing.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Isn't this the same Vodafone...

        Is there some sort of voodoo involved here in that interest payments are somehow not an expense ? There are thin cap rules, but (virtually) all businesses borrow money and the cost of doing so is a perfectly normal and legitimate cost of doing business.

        And what's all the fuss over Vodafone buying radio spectrum and deducting the cost (over time) as an expense. It seems so plainly obvious that it is an investment intended to provide a better product to its customers (4G data) that has a very significant cost, why in the merry hell would they NOT be allowed to count the cost before paying tax ? Break that rule and no business would ever bother investing at all, why not extend it and make every business just pay 100% of their turnover in tax, that would settle you greedy bastards down a bit. Might have a slight problem with service levels, but just get the state to provide a replacement and you'll all be happy (because it will be compulsory to be happy).

    5. BlackBolt

      Re: Isn't this the same Vodafone...

      Yes it is. But maybe before hammering a company for a transaction that has nothing to do with corporation tax you should try and understand the UK tax model a little more.

      The financial aspect of selling Verizon Wireless has absolutely nothing to do with Corporate tax in the UK. If you but a car in America then sell it a year later why would the UK government see any of that $$? Just because you're a UK citizen?

      1. jonathanb Silver badge

        Re: Isn't this the same Vodafone...

        Cars are classified as a wasting asset, and therefore exempt from CGT. Verizon shares are not so classified, so are subject to CGT.

    6. TheBoyBailey

      Re: Isn't this the same Vodafone...

      Its a sad state of affairs that a post that shows the person has no understanding of the tax rules he is commenting upon is uprated so highly ...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Perhaps the Interest Costs

    are owed and payable at PayDay Loan rates of Interest to a sibling company operating out of a Broom Cupboard somewhere in the British Virgin Islands?

  5. Piro Silver badge

    King Cnuts

    I left them ages ago.

    The fact they only gave decent deals if you begged for it, (or indeed were a new customer) made me leave. The fact they're a bunch of dicks makes me more glad I did so.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: King Cnuts

      Perhaps you need to ask yourself how much UK tax do the OTHER UK mobile companies pay??

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: King Cnuts

        Downvoted for telling the truth. Three, EE or O2 based in the UK - thought not...

  6. teapot9999

    investing in UK!!!

    Building network infrastructure to roll out a service that they plan to make a profit from is not 'investing in the UK'

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: investing in UK!!!

      Ummm, care to explain why not? Is buying some shares that I later hope to make a profit from, not "investing"? Is spending money on R&D that you hope will lead to new inventions not "investing"? Or training up your workforce so they can do more tasks not investing?

      At the point in time when any of those investments start to pay back, that's when the tax on profits then comes in.

      Well that's assuming that I haven't magically moved the "operation" to Luxemborg (*) by then.

      (*) Other low-tax countries are available.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: investing in UK!!!

        " Is buying some shares that I later hope to make a profit from, not "investing"?"

        Depends on your definition of investing. There's a view that secondary market trading is speculation rather than investment, and creates no value for the wider economy. And training staff is usually an operating item, rather than an investment, since it is rarely capitalised.

      2. spib.burfank

        Re: investing in UK!!!

        "Ummm, care to explain why not?"

        Because the word "investing" has changed its meaning since Gordon Brown became chancellor. It now means "borrow some money and spend it on people who will vote for you".

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: investing in UK!!!

        Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: investing in UK!!!

      So what is your definition of investing in the UK? When the government invests in education, infrastructure etc. it's only in the hope that it increases tax revenues in the future.

  7. ukgnome

    Is this the same company that bought Cable and Wireless?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      yes. But I think that it was seen as an act of mercy more than one of investment :)

    2. AndrueC Silver badge
      Joke

      Is this the same company that bought Clueless and Witless?

      Changed that for ya :)

      Amusingly the deal went through on April Fool's day. Make of that what you will :)

  8. Steven Jones

    And the point is?

    Heavens, straight out of the kindergarten school of financial journalism.

    There are some corporations and private equity outfits which have engaged in practices which have artificially loaded their subsidiaries with expensive debt (often by loans from parent companies based in tax friendly regimes), but there seems to be no suggestion that this is what has happened with Vodafone. This is not a matter of "sympathy" over debt, it's simply how taxable profits are calculated. If interest on loans is not allowed to be used when calculating taxable profits, then you'll simply see private sector investment virtually disappear.

