Talk:United Kingdom corporation tax

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleUnited Kingdom corporation tax is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 8, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
May 29, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 20, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Incomplete - Who is subject to tax?[edit]

As a tax practitioner in North America, this article lacks some basic information on who is subject to tax and the scope of the tax.

The only statement that comes close to dealing with this is the first line:

Corporation tax is a tax levied in the United Kingdom on the profits made by companies and on the profits of permanent establishments of non-UK resident companies and associations that trade in the EU.

But there are a number of issues that are not addressed, such as:

1. "Profits made by companies" are subject to tax? This infers that it is UK resident companies that are subject to tax but what constitutes a UK resident company for UK domestic tax purposes?
2. Are UK resident companies taxable on income earned on branches in other countries?
3. On what basis are non-UK resident companies taxable on the profits of permanent establishments in the UK? Is there a branch tax in the UK?

Taxee (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useless?[edit]

A corporation tax is completely useless and a brainless inflation to further complicate tax systems and burden corporations. Why? Simple! A corporation has only 2 options of what to do with any gain made over the year

1. give it to the shareholders/owners/etc. in this case the money flows directly to a real person, which pays income tax anyway

2. invest the money to further extend the corporation. in this case the corporation makes an investment with the hope to increase its gains over the next years. how could you tax something like this? in fact, it isn't. in most contries investments are tax-deductible anyway.

So why on hell does a corporation need to follow impossibly complicated laws in order to calculate taxes that have absolutley no no effect, when it would be so easy for the state to just 'catch' the money when it flows to the shareholders of the corporation!?!?!?!

Good points but I think the idea is to tax the profits while they exist! Under your scheme (whoever you are) profits can be allowed to accumulate, then the board has a bright idea and "invests" them badly, losing the profits on which tax could eventually have been paid. The "investment" might even be offshore where they might never be seen again. Or the profits are otherwise "spent" or "loaned" in such a way that the shareholders/directors can get their hands on the cash tax free and then they are "lost". Paul Beardsell 07:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for the investments being tax-deductible point made in (2) above: In most countries corporate profits calculation is done on the value of the company. If GBP100 profit is banked or the GBP100 is spent on an office chair the value of the company remains the same and the tax bill similarly. The investment in the chair has no effect. (The chair is then depreciated over time, reducing the value of the company over the following years.) Only some investments of certain govt approved types attract allowances. Paul Beardsell 07:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Additionally Only dividends are subject to income tax on the individual (who has some exemption due to the fact the corporation has paid tax. If there are no dividends the only thing that can catch up with the tax on individual owners is Capital Gains Tax and Inheritance Tax and only when they are sold/transferred. These types of tax have more generous allowances and a multitude of schemes in which they can be cut right down or avoided (in fact, Inheritance Tax borders on being a voluntary tax.) Dainamo 10:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a point of view, to which I subscribe(!), that it is actually impossible to tax a corporation - no matter how hard you try. The argument is that corporations, as constructs of people who have got together with the common purpose of making money, can do nothing else than pass the taxes on to individuals. These individuals fall in to one or more of three groups:

  • The corporation's officers & employees (taxes flow through as lower salaries/wages)
  • The corporation's owners (taxes flow through as lower dividends)
  • The corporation's customers (taxes flow through as higher prices of the company's products or services)

To put it simply, the argument goes, corporation taxes are a useful way for politicians to conceal from the gullible the true levels of general taxation. Fairalbion 14:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps taxing the source of profits rather than the individuals provides an 'economy of scale' in order to reduce the burdens of paper work the government has to wade through. I will let you argue about the relative economics of the capital markets and whether taxing the company directly has an impact. Personally I don't think that any means of collecting tax is useless but they all require careful control in order to ensure they allow the correct market influence and are egaliatrian.

Contradiction[edit]

In the two sections about "imputation" it is said (i) the tax credit is never recoverable and (ii) it is offsettable by individuals. I think (ii) is correct. Anyway, it's a contradiction. Paul Beardsell 07:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not contradictory, as "recoverable" means that if you have no tax liability, the amounts in question can be paid to you. Offsettable only means they can reduce a tax liability. (This is important elsewhere in the Taxes Acts, for example see s468Q(5A) ICTA.) However, I'll make it clearer tonight, when I have time to amend it, jguk 08:15, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

In this section, where should High Court disambiguate to? Should it be High Court of Justice of England and Wales or High Court of Justiciary? SWAdair | Talk 06:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first one is correct for England and Wales. It is the Court of Session in Scotland and the High Court of Justice of Northern Ireland (I think) for Northern Ireland, jguk 06:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The page is now at High Court of Justice for the Eng and Wales court. Just go to the High Court disambiguation page for a list. FedLawyer 10:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protect against vandalism?[edit]

As long as this is a Featured Article, should it be protected against vandalism? People seem adamant to change the article for the worse. -- Cugel

Vandalism in progress[edit]

Twice an anon has put some rather coarse language on this page in place of, you know, the page. If it occurs again it ought be placed on the Vandalism in progress page. An admin might want to ban this troll. Wally 17:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I checked the user out, and it turns out he's the same one I just reverted on the page of the new President of Hungary. I've reported him as a vandal, and we'll see if we can't get a firefighter to put out this flamer. Wally 17:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect use of 'United Kingdom'[edit]

'United Kingdom' cannot be used adjectivally. The correct term is 'British', and so this article should be moved 'British corporation tax', I believe. I did move it myself, but found a very large of 'double redirects' would occur, and I didn't have the time to change them all. Lord Solar 11:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In common usage, that may be correct. However, as British includes the Channel Isles, which have a very different tax system, 'United Kingdom' is almost always used in practice, for good reasons. Richard.

