Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck United Kingdom Games

Grand Theft Auto Maker Has Paid No UK Corporation Tax in 10 Years (theguardian.com) 170

Posted by msmash from the all-the-money-in-the-world dept.
Rockstar North, the Edinburgh-based developer of Grand Theft Auto, has paid no corporation tax over the past 10 years, despite making billions in revenue for its parent company Take-Two Interactive, while claiming more than $52m in tax relief. From a report: A report from the investigative thinktank TaxWatch UK estimates Rockstar Games' operating profit at $5bn between 2013 and 2019, during which time the company released Grand Theft Auto V (GTA V) and Red Dead Redemption 2. Rockstar North is part of Rockstar Games. GTA V has sold more than 100m copies, making it one of the most profitable entertainment products of all time. It racked up $1.2bn in its first three days on sale in 2013. According to Take-Two earnings reports, GTA V's online component, GTA Online, has generated hundreds of millions in revenue. But the company paid no corporation tax between 2009 and 2018. It received $52m in tax credits from the government's video games tax relief scheme, which was set up in 2014 to bolster the UK's $6.1bn games industry, much of which is made up of small and medium-sized developers. The sum is equivalent to 19% of the total relief paid to the entire UK games industry since 2014, TaxWatch reports.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Grand Theft Auto Maker Has Paid No UK Corporation Tax in 10 Years More

Grand Theft Auto Maker Has Paid No UK Corporation Tax in 10 Years

Comments Filter:

  • Sure the company has paid no corporate tax, but it's not like the government has not seen a massive return on that credit - the workers all pay tax, they office buildings are taxed, the people who work also need to live in the area earring the government even more tax.

    Consider that the company had been based elsewhere, would the government have more or less money? The answer would be less.

    The tax credits seemed to have worked just as designed - so what the heck is the problem?

    • Re:Maybe not directly but... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 29, 2019 @04:21PM (#59007944)

      The problem, my fine flat-headed friend, is that you seem to be OK with the cost to be borne by the public, and the profit goes directly to the private.

      That's the "problem", you stooge.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by 110010001000 ( 697113 )

        I think he is saying that they pay plenty in tax - just not corporate tax. So no, the profits go to the "private" and the government.

        • Re: Maybe not directly but... (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Except that's not what he's saying at all, he's saying everyone else is, maybe, paying more taxes.

          Which isn't a fact, just his moronic opinion.

          Trickle-down faggots, the lot of you.

          • Trickle down economics works. That is why you have enough money to post your drivel on the Internet. If you were in some third-world country you would be dead by now.

    • Re:Maybe not directly but... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Monday July 29, 2019 @04:23PM (#59007970)

      so what the heck is the problem?

      Well I would say this.,,

      The tax credits seemed to have worked just as designed

      I hate that governments can't seem to be hands off on things. I get we will never have that, because if government A doesn't do it, then government B will. But yeah, this is government getting all handsie with private business.

      Okay so that out of the way, I would say that the tax credit was created for small and medium game devs, not multi-billion pounds earning companies. So there's a loophole somewhere that's letting them get away with it. But of course, my perspective is, government shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, but what'cha going to do? So I guess the solution here is to patch up whatever is letting them claim this credit, IDK?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by e3m4n ( 947977 )

        National sales taxes seem to be the only way to get around tax dodging. Everyone has to buy shit. Just throw sales tax on everything except first mortgage/rent up to a set amt, and no tax on groceries and non luxury clothing. Even stock investments should be subject to a sales tax since there would no longer be any tax shelter as there is no income tax. Then you wouldnt have to worry about corporate taxes. No passthru. If the corp is based in UK then the retailers still pay UK taxes for purchase. Same if it

        • Re: Maybe not directly but... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Sales tax/vat shifts the tax burden from those who make massive profts to those who work to make ends meet, amplifying inequality even more.

          They are the most unfair taxes possible.

        • National sales taxes seem to be the only way to get around tax dodging.

          It's certainly not the only way, tax dodging of this nature is mostly about shifting profits around so taxing revenue instead of profits is an option. France has recently proposed a law which would do this.

          Another option is taxation based on worldwide profits, rather than merely local profits. The United States ostensibly does this, but the way it's organized those taxes are only assessed when the money is repatriated. So companies just refuse to repatriate that money and they never have to pay.

