PWC’s weekly tax newsletter includes the headline:

PwC’s family business survey notes hunger for simpler UK tax rules and lower rates

If you can work your way through the password minefield the story is here.

And the story is wrong: entirely wrong. It’s political misinformation, yet again.

The evidence is simple to find. The Chancellor delivered simpler tax rules and lower tax rates for many on Capital Gains Tax in the Pre-Budget Report and the result was, as Accountancy Age reported from the CBI conference:

CBI warns Darling of tax ‘rage’ over CGT

You can’t reconcile these two positions.

I believe the evidence on the ground. People don’t want tax simplification, and they probably don’t want real tax cuts either.

Nov 302007
 

Another strange thing about PWC’s Total Tax Contribution.

178 countries are considered.

Places as obscure as St Vincent and the Grenadines make it in.

So why don’t Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Cayman and the British Virgin Islands feature in the survey?

Are they the UK for these purposes?

Or would PWC just rather ignore some of the biggest tax havens in which they operate in their all singing and dancing survey?

No explanation is given. I call this another fundamental flaw. And it has to be deliberate. Because very clearly PWC know a great deal about what goes on in these places.

 

I wrote earlier today about PWC’s new Total Tax Contribution report and said I’d expose the fundamental accounting flaw inherent within it. I’ll keep my promise.

Look at this diagram:

Seen the problem yet? It’s this: the total tax rate is expressed as a percentage of profit.

Now note where this is highest: Africa. And that’s not a coincidence. You see, African countries set high tax rates on profit (the diagram shows that). But these taxes are easily evaded. There are, for example, almost no effective transfer pricing controls in Africa. So the easiest way to not pay tax on your profit is to make your profit very low by exporting it to a convenient tax haven of your choosing. PWC have offices in most.

Now. having low profits does not much alter the percentage tax rate paid on that profit, of course. It just makes the absolute sum paid much smaller. And that’s an African problem we’re seeking to tackle as part of the development agenda.

But having an artificially low profit has a dramatic impact on the apparent ratios of tax due in the other categories PWC consider, because labour and ‘other’ tax bills aren’t , of course, calculated on anything to do with profit. The simple fact is that if you divide a properly calculated number by an artificially deflated number you will come up with an answer that is bigger than it should be. And this explains exactly why the graph has the profile it does.

Because of this the entire methodology of the TTC is flawed. As ever, PWC are seeking to compare apples and oranges to create pears. And it doesn’t work. And they must know it does not work. After all, they make it their business to relocate profit.

All of which makes me think it’s a good job they no longer call themselves a firm of accountants. They clearly don’t understand numbers.

But they do peddle some very dodgy figures with clear political intent. And that’s much more worrying.

 

There are some things that are simply worth reading this weekend and which I won’t have time to blog in detail

Please read Prem Sikka on audit failings and the sub prime crisis.

Read Dennis Howlett on the same issue.

And Dennis again on TI.

These aren’t to be missed. Your weekend will be better for them.

 

PWC have published their second report on what they call “the total tax contribution” of business. I’ve commented on this before. More than once. It’s illiterate in accounting terms. I’ll explain why in another post. It’s flawed in economic terms. It’s biased. And it fails to consider the impact of its findings. Apart from that, it’s a profound waste of the World Bank’s money.

I offer this in evidence from the executive summary:

The results show that tax reform is widespread. This year 31 countries improved their tax system and 65 have done so over the past three years.
• Reducing corporate income tax was the most popular reform.
• However, many countries have made changes to reduce the compliance burden by simplifying or eliminating other business taxes.
• Total tax rates have been in a downward trend during the period in which Paying Taxes data has been collected.

Since when was it assumed that a cut in tax rates was a reform? Or that it was popular? Or that it was, necessarily, an improvement?

And since when was eliminating tax on business by definition an improvement in the tax system?

And why is a fall in business tax rates necessarily a good thing?

Th reality is this:

The major purpose of the dirty money structure that we in the West have created is the movement of money from poor to rich-out of the hands of the poor, into the hands of the rich; out of the countries where 80 percent of the world’s population lives, into the countries where 20 percent of the world’s population lives.

That is by Raymond Baker, the world’s foremost expert on dirty money flows. The World Bank now uses his data. And let’s be clear, of the $500 billion a year that he estimates flows out of developing countries to developed ones the split is as follows:

a) 3% Bribery and related issues

b) One third criminal conduct

c) 65% transfer mispricing and related tax fraud by multinational corporations in pursuit of lower profit.

That figure may be 70%. It may be 60%. That’s open to debate. It will remain the majority. But whatever the right percentage is these companies strip the developing world of over $300 billion a year.

Total aid flows are about $100 billion right now.

The tax practices of multinational businesses are costing the developing world three times total aid flows. That’s the reality.

And in the UK according to John Hills in his book Inequality and the State the effective rate of tax on the lowest decile of income earners in the UK is 53%. That’s the highest rate. The top decile pay 33%, the second lowest rate. That top decile own the businesses PWC is monitoring. A cut in business tax rates is a cut in their effective tax rate. So money flows from poorest to richest within and between countries.

