Isuzu and Toyota Slapped with Back Tax Bills

[Thaddeus]

The ill-informed, zenophobic and downright stupid posts in this thread are enough to drive a teetotaler to drink.

For God's sake, the issue presumably is a technical one about whether or not the correct amount of tax has been paid. That is a matter best left to the appropriate authorities/courts.

Thailand IS NOT unique = tax disputes are common in every country - especially when economic times ain't great.

I note that today's news reports that the Australian Tax Office reckons BHP owes an addition US$550 million in unpaid income taxes. Do you cretins think BHP will walk away from its Pilbara iron ore mines?

The final determination of tax properly due is properly left to the appropriate authorities in each country matter (of course, this may practically pose challenges,but the principle is crystal clear), It has SFA to do with (a) nationality of the taxpayer; ( country of dispute; © amount of investment; (d) feigned consequences.

In addition, Non-brain-dead folks know there is tremendous international attention now on resolving BEPS (Base Erosiion of Profit Split) - ie, ensuring in the future that major MNCs pay tax not just according to 'law', but perhaps where the profits are actually made.

<deleted> grow up and get informed.

My God, an intelligent post. Didn't think it was possible in a thread such as this. Well done Dinga.

If intelligence is measured by what you can have today or recover what you didn't get yesterday, it is.

Other than that......

[konying]

The ill-informed, zenophobic and downright stupid posts in this thread are enough to drive a teetotaler to drink.

For God's sake, the issue presumably is a technical one about whether or not the correct amount of tax has been paid. That is a matter best left to the appropriate authorities/courts.

Thailand IS NOT unique = tax disputes are common in every country - especially when economic times ain't great.

I note that today's news reports that the Australian Tax Office reckons BHP owes an addition US$550 million in unpaid income taxes. Do you cretins think BHP will walk away from its Pilbara iron ore mines?

The final determination of tax properly due is properly left to the appropriate authorities in each country matter (of course, this may practically pose challenges,but the principle is crystal clear), It has SFA to do with (a) nationality of the taxpayer; ( country of dispute; © amount of investment; (d) feigned consequences.

In addition, Non-brain-dead folks know there is tremendous international attention now on resolving BEPS (Base Erosiion of Profit Split) - ie, ensuring in the future that major MNCs pay tax not just according to 'law', but perhaps where the profits are actually made.

<deleted> grow up and get informed.

You are correct, tax disputes are common, However in this case tax dispute is because government changed the rules after the fact, but wants to back date it.

As i said, in my post, i do not believe Toyota will walk away, however it may shift 1 model manufacturing to another plant to save on taxes, just as BHP may and most likely will make changes to avoid hefty tax bills in the future.

I am also unsure how and why you compare BHP income taxes to Toyota import taxes? But i guess only smart people like you would understand it.

[dinga]

The ill-informed, zenophobic and downright stupid posts in this thread are enough to drive a teetotaler to drink.

For God's sake, the issue presumably is a technical one about whether or not the correct amount of tax has been paid. That is a matter best left to the appropriate authorities/courts.

Thailand IS NOT unique = tax disputes are common in every country - especially when economic times ain't great.

I note that today's news reports that the Australian Tax Office reckons BHP owes an addition US$550 million in unpaid income taxes. Do you cretins think BHP will walk away from its Pilbara iron ore mines?

The final determination of tax properly due is properly left to the appropriate authorities in each country matter (of course, this may practically pose challenges,but the principle is crystal clear), It has SFA to do with (a) nationality of the taxpayer; ( country of dispute; © amount of investment; (d) feigned consequences.

In addition, Non-brain-dead folks know there is tremendous international attention now on resolving BEPS (Base Erosiion of Profit Split) - ie, ensuring in the future that major MNCs pay tax not just according to 'law', but perhaps where the profits are actually made.

<deleted> grow up and get informed.

You are correct, tax disputes are common, However in this case tax dispute is because government changed the rules after the fact, but wants to back date it.

As i said, in my post, i do not believe Toyota will walk away, however it may shift 1 model manufacturing to another plant to save on taxes, just as BHP may and most likely will make changes to avoid hefty tax bills in the future.

I am also unsure how and why you compare BHP income taxes to Toyota import taxes? But i guess only smart people like you would understand it.

Seems the Customs Department has a different opinion (you state the dispute is because the government changed the rules after the fact).

Customs Director General is reported as saying that 1. In Toyota's case, the company did not have the necessary approvals to import components under a concessional duty arrangement (a fact apparently affirmed by an Appeal Committee); 2. In Isuzu's case, the value of imports exceeded the maximum amount that was allowed under a concessional arrangement.

In taking investment decisions, companies consider the full range of matters - taxes being but one. Sure - taking advantage of tax savings can drive (pun not intended) (re)location of manufacturing plants but the consequences of non-compliance with government requirements should not.

If BHP's tax position is ultimately determined to be unacceptable, of course the company can be expected to make the necessary changes - and probably will implement corrective actions well before that point.

In raising BEPS, I simply wanted to highlight that governments are now going to change the rules that presently allow sophisticated companies to undertake business in such a way as to pay no/minimal taxes overall ie. challenges extend to not just ensuring compliance with current tax rules, but anticipating the likely changes that will be made in the near future.