    If there is evidence of artificial tax avoidance schemes, perhaps the journalist who wrote this might provide the evidence. As it is, there is nothing in the article.

    1. phil dude
      Linux

      Re: And the point is?

      as someone who has actual done accounts for a small firm, let me say all companies can do this. Only they can't, because they are not big enough to have multiple markets to play around in and a team of accountants. If you are smaller than a certain size, you probably don't even have an accounts dept, just a lone person (yes...!). Unlike when HMRC chases an individual, very few individuals can generate any pain for Govt - which enough lawyers can.

      Really, if individuals could have as much freedom to "write off" expenses the way a business does, perhaps there would be less complaints from the population. Only we cannot (well not in the UK anyway). You earn money for your work, a whole chunk of it is taken from your pay packet, and then every item with VAT on it , YOU pay. Companies don't pay it. They only pay the difference. They collect it for the Govt (for free I might add).

      But fundamentally, the execs at the company pay their workers and themselves from the "operating budget" and so what's left for the taxes is "$income-$expenses". Not so much freedom on $income, but quite a bit on $expenses. Unlike us plebs, we get taxed *before* we pay for living expenses. Businesses pay *after*.

      The execs deserve every bit of flack they get though, because that is what they are PAID for. I seriously doubt anyone on less than 5x10e5 GBP/year has any say whatsoever in this issue.

      I agree let's have some well researched proof, at the very least we will learn how our money is being spent....

      P.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So is..

    ..paying VAT on goods and services a valid excuse for everyone else to not pay income tax?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So is..

      I would argue that a lower corporation tax rate is good for business, and that VAT is one of the best way to collect taxes, all companies work to minimise costs, and maximise profits, so make it viable for businesses to pay tax here and they will... I am all for a simple tax system where accountants and tax lawyers are no longer needed...

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hmm, of course they don't divert profits abroad. That is why they closed all their roaming and procurement teams globally and relocated them to Luxembourg. Hmmm. Having roaming managed in Luxembourg. One of the few countries in Europe where Vodafone has zero customers... Wonder why. Now roaming is a multi-billion business for Vodafone. Bet they pay less tax now that it is in Luxembourg.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      No they didn't, those teams exist in every Vodafone operating company. Luxembourg happens to be a very good place to host offices, despite whatever tax implications there are.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Vodafone does not enter into artificial arrangements"

    * SPLUTTER *

    No it just doesn't pay it's tax on massive foreign deals such as the Mannesmann debacle. Fight off paying anything in the courts for years and then get the head of the HMRC, against the wishes of all his legal & accountancy staff, to shake off billions in unpaid tax over a few nice meals in exchange for £16 and a pickled egg.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/vodafone-tax-evasion-revenue-customs

    Lying, tax-dodging, hypocritical thieves.

    1. spib.burfank

      "Fight off paying anything in the courts for years"

      Oops, a few typos in that. Let me fix that for ya:

      "Using the courts to make the HMRC comply with the law, and eventually winning".

      Of course, if you want to live in a country where people are randomly punished without an opportunity to argue their case in court then go right ahead: with your bolshy attitude you'll be one of the first to be put to work in the new salt mines.

      1. arrbee

        Nope, the case was never decided because they reached a deal with HMRC.

        However they had made provision for a substantial payment in their accounts...

        1. Tim Worstal

          Err, no

          However they had made provision for a substantial payment in their accounts...

          Not quite exactly.

          What they did is say that we're going to bring some of these foreign profits into the UK in order to pay dividends to our nice shareholders. And all of us, Vodafone, HMRC, the courts, the EU, agree that when those profits come back into the UK to pay a dividend then corporation tax will be due.

          That's actually what they did.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Interest in debt is their own fault

    No reason why I, or anyone else, should be helping them out of a hole they dug.

    Tax turnover and eliminate the loopholes at a stroke.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

      >Tax turnover

      Yeah, you could call it something like "value added tax" ....

      1. James 51

        Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

        VAT is a comsumption tax paid by customers.

        1. Steven Jones

          Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

          A turnover tax would also be a consumption tax, just like VAT. It would be an operational cost, and insofar as the market allows, will just get added onto the price charged. Hence the customer will pay.