          Anothe

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by e3m4n ( 947977 )

            you think rich people dont buy shit? like 60million dollar homes and 30million dollar yachts? $200 bottles of alcohol? They dote upon themselves lavishly. Someone has brainwashed you into thinking national sales tax is letting rich off easy. If I pay 10% tax for my $400 car lease thats $40. Whereas if someone is paying a loan on their 30 million dollar yacht, even a 0% interest loan is $83K every month. So their 10% would be $8000/mo. So who has the burden? Me at $40 or him at $8000?

            • A regressive tax doesn't mean that rich people don't pay anything, it just means that they pay proportionally less. If you think that people buying 60 million dollar homes will have the same sales tax burden as you do with your plebeian home, then you don't realize just how rich some people are.

              That's not weird, it's very difficult to wrap you head around numbers that large, but visualizations can sometimes help. Here, a quick search turned up this [accuratetax.com], and also this comparison [howmuch.net] of states by how regressive th

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by e3m4n ( 947977 )

                thats very misleading in the article. If we followed that logic to its end then you should be paying $1000/mo for your 100mbps internet because thats how much it costs at the carrier level. Savings on your services are realized from oversubscribing in addition to razor thin margins that eventually pay off when in large volumes. This is constantly referred to as Economies of Scale. Your analogy that rich people pay a lower percentage from sales tax implies they are paying more tax. The reality is the are not

                • All right, some of the arguments that you're making here are just not necessary. So let's get a few undisputed things out the way first:

                  1. Any individual poor person probably pays less than any individual rich person in sales tax, measured in dollar value.

                  2. Any individual poor person probably pays more than any individual rich person in sales tax, measured in percentage of income or total wealth.

                  3. A regressive tax is one where poorer people pay more than richer people as measured by percentage of

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by e3m4n ( 947977 )

                    but taxes based on income have historically been cheated and loop-holed the fuck out of them. If you have a problem with a sales tax exemption based purely on a dollar amount you should clearly have a problem with an income tax that can be adjusted based on itemized deductions. If there ever was a system that is unfair to the poorer classes of people, its our tax code based on income. The wealthiest have the largest access to tax shelters and exemptions so that their net contribution is less than 10% of the

                    • If you have a problem with a sales tax exemption based purely on a dollar amount you should clearly have a problem with an income tax that can be adjusted based on itemized deductions

                      This does not follow. One of the big issues with exemptions is that sales taxes apply to everything, and so a decision has to be made on every single item that gets sold, and that results in some of the negatives that I gave above. Deductions are exceptions, they're not universal, so they can be made to apply to just one thing when that's needed. This does not mean that I think all deductions are fine, but it does mean that I think some deductions can be fine.

                      I appreciate that you're bringing this back t

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by e3m4n ( 947977 )

                      I think you're confusing the existing sales taxes, something state run, to a national sales tax, which would be an entirely new thing, in addition to state taxes. It would replace income tax. Sure when you bought something the amount you paid in taxes would be higher than right now, but thats offset by the fact that without income tax, your paycheck would be about 15% higher. State Sales tax exemptions vary by state. When I was stationed in Massachusetts in 1990, they did not charge sales tax on clothing or

                    • Describing how your proposed sales tax system would work doesn't really allay any of my concerns. You're giving this idea as a solution to corruption, and say, "Only those who qualify as a 501(c)3 non-profit status would be allowed to purchase without national sales tax, and those organizations would be subject to strict auditing to ensure said purchases are not being used, mis-used, or enjoyed by employees for personal use." and... Okay, that's a nice goal, but why on earth would you think that would actua

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Kaetemi ( 928767 )

        In practice, in various places, tax credits only apply to large game developers. They're the one who lobby for it, and the fine print only makes them qualify. Smaller game developers are effectively paying tax subsidies to large developers.

    • Sure the company has paid no corporate tax, but it's not like the government has not seen a massive return on that credit - the workers all pay tax, they office buildings are taxed, the people who work also need to live in the area earring the government even more tax.

      Consider that the company had been based elsewhere, would the government have more or less money? The answer would be less.

      The tax credits seemed to have worked just as designed - so what the heck is the problem?

      The problem is that the greedy bastards didn't pay any tax.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by 110010001000 ( 697113 )

        Yes they did. Just not that particular tax. There are many different types of taxes. Even individuals pay around 8 different taxes regularly.

