That?s a lie and they certainly arent legally obliged to use that sort of very dodgy accounting to do that.
But they are both legally and morally obliged to not use the most flagrant tax avoidance scams.
Back in the 60s when there were controls on capital movement large companies like Phillips got round that by internal valuations of goods being transferred between companies. Today its often done by charging corporate overheads to transfer profits to a different tax regime. However whist we target US companies such as Amazon and Google don't forget there are many UK based companies who are doing the same thing and bringing their profits back to the UK. Within the EU they can also shift their VAT base to the lowest regime (Luxembourg in particular - guess who set up that deal). Once we are out we will be able to keep all the VAT we collect and set our own rates.
In article snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, jeikppkywk snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com writes
It's not a lie but it's a very nebulous requirement.
They can do anything that's legal whether you regard it as a scam or not. Blatant loopholes over the years have been closed - hence the enormity of the UK tax codes.
There's often a lot of confusion about the Vat system and the impacts of registration even amongst accountants.
In article snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)" snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk> writes
So the socialist advocates universal tax avoidance.
If you are charging vat you are required to put your vat registration on the invoice. HMRC will come down on you like the proverbial ton of bricks if they catch you.
Plenty do just that anyway, most obviously with Maxwell, Murdoch, Branson, Dyson etc
It isnt a requirement.
Those have don?t nothing about the ways that Amazon. Murdoch, Branson etc have shifted the profit they make to zero tax havens.
Yes, but how many customers would ever bother to check the VAT number for validity.
How many people use builders who show the FMB? logo on their van and stationery even if they aren't entitled to ?.
But it cost a business *more* to handle cash, even including paying it in to the bank.
Did they not have schools in your day, bert? Where kids learned to read and understand plain English?
No irt doesn't, when I left scool I worked in a supermarket for the summer holidays, I and female memebr of staff used to take the cash to a local bank, the bags of cash were placed in carrier bags, the idea was that we'd look like a couple out shopping. It cost more to cash a cheque, think it was 38p. But again I wasn't sure what account they used, but they owned 5 shops but got deported for tax evasion a few years later.
I think things have changed, the banks are charging businesses more and more to handle cash. It would have certainly cost my small business (with a Santander business account) more to pay in cash than cheques.
Its more complicated than that while ever they accept any cash at all. There is no marginal cost for accepting cash for say a £4 transaction instead of using a card. And its arguable if you can even count the extra time to give change with the cash transaction instead of when a tap and pay card is used if the checkout monkey doesn?t always have a queue waiting to pay for what they have just bought.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.