For these who can get through the paywall The Sunday Times and others have an article today on Facebook copying the worst of Google’s tax practices via Ireland, and elsewhere. I contributed to the article.
As usual the defence is “we’re complying with the law.”
Yes, sure as heck you are. I could suggest other situations where people used that defence. It did not justify the morality of those people’s decisions, nor Facebook’s now.
So I say stop the excuses and set out to be tax compliant as people expect of you, which means seeking to pay the right amount of tax (but no more) in the right place at the right time where right means that the economic substance of the transactions undertaken coincides with the place and form in which they are reported for taxation purposes. Then you’ll be doing the right thing. Until then expect our continuing criticism.
14 Responses to “Facebook is doing a Double Irish”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Well frankly, you either have a rule of law or you don’t!
You suggest that “morality” overrides the rule of law – but omit to mention whose morality.
You refer to “people” who demand tax compliance – who are these “people”. How do these people know that Facebook isn’t being tax compliant – in fact how do you know that Facebook isn’t being tax compliant?
Facebook think their action are perfectly moral, you will disagree. Who is right?
I, and the vast majority are
You’re wrong
What you suggest is nothing more than taxation by “mob rule” and administartion by “lynch mob.
Furthermore you present zilch evidence to substantiate your rather bald assertion that Facebook and Google are doing anything to avoid taxation as provided for in the tax law.
Respectfully, are you suggesting a general anti-avoidance principle is lynch mob taxation?
If that is your level of contribution are you surprised people ignore the observations people like you have to make?
All tax administration is about morality and judgement at the end of the day – and I am arguing that the law should be changed to tax these companies – based on that ethical judgement
I also happen to think they should comply voluntarily. That is their duty as corporate citizens. If they don’t they deserve to be embarrassed, and will be until they do change
I am not suggesting that – in fact this is the first time you have raised anything regarding a GAAR or a GANTIP.
But as you have are you referring to avoidance in the UK or Ireland?
Finally, it is a shame that neither you nor the journalist at the Sunday Times bothered to properly research the Facebook situation before commenting.
I am referring to avoidance worldwide
I note Obama is too today
And we will win
Justin feels that large comapnies ashould be above criticism. Their ethics should not be commented on by their inferiors. Sorry, Justin, this is a democracy and people can criticise their betters these days!
You are absolutely welcome to criticise any company you want, even if you are oblivious of the facts.
This would appear to be the case with Facebook where neither Richard Murphy nor the Sunday Times appraised themselves of the trie facts – had they done so, any allegation of tax avoidance would not have arisen.
I commented on the use of Ireland, nothing else
Would you like to get matters right?
Justin – I see no morality overriding the rule of law here.
The question is, what is the ultimate point of utilising a Double Irish (or a Dutch Sandwich) structure? Is there any point to the structure, apart from the obvious tax consequences that flow from such an arrangement?
Suggest you go and read legislation such as Part IVA if the ITAA 1936, which clearly legislates against general anti avoidance.
Tell us more?
What is the wording?
Totally unsure what the Australian Tax Act has to do with this – and yes I am acquainted with it.
But what exactly is your point?
So much for Facebook not paying taxes: http://on.ft.com/xXUIq2
Now exactly, how much is enough?
Not the same issue at all
Which just makes you look rather silly