        • Re: Maybe not directly but... (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Talking about corp income tax on profits.

          • They didn't have any income tax on corporate profits. Not sure what you guys are crying about. They paid what they owed: $0. Should they pay more? Probably.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Freischutz ( 4776131 )

          Yes they did. Just not that particular tax. There are many different types of taxes. Even individuals pay around 8 different taxes regularly.

          Like any other company based in the UK these bozos are supposed to pay corporation tax on their profits and they can bloody well pay it. If you (or they) think that's unfair you can cry me a river.

          • Re:Maybe not directly but... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Monday July 29, 2019 @05:27PM (#59008438)

            So did they commit tax fraud? If so, fine and jail the CxOs. If not they weren't "supposed" to pay it.

          • Re:Maybe not directly but... (Score:4, Informative)

            by tinkerton ( 199273 ) on Monday July 29, 2019 @06:08PM (#59008742)

            There are corporations in the UK that pay taxes? The UK practically invented the offshore tax haven constructions when the empire crumbled. All deniable of course.

            • There are corporations in the UK that pay taxes? The UK practically invented the offshore tax haven constructions when the empire crumbled. All deniable of course.

              No, I'm afraid not. The honour of inventing modern money laundering falls to the United States during prohibition. Money laundering in more primitive forms is almost as old as money.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by sfcat ( 872532 )

                There are corporations in the UK that pay taxes? The UK practically invented the offshore tax haven constructions when the empire crumbled. All deniable of course.

                No, I'm afraid not. The honour of inventing modern money laundering falls to the United States during prohibition. Money laundering in more primitive forms is almost as old as money.

                Clearly you don't know about the City of London [wikipedia.org]. You are right that NY took over as the major money laundering center from "the city" in the 90s but they are still the two major centers of money laundering. The little places (Isle of Man, Grand Caymans, etc) have a role to play but these schemes are planned in the major centres. To put the scope of this problem in context, African dictators have laundered $900B while the actual countries of Africa today own a combined $150B in debt! That's right, Africa

                • There are corporations in the UK that pay taxes? The UK practically invented the offshore tax haven constructions when the empire crumbled. All deniable of course.

                  No, I'm afraid not. The honour of inventing modern money laundering falls to the United States during prohibition. Money laundering in more primitive forms is almost as old as money.

                  Clearly you don't know about the City of London [wikipedia.org]. You are right that NY took over as the major money laundering center from "the city" in the 90s but they are still the two major centers of money laundering. The little places (Isle of Man, Grand Caymans, etc) have a role to play but these schemes are planned in the major centres. To put the scope of this problem in context, African dictators have laundered $900B while the actual countries of Africa today own a combined $150B in debt! That's right, Africa would be $750B in the black without money laundering. Crazy huh...

                  Clearly you do not know what Prohibition was, it happened back in the 1930s.

          • Well actually, you are the one crying about it, not me. Are you saying they didn't pay the tax they were "supposed" to pay? Or just what YOU think they should "supposed" to pay? Guess what, you don't make the rules. Don't cry me a river.

            • Well actually, you are the one crying about it, not me. Are you saying they didn't pay the tax they were "supposed" to pay? Or just what YOU think they should "supposed" to pay? Guess what, you don't make the rules. Don't cry me a river.

              You seem to honestly think that you don't have to pay taxes because everybody else does. That'a not how it works, you have to pay to play. Now if you have set up a cosy relationship with corrupt politicians by means of which you have gotten yourself a deal that requires you to pay no taxes, then congratulations, you are good at corruption. That does not mean that you are entitled to pay no taxes it just means that you are a corrupt parasite.

      • The problem is that the greedy bastards didn't pay any tax.

        And that the pandering bastards created the tax credit in the first place.

        When are voters going to learn these sorts of credits never have the expected benefits and are always snatched up by the greedy, highly-motivated, lawyered-up bastards?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by vux984 ( 928602 )

      "The tax credits seemed to have worked just as designed - so what the heck is the problem?"

      Primarily, that you've given zero evidence.
      How do you know the benefits exceeded the credit?

      Why isn't every small business eligible for the same breaks? Why does the local grocery store/ family restaruant/ hair salon / bait shop / taxes? The workers all pay tax, the building is taxed, the people who work also need to live in the area.

