KPMG have issued a report saying:
Cyprus, Ireland, and Switzerland are the top three countries in a league table of European tax systems, compiled by KPMG International, in which major business organizations across Europe assessed the attractiveness of their domestic tax regimes.
This was based on:
more than 400 interviews of tax professionals in multinational companies across Europe. Survey participants were asked how attractive they believed their country's tax regime was compared with other European states.
And what does the overall result actually say? Quite simply that these people don't like paying tax. It's not just that these three countries are all tax havens, the next two were as well (Malta and Estonia, which offers 0% tax for corporations). Which makes the findings a little trite, if I can be candid (for once).
The only redeeming feature was this comment by Sue Bonney of KPMG:
I was interested to see that a complex tax regime is seen as a hindrance to competitiveness, but relatively few people felt that a simpler system with a low rate can help make businesses more competitive. Governments across the world have been using tax as a lever to encourage inward investment for many years, but these results help to confirm that a benign tax regime is only part of the package which makes a business competitive. Good infrastructure, a high quality workforce and access to raw materials and markets are all equally important.
True Sue. But what pays for good infrastructure, a high quality workforce and access to raw materials and markets? That's a question she clearly did not ask herself. If she had she would clearly have understood that they are paid for by tax. And despite her interest in the conclusion her prescription was:
These results help to illustrate just how much businesses across Europe dislike uncertainty and complexity. The volume of tax legislation is huge and its interpretation is often opaque. Simplification presents a real challenge for European tax authorities.
Which is not, of course, what the survey found. But it is what KPMG wants. KPMG is, after all, the biggest tax haven operator in the Big 4 (see page 130 here). And as we know, those who promote tax havens seek to shift the burden of tax onto these least able to afford it - the ordinary people of the world. All of which suggests to me that KPMG is working to Make Poverty Reality.
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:
The volume of tax legislation is huge and its interpretation is often opaque.
It is I think rather ironic that Sue Bonney of KPMG, whose trade and income as a tax adviser depends to a significant extent on precision in language, failed to say what (I think) she meant, which I am guessing was something like:
The volume of tax legislation is huge and its meaning is often opaque.
However, I agree with what she originally said, the meaning of which is that those who interpret tax legislation often do so in an opaque manner. And as a tax adviser in a commercial law firm, I often see tax opinions issued by the Big 4 to our mutual clients many of which in my opinion are of poor quality technically, are sometimes plain wrong and are almost invariably couched in caveats and disclaimers, all of which makes these opinions unfit for their purpose: to tell the client what to do.
In my experience KPMG are the worst offenders here, with PWC running them a close second.