While I appreciate the sentiment it is time to start taking a more global look at these antics of companies.

I run my own company in the UK and I know for a fact that apple makes a massive amount of money selling in this country.

Now as a small business owner I am taxed at 20% on corporate profit. (19% going forward now due to a tax cut in corporate rates introduced during the last financial year). You then also get taxed on any dividends you pay out to yourself as the owner of that company according to normal income tax rates, (Sure you get a £5000 dividend tax free allowance but after that you are on normal income tax bracket rates).

There is simply NO way for me to change this. I pay my taxes each year diligently, otherwise I end up in jail.

However massive companies that make billion in revenue from countries get to play the tax game and effective pay percentage wise a LOT less than small businesses in the UK while benefiting from the infrastructure provided and paid for by public funds that they contribute very little to. That infrastructure includes the Healthcare and Education system. Both which are under constant stress due to under funding.

I am not for high taxation but I surely am for everyone paying their fare share. The employees working for these companies pay many times more tax on their salaries compared to what the corporation pays on its profits. At some point this vampire squid behaviour of extracting out of a country without helping fund the infrastructure that helped make it be a successful market cannot continue. This behaviour also gives me VERY little hope that AI and Automation will ever lead to the benefit of but a select few. /<rant>

That's an interesting case to bring up. In the UK, it is very common (I'd go as far as to say it's the norm) for software contractors to start a single-person limited company and pay themselves through a mixture of salary and dividend in order to optimise their taxes. I wonder how many of these people consider that they are committing "tax avoidance" and "exploiting legal loopholes" too.

Maybe 15 years ago. IR35 has made that approach tax-neutral, at best.

I am new to the contracting game in the UK, but I haven't met a software contractor yet who isn't using this approach. My accountant even recommended it to me when I set up. It is definitely a non-trivial tax saving.

Do you pay yourself dividends from your company? Or do you use your profits to increase your director salary so that you pay tax at the same rate as a full-time PAYE employee?

Not meaning to call you out personally on this, but I want to highlight that "tax avoidance" is a weasel word. Most people can and do optimise their taxes if the law allows it and don't consider themselves to be "avoiding tax" or acting immorally.

I didn't say anything about avoidance, so I'm not sure your questions about dividends etc were directed at me.

At the turn of the century, it was common for software developers in the UK to leave their job on a Friday and then show up to do the same role at the same desk on the following Monday but suddenly they were a LTD company acting as an independent contractor. IR35 sought to put an end to that. It didn't apply to genuine freelancers, although there were risks.

And, I'm not sure I understand what you mean about not meeting a software contractor who isn't taking that approach ... as that approach is the very definition of software contracting :)

Ah, my apologies. I got you mixed up with the parent comment poster.

To explain anyway: As a contractor with a limited company, I have two options when it comes to moving money from my company to my personal account.

1) Set my salary to be the same amount as the money I've earned from contracting, thus paying the same amount of tax as a "regular" PAYE employee who works full time

2) Set my salary to be minimum wage and pay everything left in my company account as a dividend, resulting in paying less tax.

My point is that option number 2 is "tax avoidance exploiting legal loophole" or "sensible tax practice" depending on how you want to frame it. Businesses will use whatever legal options they have to pay the least amount of tax, including small businesses (although small businesses might not even consider that they're already doing it).

But have you done the calculation on option 2 to see what you will end up paying in tax (Both corporate as well as personal income tax) when you do pay out those dividends?

You will realise that you have not "avoided" any tax really compared to a normal salaried employee due to not being able to reduce your corporation tax in the way other big organisations do.

Accountants make it sound really good but when you get down to the actual tax being paid you are not saving much, if any given the new rules implemented in the last couple of years.

Have a look at the example that I have shown as a reply to your parent comment. I would be very interested to hear your take on this.

Accountants keep on recommending this method for some reason but honestly if you do the tax calculations yourself you realise that you are not much better off.

It used to be the case that you were better off but the last 5 years the options for UK limited Company contractors have been reduced to a point where the running costs of the company combined with the taxes bring you to effectively the same amount of tax paid as a permanent employee.

That is a common misconception due to tax law changes in recent years. It used to be the case that a UK contractor paying themselves through this structure was significantly better off due to the large amount of dividend tax credits that were available.

So let me outline how this works these days as I run up against this argument a lot.