      If giving a tax credit automatically means the government has more money at the end

      • How do you know the benefits exceeded the credit?

        Because even if one just one person is employed by the U.K., that employment tax income exceeds the "cost" of a credit - remember a credit is generally not the government giving a company money, it's the government telling specific companies they will not be taking money in some form.

        From what I can tell in this case that simply means the government has opted not to take any corporate tax from the company, so instead as I said they get only the indirect taxes

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by vux984 ( 928602 )

          remember a credit is generally not the government giving a company money, it's the government telling specific companies they will not be taking money in some form.

          I know what tax credit is.

          Because even if one just one person is employed by the U.K., that employment tax income exceeds the "cost" of a credit

          Far from true. If I agree not to take 56 million from a company, and in exchange it means 2000 more people live and work in the city each paying taxes. That business and those 2000 people need government services, roads, garbage dumps, water treatment, safety inspections, healthcare, workers compensation, regulatory enforcement, policing, sewage, fire service. Now you can quibble and a lot of the details depend on which level of government provided the breaks vs which level of gove

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LordWabbit2 ( 2440804 )
      So you are fine with ordinary people paying their tax, as well as all the other taxes they pay, but Rockstar doesn't have to? How the fuck does that work? Your argument is that they are paying taxes through their workers and their buildings, but the workers themselves are paying tax, NOT ROCKSTAR! Just beccause Rockstar employs people doesn't mean it's paying taxes. I am so sick and tired of multi billion dollar companies not paying their fucking taxes, but they use the same infrastructure that needs to

      • I agree. However, it's worth pointing out that the only certainties in life are Death and Taxes. Corporations don't die, so why should they pay taxes? ;)

    • The point of corporate taxes is so that the well to do can't hide money in corporations and leave the working class stiffs on the hook for roads/schools/clean water, etc.

      And yes, the government does have less money. The gov't has to run the schools those employees went to, the military that keeps them from getting their stuff taken by a hostile foreign power, the police that keep people from breaking in and taking all the computers (and keep white collar criminals from hacking into their bank accounts),

  • Doesn't Matter (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DatbeDank ( 4580343 ) on Monday July 29, 2019 @04:16PM (#59007916)

    Businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to their owners utilize the tax code to their maximum benefit.

    Instead of b!tching about how businesses are using the tax code to their benefit, why not lobby HMRC and the idiots in parliament to stop putting loop holes into their tax code?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Quick question, how are we supposed to convince politicians to stop the tax code bullhshit without examples of corporate behavior?

      Just shoot the fuxkers in the head and steal their cars?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by sexconker ( 1179573 )

        Quick question, how are we supposed to convince politicians to stop the tax code bullhshit without examples of corporate behavior?

        Just shoot the fuxkers in the head and steal their cars?

        That would probably work.

    • In a bidding war with corporations, the voters always seem to lose. Corporations always say "you got yours from the workers", like that makes up for the fact that 1/2 the tax revenue used to come from corporations but now doesn't.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by vux984 ( 928602 )

      Isn't that exactly what this is? Building public awareness and discontent is the first step.

      • If this was that, then it wouldnt be about a single company, and the public is well aware.

        So aware that this is predictable. Someone is looking for larger donations from this company. Its a shake-down and the bad guy isnt the corporation.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by vux984 ( 928602 )

          "If this was that, then it wouldnt be about a single company, and the public is well aware."

          I wasn't aware about this specific instance. Sure the Public is generically aware "its a problem", but it takes a stream of specific instances to get them riled up and to keep them there. To turn it from a story into eventually wider unrest, protests, an election issue, and actual eventual change.

          "Someone is looking for larger donations from this company. Its a shake-down and the bad guy isnt the corporation."

          It's pr

        • Who do you think is doing a shakedown? I'd be genuinely interested to know because I can't work that out.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geek ( 5680 )

      Businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to their owners utilize the tax code to their maximum benefit.

      Instead of b!tching about how businesses are using the tax code to their benefit, why not lobby HMRC and the idiots in parliament to stop putting loop holes into their tax code?

      True. Don't like it, change the laws, elect better legislators etc.

