Ex googler says he has 100k emails proving Google cheats on UK taxes

Claims to have proof that Google operates a tax scam

[Leosghost]

My 100,000 emails that prove Google has lied
A former salesman for the firm says its claims to have traded only in Ireland are false and costing hundreds of millions in lost taxes

NB..full article behind paywall..

[thesundaytimes.co.uk...]

[thesundaytimes.co.uk...]

non paywall details..
[crave.cnet.co.uk...]

[theverge.com...]

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

This is a shocking situation. We need to know if they lied to parliament.

[bhonda]

Interesting timing.

Wonder why these didn't appear before Google went to parliament. Twice.

[Leosghost]

Couple of interesting comments in theverge report I linked to above.. by "Boghog"
at 10.59am and again at 5.44pm on May 19th..

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

I can think of no reason for Boghog to make this up but if this practice was widespread then surely we would have heard about it before now? So many businesses have been forced into Adwords by the ranking situation in the last couple of years. Many of those must have been be search savvy and realised what they were being told was malpractice. Why is this not public knowledge?

[johnhh]

See my post [webmasterworld.com...]

I think the Sunday Times is on a campaign, three articles in the paper on Sunday.

One problem is the data from the 'whistleblower' is ..um.. rather old.

In my experience, if you get involved in artifical tax avoidance it normally comes backs and bites you. See press reports today on Apple.

Prime Minister of UK just met Page, and somehow forgot to mention tax ! But hey they are closly linked anyhow.

I would not dismiss Margaret Hodge, I even got an email back when I gave her a tip off.

[johnhh]

We need to know if they lied to parliament

This was hinted at by the Select Committee, I would expect Google to be back again in front of them soon.

[brotherhood of LAN]

We need to know if they lied to parliament.

I believe the "select committee" isn't legally binding, you can lie through your teeth and not be charged with perjury or the like. That said, it certainly wouldn't help their cause longer term.

[diberry]

Wow, the Boghog comments might merit a whole new thread?

I can think of no reason for Boghog to make this up but if this practice was widespread then surely we would have heard about it before now? So many businesses have been forced into Adwords by the ranking situation in the last couple of years. Many of those must have been be search savvy and realised what they were being told was malpractice. Why is this not public knowledge?

Several possibilities come to mind:

(1) Google's good at choosing which companies they offer this to. Any company who takes them up on it has a good reason to keep silent.

(2) The few companies who don't take them up on it are not prepared to prove in a court of law that Google made these highly inappropriate offers to them. Without being prepared to prove it in litigation - or being prepared to withstand the years of expensive litigation a company like Google could bury you under - I'd be very careful what I said publicly, too.

(3) Disinformation, a tactic that works for the CIA and the Hollywood press machine equally well. Put out enough UNtrue rumors about Google's nefarious doings, and any TRUE rumors of nefarious doings get lost in the noise, and it's all dismissed as "conspiracy theory." Ahem.

[johnhh]

you can lie through your teeth and not be charged with perjury or the like

I don't think that is correct, the TV footage I saw had Hodge quoting from the rules, and she clearly said it was an offence. I am not sure what would happen if you later said you 'mis-spoke' ( how I hate that phrase ) , or were 'economical with the truth' ( ah thats better )

[piatkow]

A committee is entitled to take evidence on oath. Only then can you be charged with perjury.

To knowingly mislead a committee is a "Contempt of Parliament". An MP can be suspended but I don't know what sanctions are available against other witnesses.

[bhonda]

I can think of no reason for Boghog to make this up

Troll?

Unless someone here knows them (or is them), Boghog could be a 10 year old kid.

[diberry]

Boghog could be a 10 year old kid.

He certainly doesn't sound like a kid or a troll. I'm not saying he couldn't be lying, but what he describes fits with a couple of known things:

(1) That Google has been known to extend SEO recommendations to JC Penney, BBC and Sprint that, AFAIK, they do not extend to peons like us.

(2) That most brands rank well organically and in Adsense.

To me, #1 - an established public fact - should cause small webmasters concern all by itself, regardless of Boghog's observations. I'm not at all sure it would be illegal or anti-trust for Google to extend SEO help to some and not others. The law might well decide it's their engine and they can do that. But it does indicate that not only does Google not care about our appearance in the SERPs, which we knew from Day 1, but that it has other people whose appearance in the SERPs it DOES care about. Which is not good news for those of us who don't rate.

[johnhh]

I don't know what sanctions are available against other witnesses.

Not sure, I will ask my daughter as she used to attend hearings as 'Parliamentary Liasion Officer' for a quango.
<added> However I don't think I would be happy to be the subject of a Sunday Times campaign.</added>

[johnhh]

opps solved it - very rare
[guardian.co.uk...]
_{in a state of intoxication love it !}

[johnhh]

More articles in the Sunday Times this week