Sign in / up

back to article Euro probe headed for Amazon's tax back door

A 2003 Luxembourgeois tax ruling used by Amazon.com to structure its European affairs looks likely to become the subject of a European Commission probe, according to the Financial Times. The Pink 'Un's paywalled report suggests Luxembourg's decision to limit the amount of Amazonian profits it would tax may have constituted an …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. frank ly

    Faster than a speeding politician

    " ... the G20 meeting to be held in Australia during November has placed multinational tax avoidance front and centre on its agenda."

    This trans-international accounting dance has been known about for many years. Why have the pols only recently started to make disapproving noises?

    3 0 Reply
    1. Graham Marsden
      Reply Icon

      @frank ly - Re: Faster than a speeding politician

      Maybe there are elections coming up...

      0 0 Reply
  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The EU is in such a sh*t state, especially with lack of growth, bailouts and France's declining health that they need some kind of cash injection. So it's no surprise that they target firms, that incidentally follow the rules, to find some extra cash rather than targeting the waste the institution is guilty of.

    Country's in the EU are conspiring together to get their cut of the profits to help bail themselves out yet they have only themselves to blame because they made the rules in the first place.

    Imagine the savings that could be made if the EU was actually run as a business?

    Instead it is so corrupted that even the accounts haven't been signed off in years. Any business run like this would have gone broke and the Directors jailed.

    6 10 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      while there is a lot - a lot - to disagree with in that fairly broad, sweeping summary of the EU, there;s a good point at the end: the EU's own accounts haven't been signed-off for years, and yet it's officials go around telling member states and companies how to behave? The member states should collectively refuse to make any payments at all into the EU budget until all of the accounts are up to date; it can pay it's own costs from the funds raised by removing all of the special perqs and exemptions enjoyed by EU officials and MEPs, and if that isn't enough money, it can start making obvious cuts - like stopping the stupidity of relocating things between Brussels and Strasbourg every so often, and so on ..

      3 1 Reply
      1. Brusselsgeek
        Reply Icon

        While of course the EU institutions have a lot of problems, one of the reasons the accounts aren't signed off is because member states keep trying to slash the pittance they contribute. The Commission and the Parliament wanted to raise their own funds with the Financial Transaction Tax, but national governments, in particular the UK, vetoed that. And almost all of the Parliament would agree that they want to get rid of the three-ring circus to Strasbourg every month. So who's blocking that? France.

        Realistically the EU is only as good as the member states allow it to be.

        *usual caveat about there being plenty wrong with the EU, playing devil's advocate etc.

        3 3 Reply
      2. LucreLout
        Reply Icon
        Go

        @AC - Stop blaming the EU....

        "The member states should collectively refuse to make any payments at all into the EU budget until all of the accounts are up to date; it can pay it's own costs from the funds raised by removing all of the special perqs and exemptions enjoyed by EU officials and MEPs, and if that isn't enough money, it can start making obvious cuts - like stopping the stupidity of relocating things between Brussels and Strasbourg every so often"

        ...until you understand just how much worse things really are.

        Allow me to explain, for those that don't know, how EU agencies work within their host countries. The Agency reports to the EU commission and is beyond the reproach of national governments.

        The staff, in order to pay a harmonised rate across the EU, don't pay local income taxes - they pay a 10% withholding tax. There are additional pay (allowances) for having children, getting them educated, being recruited abroad (or within your first 3 years residence in the country in which you're hired), final salary pension etc etc which all nets up to earning roughly tripple the wage for the same role in the UK private sector. Some senior staff have diplomatic status, and many staff of really rather low grade can buy diplomatic vehicles that are not taxed in their host country. Only teachers have longer holidays, and only by a week or two. The list of perks is almost endless.

        So, please, by all means resume your annoyance with the EU.... just be clear that whatever annoys you about them will be the tip of the iceberg.

        Oh, just one last thing.... once you've been employed for > 10 years, your job is legally yours for life. You can't be made redundant. You get a "permanent contract".

        6 2 Reply
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @AC - Stop blaming the EU....

          Having worked alongside several groups of people in EU agencies I can't see much of what you claim.

