Amazon will follow search giant Google, which attended another grilling by parliament’s Public Affairs Committee (PAC) over its tax affairs on Thursday. A Reuters report earlier this month raised questions over Google’s earlier assertions that its UK-based staff don’t sell to customers.

Over the past six years, Amazon has paid around $9 million in income tax on over $23 billion of sales to British clients, because it says it operates a single European business out of Luxembourg, rather than a multinational structure of independent subsidiaries in different countries, and should therefore pay tax in Luxembourg.

However, Reuters has uncovered evidence from the company’s own statements, job advertisements, statements from three suppliers and five former employees, as well as the profiles of over 140 staff on networking website LinkedIn, which suggests the UK unit has a high degree of autonomy, with local managers deciding on many aspects of its business.

The information, collected during a three-month investigation, suggests that while Amazon depicts itself as a virtual business, its structure may not be so different from its bricks-and-mortar rivals.

“The basic business model wasn’t very different to a mail order company in the 1970s or 80s,” said Mark Riley, a Business Development Manager at Amazon.co.uk between 2005 and 2008.

Bryan Roberts, Retail Insights Director for consultants Kantar Retail, said apart from the fact buyers seal deals over the Internet, Amazon’s UK unit Amazon.co.uk Ltd, which is based in an office block in Slough, near London, was essentially a UK retailer.

“Amazon.co.uk is a British business in that 99 percent of the people who are responsible for merchandising, buying, the online activity, fulfillment, are based in Slough,” said Roberts, an expert who advises many Amazon suppliers.

Amazon declined to answer any questions about its UK business.

On Thursday, the Guardian newspaper reported that it had found “extensive UK activities” for Amazon that suggested the UK tax authority could be tougher on taxing its British operations.

Companies, especially those which sell over the Internet, increasingly designate their British subsidiary as a supplier of support services to an affiliate in a low-tax jurisdiction, through which sales are then booked. Firms including Expedia and Microsoft have used such arrangements to minimize tax bills while also employing people in a wide range of roles in Britain, their accounts, employee profiles on their web pages, job advertisements and the LinkedIn profiles of staff show.

Amazon and Microsoft say they follow tax law in every country where they operate. Expedia declined to comment.

The practice is based on international tax rules which allow companies to conduct “preparatory and auxiliary” activities in a country without creating a taxable presence there.

The UK tax authority, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), has never sought to define in court the limits of what an internet company can do in Britain before it is deemed to have a taxable presence. Lawyers and academics say this has allowed a wide grey area to emerge.

In the case of Amazon at least, some tax experts said that in conducting a wide range of activity in the UK, it may be on the wrong side of the hitherto undefined boundary.

Yet Jacques Sasseville, head of the tax treaty unit at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which advises rich nations on tax policy, said he wasn’t sure if a boundary exists. He said where sales were conducted online, it was almost impossible to prove a taxable presence in a jurisdiction, irrespective of how much activity is conducted in that country.

Member of Parliament Margaret Hodge said she wanted HMRC to look more closely at the company’s affairs, to see if Amazon was paying all the tax it should.

She also said she planned to call Amazon representatives back to testify to the committee which she chairs and clarify written evidence and witness testimony the firm gave in November, in which it downplayed its activities in Britain.

“We need to very urgently call back Amazon to question them around what you’ve uncovered; to look at that in relation to what they actually told us when they gave evidence to us and of course if they were economical with the truth or not totally honest in their evidence to us last time, that is a very serious thing,” she said.

Amazon declined to say whether staff at Amazon.co.uk had management oversight or were responsible for profitability for different retail product lines. Amazon’s auditor Ernst and Young declined to comment.

FULFILMENT

Amazon.co.uk is funded by fees from Amazon EU, which are just enough to cover its costs but leave little profit to tax. It employs 4,191 full-time staff and thousands more contract staff via outside firms, compared with 500 Amazon staff in Luxembourg.

Amazon.co.uk’s principal activity is “the provision of fulfillment and corporate support services to other group undertakings”, according to its 2012 accounts.

Amazon’s Brussels-based Director of Public Policy, Andrew Cecil, told the committee in November that the UK unit did not operate as an independent business.

“We are operating a single European company … All the strategic functions for our business in Europe are based in Luxembourg,” he said.

Amazon said in subsequent written testimony to the Public Affairs Committee that the UK’s roles included customer support, accountancy, tax, legal, human resources, localization and similar back office services; merchandising and marketing support services; and purchasing assistance.