Update?[edit]

Post budget hasn't brown declared corporation tax will now stand at 28%?

Not until FY 2008, starting on 1 April 2008. But the rates for smaller companies are increasing incrementally in April 2007 and 2008 until they reach 22% from April 2009. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work required[edit]

This article is currently undergoing a featured article review (see here), which has highlighted a number of deficiencies, notably in referencing. Please note any areas of concern either here, or on the article, and they will be looked at. Winklethorpe 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Recently the tax has come under pressure from a number of sources." I don't care for the word "Recently". Do we have a year or date to affix? Beginning in 2005, ... Also the next sentence "Tax competition between jurisdictions has ..." Is the semi-colon use here proper? Seems like an alkward sentence that could use some commas, breaks, or something. Morphh (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will have a look into the facts in that para. There's an actually an issue with a few statements like that, which I've found it difficult to back up without indepth knowledge of the subject. On the grammar, I wonder if it was meant to have a colon after "number of sources"? Winklethorpe (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The European cases began arriving in 2001 (and so started in the UK courts a few years earlier). Tax avoidance schemes have always been around, but the more aggresive legislation to counter them began in 2004. The rates have been falling for decades. To be honest, the para is starting to look like an attempt to loosely tie together the several issues that needed summarising in the lead. Winklethorpe (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently two heading entitled "rates". I've been scratching my head to think of what to move one of them to, but as they're both about the tax rates, I'm a bit stuck. Any ideas? Winklethorpe (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:HEAD we should avoid restating the subject of the article or of an enclosing section in heading titles. However, I don't see much choice in this case. I think we should rename the first "Rates" header to "Historical rates" or something like that. Morphh (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately "historical rates" is restating the title of the enclosing section, in this case History. It's a pain, isn't it? "Liability" isn't quite right. I debated merging the 2 sections, but couldn't see how. Here's a cheat: could merge in the "payment" section from above the 2nd section, and call the 2nd section "Rates and Payment". I'm actually tempted by that one, what do you think? Winklethorpe (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good, though I would use a lower case "p" - "Rates and payment". Morphh (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I think it works. I've actually moved it into the "Method of charge" section where payment was, as I think it fits in there best. I think that's all the headers issues dealt with - the remaining capitalised words are justified, no repetitions, no use of main title in headings... Winklethorpe (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made quite a few changes to the lead, partly to address concerns above, and partly to better summarise the article - the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs rather concentrated on a few small issues from the article. I may have wrecked the prose, though. Winklethorpe (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need an update: Corporation Tax Act 2010[edit]

I guess this page would probably say a few different things with the changes under the Corporation Tax Act 2010, right? I see we've got a few specialist editors on this, and it'd be really great to see an update happen. Wikidea 12:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is horribly out of date, with the "recent developments" section referring to nothing after 2004, the "rates" section not going beyond 2006 and the current rates not appearing in the tables. Cyclopaedic (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another FA with problems...[edit]

If information in this article is compromised and out-of-date, this should be demoted from FA status. TVShowFan122 (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:United Kingdom corporation tax/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

FAR - The article was kept 09:14, 29 May 2007.

Last edited at 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Outdated[edit]

Is anyone watching this article? Is has had a maintenance tag in place for more than three years. If no one is willing to update and maintain it, it will have to be considered for demotion at WP:FAR. --Laser brain (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was added by LeContexte ("badly needs updating - even the rates are wrong") in April 2013. Since the article now includes information (including on rates) from 2014 and 2015, I've removed the tag. Feel free to reinstate it if further problems arise. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 35 external links on United Kingdom corporation tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Kingdom corporation tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom corporation tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom corporation tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impartiality of history section on abolishment of ACT[edit]

There is a section here under history that does not appear to impartial with it's use in language, i.e. "tax grabs". Also the only source is to a newspaper article, which gives the presentation of being an opinion piece and being overtly partisan. The rest of the wiki on this area is perfectly fine, but that one paragraph just feels very off. PleasantBridge (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PleasantBridge: Thanks for raising this, the paragraph was as you say highly partisan. I have removed it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FA sweeps[edit]

Issues with this article include but are not limited to:

  • Verifiability issues (there are many cn tags)
  • Lack of updating, the article is still stuck in 2007
  • Lack of independent sources cited. There is scholarship on this issue, eg[1][2][3][4][5][6]

If the article is not improved, it will need to go to FAR. (t · c) buidhe 00:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom_corporation_tax&oldid=1210796165"