We had plans to cover the issue, which popped up in a KPMG briefing note recently.
But it does at least, give me the chance to introduce a new concept to tax. When the chancellor fails to raise income tax thresholds in line with earnings growth every year, we talk of 'fiscal drag'. When children outgrow (I use the word with caution) the VAT rules, can we talk of 'Physical Drag'?
*Cruel, I know, but irresistible...
]]>I was in two minds as to whether or not to discuss it on Tuesday or Wednesday, because it's one of those policies that seems too silly to even bother to knock down. Thankfully, both Chris Dillow and Ross Clark did a good job on that front, saving the rest of us some time.
What I wanted to discuss here is the government's attempts to row back from the plan. The line today is that it's pure 'speculation' and kite-flying by the national media.
Pull the other one. The original Sun piece was by George Pascoe-Watson, the paper's political editor. The piece was a full rundown of Gordon Brown's plans to tackle the impact of the credit crunch and, to this observer at least, looked like having come from a briefing from Number 10. It seems an implausible thing for The Sun to have made up, frankly.
The move is already seeing the market seize up as buyers wait to take advantage of the proposed tax break. If the Treasury had any sense, it would come out and explicitly rule out the plan. What chance of that, I wonder?
]]>Tax complexity is one of those tricky topics that I think nobody really knows how to solve, and I suspect there are good reasons for Richard Murphy-like cynicism about the whole project.
The plans are two-fold: firstly, an Office of Tax Simplification to monitor tax policies.
And secondly, a joint parliamentary committee on tax matters.
Of the two, I like the second far more than the first. Members of the House of Commons are, to put it mildly, very ill-briefed on tax frequently. To ask them to scrutinise the finance bill is hopeless, and a joint committee, comprising the much more experienced members of the House of Lords as well as those from the commons, would add to the intelligence of the debate.
The Office of Tax Simplification is less attractive. More bureaucrats do not create less bureaucracy; surely a principle the Tory party exists to promote.
Like a Corporate Social Responsibility department within a multi-national company, it will only exist to be paid lip-service to. Real simplicity, like real CSR, comes from the top; in the case of tax, from clear thinking and a desire and political will to embrace radical solutions.
Take one example. The debate over multi-nationals leaving the country has been hampered by complex arguments over whether we should lower the corporate tax rate, or just hammer the big companies with fiercely complicated rules about overseas subsidiaries. I doubt either would work.
In fact, the most elegant solution, rarely discussed, came from Deloitte. It suggested a low tax rate for mobile income, recognising that some things can be taxed and some can't.
The Tories should aim for similar realism on all aspects of tax; through doing so, they may get somewhere towards a simpler and better tax system.
]]>Esteemed experts from accountancy firms and from law firms are all lining up to say that the High Court's rejection of the CFC rules is terrible news for the government, and removes a key set of anti-avoidance principles.
But will it have any impact?
Few companies have big CFC liabilities like Vodafone, because the rules are an obstacle rather than anything else: companies plan around them. So there aren't thought to be huge numbers of cases awaiting resolution.
And secondly, noone is going to say to themselves now: 'Why don't we ignore the government's controlled foreign companies rules.'
Whatever happens, the government will introduce new rules that will have a similar effect, so I doubt anyone's behaviour will ultimately change going forward. (it will actually prove more of a problem for taxpayers, since they'll have to master the new rules rather than the old ones.)
What's more, I suspect there is some doubt the judgment will stand. Taxpayers often win in the High Court, with HMRC having a better record elsewhere. With £2bn at stake, there's no danger of anyone backing down if they don't have to.
The really intriguing part of the case is not, if you ask me, what impact this has for other companies, but on what Vodafone was up to.
The company has declined to elaborate on the details of its Luxembourg subsidiary, which bought the shares of Mannesmann, and in which those shares attract no capital gains charge.
Are all relevant management decisions made in Luxembourg? Are there lots of people there? Vodafone says it meets the tests, but hasn't pleaded its case in court in full.
]]>Clearly, we want to look at how these reforms might affect individual sectors, including those dealing with intellectual property. We are committed to a revenue-neutral package that enhances competitiveness while protecting UK tax revenues.
That's a 'Treasury source' quoted by The Times.
]]> Ever since the review began, we've known it would be 'revenue-neutral'. There's nothing new there - the principle being that the Treasury loses money from exempting inbound dividends, and gains from the CFC rules-tightening.It's how he does the latter that is causing the problems. It will be interesting to see what new ideas might emerge from the Treasury, but as yet, there seems no sign of any climbdown (nor, in fact, a realisation on the part of the government that it had 'climbed' anywhere - it was still insisting very recently that everyone had just 'misunderstood').
