Trust Bloomberg Tax for the international news and analysis to navigate the complex tax treaty networks and global business regulations.
The Cooper Companies Inc., a member of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, has warned shareholders over its 31 million-pound “Google tax” charge from the U.K.’s tax authority.
The process for disputing the charge “can be lengthy and could involve litigation,” the Pleasanton, Calif.-based maker of contact lenses and surgical tools said in its 2017 annual report. The company plans to “vigorously” contest the bill from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, it added.
The charge relates to the diverted profits tax that the U.K. introduced in 2015 amid concerns Google parent Alphabet Inc. and other global tech companies were engaging in abusive tax planning to shift profits to offshore havens. The measure sets a 25 percent levy on profits that HMRC deems to have improperly avoided U.K. corporation tax, currently set at a rate of 19 percent.
Under the U.K. DPT laws, companies must notify HMRC if they have arrangements that may be in scope of the tax. If HMRC believes DPT is due, it first issues a preliminary notice. A charging notice from the tax authority sets out its demands for DPT, giving companies 30 days to pay.
A Cooper Companies spokeswoman didn’t respond to Bloomberg Tax’s requests for comment on whether the business had already paid the 31 million-pound ($42 million) charging notice to HMRC.
In its annual report, filed Dec. 22, Cooper Companies said it received HMRC’s charging notice Dec. 20. The bill relates to the transfer of intellectual property rights connected to the company’s $1.2 billion buyout of U.K. contact lense business Sauflon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in 2014., it added.
Paul Rutherford, a London-based tax partner at global law firm DLA Piper, told Bloomberg Tax it is likely that many of HMRC’s DPT inquiries will relate to intellectual property, such as patents.
“Those assets are often readily movable to lower-taxed jurisdictions, and in the modern economy frequently represent a significant part of the value of a multinational’s business,” he said Jan. 10 by email.
Ian Hyde, a London-based tax partner at global law firm Pinsent Masons, told Bloomberg Tax that making large payments for the use of intellectual property is one of the main ways HMRC believes multinational companies are extracting profits from the U.K.
Intellectual property “is also an area which is likely to give rise to disputes as it is much more difficult to value than, for example, goods supplied intra group, where third party comparisons are easier,” he said by email Jan. 9.
The DPT sparked controversy at the time of its introduction as the U.K. took individual action amid the OECD’s 15-action project to rewrite tax policy for multinational companies. Last year, however, Australia’s government enforced a measure similar to the U.K.’s DPT, with higher penalties.
Two months ago, meanwhile, Switzerland-based mining conglomerate Glencore Plc. lost its legal battle to challenge HMRC’s decision-making on a 21.3 million-pound DPT charging notice.
In the case, Glencore sought permission to apply for a U.K. judge to review the lawfulness of HMRC’s process for the charging notice. The Court of Appeal’s Nov. 2 ruling against the company means few other businesses will dare to seek the same legal process, known as a judicial review. Yet Hyde said that companies are now looking at other ways to oppose HMRC over its use of the DPT.
Businesses “are looking at challenges within the framework of the regime because we have found that DPT has been applied by HMRC much more widely than was anticipated,” he told Bloomberg Tax. “You certainly do not need to be a U.S.-owned tech multinational to be caught.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Ben Stupples in London at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Penny Sukhraj at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)