France puts the first boot in to Amazons tax dealings
Asks for $252 million in back taxes
( , Tue 13 Nov 2012, 10:48, Share, Reply)
Asks for $252 million in back taxes
( , Tue 13 Nov 2012, 10:48, Share, Reply)
I suppose they've got to find a replacement for all the people they wanted to tax 70% of their incomes leaving the country
( , Tue 13 Nov 2012, 10:53, Share, Reply)
( , Tue 13 Nov 2012, 10:53, Share, Reply)
In a similar vein
Have an amusing video of an Amazon exec floundering in front of a Government committee.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20301381
( , Tue 13 Nov 2012, 10:58, Share, Reply)
Have an amusing video of an Amazon exec floundering in front of a Government committee.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20301381
( , Tue 13 Nov 2012, 10:58, Share, Reply)
Yeah saw that yesterday, unbelievably rubbish.
Basically didn't take the committee seriously and sent an ill prepared underling.
( , Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:02, Share, Reply)
Basically didn't take the committee seriously and sent an ill prepared underling.
( , Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:02, Share, Reply)
Oooofff, Now than, I am ALL for fair play and everyone paying their taxes
but: can't we wait till after Christmas before the collective taxmen of the world fire a broadside at Amazon that sinks it to the depths of the fiscal seas?
( , Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:04, Share, Reply)
but: can't we wait till after Christmas before the collective taxmen of the world fire a broadside at Amazon that sinks it to the depths of the fiscal seas?
( , Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:04, Share, Reply)
Radio2 yesterday
(admittedly on their weaker than weak drivetime show)
had some tax bod from some tax specialist co (was it kpmg?) arguing that poor Starbucks' had consistently made a loss in the UK and therefore paying no tax was fair. The interviewer just wasn't equipped at all to argue how the flow of money might be engineered in such a way to make this look plausable, and completely missed the point that if they make 1% profit (as he admitted "some" of the shops do), 20% of whatever the real number/amount for that should still be payable.
( , Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:24, Share, Reply)
(admittedly on their weaker than weak drivetime show)
had some tax bod from some tax specialist co (was it kpmg?) arguing that poor Starbucks' had consistently made a loss in the UK and therefore paying no tax was fair. The interviewer just wasn't equipped at all to argue how the flow of money might be engineered in such a way to make this look plausable, and completely missed the point that if they make 1% profit (as he admitted "some" of the shops do), 20% of whatever the real number/amount for that should still be payable.
( , Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:24, Share, Reply)