]]>It shows an intriguing trend.
]]> Here are the figures:Jan - 198 working days lost to stress-related illness
Feb - 163
Mar - 155
Apr - 123
May - 168
Jun - 192
Jul - 131
Aug - 129
Sept - 84
Oct - 121
Nov - 85
Dec - 89
As James Kirkup of the Telegraph notes, 'that suggests a significant decline in stress at HMT since the middle of last summer.'
Just as, of course, our new chancellor took over. I always thought Alistair Darling was a nicer chap than Gordon.
]]>In last week's Economist, he says: 'The more successful tax collectors are in preventing firms from shifting profit out of Britain, the more they are likely to encourage firms to leave the country.'
That just about sums up the futility of the government's policy.
]]>Walters is, for those who don't know, the group head of tax at Vodafone, and he makes the point that he thinks there is not as much 'tax avoidance' going on, there just seems to be because where disagreements between companies and HMRC do arise, they involve huge sums of money.
]]> He should know, of course: Vodafone has been involved, and is still involved, in tax cases involving mind-boggling sums. The £2bn case over the Luxembourg subsidiary used during the Mannesman merger deal is the most interesting, to my mind. (Read the court documents here).But what's more interesting is the rise and rise of the tax director. The group head of tax at a multi-national is no longer the tax geek who knows how to fill in tax returns or understands the whizzy tax schemes. They have become the point man in the increasingly important debate about tax and corporate social responsibility.
I'm sure I'm not alone in finding Walters' views on tax avoidance fascinating, and intrinsically quite plausible too, on some levels, though I also feel I don't entirely have the information to judge how 'rare' tax avoidance is among multi-nationals. Perhaps it feels rare to tax directors, and rife to the layman?
My point is that Walters is not the only person putting their head above the parapet. Not only are tax directors all on the important committee hammering out the new foreign profits rules, catching everyone's attention at present, but we are finding they are also increasingly prepared to meet with us and talk to journalists generally. I know who more of them are and could tell you the names of a dozen or so tax directors at UK-based multi-nationals, something I couldn't have done a year ago.
If the interest in tax avoidance, as the Guardian/Tesco affair suggests, continues to grow in interest and importance, the tax directors will need to be more visible to explain what is going on in a complex area that is also of key public concern.
]]>Whether or not it does - and I'm sure we'll see plenty of discussion of the move over the next 24 hours - here are the full list of questions the committee are interested in.
]]> The committee said:The Committee would welcome, in particular, written evidence that relates to the following questions:
• To what extent, and why, are Offshore Financial Centres
important to worldwide financial markets?
• To what extent does the use of Offshore Financial
Centres threaten financial stability?
• How transparent are Offshore Financial Centres and the
transactions that pass through them to the
• To what extent does the growth in complex financial
instruments rely on Offshore Financial Centres?
• How important have the levels of transparency and taxation
in Offshore Financial Centres been in explaining their current position in
worldwide financial markets?
• How do the taxation policies of Offshore Financial
Centres impact on UK tax revenue and policy
• Are British Overseas Territories
and Crown Dependencies well-regarded as Offshore Financial Centres, both in
comparison to their peers and international standards?
• To what extent have Offshore Financial Centres ensured
that they cannot be used in terrorist financing?
• What are the implications for the policies of HM
Treasury arising from Offshore Financial Centres?
• What has been and is the extent and effect of double
taxation treaty abuse within Offshore Financial Centres?
• To what extent do Offshore Financial Centres investigate
businesses and individuals that appear to be evading UK taxation>
George Osborne was speaking to the British Chambers of Commerce in Liverpool about it today, and I've finally got hold of the full speech.
]]> Here's the section you may find interesting:]]>...the [Tax Reform] Commission also identified a looming problem with the taxation of
foreign profits - the specific issue that drove Shire to Ireland, and which
is now worrying businesses up and down the country. They recommended a
participation exemption - effectively taking foreign profits out of tax and
encouraging the repatriation of profit to the UK.There is a powerful case for such a change, which we are looking very
closely at. It could deliver a simpler and more competitive tax system fit
for the global economy. But the Government's current approach risks making
this area of tax even more complex not less, and could even lead to yet
another stealth tax on business.Shire's decision should act as a warning shot. Reforming the tax system and
cutting business tax rates is one way to help British businesses succeed...
To which the only real response is: why on earth did Tony Blair believe him? 25,000 people? Really? Just how bad is the former prime minister's mental arithmetic?
]]>In an article on companies being disgruntled with the UK taxman, an (unnamed) private equity figure suggests that after going to the Treasury to talk about sensitive tax issues, he/she and others were investigated by the Revenue.
