Quite a lot of people say yes. But they don't. After all, they have the ability to pretend their profits are magically somewhere else, and they can afford to buy politicians and mass media to try to sway public opinion. They even threaten to flee the world and take our money with them.
Interestingly, the US government is having a go (this is quite long, if you lack energy, try the first paragraph, and the last one).
Remember that every pound not paid by a billionaire is a pound off our public services, or a pound the rest of us have to pay.
"A decade-long dispute between Coca-Cola and the US tax authorities has escalated to the point that the company could owe $16bn in back taxes, enough to wipe out a year and a half of profits, with the figure rising by more than $1bn a year.
The soft-drink maker has been hiding “astronomical levels” of profit in low-tax countries including Ireland to shield it from the US Internal Revenue Service, according to a withering court judgment, which the company is planning to appeal against later this year.
The mounting stakes have been visible only in the fine print of Coke’s regulatory filings in recent years, thanks to a quirk of accounting rules.
After the last in a four-year string of tax court decisions last week, Coke will shortly have to fork out an initial $6bn in cash to cover unpaid taxes and interest for the years 2007 to 2009. But neither that sum, nor the $10bn it could owe for the subsequent 15 years, will show up as a hit to its earnings any time soon.
As long as the Atlanta-based company and its longtime auditor EY agree that there is a better than 50-50 chance of Coke winning on appeal, payments do not have to be put through its profit and loss account.
If Coke has misjudged its chances of winning, a loss would not just wipe out the past year and half of net income; the IRS would be able to impose a higher US tax bill for years to come, adding 3.5 percentage points to a global tax rate that was 17.4 per cent last year, by the company’s estimate.
.The stakes are also high for the US government. The $16bn could cover the IRS budget for a year, and the stand-off with Coke is a test of the agency’s ability to pursue complicated cases at a time when it has promised to get tough on corporate tax avoidance."
FT.com
Interestingly, the US government is having a go (this is quite long, if you lack energy, try the first paragraph, and the last one).
Remember that every pound not paid by a billionaire is a pound off our public services, or a pound the rest of us have to pay.
"A decade-long dispute between Coca-Cola and the US tax authorities has escalated to the point that the company could owe $16bn in back taxes, enough to wipe out a year and a half of profits, with the figure rising by more than $1bn a year.
The soft-drink maker has been hiding “astronomical levels” of profit in low-tax countries including Ireland to shield it from the US Internal Revenue Service, according to a withering court judgment, which the company is planning to appeal against later this year.
The mounting stakes have been visible only in the fine print of Coke’s regulatory filings in recent years, thanks to a quirk of accounting rules.
After the last in a four-year string of tax court decisions last week, Coke will shortly have to fork out an initial $6bn in cash to cover unpaid taxes and interest for the years 2007 to 2009. But neither that sum, nor the $10bn it could owe for the subsequent 15 years, will show up as a hit to its earnings any time soon.
As long as the Atlanta-based company and its longtime auditor EY agree that there is a better than 50-50 chance of Coke winning on appeal, payments do not have to be put through its profit and loss account.
If Coke has misjudged its chances of winning, a loss would not just wipe out the past year and half of net income; the IRS would be able to impose a higher US tax bill for years to come, adding 3.5 percentage points to a global tax rate that was 17.4 per cent last year, by the company’s estimate.
.The stakes are also high for the US government. The $16bn could cover the IRS budget for a year, and the stand-off with Coke is a test of the agency’s ability to pursue complicated cases at a time when it has promised to get tough on corporate tax avoidance."
FT.com
