In August 2018 Ethical Consumer viewed OpenSecrets.org and found that in 2018 Alphabet and its employees had given $3,196,293 in political donations, with 76% going to Democrats.

It had also spent $11,010,000 on political lobbying.

Reference:

Open Secrets website 2018 (2018)

A report by Transparency International (TI) from 24 June 2015 stated that the overwhelming majority of lobby meetings held by European Commissioners and their closest advisers were with representatives of corporate interests.

Google was one of the most active lobbyists at this level, with 29 meetings, and it was also one of the biggest spenders in Brussels, declaring an EU lobby budget of around 3.5 million euros per year. The company had a total of 9 registered lobbyists.

TI added, however, that this information "is just part of the picture", as lobbying information was voluntarily filed, and according to TI, "much of the information... is inaccurate, incomplete or outright meaningless". The European Commission's new transparency provisions covered only the highest ranking top 1% of EU officials and 20% of the registered lobby organisations.

Reference:

Lobby meetings with EU policy-makers dominated by corporate interests (24 June 2015)

According to the website Business and Human rights the head of a key pan-European industry group criticised intensifying pressure from US lobbyists on behalf of Google and others to relax EU privacy laws to suit Silicon Valley businesses. Google and several other top US tech companies, with the help of the Obama administration, had been increasing pressure on European lawmakers to standardise privacy laws across borders to make their business operations flow more easily, which would mean more lax EU legislation at a time when the bloc was proposing exactly the opposite. Jacob Kohnstamm, head of the Article 29 Working Party, which represented EU privacy and data protection regulators… [said] European lawmakers were “fed up” with US tech companies trying to put their corporate interests ahead of laws that protect what Europe saw as fundamental rights.

Reference:

http://www.business-humanrights.org/Categories/Individualcompanies/G/Google?sort_on=publication&batc

In August 2018 Ethical Consumer viewed Google Inc's family tree on the corporate information website Hoovers.com. According to Hoovers the company had three holding subsidiaries based in Bermuda - a jursidication which was on Ethical Consumer's tax haven list at the time of writing. The company also had several subsidiaries in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and , although these were not considered at high risk of being used for tax avoidance purposes.

According to Alphabet's 10K form which was downloaded from the SEC, the company was registered in Delaware. Delaware was at the time of writing considered by Ethical Consumer to be a tax haven jurisidiction. The form contained no country-by-country reporting.

Google had also been heavily criticised by several countries around the world for its tax avoidance methods. This included France who in March 2016 raided its offices following an investigation into its tax affairs.

As a result Google received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for likely use of tax avoidance strategies.

Reference:

Generic Hoovers ref 2018 (2018)

In 2015 the BBC reported that an agreement that would see US tech firm Google pay £130m in UK back taxes was labelled as "derisory" and a "sweetheart deal" by critics.

The payment covered money owed since 2005 and followed a six-year inquiry by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

Richard Murphy, from the Fair Tax Mark, estimated Google should be paying £200m every year in Corporation Tax.

He said the figure was based on the firm's declared profit margins and sales in Britain in 2014 of £4.5bn.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Labour's Mr McDonnell called for greater transparency, saying it looked like a "sweetheart deal".
"HMRC seems to have settled for a relatively small amount in comparison with the overall profits that are made by the company in this country. And some of the independent analysts have argued that it should be at least 10 times this amount," he said.
"It looks to me from all the independent analysis that this is relatively trivial in comparison with what should have been paid. In fact one analysis has put the rate down to about 3%, which I think is derisory," he added.

Google paid £20.4m in UK taxes in 2013. The value of its British sales that year was £3.8bn. Google makes most of its UK profits through online advertising.
Google knows that the Diverted Profits Tax (known as the "Google Tax") which came into force last year will mean it will have to pay more to HMRC.
On top of that, the OECD has come up with much stricter international rules for 'Base Erosion and Profit Shifting' or aggressive tax avoidance.
Taxes on profits should soon be paid where the economic activity takes place rather than where the company is domiciled or registered.
Google currently routes its UK sales through Ireland which it will no longer be able to do.
Matt Brittin, head of Google Europe, told the BBC: "Today we announced that we are going to be paying more tax in the UK.
"The rules are changing internationally and the UK government is taking the lead in applying those rules so we'll be changing what we are doing here. We want to ensure that we pay the right amount of tax."

Reference:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35390692 (25 January 2016)

In an article dated 13 November 2015, Computer Business Review reported that Google was among a number of large corporates to be investigated by EU regulators over its allegedly paying insufficient taxes. This began after documents were exposed by a group of investigative journalists which contained evidence that the company had made secret fiscal deals with Luxembourg which enabled it to pay low taxes.

Reference:

EU parliament to grill US tech giants on Luxenbourg tax fraud (13 November 2015)