          Pay isn't three times what I got in the UK, sometimes it's even less. The lower tax helps but that's only to stop the local country from reaping too much benefit. There are allowances for being willing to live in another country but while the holiday is good it's a long way off what a teacher gets (unless you're only talking about the very highest levels of which I have little experience). I lived next to the head (or was he second in command) of one of the DGs an he left before 7 in the morning to return around 11 at night... and no he wasn't reeling drunk, just hard working.

          So, in general, in my experience the jobs are paid toward the upper end of their equivalents in the UK (taking into account their allowances) but some of that is, I suppose, to compensate for living abroad and having to bring the family along.

          On the other hand I was offered a nice package to relocate for a bank so it's not unheard of in other walks of life. I suppose the proof of the pudding is in the eating, I had the opportunity to work there and instead I chose private industry because it was more attractive for a number of reasons.

          1 1 Reply
          1. LucreLout
            Reply Icon

            Re: @AC - Stop blaming the EU....

            "Having worked alongside several groups of people in EU agencies I can't see much of what you claim."

            Well, I based it on a family members terms and conditions, so I've got a high degree of confidence in it. She's an AST3 grade at EMA, so not senior but not the lowest grade either.

            1 0 Reply
      3. Trigonoceps occipitalis
        Reply Icon

        And never forget that Neil Kinnock's last, or nearly last, act as the UK's EU Commissioner was to sack the whistle blower who publicized this state (far, far too small a word) of affairs.

        John 8:7 - well they've got that right!

        2 1 Reply
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Strange you should say that

          Everyone else I've spoken to who worked there around the time said that Kinnock cut out the abuse and unwarranted expenses, in fact many felt he went too far.

          Personally I never had much time for him but he does seem to have done a good job at getting things in the EU back under control.

          0 0 Reply
  3. Ross K Silver badge

    When will Vodafone will get their turn in the spotlight?

    1 1 Reply
  4. Velv
    Terminator

    GDP

    Given some of these global companies are larger than some countries, how long until one just buys a country and makes its own rules?

    0 0 Reply
  5. codejunky Silver badge

    Not good

    Actions like this will only make the EU seem hostile to business which is not what they can afford right now. These businesses set up on the agreement that the law was the law and that was it. Now that the Eurozone has boned itself incredibly there is a strong desire to steal money from those who earned it (as governments like to do) by retrospectively changing the laws.

    It is sick that big companies are vilified and then robbed because they followed the rules. And as always it will be the customers and workers who pay for EU greed

    5 6 Reply
    1. nematoad
      Reply Icon
      Stop

      Re: Not good

      "It is sick that big companies are vilified and then robbed ..."

      If it wasn't for the fact that these multi-national companies are freeloading by demanding a trained workforce, infrastructure, security and so on without being willing to pay their share of the cost of these things, then I don't think that the EU would bother going to all the expense of an investigation.

      Who's robbing who, eh?

      4 5 Reply
      1. codejunky Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Not good

        @ nematoad

        Interesting ignorance so I will bite.

        "If it wasn't for the fact that these multi-national companies are freeloading by demanding a trained workforce, infrastructure, security and so on without being willing to pay their share of the cost of these things, then I don't think that the EU would bother going to all the expense of an investigation.

        Who's robbing who, eh?"

        You generalise multi-national companies so I will do the same. You are a freeloader because you are a person and most people dont pay enough in tax to cover their demands for free- health, education, infrastructure, security etc. I said it is sick that companies are vilified and robbed, and your generalised assumption that few bad eggs = all are rotten shows the problem. I doubt you would like to be tarred under a generalised label as bad or freeloading?

        And it would appear that governments are considering robbing as they are looking to retrospectively change the law to take more money they promised they wouldnt take. Aka how about you get a tax bill above and beyond the law because otherwise you are a freeloader. I would love to see the look on your face as a gov considers robbing you.

        Fair is a lie. It is a fuzzy word with no meaning. Everyone interprets it differently which is why solid, factual and real rules are drawn up. To then change these rules because the gov's are suddenly short of cash is wrong.

        3 3 Reply
  6. Alan Denman

    Big company are now the worlds biggest shitters on us all

    Corps have become a recession creating machine sucking the lifeblood out of nearly everywhere they sell.

    The sooner they act the better.

    3 4 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like