[Lynx-lynx]

[HarryT]If there is a "loophole" in the law, then the law needs to be changed, but I really don't think that you can blame anyone for minimising their tax bill by entirely legal methods. I strongly suspect that you don't voluntarily pay more tax than you're required to, do you? I pay an accountant to ensure that I pay the minimum amount of tax that the law requires. Every company does.

Company directors have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of their shareholders, and that is generally interpreted as meaning that they have to act to maximize profits. Directors who voluntarily paid more tax than they were obliged to, and by doing so reduced profits and hence shareholder dividends, could be personally liable to prosecution as a result. [/HarryT]

Harry our Gov't considers multi national tax avoidance to be a serious issue for Australia and to that end the Senate has instituted an inquiry. The Aus Gov't does not see the matter of tax avoidance as the mere minimisation of taxation dues, nor a matter that ordinary everyday accountants would be capable of dreaming up and successfully establishing and managing.


Harry and eschwartz, the G20 meeting in Brisbane last year discussed the issue of cross border tax evasion, here's an excerpt from an Article in The Conversation: http://theconversation.com/multinati...rackdown-23421

Spoiler:

The G20 finance ministers have once again agreed to cooperate to counter aggressive cross-border tax avoidance by multinationals.

Many US firms are using tax avoidance schemes for their non-US earnings while they shamelessly claim they are paying appropriate taxes in the source countries in which they operate.

The OECD responded to earlier requests for action from the G20 by initiating the “Base Erosion and Profit Shifting” (BEPS) project, and since then has published an action plan to address the issue. The aim of the OECD is to develop measures to counter aggressive tax avoidance in both member and non-member countries, and to limit the risk of double taxation.

When US multinationals assert that their entire non-US income is derived through the double Irish scheme (see explanation below), and is subjected to a very low rate of tax, the artificial and contrived nature of the arrangements is obvious. The OECD is making progress, but there does appear to be some unintended consequences for the OECD and national governments as they develop measures to counter tax avoidance.

Despite the extra scrutiny facing US multinationals since 2012, when Starbucks agreed to “voluntarily” pay company tax in the UK, tax avoidance activities appear not to have slowed.

Harry, here is an excerpt as to what the Aust Taxation Office (ATO) considers tax avoidance schemes are: https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Tax-p...dance-schemes/

Spoiler:

Each year a significant number of arrangements that are aggressive towards the tax system are promoted to taxpayers. These arrangements reduce total tax revenue in one of three ways: by reducing a participant's taxable income or increasing their deductions against their income (or both), or by avoiding tax entirely.

There are many different types of tax avoidance schemes, ranging from mass-marketed arrangements that you might see advertised to the public to boutique arrangements - specialist financial arrangements offered directly to experienced investors. Some are marketed to individuals, and may exploit people's social or environmental conscience and generosity. Others target self-managed super funds. (follow link for rest of discussion)

Double Irish Dutch sandwich anyone?