      The argument itself always baffled me though. Companies don't actually pay taxes. They will bake them into the products and services you buy. In effect, you the consumer pay those taxes. Why anyone would want to tax companies is absolutely mind boggling to me. You just raise the cost of goods and services on yourself. Then you have to pay the sales tax on top of that. Crazy.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dryeo ( 100693 )

        So, are you suggesting taxing the employees more so the company has to pay them more and raise their prices to cover the employees higher tax burden? Or perhaps don't tax anyone and the company will have way more expenses, from a private police force to having to create roads and housing for their employees and raise there prices to cover those expenses?
        One thing about corporate taxes is the company has choices like paying their employees more so they can write off more and reinvest in other ways so they ca

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lennie ( 16154 )

      "Businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to their owners utilize the tax code to their maximum benefit."

      It's a myth, it's not true, please do show us where it says doing moral things isn't allowed

      • "Businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to their owners utilize the tax code to their maximum benefit."

        It's a myth, it's not true, please do show us where it says doing moral things isn't allowed

        Spoken like a non-business owner.

        The less tax given to opaque entities like the government the better and especially if it starves the unfunded liabilities like welfare.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      Businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to their owners utilize the tax code to their maximum benefit.

      No they don't. That's incorrect. It's a view widely help by some people, but incorrect.

      https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.e... [bc.edu]

      "The fiduciary duties owed to the corporation and its stockholders permit, but do not require, that corporate management pursue tax avoidance strategies. As held in the classic case of Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., for-profit corporations must be run to produce a profit.68 Although some have taken issue with this holding, the fiduciary duties that management owes to the corporation and its stockholders support what might appropriately be termed the “Dodge mandate.” This mandate suggests that corporate management may engage in tax avoidance strategies, although how aggressive these tax avoidance strategies must be is open to debate."

      What does it come down to? ... to the fact that courts go to great lengths to avoid second-guessing the decisions of the business:

      "The business judgment rule, also commonly referred to as the business judgment presumption, is the presumption that corporate directors are informed and act in a good faith manner designed to promote the best interests of the corporation. The rule allows directors a considerable amount of discretion in managing the corporation, and it reflects courts’ aversion to second-guessing corporate management in making business decisions. Courts are willing to show deference in this context because of their assumed limited expertise in business matters and because business decisions often involve complex decision making without clear correct answers. The business judgment rule creates a strong presumption in favor of the directors that is difficult to overcome for purposes of establishing liability."

      It's called the "business judgment rule"...

      "Shlensky demonstrates the power of the business judgment rule; without a breach of fiduciary duty, courts will not interfere with the business decisions of corporate managers even if they are foolish or ill-conceived. Even in the event that a potential breach of fiduciary duty is shown, corporate managers can still escape liability by showing the entire fairness, also sometimes termed the “intrinsic fairness,” of a transaction. Courts analyze entire fairness as both fairness in terms of price and fairness in terms of the dealings surrounding the transaction. As a result, while the Dodge mandate appears strong, the business judgment rule and the entire fairness analysis significantly reduce the force of this mandate. The business judgment rule plays a large role in determining when tax avoidance is required."

      How does it apply to utilizing the tax code to a business' benefit? Like this:

      "If presented with an opportunity to strip earnings using high royalties and intercompany loans in order to claim an artificially low corporate tax
      rate, many would believe that the Dodge mandate requires them to seize that opportunity. The business judgment rule, however, permits corporate managers to decline to engage in such behavior based upon the potential consequences. One could reasonably conclude that, if highly aggressive tax avoidance techniques are reported widely in the press, consumers may become outraged and protest and boycott, as they did with Starbucks. As a result, although the Dodge mandate might appear to suggest that Starbucks’ actions were required, the business judgment rule gives corporate managers much wider latitude in making tax avoidance decisions, as long as their decisions are motivated by a business purpose."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Not in the UK they don't. For-profit companies can be run on ethical guidelines that mean paying all their taxes. It's up to investors if they want to get involved with that.

      Sometimes shareholders lobby against these policies. Sometimes they lobby for them. Usually the bosses are careful to avoid giving the shareholders too much power.

  • Better the money stay in the hands of objectively productive people, rather than be transferred to paper-pushing, know-nothing bureaucrats who merely decree their income at the point of a gun.

    Taxation is theft.

  • Bad Reporting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday July 29, 2019 @04:42PM (#59008112) Journal

    Don't tell me how much tax they avoided according to what some watchdog THINKS they should have paid.