1) Any income that comes into the UK Ltd company is taxed at the corporate tax rate which as of this year is 19%. 1.1) This tax is paid on profit so if you pay yourself a normal salary out of this you will deduct this from the profits. Take note that dividends are NOT deductible from company profits before tax and as such is not a way for you to reduce your tax liability as a UK company. Dividends are only payable from after taxed money in your UK Ltd company. 1.2) Any expenses your company has in providing its services are deducted from profits. There is a misconception that you can write off A LOT of expenses but in actual fact that is not true. There are strict guide lines. Most of these expenses are also only valid if you are truly outside of IR35. Once you fall inside of it your allowed expenses decrease even more.

The above leaves you with your taxable company profit on which you pay your 19% corporation tax. (This is the tax that are being circumvented in the article by big companies.)

So now you as a UK Freelancer you now get the opportunity to pay yourself money from your UK Ltd company. You are then subjected to the following personal income tax: 1) Your tax free allowance as an individual is applied so you pay no tax on the first £11500 of income. 2) The first £5000 of dividends are also tax free. (remember this money has already been taxed at 19% in your corporation tax so is hardly free) 3) All other dividends that you then pay out to yourself are taxed as per the different tax brackets set out for personal income tax on dividends. (Again remember that 19% tax has already been paid on the this money before you can distribute it to yourself.)

So lets look at an example: - Lets say that as a contractor you work for 10 months (42 weeks) out of the year at £500 per day. We also assume you have no problem in getting your clients to pay (a real risk in certain industries). That leaves you with 210 days that you bill at £500 per day. 210 * 500 = £105000 which is your income coming into the company before deducting allowed expenses. - Lets now say you are not inside IR35 and you can claim travel and subsistence against this amount. That normally works out at around £500 per month of expenses you can deduct. (We assume you have already bought your equipment that you use on site etc.) - You also need to pay your accountant, which does not work for free, the going rate in London is around £130 per month - You now pay yourself a small salary up to the allowed personal allowance for the year of £11500

Your total corporate taxable income is now as follows: 105,000 -1,560 (Accountancy fees £130 x 12 months) -5,000 (£500 expenses for the 10 months of billable work) -11,500 (salary of around £958 per month for the 12 months of the financial year) =86,940 (This is the amount you pay corporation tax on) -16,518.60 (The amount of corporation tax you pay at 19% on the above £86940) =70,421.40 (This is the amount you can now distribute to yourself in dividends)

So now your personal income tax looks as follows: 11,500 (Salary received up to tax free allowance and tax of 0%) 5,000 (Dividends with 0% tax allowance) 65,421.40 (Remaining dividends that you are taxed) -14,136 (Tax levied on the 65,421.40 dividends that are taxable, combination of the different tax bracket rates on HMRC website.) =67,785.40 (Income you receive after tax)

So on £105,000.00 of earned income as a freelancer you end up paying £30,654.60 of income taxation (Corporation and Personal tax).

If you were a normal salaried employee you would pay £31,696.40 on £105,000 salary. (www.listentotaxman.com)

So I would argue it is hardly tax avoidance and if I take into account the risk I take as a freelancer then I am hardly working through a UK Ltd company to avoid tax. Most people still believe that the same rules of the 90's apply to UK ltd companies and freelancing but it is simply not the case.

Please do check the above with your accountant to confirm as this is not financial advise and I am not an accountant. However there are really not many options for avoiding paying tax as a UK freelancer. Keep in mind that the £5k dividend tax free allowance is also being reduced to only £2k from 2018 onward.

Two things to add:

- A £500 daily rate is very attainable when you work as a contractor in London. a £105k salary for the same type of work - not so much... I would argue that most people don't really have a choice and they HAVE to become contractors to get that kind of money.

- Nobody is forcing you to take ALL the money on your company account and pay it to yourself as a dividend. You can leave most of it there, or even invest it on the company's behalf. You have the power to decide when you want to pay the taxes on this money, and this can be very valuable. And there are other (perfectly legal) practices that can keep you in the lower tax bracket. If your accountant did not explain these to you then it's probably time to look for a better one :)

You are correct on both of the points you raise.

The example was simplistic by taking all of the dividends out to make it a straightforward comparison with a salaried employee who also has to take all of their and thus do not get to defer their tax.

Being able to choose when you pay tax is one of the biggest advantages of working through a UK Ltd company. But by choosing when you pay you hardly avoid paying tax. The bill will be due sooner or later.

As for legal ways to reduce the corporation tax you pay, I would love to hear more as the options I know of would be to setup pension contributions or doing a voluntary liquidation. (which is only an option for the day you decide to stop contracting as you are not allowed to be a director of a UK limited company for 2 years after completing the liquidation)

Every contractor accountant I have spoken with has given the same advice. So if what you are doing is legal I would be interested to hear who your accountant is.