Amazon supplier Gary Braithwaite, who helps manage the Amazon relationship at Elland, North of England-based organic and vegan food distributor Suma Wholefoods, said his cooperative has had no dealings at all with Amazon in Luxembourg, but works with its UK staff.

“We actually deal directly with them. Every so often we go down to visit them in Slough. They’re really nice people,” he said.

The employment section of Amazon’s own corporate website says: “Our Slough teams manage all corporate functions, including vendor management, marketing, software development and legal.”

In late March, the careers section of the website advertised dozens of Slough-based jobs in these categories.

A “Senior Vendor Manager – Beauty” with Amazon.co.uk was expected to “Seek out, engage, motivate and build new and existing supplier partnerships,” while prospective candidates for Senior Vendor Manager – Mobile Communications were told the job would require them to “Manage existing supplier relationships maximizing sales, market segment share and profitability.”

Some former staff said UK-based managers had responsibility for the profitability of product categories. This started with negotiating the best deals with suppliers.

Matt Henderson, who worked in a variety of managerial roles at Amazon from 2004 to 2011, said that little, if any, purchasing occurred on an international level because even international suppliers preferred to deal with Amazon on a national basis, partly to moderate the company’s ability to squeeze discounts from them.

Some UK-based managers also had to decide on product pricing, constantly seeking to balance margin against volumes, and decide how products were displayed online.

“The UK front page was owned by the UK category manager,” said the former business development manager Riley.

The LinkedIn profiles of current and former staff show employees closely involved in driving profitability at Amazon’s UK business.

Aimee-Joanne Teather, Buyer – Kids Clothing & Accessories, said her responsibilities included “Signing new brands, negotiating terms with vendors. Analyzing sales figures and reaching targets.”

Teather did not respond to requests for comment.

PREPARATORY OR AUXILIARY

The issue, say lawyers, is one of ‘substance’. Amazon UK is a subsidiary of Amazon EU, the official supplier of Amazon goods across Europe.

It pays almost all its profit to a tax-exempt affiliate, also registered in Luxembourg, in fees for the use of Amazon group intellectual property.

The tax authorities in the United States and France have each demanded hundreds of millions of dollars in back taxes from Amazon in relation to this arrangement, Amazon’s regulatory filings show. U.S. authorities have argued the price at which Amazon transferred intellectual property between affiliates was inappropriate; Amazon did not specify the French tax authority’s objections.

Amazon EU can sell into Britain from Luxembourg without creating a taxable presence because, like most developed countries, the two have a treaty aimed at avoiding double-taxation of profits. That lets its home base Luxembourg collect the taxes instead, said David Quentin, at law firm Farrer & Company, after reviewing the Reuters material.

International tax law deems storage as ‘auxiliary’ to the main trade of a manufacturer or retailer, so Amazon’s vast warehouses, which it calls fulfillment centers, do not create a permanent establishment.

That works up to a point, lawyers say. Amazon EU’s activities in Britain do not constitute a taxable entity known as a permanent establishment so long as they are of a “preparatory or auxiliary character”.

“If a UK company is conducting the operations from which the profits in substance arise, HMRC could seek to treat the trade as being conducted through the UK company and tax it here,” Quentin said.

Whatever the legal situation, Amazon is likely to face tough questions when it appears again in front of lawmakers in coming weeks.

“We will take a much closer look at their internal financial arrangements,” said member of parliament Nick Smith, who also sits on the PAC. “Whilst they will be shown every courtesy, Amazon had better put on their tin hats.” ($1 = 0.6568 British pounds)

(Edited by Sara Ledwith and Will Waterman)

Google’s Northern Europe boss, Matt Brittin, was called back to testify to parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) after a Reuters investigation showed the company employed staff in sales roles in London, even though he had told the committee in November its British staff were not “selling” to UK clients.

Brittin said the company was already being investigated by the UK tax authority in relation to transfer pricing of services traded between Google UK Ltd and other Google companies, but added that he believed Google fully complied with UK tax law.

He also denied misleading parliament in November.

But MPs challenged the veracity of his November testimony and comments made on Thursday.

“It really doesn’t wash,” said Stephen Barclay, a PAC member with the ruling Conservative Party.

Committee chairwoman Margaret Hodge said Google was not living up to its original motto of “don’t be evil”.