    If they followed the rules and didn't break any laws, then the headline should be "Stupid Legislators write tax code that allows (amount) of tax revenue to go elsewhere."

    If you think they "should" have paid more in UK tax based on some moral standpoint, how much extra tax did YOU pay that you didn't need to?

    • they laws are written to provide lip service to taxing the wealthy without actually doing it. That's the point trying to be made here.

      I don't get to spend a few million a year lobbying for loopholes to save tens of millions. I can't even, say, spend $5k to do that. I actually read an article not too long ago about a millionaire complaining about how they were upset they couldn't buy off politicians anymore because the billionaires were outbidding them.

    • If they followed the rules and didn't break any laws, then the headline should be "Stupid Legislators write tax code that allows (amount) of tax revenue to go elsewhere."

      It's not that the legislators are stupid. Tax law is hard, and a lot of this loophole stuff is because these multi-billion dollar companies have really good lawyers and accountants to get around it.

      These stories are showing that the tax system isn't working as we think it should, and therefore it should be changed so that society gets back

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's corruption, not incompetence.

      Rockstar managed to qualify for tax relief that is supposed to be to support games that contribute to British culture. Their games are set in the US, based on US culture. Someone got a back-hander there.

      Then there is HMRC, the tax authority. If you owe them a lot of tax, you can just take their chief out to dinner and not pay it.

      Then, despite the game being entirely developed in the UK, all the profit was moved to the parent company in the US so they ended up paying no tax

  • "Rockstar North, the Edinburgh-based developer of Grand Theft Auto, has paid no corporation tax over the past 10 years, despite making billions in revenue for its parent company Take-Two Interactive" So the child company made money for the parent company, allowing it to show little to no profit; there by pay no taxes and qualify for tax relief. Sounds like Take-Two knows how the corporate tax game is played. It is doing it's job as tax shelter for it child companies. Every large corporation does the exact

  • The real scam (Score:3)

    by CQDX ( 2720013 ) on Monday July 29, 2019 @06:31PM (#59008858)

    Why is there even a tax subsidy for video game companies?

  • Articles like these are ridiculous. Are they breaking the law? No?, Then write about why politicians enabled the situation.
    It's a rarity, but the comments seem more intelligent than the article here (some of anyway).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      The article is highlighting that people are challenging why the law enables this situation. What's ridiculous about that?

      • I got the impression the article was making issue with the game studio since they were explicitly singled out, and not so much the laws that enabled the tax breaks which appear glazed over.
        More emphasis on the laws and politicians and less about Rockstars specific revenue would have made the intent of the article more clear.
        Although the discussion in the comments do appear to be directed at issues with the polices. So that's why i mentioned.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by N1AK ( 864906 )
      Articles like this are great because a) they highlight the flaws in the current tax system and b) they mean there is at least a nominal public relations consequence for companies which aggressively avoid taxation. If the article was claiming they'd broken the law and it wasn't true I'd absolutely agree that it was wrong but it isn't, if the article was saying this was entirely Rockstars fault I'd think you had a fair point; but I don't think that is a fair representation.

      This is exactly the kind of scena
      • Well I can't agree with "b". It would be irresponsible of the accounting department not to take advantage of tax incentives put in place by the government. Why weren't there limits put on these incentives to prevent exploitation? Corporations have a legal obligation to investors to operate this way.
        Would be nice to see the article providing more details about why the incentives exist and how wide the adoption is in industry. The title "Grand Theft Auto Maker Has Paid No UK Corporation Tax in 10 Years" l
  • Don't blame the company, blame the tax code. Do you take every deduction you can, and even a couple iffy ones hoping for the best? And it saves you what, maybe $1000 a year? Why would you blame a company for doing the same thing, when it can save them millions a year?

    The problem isn't the companies nor their tax lawyers. The problem is politicians trying to carve out exemptions to their bribers, um, shit, having trouble here, um, constituents? No, that's not it. Got it, campaign donors. The proble
  • I think that it is smart to NOT charge a corporate tax on companies that are truly local, BUT, they should not be allowed to be subsidized via tax relief. That is just plain stupid.

  • Taxation is theft.

  • One day, I hope to live in a world where journalists understand what they're writing about. Corporate taxes are paid on profits, not revenue. If you choose pay your workers more, it means corporate profits go down. That means more income tax and less corporate tax. Just trading one tax for another.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Close