## HSBC’s UK tax bill looks to be Â£500 million less than I’d exepct

Posted on

I've been looking at HSBC's accounts, out today.

The company made pre tax profit of \$20,649 million and had a tax charge of \$5,315 million. That tax charge splits down like this:

That I can find HSBC does not say anywhere how much profit it makes in the UK. But since the UK tax charge for the year was \$60m at a rate of 24.5% on average the taxable profit looks to have been \$245 million.

Now, let's look at that a different way. Let's apply the unitary apportionment formula to group profits. From page 335 I know the company had 48,000 employees in the UK out of 270,000 in all.

And from page 40 of the media release I can get that \$9,149 of income out of \$68,330 was in the UK, whilst \$18,391m of assets out of \$79,935 were in the UK.

The classic unitary apportionment formula says that profit should be weighted to a country in proportion with one third of the weighting applying to income, assets and staff. So the maths is:

UK profit = \$20,649/3  x (\$9,149/\$68,330) + \$20,649/3 x (\$18,391 / \$79,935) + \$20,649 / 3 x (48,000 / 270,000)

Now I make that \$3,728 million of profit attributable to the UK on this basis. Tax on that would be \$913 million. But \$60 million was paid.

So for hosting HSBC and taking its risk the UK lost out on tax of \$853 million, which is a little over £500 million - enough to pay outright for a couple of hospitals.

So, HSBC, tell us why that happened, will you? And how? And why you paid it somewhere else instead?

The case for country-by-country reporting for banks is compelling.