“You are a company that says you do no evil, and I think that you do evil in that you use smoke and mirrors to avoid paying tax,” she said, adding that the company engaged in “devious, calculated and, in my view, unethical behaviour”.

In November, Brittin told the PAC “Nobody (in the UK) is selling”. He said all UK sales were conducted by Google Ireland and UK staff were only involved in promotional activity.

That arrangement allows Google to shelter most of its income on UK sales from taxation, since Google Ireland sends most of its turnover to an affiliate in Bermuda.

But the Reuters report revealed that Google advertised for staff in London to “negotiate” and “close” deals and that LinkedIn profiles of dozens of staff claimed they engaged in such work.

Committee chairwoman Margaret Hodge said the PAC had also been approached by whistleblowers who had said they had worked for Google in London, selling advertising.

WHAT IS SELLING?

On Thursday, Brittin said UK staff did offer discounts to customers to encourage them to buy and that the staff were remunerated partly by commission on sales, but he said the fact Google Ireland was the legal counterparty on trades meant his November comments were not inaccurate.

“The UK team are selling, but they are not closing.”

Google’s auditor, Ernst & Young, was also called to give evidence. John Dixon, Head of Tax Policy, said there was a grey area between promoting products and concluding sales in Britain, which would, most likely, create a taxable presence for a company in London.

He declined to say if Google’s arrangement was consistent with not having a tax presence in the UK.

Corporate tax avoidance has become a major issue in Britain, where there are concerns over rising government debt and accusations from MPs that the UK tax authority has adopted a light-touch approach to taxing big businesses.

From 2006 to 2011, Google generated $18 billion (11.7 billion pounds) in revenues from the UK, according to statutory filings, and paid just $16 million in taxes.

Google is just one of a raft of companies including Apple Inc., Microsoft, Starbucks and Amazon.com, whose tax affairs have come under scrutiny.

All the companies say they follow international tax rules.

(Editing by Will Waterman)

Google’s Northern Europe boss, Matt Brittin, was called back
to testify to parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) after
a Reuters investigation showed the company employed staff in
sales roles in London, even though he had told the committee in
November its British staff were not “selling” to UK clients.

Brittin said the company was already being investigated by
the UK tax authority in relation to transfer pricing of services
traded between Google UK Ltd and other Google companies, but
added that he believed Google fully complied with UK tax law.

He also denied misleading parliament in November.

But lawmakers challenged the veracity of his November
testimony and comments made on Thursday.

“It really doesn’t wash,” said Stephen Barclay, a PAC member
with the ruling Conservative Party.

Committee chairwoman Margaret Hodge said Google was not
living up to its original motto of “don’t be evil”.

“You are a company that says you do no evil, and I think
that you do do evil in that you use smoke and mirrors to avoid
paying tax,” she said, adding that the company engaged in
“devious, calculated and, in my view, unethical behaviour”.

In November, Brittin told the PAC “Nobody (in the UK) is
selling”. He said all UK sales were conducted by Google Ireland
and UK staff were only involved in promotional activity.

That arrangement allows Google to shelter most of its income
on UK sales from taxation, since Google Ireland sends most of
its turnover to an affiliate in Bermuda.

But the Reuters report revealed that Google advertised for
staff in London to “negotiate” and “close” deals and that
LinkedIn profiles of dozens of staff claimed they engaged in
such work.

Committee chairwoman Margaret Hodge said the PAC had also
been approached by whistleblowers who had said they had worked
for Google in London, selling advertising.

WHAT IS SELLING?

On Thursday, Brittin said UK staff did offer discounts to
customers to encourage them to buy and that the staff were
remunerated partly by commission on sales, but he said the fact
Google Ireland was the legal counterparty on trades meant his
November comments were not inaccurate.

“The UK team are selling, but they are not closing.”

Google’s auditor, Ernst & Young, was also called to give
evidence. John Dixon, Head of Tax Policy, said there was a grey
area between promoting products and concluding sales in Britain,
which would, most likely, create a taxable presence for a
company in London.

He declined to say if Google’s arrangement was consistent
with not having a tax presence in the UK.

Corporate tax avoidance has become a major issue in Britain,
where there are concerns over rising government debt and
accusations from lawmakers that the UK tax authority has adopted
a light-touch approach to taxing big businesses.

From 2006 to 2011, Google generated $18 billion in revenues
from the UK, according to statutory filings, and paid just $16
million in taxes.