Always remember that your accountant won't be the one that HMRC comes after if you followed dodgy advice.

Thanks for your very thorough reply! I will definitely run the numbers when I get back home.

One thing I noticed from a first reading: You didn't include the expenses payments as income (intentionally or not), which is an extra £5000 a year that goes in to your personal bank account.

You are most welcome. You are correct, I did not include them in the personal income you receive as I have created the example in the way you would do your tax return calculation. So the expenses are deducted from your company profit before tax as it is your company that is incurring the expenses.

You do get reimbursed for those expenses if you make them via your own credit or debit card, otherwise if you use a company card for them you will never have that money touch your own bank account. I do agree that you benefit from being able to use "before tax" money to pay for some of your expenses.

The tricky thing about expenses is that not everything is allowed to be deducted as an expense. If for example you take your client out for a meal and a few drinks and you account for that as Business Entertaining, that amount is not eligible for tax relief and thus you cannot deduct that from your profits to reduce your company's taxable income. It will then get taxed at the company level.

What I am trying to show is that the argument that Freelancers in the UK "avoid" paying tax compared to permanent employees is not true anymore. Yes we do have the ability to plan our tax better. However there seems to be this idea from permanent employees that freelancers are paying only 10% income tax when that really is not the case. There is a slight benefit, and from the above example a little more than £1000. Obviously there are other options and scenarios with spouses being made directors of the company etc. But it is hardly reducing your tax to the 7% achieved by Apple.

One also takes a lot bigger risk since personal injury, illness and non-paying clients do have the ability to derail your earnings in a really big way. If you get the flu and are out for a week that hurts. Or heaven forbid you have an accident and are unable to work for a few months while recovering.

Most of the freelancers I know do it because of the freedom and flexibility they get out of it, not because there are substantial tax advantages.

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts after you have run the numbers yourself.

I have been having the exact same argument with a friend on Facebook (I know, I know)... There is something about this whole thing that people seem to rationalize. My friend's ultimate argument was "well they pay more tax than I will in my lifetime anyway so what's the big deal". I had to give up in the end.

It is honestly a really tough point to argue with people. It becomes even worse when the person you are arguing with is in the fortunate position of having a good income and no current true worries. I used to be one of those people that believed that tax is theft until I have seen how quickly your situation can change due to unforeseen circumstance. A close family member got a terminal medical diagnosis and was the main source of income for the family. The person lived an exceptionally healthy life and got diagnosed with a condition for which they exhibited none of the normal risk factors.

At that point where your survivor biased gets challenged by real hard hitting life events your illusions are shattered. I never wish anyone to experience the same, but I do wish more people can be made to realise that paying tax to look after those services that look after us all when life goes horribly wrong is actually worth it! (And that includes the corporations that benefit from having a fit and healthy workforce and consumer base)

>but they do pay in those other countries

No, they do not. That is, they have optimized their rates so well as to pay next to nothing.

Incidentally, this is the problem with repatriating those profits to the US: the IRS actually does recognize taxes that have already been paid and will "deduct" (don't know the exact technical mechanism, but that's the gist) the taxes that have already been paid to foreign tax authorities from the taxes due to the US. However, due to the tax "optimization" that's been happening, the actual tax paid is minuscule, and so the tax due on repatriation is substantial.

So what Apple and other US multinationals would prefer is for the "tax already paid" to be a boolean rather than an amount. As in "we already paid 0.00004% tax on this, therefore it is already taxed and the IRS gets nothing", whereas the IRS says "well you paid 0.00004%, so we get (US rate - 0.00004%)".

Of course, the corps call this "double taxation" and rail against it, but in fact double taxation is not happening, or only in that very warped sense.

> It's what they sell outside of the US that they don't pay, but they do pay in those other countries.

Except they don't. The open letter says "What these filings also show is that since 2010, Apple’s foreign-earned income has been taxed at a rate of between 1 and 7 percent" however in Europe most countries have a corporate tax rate around 20% (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe).

For Germany it looks like Apple is paying at least ten times less taxes than it should.

I am speaking for the tax rate in EU countries, what is quoted in the related article. Regarding revenues in EU countries and moving expenses/royalties between countries to benefit from the lower rates.

I think that the same cases exists in the US, between states themselves (Delaware ?). Where you create companies in multiple states depending on your activity to split your revenues. Again, a small company can't afford such tricks.

Not true. Apple pays on the profits made in the US. The trick is to move the patents overseas and charge a lot to use those patents. Thus the US profits are small but the overseas patent royalties are huge.