List of companies in Australia that paid no tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cobber

You have to ask, if these companies were made to pay mega amounts of tax (ie. an amount relating to their income) how many people would be jobless tomorrow? ;)

---

Interesting you should say. Some of the companies I have worked for are in that list. There have been several rounds of retrenchments over the last three years.
I hold shares in some of them. Dividends and share values are way down.
Qantas operated at a loss for that year, therefore, no profit to tax.
I didn't see Apple in that list. Is it there? They must be raking it in from the iPhone sales.

I see my favourite camera manufacturer ( Nikon Australia) is on that list. I couldn't find Pentax or Cannon there though, unless they trade under a different name in Australia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

This list is not particularly useful.

Income tax is payable by a company on the amount of profit they make, not their income. The fact that a company has no taxable income in most cases will simply mean that it is not operating at a profit. In some cases this may reflect past losses carried forward. In a few cases it may indicate that they have arranged their affairs so that they do not make a profit in Australia, but I suggest that this applies to very few - and the ATO does chase them up.

If looking for anomalies, it is worth noting that the big miners are among the highest payers of tax, much higher than the big banks, but again, this difference is meaningless, since income before costs has no fixed relation to profit.

Some of the "no taxable income" ones are obvious - Qantas, for example, has been making major losses for a number of years, and has only just climbed into the black. It would be surprising if businesses such as News Ltd were making much, if any, real profit, as they have a lot of expensive units such as newspapers and TV stations that are losing money.

But to repeat - this list provides no information to gauge whether or not a company is paying their fair share of tax.

John

---

Exactly. Thank goodness there is a voice of reality here.
As far as "Reality" goes, and I have said this before, NOBODY pays any more tax than they have to,...NOBODY,....I utilise a very good accountant to minimize mine, in my retirement.
And, also, as I've said several times before, it ain't just the BIG companies, that use "loopholes"/deductions/aloowances,....ALL SORTS OF DEDUCTIONS,...it's "the norm" by small companies, single operators, small businesses etc etc,....you group all this smaller stuff together collectively and see what that is costing this Country,...it would involve EVERY "business" in this country & DWARF the amounts supposedly not being paid/avoided by the "targeted by some" BIG companies.
The major statement of truth in this thread mentions "wage earners", quite correctly,...they are the ones that cannot do any of this stuff.
BUT, ask any company,partnership,business large or small, how would they feel if they could "claim" only what the wage earner does.
Not saying any of this is illegal,....I don't run no company, never have, always been a wage earner, but I've seen (by nature of my job) what compnies (even VERY small ones can claim, so that they make NO profit,..even carry forwardable losses),....it's a joke, but guys, you are delusional if you think it's just the big guys,....IMHO of course.
Pickles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

This list is not particularly useful.

Income tax is payable by a company on the amount of profit they make, not their income. The fact that a company has no taxable income in most cases will simply mean that it is not operating at a profit. In some cases this may reflect past losses carried forward. In a few cases it may indicate that they have arranged their affairs so that they do not make a profit in Australia, but I suggest that this applies to very few - and the ATO does chase them up.

If looking for anomalies, it is worth noting that the big miners are among the highest payers of tax, much higher than the big banks, but again, this difference is meaningless, since income before costs has no fixed relation to profit.

Some of the "no taxable income" ones are obvious - Qantas, for example, has been making major losses for a number of years, and has only just climbed into the black. It would be surprising if businesses such as News Ltd were making much, if any, real profit, as they have a lot of expensive units such as newspapers and TV stations that are losing money.

But to repeat - this list provides no information to gauge whether or not a company is paying their fair share of tax.

John

---

Thanks John.
Of course these companies are still paying Payroll tax, land taxes, collecting GST, making Super contributions etc, it is just that they are not making a profit so not paying much company tax. Isn't bringing losses forward just a cash flow mechanism to defer taking a tax credit on a loss and brought forward to offset a future tax bill? There is no tax avoidance, just using a credit to pay a future debt.