Google is just one of a raft of companies including Apple
Inc., Microsoft, Starbucks and
Amazon.com, whose tax affairs have come under scrutiny.

All the companies say they follow international tax rules.

Google’s Northern Europe boss, Matt Brittin, was called back to testify to parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) after a Reuters investigation showed the company employed staff in sales roles in London, even though he had told the committee in November its British staff didn’t sell to UK clients.

Brittin said the company was already being investigated by the UK tax authority in relation to transfer pricing of services traded between Google UK Ltd and other Google companies, but added that he believed Google fully complied with UK tax law. He also repeatedly denied misleading parliament in November, but added Google UK engaged in more selling activities than he had previously revealed.

In November, he said “Nobody (in the UK) is selling,” and that Google Ireland was the contracting party for UK sales; UK staff were only involved in promotional activity. That arrangement allows Google to shelter most of its income on UK sales from taxation, since Google Ireland sends most of its turnover to an affiliate in Bermuda.

On Thursday, Brittin said, “the UK team are selling, but they are not closing.”

Members of parliament said that scheme was deliberately misleading. “It really doesn’t wash,” said Stephen Barclay, a PAC member with the ruling Conservative Party.

Committee chairwoman Margaret Hodge said Google was not living up to its original motto of “don’t be evil”.

“You do do evil,” by shielding UK income from tax, she said.

Corporate tax avoidance has become a major issue in Britain, where there are concerns over rising government debt and accusations from lawmakers that the UK tax authority has adopted a light-touch approach to taxing big businesses.

From 2006 to 2011, Google generated $18 billion (11 billion pounds) in revenues from the UK, according to statutory filings, and paid just $16 million in taxes.

Google is just one of a raft of companies including Apple Inc., Microsoft, Starbucks and Amazon.com, whose tax affairs have come under scrutiny.

All the companies say they follow international tax rules.

Google’s auditor, Ernst & Young, and representatives from the UK tax authority were also called to answer questions.

(Editing by Will Waterman)

Google’s Northern Europe boss, Matt Brittin, was called back
to testify to parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) after
a Reuters investigation showed the company employed staff in
sales roles in London, even though he had told the committee in
November its British staff didn’t sell to UK clients.

Brittin said the company was already being investigated by
the UK tax authority in relation to transfer pricing of services
traded between Google UK Ltd and other Google companies, but
added that he believed Google fully complied with UK tax law. He
also repeatedly denied misleading parliament in November, but
added Google UK engaged in more selling activities than he had
previously revealed.

In November, he said “Nobody (in the UK) is selling,” and
that Google Ireland was the contracting party for UK sales; UK
staff were only involved in promotional activity. That
arrangement allows Google to shelter most of its income on UK
sales from taxation, since Google Ireland sends most of its
turnover to an affiliate in Bermuda.

On Thursday, Brittin said, “the UK team are selling, but
they are not closing.”

Members of parliament said that scheme was deliberately
misleading. “It really doesn’t wash,” said Stephen Barclay, a
PAC member with the ruling Conservative Party.

Committee chairwoman Margaret Hodge said Google was not
living up to its original motto of “don’t be evil”.

“You do do evil,” by shielding UK income from tax, she said.

Corporate tax avoidance has become a major issue in Britain,
where there are concerns over rising government debt and
accusations from lawmakers that the UK tax authority has adopted
a light-touch approach to taxing big businesses.

From 2006 to 2011, Google generated $18 billion in revenues
from the UK, according to statutory filings, and paid just $16
million in taxes.

Google is just one of a raft of companies including Apple
Inc., Microsoft, Starbucks and
Amazon.com, whose tax affairs have come under scrutiny.

All the companies say they follow international tax rules.

Google’s auditor, Ernst & Young, and representatives from
the UK tax authority were also called to answer questions.

Corporate tax avoidance has become a major issue in Britain, where there are concerns over rising government debt and accusations from MPs that the UK tax authority has adopted a light touch approach to taxing big businesses.

Google’s Northern Europe boss, Matt Brittin, was called to testify to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in November about Google’s low UK tax bill.

From 2006 to 2011, Google generated $18 billion in revenues from the UK, according to statutory filings, and paid just $16 million in taxes.

Brittin told the PAC Google was not taxed on the profits of its core advertising business in Britain, because all UK sales were conducted from Ireland.

Reuters revealed that the Internet search giant had described its London offices on its website as a base for sales teams and advertised dozens of London-based sales vacancies.

