British sugar giant under fire over tax

Anti-poverty charity ActionAid has accused Associated British Foods of engaging in tax avoidance schemes designed to prevent paying millions of pounds in tax to the government of Zambia.

As detailed in a new report published by the charity, the London-listed group has been paying “virtually no corporation tax” in Zambia, one of the poorest countries in the world.

Zambia Sugar recently posted record pre-tax profits and reported its plantation would be increasing capacity to produce more sugar for the European and African markets. The subsidiary contributed less than 0.5% of its US$123m pre-tax profits in corporation tax between 2007 and 2012, and ActionAid hopes these findings will add pressure on the Chancellor to make progress in tackling international tax avoidance.

The charity claims the African subsidiary found ways of drawing off a third of its pre-tax profits out of Zambia into a number of different tax havens.

Zambia Sugar is owned by Illovo Sugar Ltd, the central parent company of all ABF’s African sugar operations, via a network of intermediate companies in Mauritius, Ireland, the Netherlands and Jersey.

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments

Not so sweet

ken of chesterl... | | Permalink

 

Tax campaigner Richard Murphy said in his blog: “Of course no one is saying anyone is doing anything illegal. And ABF say it’s all down to allowances they legally enjoy.

“But, how come the allowances they legally enjoy mean that no tax is paid?"

I haven't read this gentleman's blog, and perhaps I am being unfair, but prima facie he hasn't understood how tax allowances work. Capital allowances exist so that businesses can write off the cost of plant against profit, and so only pay tax on the true profit- plant depreciates, and the true profit is less than the profit before depreciation.  Depreciation is not allowable, for historic reasaons and CA's are there to compensate for this. If the profit is less than the capital allowances of course there is going to be no tax. This is no more avoidance than claiming personal allowance is avoidance. I legally enjoy age allowance- I love it, can't get enough of it in fact! But I don't pay tax.

Not so Sweet

mewsans | | Permalink

You can be certain that Richard Murphy knows exactly what he is saying and fully understands the rules!

Clearly not...    1 thanks

markfd | | Permalink

...as he doesn't appear to be aware capital allowances are a perfectly legitimate one to claim, presumably the goverment of the country in question had some role in framing their tax law.

Charities should not be deciding who pays what taxes

annualpanic | | Permalink

Such self-righteous outbursts are not to go unquestioned merely because they carry the authority of a charity (a charity of tax experts?).

Illegally dodging taxes is tax evasion. Tax avoidance is within the law but the phrase is being and abused by the media, to the point where most members of the public seem to have no idea that there was ever a distinction.

If Zambia, the UK or any other jurisdiction has a problem with how their tax law works, they could debate it properly, or they could allow shrill voices to sway them without proper thought for the consequences.

The decision by Starbucks recently to volunteer to pay arbitrary amounts of extra tax, was of course borne of self-interest, but could lead to uncertainty and is itself a threat to "fairness".