Chris

And if they were forced, legislated or made to pay more tax, where do you think they would get the $$? By passing it on i.e. the regular Joe Q Average taxpaying consumer.

Nobody wants to pay tax and as Kerry Packer told the Senate inquiry:

Packer was called to appear before the Australian Federal Parliament "Print Media Inquiry" (chairman Michael Lee) in November 1991. The various serves he gave the senators prompted many supportive calls to talkback radio and letters to newpapers the following day.

Kerry Francis Bullmore Packer. Reluctantly.
When asked to state his full name and the capacity in which he appeared.
I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.
Transcribed from the in-memoriam 2006 television show The Big Fella: The Extraodinary Life of Kerry Packer
I've already given you the answer on this subject, I have told you that I pay whatever tax I am required to pay under the law, not a penny more, not a penny less, and the suggestion that I am trying to evade tax, which is what you're putting forward, I find highly offensive and I don't intend to cooperate with you in the blackening of my character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chenz

And if they were forced, legislated or made to pay more tax, where do you think they would get the $$? By passing it on i.e. the regular Joe Q Average taxpaying consumer.

Nobody wants to pay tax and as Kerry Packer told the Senate inquiry:

Packer was called to appear before the Australian Federal Parliament "Print Media Inquiry" (chairman Michael Lee) in November 1991. The various serves he gave the senators prompted many supportive calls to talkback radio and letters to newpapers the following day.

Kerry Francis Bullmore Packer. Reluctantly.
When asked to state his full name and the capacity in which he appeared.
I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.
Transcribed from the in-memoriam 2006 television show The Big Fella: The Extraodinary Life of Kerry Packer
I've already given you the answer on this subject, I have told you that I pay whatever tax I am required to pay under the law, not a penny more, not a penny less, and the suggestion that I am trying to evade tax, which is what you're putting forward, I find highly offensive and I don't intend to cooperate with you in the blackening of my character.

---

Curious. Whom, exactly, are you talking to. Or, are you looking in a mirror, Just curious.

I would say most of these companies are operating within the law........

A mate runs a small company but pay a **** load to find every loop pol possible.......imagine the number of small companies v big company finding loopholes?????

I think we have the government to blame not the companies.

As weeds say, they are operating within the law. The report may indicate a need for a tax reform review like the one done by Ken Henry a few years ago.

Also, people need to be aware taxable income and profit is not the same and these figures are calculated for a different audience with different objectives. Taxable income is calculated in compliance with legislation, tax rulings and judicial decisions to satisfy the ATO. Naturally the objective is to minimise taxable income (incl to defer taxable income) to reduce tax payable for a particular year. Profit is reported to shareholders and potential investors according to a different set of rules or accounting standards. The objective is generally to not defer income but to maximise the amount of reportable profit as much as possible within the rules for a particular year. Eg in the past corporations have included income from sales to calculate profit although no money had changed hands and may not change hands until a later year or maybe never.

"corporate mates rip off the system" is almost certainly not the case. The rules that international companies operate under are not new, and have been pretty much unchanged under governments of all persuasions.

These rules, by and large, are established by a long list of agreements and treaties which were introduced over decades, almost always to improve the Australian economy in various ways. Some of these rules have unintended or adverse consequences, but this does not mean that on balance they don't advantage Australia and Australians. Either way, it is almost impossible to make unilateral changes to them.

Transfer pricing at unrealistic prices has been illegal for decades. The problem is proving it to the satisfaction of a court.

John

Chenz actually if they where forced to pay a fair amount of tax, (on profits made here) there would be more competition from local companies who where priced out by international companies shifting profits offshore. This could both improve employment and maintain the price.
Sorry jdnsw, but the ripping is getting worse. Chevron paying double going interest, to itself, apple/google/others shifting transactions from here to Singapore or Ireland, Murdoch shifting cash inside his company creating a 880 million tax return. It may be legal,(or in Murdoch's case the govt is to scared to appeal)but it's still immoral and a ripoff.