Committee chairwoman, Margaret Hodge said the company had questions to answer.

“When Google appeared before the Committee last year we were told they were not selling in the UK. There appears to be a clear discrepancy between that and the evidence that has now been uncovered by Reuters,” she said.

“This hearing is their chance to explain themselves.”

Google is just one of a raft of companies including Apple Inc., Microsoft, Starbucks and Amazon.com, whose tax affairs have come under scrutiny.

All the companies say they follow international tax rules.

On Wednesday, Amazon.com Inc, which was also called to testify at the November PAC hearing, attracted criticism from politicians over its tax bill for 2012.

Accounts published on Wednesday showed Amazon.co.uk Ltd, Amazon’s main UK unit paid $3.7 million of taxes on its 2012 income. Amazon Group had UK sales of $6.5 billion (4 billion pounds) in 2012.

Google’s auditor, Ernst & Young, and representatives from the UK tax authority are also being called to answer questions.

(Reporting by Tom Bergin; Editing by Elaine Hardcastle)

Corporate tax avoidance has become a major issue in Britain, where there are concerns over rising government debt and accusations from lawmakers that the UK tax authority has adopted a light touch approach to taxing big businesses.

Google’s Northern Europe boss, Matt Brittin, was called to testify to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in November about Google’s low UK tax bill.

From 2006 to 2011, Google generated $18 billion in revenues from the UK, according to statutory filings, and paid just $16 million in taxes.

Brittin told the PAC Google was not taxed on the profits of its core advertising business in Britain, because all UK sales were conducted from Ireland.

Reuters revealed that the Internet search giant had described its London offices on its website as a base for sales teams and advertised dozens of London-based sales vacancies.

Committee chairwoman, Margaret Hodge said the company had questions to answer.

“When Google appeared before the Committee last year we were told they were not selling in the UK. There appears to be a clear discrepancy between that and the evidence that has now been uncovered by Reuters,” she said.

“This hearing is their chance to explain themselves.”

Google is just one of a raft of companies including Apple Inc., Microsoft, Starbucks and Amazon.com, whose tax affairs have come under scrutiny.

All the companies say they follow international tax rules.

On Wednesday, Amazon.com Inc, which was also called to testify at the November PAC hearing, attracted criticism from politicians over its tax bill for 2012.

Accounts published on Wednesday showed Amazon.co.uk Ltd, Amazon’s main UK unit paid $3.7 million of taxes on its 2012 income. Amazon Group had UK sales of $6.5 billion (4 billion pounds) in 2012.

Google’s auditor, Ernst & Young, and representatives from the UK tax authority are also being called to answer questions.

(Reporting by Tom Bergin; Editing by Elaine Hardcastle)

Amazon.co.uk Ltd added in its accounts, published through the UK companies register, that it received 2.5 million pounds in government grants during 2012 – just ahead of the 2.4 million it paid in corporation tax, the UK form of corporate income tax.

Corporate tax avoidance has risen to the top of the political agenda in Europe following revelations in the past couple of years about how little big names like Apple Inc., Starbucks, Google and Microsoft pay in tax in markets where they reap billions of dollars in sales.

The companies say they follow the rules but UK Prime Minister David Cameron has called for international action on the shifting of profits, which can help firms cut tax bills.

Amazon.co.uk reported a small corporate income tax bill because all sales to British customers are routed through a Luxembourg affiliate, Amazon EU Sarl, which employs around 500 staff.

The British subsidiary, which employed 4,191 people at the end of 2012 and thousands more indirectly via contracting agencies, is deemed, for tax purposes, to be a service provider to the Luxembourg unit.

It is funded by fees it receives from Amazon EU and since these only just cover operating costs, little is left over for the UK tax authority, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to tax.

Amazon EU pays little tax in Luxembourg because it pays hundreds of millions of euros each year in fees to a tax exempt affiliate, also registered in Luxembourg.

Amazon was not immediately available for comment but has previously said it follows the tax rules in every country where it operates.

John Hemming, a member of parliament with the Liberal Democrats, the junior party in Britain’s governing coalition, said the figures showed the inadequacy of existing rules to tackle the problem of profit shifting by major corporations.

“The government clearly needs to do a detailed study on how to handle the tax implications of e-commerce,” he said.

But Nick Smith, a member of parliament with the opposition Labour party, said he wanted the tax authorities to take a close look at Amazon, describing its tax payment as “pathetic”.

