There have been interesting reactions to yesterday's press release from the TJN (which was reproduced here) on the research spearheaded by Richard Lupson-Darnell into the causes for UK tax legislation.
Accountancy Age covered it. Thanks chaps. Another accountancy journal confirmed that they would do so within 3 minutes of getting the mail from me with the press release attached. I have to admit even I was surprised.
Some, such as TaxationWeb, which I would have expected to do so, did not. But it looks likely that the national press will be covering it soon, so I thought Dennis Howlett's comments were of interest. Let's put it on record straight away that Dennis is not opposed to what I'm trying to do. He blogged to that effect the same day. That may be his polite way of getting my attention, but since his analysis is ore critical than that of some others I thought it worth looking at. His argument seems to be:
1) I didn't define anti-avoidance in the published comments and press release;
2) The argument is not fully developed;
3) The research could be developed further, but wasn't.
Each is an interesting point. I'm going to come back to the definition of tax avoidance when I have time. But the Tax Justice Network has published one, often. It is:
The term given to the practice of seeking to minimise a tax bill without deliberate deception (which would be tax evasion or fraud).
The term is sometimes used to describe the practice of claiming allowances and reliefs clearly provided for in national tax law. It is, however, now generally agreed that this is not tax avoidance. If the law provides that no tax is due on a transaction then no tax can have been avoided by undertaking it. This practice is now generally seen as being tax compliance. So what the term tax avoidance now usually refers to is the practice of seeking to not pay tax contrary to the spirit of the law. This is also called aggressive tax avoidance.
Aggressive tax avoidance is the practice of seeking to minimise a tax bill by attempting to comply with the letter of the law whilst avoiding its purpose or spirit. (etc…)
That's readily available from 'tax us if you can', published by the Tax Justice Network and so sets a framework for this issue. I did not think I had to define it again, at least in a press release. Not least because the term is in common usage and even if indefinable (which I happen to think is true) can, like an elephant with which it shares this characteristic, be readily identified by a seasoned observer. One was engaged on this research.
Second, Dennis is suggesting that we jumped to a conclusion. Did we? I don't think so. Anti-avoidance legislation is aimed at taxpayers. We suggested that it was the actions of taxpayers that gave cause for this legislation to be enacted. I accept one can argue where this circle starts, and it's clear we started at a particular point, which was explicit. But is that an undeveloped argument or an unreasonable conclusion given the starting point? I doubt it. No one else but Dennis seems to have this problem. And like most pressure group analysis, we weren't pretending this was PhD stuff. It was simple analysis involving some judgement, and as it so happens incorporated considerable caution in our case to ensure that we did not overstate the case.
How cautious? Well, enough that we could have claimed almost 60% of legislation was focused on anti-avoidance. We chose not to. We went to the bottom end of the scale we could calculate and used 41%. Let's use the range 40% to 60% to cover possibilities and anyone who wants to count something differently from us will have to contend with the fact that our methodology (which weighted all sections and schedules as being of equal length in the legislation when those relating to anti-avoidance are, as our testing showed, much longer on average than those introducing new initiatives) under scored the page allocation made to this category of sections and schedules.
Unless someone is in denial about the existence of either tax avoidance, or anti-avoidance legislation our research is a good marker in the sand. We'll stand by it. But if anyone would like to fund us to develop it further, just call me. We could undertake a lot more research on the issue if we had the cash to do so.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
You’re missing the point Richard and misrepresenting what I said without quoting me. I am not denying abuse/evasion exists and I explicitly say that 41% is a starting point without querying how it was arrived at because I assume it was concluded in good faith.
I don’t know who ‘no-one else’ is but I can assure you from email i have ot hand that others are deeply concerned.
The reason I made the case in the manner I did is precisely because government doesn’t work on bald figures the way TJN presented them. It works on the basis of well-researched, evidence based information. This does not meet those criteria. As I understand it, TJNs remit is to influence government and other interested parties so whether anyone likes it or not, you have to apply a solid research methodology.
I will paraphrase for those that have not read what I said: there is no way to arrive at TJNs conclusion *as presented.* It reads like a start for a hypothesis. I did *not* say it was the wrong conclusiojn because I am as much in the dark on this as everyone else.
The last time I looked at government used research – it was from those with PhDs. Because they understand the rigour and criteria required to be credible.
Arguments are won or lost on the basis of sound work conductred in a responsible manner and debated in a courteous manner. This one is too important to treat in any other way – IMO.
Richard, if I was still at TaxationWeb I might have run the story but I would have asked you first for sight of the report behind the press release. I cannot see what you have to lose by publishing the research.
It was already clear, however, that much of the recent legislation was enacted to counter legal avoidance. Perhaps we should not be too surprised to have seen a flurry of anti-avoidance provisions following the introduction of a statutory disclosure regime in 2004, and there may be less need for them in the next few years.
But there seems to be a growing sense in the tax profession that a general anti-avoidance rule may be preferable to the present system. Eighteen months ago the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland wrote to Gordon Brown encouraging the Government to consult on the possibility of introducing a GAAR, and this week’s Taxation magazine has Martin Edhouse, a tax consultant, saying that “the time for a serious review of a UK GAAR may be ripe”.
Dennis,
Having only just commpleated my degree at 50 years of age, I have had the misfortune of having to read and listened to the work of PhDs, and as a generalisation the are bloody hopeless. They make unfounded comments, totally misinterperate seminal academics work, especially those from mainland Europe and they all know that research is problematic by methodolodgy alone, and when you contest their argument they clam up.
I do a lot of second hand research on tax issues I read both sides of the arguement and I have to say that the work of Richard Murphy far exceeds that for most PhDs and professors etc.
Dennis,
KPMG recently said in a report on global taxation that VAT/GST is a win:win situation.
All social and economic polict has winers and losers, no matter who formulates and implements them.
Yes, and governments do enact poor policies.
So let me get this straight here.
Setting up a “managed service company” before the PBR, would have been aggressive tax avoidance – because it complied with the letter of the law, but meant the shareholders lost their rights as employees, and the reason for setting up the MSC was to save employer’s NI.
But if you’re genuinely in business in your own right and there’s no question of you being anyone’s employee, then it’s perfectly OK to incorporate your sole trade, and if it saves tax then so much the better. That’s tax compliance.
Tax avoidance is twisting (but not breaking) the rules to fit your situation.
Tax compliance is just that, complying with the rules.
M
[…] A while ago I published some research for TJN, including back up notes and explanations on the methodology. Several commentators, wholly unjustifiably in my opinion, demanded that TJN publish every last iota of the work done or they said no one should take regard of the work, and claimed that the press should not either. […]