金融時(shí)報(bào):不要急于對(duì)谷歌發(fā)氣

所屬教程:金融時(shí)報(bào)原文閱讀

瀏覽:

2021年10月13日

手機(jī)版

掃描二維碼方便學(xué)習(xí)和分享

不要急于對(duì)谷歌發(fā)氣

對(duì)于谷歌近期麻煩纏身的稅務(wù)問題，有觀點(diǎn)稱不要先急于遷怒于這家美國(guó)公司，而應(yīng)做出更多努力，以確?？鐕?guó)公司支付正確的公司稅務(wù)。

測(cè)試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識(shí)：

spat口角，挑釁[spæt]

tactics策略['tækt?ks]

jurisdiction司法權(quán)，審判權(quán)

jurisdiction marginal臨界的['mɑ?d??n(?)l]

haughty傲慢的['h??t?]

wholesale批發(fā)的['h??lse?l]

offshore離岸的['?f???; ?f'???]

prone有…傾向的[pr??n]

upheaval劇變[?p'hi?v(?)l]

exchequer財(cái)源，國(guó)庫(kù)[?ks't?ek?; eks]

Don't get mad at Google — get even （732words）

By Jonathan Ford

Whenever Google gets into a spot of bother about how much tax it pays, the US search company comes up with the same response. We cough up what we're required to by law, it says. You want more? Well, you're a democracy; pass some legislation.

The company's chairman Eric Schmidt made just this point three years ago during one of Google's periodic spats about the paltry sums it pays to Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs. “I am rather puzzled by this debate which has been going on in the UK for some time because I view taxes as not optional,” he said.

Google wasn't going to pay tax voluntarily just to appease an aggrieved British public, Mr Schmidt observed. It would pay what its lawyers told it to, and not a penny more.

British governments have tried tweaking the rules to curb the tactics Google and other US tech companies use to reduce their tax liabilities. For instance, the Diverted Profits Tax (or “Google tax”) was introduced to frustrate some of the tricks that annoy the public, notably the shifting of profits offshore through questionable inter-group charges to jurisdictions that attract lower rates of tax.

But it hasn't worked. In spite of the new rules, Google still successfully maintains that all but a sliver of the value that goes to achieving its UK sales arises somewhere else. When the company recently settled with HMRC over its past and future liabilities, the Google tax apparently wasn't even invoked.

And because reforming corporation tax is so difficult, requiring wholesale international agreement, that pretty much exhausts politicians' ammunition when it comes to legal combat. Their only recourse is to cut rates to make avoidance more marginal, while pleading with haughty multinationals for a few more crumbs from the groaning board.

There is, however, one simple measure that might allow the UK to do more than get mad at Google — and actually get even. It wouldn't require a wholesale revision of the existing system. It involves reviving (in a reformed guise) a levy abolished in 1999: Advance Corporation Tax (ACT).

Introduced in 1973 primarily to reform the taxation of dividends, this also addressed a similar problem: high rates of corporation tax had encouraged multinationals — perfectly legally — to shift profits overseas by shuffling activities overseas. It was paid at the rate of 30 per cent on dividends, and could only be offset against corporation tax. Shift too much profit offshore and you either had to cut your dividend or see your rate of tax go up.

The new Advance Corporation Sales Tax (ACST) would be based on a similar principle. Set at a percentage of a company's UK sales, the levy would be offset against its corporation tax payments. ACST could be set at varying levels for different sectors, based on their profitability, and targeted at those — such as web services and retail — that are prone to abuse.

Just as with the original, the beauty would be that ordinary UK taxpaying companies would be unaffected. Only those that shunted profits abroad would be hit.

To see how it would work, take a company like Google, with £4.3bn of UK sales in 2014. Apply ACST at the rate of, say, 4 per cent and it would have to pay £173m. Now if Google declared profits in Britain in line with its 26 per cent global margin, that would give it £1.1bn on which it would pay corporation tax of roughly £220m — more than enough to offset the ACST it had already paid. But if it continued to do what it currently does, squirrelling away profits overseas and stumping up just £30m of corporation tax, £143m of that ACST bill would be unrelieved.

Importantly, the tax-take would be raised without undue upheaval. There would be nothing to stop Google, Amazon or Facebook continuing to arrange their affairs however they liked, so long as they paid the ACST. But the new tax would stop the crazy state of affairs whereby the exchequer in effect subsidises their R&D and pricing strategies — the very mechanisms by which they are pushing their onshore UK competitors steadily to the wall.

There would be wrinkles of course. A low-profit or lossmaking business would need to be able to recover the ACST against a legitimate UK profit and loss account. There would be legal challenges — although the system isn't obviously discriminatory and the old ACT regime was compatible with the Treaty of Rome.

But, anyway, that shouldn't deter politicians from exploring the remedy. Those who play by the rules deserve a level field to play on. Mr Schmidt is right: shaming cannot be the main basis for tax policy. If the UK wants to collect more, it should stop pleading and find a law that works.

請(qǐng)根據(jù)你所讀到的文章內(nèi)容，完成以下自測(cè)題目：

1.What is the main reason made Google pay tax to US as Mr Schmidt said?

A.to appease an aggrieved British public

B.employee protest

C.professional ethics

D.lawyers told

答案(1)

2.What is the “Google tax” meaning?

A.collective welfare

B.diverted profits tax

C.collective welfare

D.vehicle purchase tax