Comments on: Havens and have nots http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/11/09/havens-and-have-nots/ Richard Murphy on tax and corporate accountability Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:13:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Chris Bratcher http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/11/09/havens-and-have-nots/#comment-269017 Chris Bratcher Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:54:28 +0000 http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/10/10/havens-and-have-nots/#comment-269017 From the company's point of view, of course tax is an expense, albeit computed by reference to a profit measure arrived at without deducting it. Whether it is a "cost" or an "expense", of a subsidiary, branch, or parent, makes no moral difference (or difference to the shareholder). The issue for the haven authority is whether they have any obligation towards other States' revenues: havens get shirty about their own citizens avoiding their own domestic charges (and about those they host, migrating for a better deal - even elsewhere in the Channel Is) - an example of the 'cognitive dissonance' that bedevils the perception of tax depending on who profits/loses by avoiding it. Sadly, appeals to morality will get us nowhere with the avoider and the industry. I see no good reason why the affairs of legal personages should not be made public, for the public to decide with whom they wish to enrich by their transactions. But that is another topic! From the company’s point of view, of course tax is an expense, albeit computed by reference to a profit measure arrived at without deducting it. Whether it is a “cost” or an “expense”, of a subsidiary, branch, or parent, makes no moral difference (or difference to the shareholder). The issue for the haven authority is whether they have any obligation towards other States’ revenues: havens get shirty about their own citizens avoiding their own domestic charges (and about those they host, migrating for a better deal - even elsewhere in the Channel Is) - an example of the ‘cognitive dissonance’ that bedevils the perception of tax depending on who profits/loses by avoiding it.
Sadly, appeals to morality will get us nowhere with the avoider and the industry. I see no good reason why the affairs of legal personages should not be made public, for the public to decide with whom they wish to enrich by their transactions. But that is another topic!

]]> By: Tax Research LLP http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/11/09/havens-and-have-nots/#comment-268757 Tax Research LLP Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:05:58 +0000 http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/10/10/havens-and-have-nots/#comment-268757 David The Guernsey poster has to say that tax is an expense: if not what HGuernsey does would be seen to be breaking the social contract between a citizen (corproate or otherwise) and the state that hosts their activity and as such it would be anti-democratic. Guernsey would not wish that on its conscience, albeit that it knows it should be, and so instead promotes the idea that tax is a cost. This makes it a ethcially neutral and so allows them to promote abuse of taxation law as if it were morally acceptable - which of course it is not. Presume therefore that the poster is hiding a feeling of guilt. And that they are disingeuous: nothing else could explain why they can differentiate the subidiary from the parent company. Might you send me the link to the comment? Richard David

The Guernsey poster has to say that tax is an expense: if not what HGuernsey does would be seen to be breaking the social contract between a citizen (corproate or otherwise) and the state that hosts their activity and as such it would be anti-democratic. Guernsey would not wish that on its conscience, albeit that it knows it should be, and so instead promotes the idea that tax is a cost. This makes it a ethcially neutral and so allows them to promote abuse of taxation law as if it were morally acceptable - which of course it is not.

Presume therefore that the poster is hiding a feeling of guilt. And that they are disingeuous: nothing else could explain why they can differentiate the subidiary from the parent company.

Might you send me the link to the comment?

Richard

]]> By: David Cranch http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/11/09/havens-and-have-nots/#comment-267721 David Cranch Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:30:34 +0000 http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/10/10/havens-and-have-nots/#comment-267721 Commenting on the "This defence is disingenuous." paragraph, a Guernsey forum poster commented that he disagreed: "In a group structure tax is an expense of the business except at the level at which profits get distributed ie at parent company level. That is fundamental in relation to how the banks operate here in the island." I cannot understand what he is getting. Can anyone help? Commenting on the “This defence is disingenuous.” paragraph, a Guernsey forum poster commented that he disagreed: “In a group structure tax is an expense of the business except at the level at which profits get distributed ie at parent company level. That is fundamental in relation to how the banks operate here in the island.”
I cannot understand what he is getting.
Can anyone help?

]]> By: Chris Bratcher http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/11/09/havens-and-have-nots/#comment-260948 Chris Bratcher Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:44:29 +0000 http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2007/10/10/havens-and-have-nots/#comment-260948 More power to your elbow! Given that HMRC are painfully aware that the problem is ubiquitous, what unilateral practical steps do you think it could take? More power to your elbow! Given that HMRC are painfully aware that the problem is ubiquitous, what unilateral practical steps do you think it could take?

]]>