Does either set of unambiguous evidence make business tax cuts right then? Or ethical? Or just? Or desirable? Let alone a cause for celebratory comment? I don’t think so.

I want to Make Poverty History.

PWC seem to want to Make Poverty Reality.

It’s their choice. And I stress, it is a choice. A moral choice. One they have made. One they must be able to defend. One that must rest on their conscience.

And it’s my right to point that out. Because I think their decision unjustifiable.

 

The Jersey Evening Post today has a story that says:

JERSEY’S involvement in a complex deal involving stricken UK bank Northern Rock has been entirely above board, says the Island’s financial services regulator.

John Harris, director general of the Jersey Financial Services Commission, says the £71 billion securitisation structure funnelled through a Jersey trust called Granite is ‘in line with normal market practice’.

And I presume that’s meant to reassure us.

As Marty Sullivan has shown, holding funds for the purposes of tax evasion is a normal market practice in Jersey. Does that exonerate it then?

When will these people realise that just because a market does something does not make it acceptable?

 

The National Audit Office has published a review for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Managing risk in the Overseas Territories. I have only had a chance to review the summary as yet, but it’s not good news. Take this for starters:

Progress has been made in developing the Regulation of Offshore Financial Services, though the four larger offshore financial centres are leaving in their wake the weaker regulatory capability of the three smaller centres where the UK retains most direct responsibility. The main challenge across all Territories is to respond adequately to growing pressures to reinforce defences against money laundering and terrorist financing.

The four large Offshore Financial Centres are Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Gibraltar. Anguilla, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands comprise the smaller three.

Then, form the recommendations:

Capacity limitations in the offshore financial sector have limited Territories’ ability to investigate suspicious activity reports, and, in the case of the Turks and Caicos Islands, Anguilla and Montserrat, resources are below the critical mass necessary to keep up with increasingly sophisticated international standards and products in offshore financial services. The Department, with the support of relevant UK agencies, (Treasury, Financial Services Authority, Serious Organised Crime Agency) should develop a strategy to ensure stronger investigative and prosecution capacity, bolster regulatory standards and support increased legislative drafting capacity.

And this, also from the recommendations:

Accountability and audit in the Territories tends to lag behind UK standards due to capacity limitations and a lack of suitably experienced local participants. Public Accounts Committees in many Territories struggle to provide effective, apolitical, and timely scrutiny of the executive. The Department and DFID should promote the appointment of Ex Officio members with relevant skills, as in UK local government and in Montserrat.

It’s not pretty stuff. The impression is clear: some of these places for which Britain is directly responsible are not fulfilling even their most basic responsibilities with regard to money laundering, but are continuing to offer offshore financial services facilities none the less. This is criminal, and the UK government is culpable. As far as I am concerned this is a scandal that massively outweighs the loss of 25 million sets of fairly insignificant data records. Here we have proven systemic failure with undoubted cost. And no indication that anything is being done about it.

There’s another staggering omission though. There’s not one single note on the ability of these places to control tax evasion based in their domains. It would seem that this has been completely overlooked. Which is astonishing. And negligent of the auditors.

I can assure you, I will be returning to this report.

 

St Pancras is an example of just how badly the private sector can do things in the UK.

A couple of weeks ago I went to Paris by Eurostar from Waterloo. The station was more than adequate, Everything I might need was there.

I’ve been in Brussels the last couple of days. St Pancras is dire. The station has opened but is bare, empty, lifeless. It might have gloss, but where is the bustle that once made this a grand place? It is genuinely the closest thing to a morgue I’ve been into for a long time. And who on earth put in a twenty foot statue that you cannot stand back and appreciate?

Worse, why are none of the shops open? That’s just madness in terms of project scheduling. It looks and feels like a failing shopping centre in an old mining town right now.

And as for the departure lounge, if the station is a morgue then this is the crypt. It has one coffee shop, one very mediocre and unnamed tat shop and no bureau de change. What sort of service is that meant to be? If anyone even wants a cash machine they have to be sent onto the Euston Road.

The trains might be running but St Pancras is not open and is not fit for business.

Crazy. Welcome to the UK.

In whose interest?

 Economics, Ethics  Comments Off
Nov 292007
 

The FT reports that:

The US’s largest public sector union is threatening legal action to win the right to nominate directors of US companies.

The move comes after the Securities and Exchange Commission voted on Wednesday to reinstate rules allowing US companies to block shareholders from putting forward their own candidates on US boards.

Now you might have been taught that companies are run in the interests of shareholders. Of course, more enlightened economists, like J K Galbraith, have known that this is not true for half a century now. But here’s the evidence. Shareholders are no longer allowed to choose the Board. How then can the company be run in their interests?

This is management capitalism. The capitalism of IFRS 8, which allows the Board’s view of the world to be published, but not data that shareholders and civil society need. It’s the capitalism of flagrant pay abuse by senior management. And its the capitalism that seeks to blame all failure on government, even when management is blatantly obviously at fault.

I ask just these things.

1) Never believe management when they say they are acting in the shareholder’s interests.

2) Never believe them when they say they are profit maximising. They’re management reward maximising.

3) Never believe them when they say economic theory shows that markets work, because that’s not the version of the model they’re using.