The final sentence then admits the indicator will be at inaccurate. So how big is that and why try to use this artificial benchmark? Is it not like using the policy gap to redefine and remeasure the tax gap.
-
-
Replying to @iaincampbell07 @DanNeidle and
OK so I tried the indicator calculation out on Pearson (since they publish CBCR)pic.twitter.com/BHT6A0yYzI
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MForstater @iaincampbell07 and
Here is the result. A billion of IFF/profit shifting out of the US (in order to increase its loss there?!?) into mainly UK & China https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J6a_fYcthaaD5MKtfyV971-foP1aVI3TcmDAy1KalNk/edit?usp=sharing … Not sure this makes any sense ( or sits with illicit arms sales, stolen assets & organised crime?)pic.twitter.com/iD1OsKHvxo
3 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @MForstater @iaincampbell07 and
That report you are using does actually beg a lot of questions, even though you are using a very anomalous year to say the least. Their statutory profit differs from their adjusted operating profit due to 2.7bn worth of intangible charges?pic.twitter.com/3kvpSZrD5E
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @georgenturner @MForstater and
So we have a company which makes a loss of over 2bn, but their management accounts show an operating profit of 600m because more than 50% of the revenue is paid out in 'intangible charges' and your response to this is - move along nothing to see here?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @georgenturner @MForstater and
This is from the latest Pearson annual report. Basically the entire $2.5bn hit on intangibles was due to write downs on goodwill in North America. This is an entirely paper transaction that would have severely impacted the statutory profit in the USA.pic.twitter.com/xlbkpEYA29
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @georgenturner @MForstater and
And isn't this precisely the point - the management of Pearson exclude these transactions from their investment decisions and business analysis, because in their own words they do not reflect current performance.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @georgenturner @MForstater and
It seems to me that if you wanted an example showing the importance of measures of real economic activity - this is it.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @georgenturner @MForstater and
And yet...the write down of acquisition goodwill is not optional under accounting standards, and is almost certainly not tax deductible. So yes it’s complex (and you may disagree with the accounting standard) but does it indicate avoidance? No, IMO.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @hselftax @MForstater and
The interesting thing is that
@MForstater has picked just one year from the Pearson report. If you went back just one year you would see much bigger tax payments in the US. Something strange happened in the US in 2016. If I was a US journalist I would be interested in diggingpic.twitter.com/bcJNuaIsTe
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
George. I used the only year for which data was available for the proposed IFF SDG indicator (which doesn't look at tax payment but profits, sales, staff). I wasn't trying to do something tricksy, just seeing how what it looks like w real life numbers. Because that matters
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.