Dally wrote:
Hasn't he answered his own question? 13% of the company's income arises in the UK, which emplos 18% of the workforce. As the bank is big in the Far East where wages are a fraction of the UK, that 18% workforce probably respresnts a much higher proportion of the company's cost base. So, HSBC's contention that they've lost money in the UK (and US) looks reasonable.
Did you read what he wrote? It is essentially about how multinational companies attribute profits across the group and his conclusion is the UK should be attributed with a much higher profit than it has been.
Regardless of that HSBC is head-quartered here which means it's a UK bank which in turn means if it ever needed bailing out it would be the UK who would have to do it. It also means as it has it's HQ here there are extra costs on the balance sheet which will reduce profits somewhat.
We all know companies can offset costs and losses against profit and in HSBC's case they faced a bill for miss-selling PPI to the tune of £1.2bn . However the issue is not that companies
can offset this or that against profit in accounting terms but
should a UK company that makes over £13bn profit be allowed to use such practices to pay next to no tax here?
The same applies to Rolls Royce. The old argument of "Well it's not illegal and they are just maximising shareholder benefits" is past it's sell by date politically.