back to article Cisco asks shareholders to vote against global tax transparency

Cisco has urged its shareholders to vote against a proposal asking for the company to publish a tax transparency report that breaks down where it pays its taxes on a country-by-country basis. The resolution was proposed by three investors – including the Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF), which has $41 billion (£38 …

  1. Jan K. Bronze badge

    Panic before closing time?

    Cisco... said it would "potentially have an adverse impact on our business."

    I'm sure it will (roll eyes), but the day with enforced global wide transperency is getting closer. Those moving billions from place to place without paying tax anywhere will be stopped...

    Another news from today on el Reg

  2. Anonymous Coward

    I can count them on the fingers of one toe

    Can anyone come up with any example of any multinational corporation anywhere that practices global wide transparency?

    Didn't think so.

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: I can count them on the fingers of one toe

      Bet they would soon change their tune, if several major markets decide that without global tax transparency all revenues are deemed to have been accrued in their jurisdiction and thus taxes are due in their jurisdiction on the global revenues....

  3. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Reading the Runes between the Lines

    "By requesting additional reporting with specific types of disclosures relating to tax as mandated by GRI 207, the Proposal extends into subject matter that would not be appropriate for direct shareholder oversight."

    Oh please, you cannot be serious ... unless worried about criminal activity, expecting that pig of an objection to the Proposal to fly.

    Ignorance of subject matter because of no direct shareholder oversight being provided does neither excuse nor prevent shareholders being held liable and accountable for activity by A.N.Others beyond their knowledge and control.

  4. JoeCool

    It's hliiarious

    ( spelled "hypocritical" ) that all of these large corps phrase all of their decisions as "in the best interests of the share owners", except telling them where the money is hidden. Without that, the share holders can't anticipate the impacts of pending regulations.

  5. jollyboyspecial Bronze badge

    Cisco... said it would "potentially have an adverse impact on our business."

    Well if this change has been requested by investors they must surely realise that upsetting their investors could also have an adverse impact on their business

  6. Shalghar Bronze badge

    Now we will finally enforce..... Oh look, a squirrel

    After the useless smoke candle called GDPR, lets welcome another direly needed regulation that seems to come against the resistance of the bad guys, only to probably be mostly lip service with neither bite nor will to bite.

    As most people of the minority who read TOS, nonprivacy policies and other such license disagreements one might notice that GDPR did not help at all. The (dis)agreements were reworded but the general practice stays as onesided as ever, "accept" or "consent" to everything CulpritCorp desires or no software for you.

    But hey, with all those bullshit jobs generated in yet another parasitic sect like ISO 9XXX, data "protection" whatevers are there to stay (useless).

    I expect the very same of any initiative seemingly intended to do what the article says. Should anything happen at all, i expect pure lip service, another bunch of "certified" bullshit jobs generated, lots of red tape and paper waste and nothing at all in the presumed intent of the oncoming regulations.

    If the farce called GDPR does not convince you, take a look at 30+ years of "Cum-Cum","Cum-Ex" or, as it was called in the beginning of one of the banking scandals around 1990 in germany "Dividendenstripping".( Olaf Scholz with his perfectly targeted amnesia might not like to remember that his friends in the Warburg bank were one of the main offenders from the start and still are today.)

    All that has changed is the name and some minor implementations, the malpractice itself began in the later 80ies and has stayed on until today, despite new toothless regulations and implementation of some "watchdogs".

    Plus ca change, plus c´est la meme chose.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like