• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Hodge queries Uber’s UK tax position

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Hodge queries Uber’s UK tax position

    THE TAX AFFAIRS of mini-cab providers Uber have been called into question by Public Accounts Committee chairwoman Margaret Hodge.
    In a letter to London mayor Boris Johnson, Hodge raised concerns about the company's tax structure and called on the mayor to ensure that Transport for London (TfL), which regulates the taxi industry, "does not inadvertently allow tax avoidance in London".

    Uber's tax structure requires customers to use its app operated by a Dutch entity, in turn seeing it pay Dutch corporation tax instead of the UK levy, Hodge alleged.
    She also claimed TfL has failed to apply its regulations to Uber by not demanding it has a London-licensed base, which would oblige the company to pay UK corporation tax.
    "Surely TfL has a duty to enforce legislation that will ensure a fair and level playing field for all taxi and private hire operators?" she asked.
    "London taxi and private hire drivers are used to competition... However, it has been put to me that new entrants to the market, such as Uber, are competing unfairly by allegedly failing to comply with many of the regulations laid down by tax law," Hodge wrote.
    TfL has approved Uber to operate because it says the smartphones its drivers use are not attached to the vehicles and, as such, are not meters. It has, however, referred the issue to the High Court to give a final ruling on whether Uber violates the 1998 law governing taxis.
    The dispute over whether the model constitutes a meter has led to protests in London, Paris, Madrid and Berlin.
    Over the course of the dispute between drivers of black cabs and those using apps including Uber's, the Licensed Private Hire Car Association has maintained that channelling passengers' payments through Uber BV - a Netherlands-based entity - was a breach of regulations, although it has admitted the British company that dispatches the cars, Uber London, is licensed.
    A spokeswoman for Uber said: "Uber complies with all applicable tax laws, and pays taxes in all jurisdictions, such as corporate income tax, payroll tax, sales and use tax, and VAT. [A recent report from the Law Commission provides a number of recommendations for reform of the law in this area that may be debated by parliament at some future point in time.] Uber London Limited is a licensed PHV operator and recently passed with flying colours the largest inspection of records ever conducted by TfL. Passenger health and safety is paramount to Uber."
    I guess whining about HMRC being insufficiently thuggish with regard to MNCs and contractors is passé, for now.



    Link.

    #2
    what we noticed most large companies avoid UK tax?

    Margaret Hodge's family company pays just 0.01pc tax on £2.1bn of business generated in the UK - Telegraph


    maybe UBER hasn't got a spare directorship, that normally keeps MP's happy?
    Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

    Comment


      #3
      She had a brilliant response to that, stating it's got nothing to do with her (it's a family business, you see) and that she knows f-all about UK corporate tax law. I guess in the world of politics that makes you especially qualified to crusade on a topic.

      I just find this sudden focus on Uber very convenient.

      Comment


        #4
        She is parliament's hypocrite-in-chief

        Comment


          #5
          Actually I think this is just the start of the problems for our current big national government model; Uber is basically a pile of websites that could be hosted anywhere in the world, and it makes money through small margins enabling individuals to provide services to one another or to business outside of the traditional channels. It can base itself anywhere, doesn't need huge shiny offices, its employees, if it has much need for them, can theoretically work anywhere, although many will be contractors who could sit on a beach café in the Seychelles with a laptop, and it threatens established business models because it has a low cost base and is flexible.

          Governments are already struggling with the concept of a contractor, who sells his/her skills for the best possible rate to lots of different companies during his working life, so how are they to cope with commercial operations that assist individual initiative and cooperation? Here in NL, childcare companies are going bust because now that the economy isn't so rosy as it was, people are miraculously (re-)discovering that a few parents together in the same town can organize it for themselves. Of course, the established industry campaigns for (and too often gets) legislation that makes it difficult for new entries to the market, but that's what always happens.

          As with many things that the internet makes possible this is a bottom-up thing, and our current system is set up for top-down control.

          No, I don't know what to do about it, but opposing it seems futile.
          And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

          Comment

          Working...
          X