          Corporation tax is different in that it is, in principle at least, indirectly paid the owners of profitable companies. However, it's never quite that simple. No doubt prices might be a tad lower if corporation tax was abolished (in a competitive market) as companies could operate with lower profit margins, but they'd be driven up by the imposition of a turnover tax. The impact would be highly variable depending on the nature of the company's business and profitability. A marginally viable company could be driven under, unless the turnover tax could be recovered in higher prices, whilst a highly profitable company would gain as the turnover tax would be less than was paid on corporation tax (assuming the whole package is fiscally neutral).

          The point of all this is that a turnover tax would act very much like VAT, as it's a charge against economic activity, not profit.

    2. Steven Jones

      Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

      In a sense turnover is already taxed - it's called VAT. Of course if you are planning to change the entire corporate tax system such that it's turnover rather than profits which are taxed then it poses some very difficult questions. For instance, what rate would apply? The big supermarkets have huge turnovers, but very low profit margins whilst some companies have much lower turnovers and high profit margins. Put in a turnover tax at the same rate for high turnover, low profit margin companies, and the prices of the commodities they sell (like food) would undoubtedly go up as reductions in corporation tax would not compensate. On the other side, high margin, low turnover companies (like ARM) would pay much less tax. Trying to adapt turnover taxes with different rates for different market sectors would be a nightmare.

      Also, turnover taxes would inherently favour vertically integrated companies as it would be nigh on impossible to include internal trading as part of turnover whilst that's clearly visible if one company is buying products and services from another. Of course you could just extend the scope of VAT with multiple rates (as you'd have to include things like food) as that doesn't artificially favour vertically integrated companies (as VAT paid to suppliers can be reclaimed).

      That's not to say that countries aren't moving to systems of raising tax on economic activity rather than on profitability, but if you go down that route completely, it will greatly aid profitable companies and punish the less profitable.

      1. spib.burfank

        Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

        "Of course if you are planning to change the entire corporate tax system such that it's turnover rather than profits which are taxed then it poses some very difficult questions.'

        Don't come here and use facts and reasoning - what people want to hear is their political prejudices amplified and reflected back to them. Go away to somewhere where rationality is appreciated and leave us to our circle jerk about the 1%, globalisation, and bankers.

    3. spib.burfank

      Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

      "Tax turnover and eliminate the loopholes at a stroke."

      I like this idea. Because you'll be paying the tax just like you pay VAT. And then even someone like you could see that taxing a company is really just taxing its customers (and employees).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

        Barmy - how would that work if a company sold £1m of computers but only made 2% margin and you charge them 5% tax on their turnover?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

          "Barmy - how would that work if a company sold £1m of computers but only made 2% margin and you charge them 5% tax on their turnover?"

          They would go bust. So what?

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

            @ Robert Long 1

            Your last 2 posts sound like you seriously enjoy putting your hands into other peoples pockets and seem to have a minor disconnect that them paying less means we must pay more. Surely it should be the case that the public sector actually stick within the limits of the provided money?

            Thinking its ok to put people out of business for the sake of robbing the survivors blind is a poor strategy for collecting more tax, creating jobs and in general.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

              "Thinking its ok to put people out of business for the sake of robbing the survivors blind is a poor strategy for collecting more tax, creating jobs and in general."

              What are you talking about? All I'm saying is that it is fairer to tax the actions of all companies than to tax some and not others and expect the ones that are taxed (and private individuals) to make up the shortfall.

              Why should I pay more tax because Vodafone don't pay theirs? I'm not a Vodafone user (I specifically left them because of this).

              As for taxing turnover, that's what normally happens. I can't reduce my tax bill because I bought a new car this year, so why should you as a company owner reduce your tax because you bought new equipment?

              The whole system is wildly over-complicated and needs radically simplified. If that means that companies go bust instead of working within the system, then that's fine and hardly an odd idea.

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

                @ Robert Long 1

                You pay more tax because the gov loves to spend and bribe you with your own money. That is it. Where the money comes from is a moot debate when the idea is to take as much as possible and take credit (on the back of the next generation) to make up any shortfall in their insane spending.

                Vodafone legally got out of being hammered and so they should. Who chooses to give more than they must when the next tax rise wont be far away. Ramping up tax and knocking over businesses puts people out of work and any business capable of moving away will cause another loss.

