歐洲不再是避稅天堂？

歐洲不再是避稅天堂？

外國跨國公司的避稅問題一直為人所詬病，但谷歌事件至少表明即使是財(cái)大氣粗的谷歌，也無法避免政治風(fēng)向的轉(zhuǎn)變。

測(cè)試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識(shí)：

paltry 微不足道的['p??ltr?; 'p?l-]

permanent establishment 常設(shè)機(jī)構(gòu)

parliamentary 議會(huì)的[,pɑ?l?'ment(?)r?]

assertion 聲明[?'s???(?)n]

multinational 跨國公司[m?lt?'n??(?)n(?)l]

barrister 大律師['b?r?st?]

duck 閃避，鴨子[d?k]

閱讀即將開始，建議您計(jì)算一下閱讀整篇文章所用時(shí)間，并對(duì)照我們?cè)谖恼伦詈蠼o出的參考值來估算您的閱讀速度。

The UK tax authority must apply some muscle towards Google （432words）

By Delphine Strauss

* * *

Google’s deal to settle its UK tax affairs with a paltry ￡130m payment leaves plenty of unanswered questions. The central issue, though, is whether Google should be forced to concede that it has a taxable presence, or “permanent establishment”, in Britain, making it liable to corporation tax on profits from its UK sales.

Until now, Google has avoided paying UK corporation tax because it argues that sales of advertising space to UK clients take place in Ireland. It classes its UK operation as a branch office, books the sales in Ireland and channels the profits to Bermuda.

HM Revenue & Customs appears to be leaving this structure essentially intact, although the OECD has recommended changes to the definition of “permanent establishment”, so that it would apply to operations that play “a principal role” in the negotiation of contracts, rather than simply to those that conclude contracts.

The OECD proposals, approved by G20 leaders in November, do not yet have legal force and the US, in particular, will not apply them. They are however an indication of the way policy is evolving at international level.

As far back as 2013, Google’s assertion that none of its UK-based staff was engaged in sales earned it the derision of a parliamentary committee, which pointed to the sales targets and sales-related bonuses of employees dealing with the company’s biggest UK clients. About 700 UK employees were working at the time in marketing and digital consultancy: many were recruited for their sales skills and were able to negotiate prices and agree sales, even when the final billing took place in Ireland.

The committee said HMRC had not done enough to challenge the “manifestly artificial” tax arrangements of multinationals, noting that it had never tested an internet-based company on permanent establishment in the courts.

Jolyon Maugham, a tax barrister, says there are “a lot of data points that would lead you to the conclusion that Google does operate a permanent establishment in the UK”.

Other countries, including France and Italy, have taken a much tougher approach to similar tax avoidance structures, with Paris reportedly seeking up to €1bn from Google even though its French business is much smaller than its London operation.

HMRC appears to be ducking the fight. But if it gives up on Google, it will struggle to reach a better settlement with other fast-growing companies — Uber or Airbnb, for example — that are attracting the attention of tax authorities elsewhere.

If ministers hoped to defuse public anger over the apparent ease with which big multinationals can minimise their tax bills, they will have to think again.

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

1. Where did the Google’s sales of advertising space to UK clients take place?

a. Irak

b. Bermuda

c. Ireland

d. London

2. Who approved the OECD to solve the tax problem in November?

a. HMRC

b. American Government

c. G20 leaders

d. WTO

3. How many UK-based staff were engaged in sales as Google said in 2013?

a. 700

b. 0

c. 130

d. 20

3. Which one will possibly be the next target about tax arrangements?

a. Baidu

b. Google

c. Youku

d. Uber

[1] 答案c. Ireland

解釋：即使身處英國的客戶，若想向谷歌投放廣告，也得與愛爾蘭的公司聯(lián)絡(luò)。

[2] 答案c. G20 leaders

解釋：11月經(jīng)合組織建議，組織跨國大型企業(yè)理由復(fù)雜但是合法的漏洞達(dá)到避稅的目的。

[3] 答案b. 0

解釋: 早在2013年,谷歌的斷言沒有英國員工從事銷售,但是實(shí)際上并非如此。

[4] 答案d. Uber

解釋：這些發(fā)展迅速的大型跨國企業(yè)總是更容易吸引各地稅收機(jī)構(gòu)的關(guān)注。