The tax choices faced by companies


There are two lines of argument used by companies that are most aggressive in reducing their liability to UK corporation tax.

The first one is that they have a "fiduciary" duty to their shareholders (which broadly means that they can be sued or sacked by their shareholders if they wilfully reduce reported profits).

The second is that they do tons of other stuff for the community (so Google - which was criticised by MPs for paying relatively little UK corporation tax - flags up its contributions to an entrepreneurial hub in east London and its work with an education charity, inter alia).

But as directors of companies admit to me, all businesses have discretion about how they organise their tax affairs. The fiduciary duty on the directors does not oblige them to use the most extreme legal techniques to minimise profits and tax liabilities.

How so?

Well, there is what has been described as a "licence to operate" (an idea promoted by the Royal Society of Arts and the think tank Tomorrow's Company), which is broadly that the most successful companies over the long term are those that are responsible corporate citizens.

Companies perceived by people, politicians and media as, in some sense, not making a proper contribution to the societies from which they extract their revenues and profits, will over time become marginalised within those societies - even resented by the customers and suppliers whose goodwill they require.

So it is quite normal on company boards for there to be discussions about how zealous to be in avoiding tax - choices are available to businesses about where to locate costs.

And, to repeat, it is not always rational to maximise profits in countries where taxes are lowest and to maximise losses in countries where taxes are highest, if in doing so the licence to operate is eroded in a country where there are important customers.

tax protest UK Uncut has targeted companies it believes are not paying enough tax

This was the thinking behind Starbucks' highly unusual decision to donate £10m a year in "pseudo tax" to HM Treasury's coffers for a minimum of two years.

As a prominent business leader put it to me slightly cynically, that £10m was a "marketing cost" (which, who knows, might be offsetable against Starbucks's tax bill in another part of the world).

Starbucks felt more under pressure than most businesses to make this gesture because its hundreds of shops are natural targets for the kind of protests organised by lobbying groups such as UK Uncut.

But although Starbucks is more vulnerable than most businesses to such campaigning, it is not anomalous.

And some would say that in a way it has joined the ranks of the protestors, by highlighting the discretion that boards have to pay or not pay tax.

Which, of course, does not absolve the government from responsibility for writing tax rules in such a way as to prevent companies paying significantly less than the official corporation tax rate - which, of course, is not easy in a globalised world where businesses can move their domiciles and can shunt revenues more or less wherever they choose.

And here's the rub for the UK.

There does seem to be evidence that companies which think of themselves as British - by dint of who owns them - are more squeamish about minimising the tax they pay in the UK.

Or to put it another way, the further away a board of a company is from the noise of the press in the UK, the anger of social media users, or the angst of British politicians, the less worried that board will be about the perception that its company is not paying its way in the UK.

There may be a hidden cost of what has arguably been this country's central industrial policy of the past 30 years, which is that all businesses are for sale to foreigners at the right price: the systematic transfer into overseas hands of so many UK companies may have contributed to long-term erosion of corporation tax revenues.

Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

How Labour pays for student fee cut

Labour would reduce tax relief for those earning £150,000 or more a year, shrink maximum pension pots to £1m and cut maximum annual pension contributions to £30,000 to pay for a cut to £6,000 in student fees.

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Robert


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 524.

    523 purple

    What do you mean swapping apple for orange? Do you mean the companies Apple and Orange?

  • rate this

    Comment number 523.

    Business & trade exact premiums. Swapping apple for orange is not what it is about. It is about paying interest on loans, dividends, tax, wages and loads besides. A cumbersome inefficient way of overheads and profit loss which justifies (controls) both investment (use of resources) and the exclusive networks.

    522 Sarah I believe Peston was at LSE recently. We is social and so are fads

  • rate this

    Comment number 522.

    520 purple
    Not so long ago I saw that the London School of Economics was highlighting the coffee-chain business like Starbucks as the model for students to copy. However, lately I watched a lecture from the LSE that warned that society may break down completely and everybody would be broken into their exclusive 'networks' - or 'gangs'?

  • rate this

    Comment number 521.

    "If not, please explain why HMRC take so many cases to court?"

    Use the other side of the paper to explain why so many fail or reach out of court settlements for a trifling amount the SEC demand.

  • rate this

    Comment number 520.

    518 Sarah ~ l don't think that the coffee shop concept is going to fail any time soon, but the leveraged and share price indulging corporate model may struggle if customers turn away. This is a corporate business and as such is a financially shrewd and debt encumbered affair. Are they up to the £5 cup of snob value elite cuppa yet? l doubt that will take long.


Comments 5 of 524



  • Mukesh SinghNo remorse

    Delhi bus rapist says victim shouldn't have fought back

  • Aimen DeanI spied

    The founder member of al-Qaeda who worked for MI6

  • Before and after shotsPerfect body

    Just how reliable are 'before and after' photos?

  • A man shutting his eyes tightlyStrange light show

    What do you see when you close your eyes?

  • Sony WalkmanLost ideas

    What has happened to Japan's inventors?

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.