                The tax laws here are stupidly complicated and do need to be simpler. This would cut down on legal costs in the public sector and hopefully improve our tax/benefits/welfare/bribe system which takes with one hand and gives a little of it back with the other.

                Tax is harmful. An amount is needed for social niceties and critical infrastructure but tax should be viewed as a plague or disease. Tax makes people poor and reduces the economy, but for now is needed to pay off a deficit because spending is so much fun.

                Personally I would prefer Vodafone kept their infrastructure in working order than lose the money into the black hole of public waste. Of course if you are not a vodafone user you might not care if their service got worse and never improved (no I am not one of their customers).

                1. Steven Jones

                  Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

                  Now I've looked up turnover tax (plenty of references out there), as I suspected, VAT is categorised that way. Indeed, in South Africa small companies can elect to pay a turnover tax and make themselves exempt from VAT. From reading further, it is, as I suspected, necessary to deal with issues of unfairly favouring vertically integrated companies by having complex systems which identify stages of production or systems which cascade turnover tax through the system. VAT does this already of course.

                  Here's just one link of many

                  http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-turnover-tax.htm

                  Note that this is not generally a replacement for corporation tax, but (like VAT), a supplement. I suppose, in theory, the UK government could choose to extend the VAT system and effectively set corporation tax to zero (subject, of course, to being compatible with international treaty obligations, including those implied by out membership of the EU).

                  So this is for those, like Robert Long 1 who doesn't seem to recognise that a turnover tax is essentially a cost addition and will be paid by the consumer as it will essentially impact the same people who pay VAT, as is obvious by any rational analysis. It is backed up by pretty well every informed link I followed.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

                    "So this is for those, like Robert Long 1 who doesn't seem to recognise that a turnover tax is essentially a cost addition and will be paid by the consumer "

                    Why do you think I don't realize that? That's exactly what I want: the company tax to be paid by the company's customers. At the moment I'm paying Vodafone's tax despite not being a customer.

                    Why is this so hard to understand?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

        "And then even someone like you could see that taxing a company is really just taxing its customers (and employees)."

        The problem is that the current system is really taxing everyone even if they are not Amazon customers, for example. Even someone like you can see that when we let them off with billions it means EVERYONE has to pay more to subsidize their profit margin.

    4. jonathanb Silver badge

      Re: Interest in debt is their own fault

      "Tax turnover and eliminate the loopholes at a stroke"

      Unfortunately, that won't work

      You can avoid a lot of turnover tax by taking over your suppliers, so that there is only one sale to the end consumer rather than lots of sales along the supply chain.

  13. monkeyfish

    'Voda moaned'

    Nice.

  14. codejunky Silver badge

    Good for them

    And I feel little sympathy for anyone here moaning they cant stick their mucky fingers into someone elses pockets.

    I do however agree with people who dislike the tax laws in general here. Far too much robbery going on and far too many people crying out for more legalised theft.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Good for them

      It's good for all of us.

      If I don't have to pay tax on the interest I owe on the mortgage, car and credit cards I'm going to be a lot better off. In fact I'm might borrow some money to put in a savings account if the interest payments are a tax write-off.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They wouldn't have an operations here if it was so unprofitable.

    They carry all the government secure comms, so they are making a good profit. I suspect that they have some deal going with the government?

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So you reckon it would be better if Voda moved to HK / France / Germany / Spain and paid little or no UK tax - perhaps like the other UK mobile networks??

  17. BlackBolt

    You're all complaining now but wait and see what happens when three (3) are bought by a mega Chinese conglomerate and all their $$ disappears out the country in some amazing Chinese trade agreement.

    Maybe we should celebrate the fact that a large Global Telecoms Company is based in the UK.

    1. Tyson Key

      Unless things have changed, "3" are already owned by Hutchison Whampoa of Hong Kong - which is why their corporate name is Hutchison 3G UK Ltd...

      Also, if memory serves correctly, NTT DoCoMo were also a minority shareholder - but they ended up selling their stake, after they refused to adopt i-mode. (Which O2 briefly tinkered with, before unceremoniously discontinuing provision).

  18. taxman

    HMRC vs Vodaphone

    Looks like they could be the same entity. Where has their lawyers CIO just come from?

    Just asking.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022