Re: This article is all over the place...
are already taxed on *profits*<p>
However, this is based on a definition of profits that is several hundred years out of date. It has long been the practice of multinationals to purposely move value around the world for the sole purpose of evading their tax responsibilities or boosting their earnings in one country at the expense of others for the benefit of those on high bonuses.
It is almost 50 years ago that I heard that a large company was deliberately moving value between their subsidiaries such at at "year end" (in a different quarter in different countries) was concealed from the tax man, yet visible to the credit rating agencies. Since the person that told me was one of the auditors, we can be quite sure that auditors not only knew about it, but were advising on how to do it.
Separately, there is a strong argument for small businesses (here in the UK) to be offered the choice of a turnover tax: If they opt for it, it could be deducted at source by their banks, and exempting them from the need for any other tax-related paperwork. If they opt for this, it should not only be VAT and corporation tax, but also for employer's and employees NI, and income tax. The purpose being to eliminate the cost of accountancy and compliance work, not to change the anticipated tax take. However, it would be revealing to see where HMRC think the percentage should be - I have been in several small companies where the effective tax rate exceeded 100% of turnover in some quarters.
In the UK, retained profits are normally subject to corporation tax, and surely it is not beyond the whit of lawyers and accountants to come up with weasel words to make sure that the Unicorns get their comeuppance.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