“HMRC should be going through this company’s tax arrangements with a fine-tooth comb,” he said.

Mark Brighton of Kew Books, which operates three bookstores in southwest London, said Amazon.co.uk’s low tax bill highlighted the unfair competition small retailers like himself face.

Larger booksellers, electronics retailers and grocers have also criticized Amazon’s arrangements in the past year.

In December, a committee of British lawmakers grilled an Amazon executive about the company’s tax affairs and accused it of behaving “immorally”.

Like other businesses, Amazon also pays taxes on employee wages and collects value added tax, a European form of sales tax, for the government.

Including adjustments in relation to previous years, Amazon.co.uk Ltd had a total tax charge of 3.2 million pounds.

($1 = 0.6554 British pounds)

(Reporting by Tom Bergin; Editing by Keiron Henderson and Mark Potter)

Amazon.co.uk Ltd added in its accounts, published through
the UK companies register, that it received 2.5 million pounds
in government grants during 2012 – just ahead of the 2.4 million
it paid in corporation tax, the UK form of corporate income tax.

Corporate tax avoidance has risen to the top of the
political agenda in Europe following revelations in the past
couple of years about how little big names like Apple Inc.,
Starbucks, Google and Microsoft pay in tax in markets where they
reap billions of dollars in sales.

The companies say they follow the rules but UK Prime
Minister David Cameron has called for international action on
the shifting of profits, which can help firms cut tax bills.

Amazon.co.uk reported a small corporate income tax bill
because all sales to British customers are routed through a
Luxembourg affiliate, Amazon EU Sarl, which employs around 500
staff.

The British subsidiary, which employed 4,191 people at the
end of 2012 and thousands more indirectly via contracting
agencies, is deemed, for tax purposes, to be a service provider
to the Luxembourg unit.

It is funded by fees it receives from Amazon EU and since
these only just cover operating costs, little is left over for
the UK tax authority, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC)
to tax.

Amazon EU pays little tax in Luxembourg because it pays
hundreds of millions of euros each year in fees to a tax exempt
affiliate, also registered in Luxembourg.

Amazon was not immediately available for comment but has
previously said it follows the tax rules in every country where
it operates.

John Hemming, a member of parliament with the Liberal
Democrats, the junior party in Britain’s governing coalition,
said the figures showed the inadequacy of existing rules to
tackle the problem of profit shifting by major corporations.

“The government clearly needs to do a detailed study on how
to handle the tax implications of e-commerce,” he said.

But Nick Smith, a member of parliament with the opposition
Labour party, said he wanted the tax authorities to take a close
look at Amazon, describing its tax payment as “pathetic”.

“HMRC should be going through this company’s tax
arrangements with a fine-tooth comb,” he said.

Mark Brighton of Kew Books, which operates three bookstores
in southwest London, said Amazon.co.uk’s low tax bill
highlighted the unfair competition small retailers like himself
face.

Larger booksellers, electronics retailers and grocers have
also criticised Amazon’s arrangements in the past year.

In December, a committee of British lawmakers grilled an
Amazon executive about the company’s tax affairs and accused it
of behaving “immorally”.

Like other businesses, Amazon also pays taxes on employee
wages and collects value added tax, a European form of sales
tax, for the government.

Including adjustments in relation to previous years,
Amazon.co.uk Ltd had a total tax charge of 3.2 million pounds.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said on its website that the representatives would testify on Thursday May 16.

Google has attracted the ire of British MPs for the way it pays almost no income tax on billions of dollars of UK sales each year.

At an earlier hearing in November, Google’s Northern Europe boss, Matt Brittin, said that all UK sales were conducted from Ireland and that no sales took place from Britain.

At a PAC hearing in January, John Dixon, head of tax policy at Ernst & Young in London, told MPs his firm checked to ensure a tax client’s activities on the ground matched what was claimed in their accounts.

Last week, the committee’s chairwoman, Margaret Hodge, said she planned to recall Google and Ernst & Young, after Reuters revealed that the Internet search giant had described its London offices on its website as a base for sales teams, and advertised dozens of London-based sales vacancies.

Google declined comment on the scheduled hearing but referred to its comments last week, before it received a formal invitation, in which it denied that Brittin had misled the PAC in November and said it would be happy to testify to the committee again to explain its position.

Ernst & Young declined comment.

Last week a spokeswoman said the auditor and tax advisor stood by Dixon’s testimony and said it followed all audit rules.

(Editing by David Cowell)