Google pays $55 million tax in Britain on 2012 sales of $5 billion

LONDON Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:02pm BST

A Google logo is seen at the garage where the company was founded on Google's 15th anniversary in Menlo Park, California September 26, 2013. REUTERS/Stephen Lam

A Google logo is seen at the garage where the company was founded on Google's 15th anniversary in Menlo Park, California September 26, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Stephen Lam

Quotes

   

LONDON (Reuters) - Google, which has been grilled twice in the past year by a UK parliamentary committee over its tax practices, had a UK tax bill of 35 million pounds ($55 million) in 2012, on sales of $4.9 billion to British customers, its accounts showed.

The Internet search giant paid a tax rate of 2.6 percent on $8.1 billion in non-U.S. income in 2012, because it channelled almost all of its overseas profits to a subsidiary in Bermuda which levies no corporate income tax, the group's accounts show.

Corporate tax avoidance has risen to the top of the international agenda in the past year with the G20 and G8 groups of leading economies promising to get to grips with the growing practice of companies diverting profits from where they are earned and into tax havens.

Google said it follows all tax rules in every country where it operates and that it does not pay much tax in Britain because its profits are not generated by its UK employees.

Google UK Ltd, and other subsidiaries across mainland Europe, pay little tax because they are designated as providers of marketing services to Google Ireland Ltd, the Dublin-based subsidiary whose name appears on invoices to most non-U.S. clients.

Google declares little profit in Ireland because the unit there sends almost all of the profit earned from the non-U.S. clients to the Bermudan affiliate, in the form of licence fees for the use of Google intellectual property.

The parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) grilled Google's Northern Europe boss, Matt Brittin, in May after a Reuters investigation showed the company had advertised dozens of jobs for salespeople, despite Brittin telling the committee last year that the company does not pay tax on its UK revenues because it does not conduct sales from British territory.

A PAC report later accused of Google of using "contrived" mechanisms to avoid tax and called on the government to change the rules on taxing multinational companies.

Google's Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said attempts to force technology companies to pay more tax could stymie innovation.

Google's UK tax charge on 2012 income was only 11.6 million pounds, with 24 million being payable in relation to employee share based remuneration.

(The story has been filed again to correct sales to UK customers to $4.9 billion, not $5.5 billion, in the first paragraph.)

(Editing by Louise Ireland)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
Stu255 wrote:
Rumour has it that HMRC are looking at a retrospective tax grab in next years budget with the intention of reaching back 6 years for companies who are deemed to have taken extraordinary lengths to intentionally undermine the Exchequer.

Osborne investigating the legality of the move.

Anyone else hearing this?

Sep 30, 2013 4:25pm BST  --  Report as abuse
Raymond.Vermont wrote:
Without doubt, the crack of the windfall tax whip, is going to hit many a unsuspecting giant (in a retrospective manner) upon calaculations of sales activity, which has been cyberspaced away from the point of purchasing origins to cyberhavens of indirect connectivity to the transactions activity.

Govts are going to milk billions at some point in time.

Sep 30, 2013 4:47pm BST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.