]]> The quote reads:A group of us had several meetings at Downing Street over tax and disclosure. Literally a month later, almost all of us had a 'random' personal tax inspection from the Revenue. It was extraordinary.
Extraordinary indeed. Surely the Treasury can't have tipped off the Revenue to make random investigations into individuals it was consulting on tax issues?
I'm inclined to believe it was a coincidence, though I suspect there will be many tax advisers who would not put it past the taxman.
Perhaps the first thing to note is that this is not about UK tax rates. If you look at the company's annual report (pdf, p.80) for the year ending December 2006, it notes a UK tax credit, rather than charge, of $44m (£22m).
]]> The company is being a bit coy, but the only possible tax reason is the changes to CFC rules, first outlined in Gordon Brown's last PBR.The Treasury wants companies to pay more tax on their foreign profits. So if you put a treasury function offshore, you can't get away with booking the profits offshore: it is a UK profit and subject to UK tax.
The UK wants to define 'passive' income from such subsidiaries, but it is clearly not doing a very good job of reassuring multi-nationals that it is going to do so sensibly.
The problem for Shire and others is they are worried that all the brands they have, perhaps developed in the UK, might generate profits in other countries that the UK will try and get its hands on.
You can debate whether that's right, and it's not clear cut, but the reason Ireland is attractive is because it doesn't have a regime to tax foreign subsidiaries, or controlled foreign companies, in the same way. So foreign profits are protected.
Again, I should stress I don't think Shire are saying this explicitly, but it can be the only reason really for the move.
Dodwell suggests companies should wait and see what happens with the government's consultation, but some clearly can't wait. All in all, worrying times for the Treasury
P.S. Some debate in the UK seems to be about whether our tax rate is too high. It's actually not really relevant here, since Shire will still pay tax on its UK income (and doesn't pay much anyway). But it is an interesting question.
The Treasury says we're fine: our tax rate is lower than those of similar countries. True, but our corporate tax burden is higher. Look at page 167 of the IFS's Green Budget from 2006, showing the corporate tax burden as a share of national income. For the UK, the number is 3.3%. For Germany and the US, with higher tax rates, the numbers are 1.3% and 2.2% respectively.
The message of course is that the tax base is as important as the tax rate. (the IFS further notes that the financial sector in the UK may explain some of this, but that surely doesn't argue it away completely).
]]>The question is curious because there are differing views out there as to how the whole battle will play out.
]]> Dennis Howlett takes the view that he would like to see Tesco's tax computations discussed in court. John Kavanagh, a newish blogger who works for Shaws, the Chartered Tax Advisers, thinks that the result can only be good for Tesco.As he puts it on his blog and here too:
If the Guardian argues successfully that their article is not defamatory, then Tesco loses their case but regains the moral high ground. If the article is defamatory if untrue, the Guardian will have to show that it got its facts right in order to win, and only Tesco can know whether they have.
He also thinks the courts will not take the view that tax avoidance is immoral. From my experience of covering court decisions on tax avoidance matters, I'm sure he's right: court decisions on avoidance are more 'amoral' than anything else, preferring to take a literal approach to tax matters than a moral one.
But who really does win here, whatever a court's verdict? I think Kavanagh underestimates what a forensic examination of the tax affairs of big corporates, and the activities of the tax profession, might do for debate about tax as a whole. I don't, by that, mean it will be a good thing for the profession. Could HMRC end up being the winner?
Richard Northedge has a similar view: that Tesco could be entering into a MacLibel situation.
This battle has the appearance of a Goliath versus David fight – and remember who won that. Tesco should look at the MacLibel case: after years of dispute, the hamburger giant won but it was the protestors that gained the sympathy and McDonalds is still regarded as a representative of big bad business.
Actually I think one point is being missed in the whole debate, particularly by those who hope this battle will feature a great discussion of tax avoidance as a moral issue. And that is that libel cases in this country rarely, if ever, involve any discussion of what the truth is in relation to a newspaper or magazine's claims.
The 'justification' defence, as it is known, is far too expensive to pursue. The smart money must be on The Guardian opting for some kind of 'Reynolds' defence, in which you argue that the story was in the public interest and that you followed all sound journalistic procedures, in putting the story to Tesco, etc, etc.
I expect we will hear an awful lot about who said what to whom and when, and precious little about the rights and wrongs of tax avoidance. Whatever happens, if it comes to court, it's going to be gripping stuff.
UPDATE: Roy Greenslade has covered this subject, and quoted this blog, in his weekly media column in The Evening Standard. It's worth a read (and I don't just say that because he's mentioned me...).