Here’s a very useful example of what’s wrong with much of the shouting about economics, tax and the world over to the left of us. Richard Murphy is a campaigner on tax matters. He was also the inventor, for which read collator of bad ideas, of Corbynomics. He has, for example, popularised the idea of the Tax Gap, an estimation of the amount of tax that should be paid as against that tax which is paid. His tax that should be paid being a listing of what he thinks should be paid in tax, not what the law or Parliament or the government or even HMRC thinks should be paid in tax.
You know, a phantasm with no basis in reality.
A useful guide to how this all works being this from him in The Guardian today. He’s managed to entirely misunderstand the most basic points about Amazon’s tax position. Entirely and completely doolally in fact. No wonder the paper isn’t allowing comments on the piece:
There has been much anguish expressed about the latest Amazon accounts for its UK operating company. This is unsurprising. Those accounts suggest that Amazon has increased its UK activity from £1.45bn of sales in 2016 to £1.99bn of sales in 2017, with its profits increasing threefold from £24m to £72m. Yet its overall apparent tax charge was still a minuscule £1.7m.
However, all is not as it seems. Once the tax effect of payments made to staff using share option schemes is taken out of account, this company looks as if it paid £4.7m in tax in 2017, compared with £3.7m the year before. That’s actual cash paid, and it suggests a tax rate of approximately 6.4% in 2017 compared with 15.5% in 2016. Given that the expected tax rate for the 2017 accounts was 19.25%, Amazon appeared to pay only a third of what might have been due.
Amazon explains the fuss by referring to the effect of those share payments. But that’s a sideshow, in my opinion.
It’s not a side show it’s the very essence and point.
To make it clear to the Senior Lecturer at Islington Technical College. Paying the workers is a cost of being in business. The way we tax companies is upon profit. That is, revenues minus costs. So, we take the costs of paying the staff off revenues before we have a profit figure which we then tax.
So, this gets ever such a little bit more complicated when we see someone paying staff in equity, with share options of share awards. Because we get to a profit figure and then, before we declare that to be the profit to be righteously taxed, we take the costs of those share awards off. This is something that an accountant should know, it’s most certainly something that we’d expect an FCA to know.
Which this particular accountant, FCA even, doesn’t appear to know. For he’s arguing that £4.7 million was paid in tax on profits of £72 million – 6.4%. But the £72 million isn’t taxable profits, that’s the profit before we take off the cost of paying the staff. When we do take off the costs of paying the staff then, as we’ve noted before:
The lower payment to the UK taxman comes despite an increase in operating profit at the tech behemoth. Amazon’s UK operating profit grew to £79m up from around £26m the previous year.
Operating profit, see? The way we do this being that operating profit is before the costs of paying the staff with equity.
The tax payment was adjusted down by £17.5m because of share-based awards, which have grown significantly along with increases to Amazon’s market value. That would have left the US group paying no tax in the year
Those costs of paying the staff being so large that there was no taxable profit. Then we get to the other adjustments which led to that minimal payment.
So, here’s what we’ve got. The expert called in by a national newspaper to explain Amazon’s tax bill to everyone manages to get it all entirely, absolutely and wholly wrong. He’s comparing the tax bill to the operating profit. Rather than what it should be compared to, the taxable profit. In this case the difference between operating and taxable profit being largely the cost of paying the staff with share options.
Now do you understand why Corbynomics is such a mess? Why the arguments about the tax gap are so nonsensical?
Quite, the accountant presenting such plans can’t even manage to work out a corporation tax bill, can he? And The Guardian employs him yet to explain it to us.