The Guardian is launching a series of articles on Monday on the Tax Gap. As Polly Toynbee says in her article in the Guardian today:

On Monday the Guardian reports on its investigation which reveals corporate tax avoidance on a gargantuan scale. Respectable FTSE 100 companies, household brands that are cornerstones of Britishness, have for years deprived British citizens of potentially billions – all done legally by battalions of super-accountants and lawyers.

As company wealth ballooned during the boom, the money going into Treasury coffers should have grown proportionately. But between 2000 and 2007 the proportion of tax paid by top companies fell. Where did it go? The very clever people who devised fiendish debt devices that blew up the banks also applied their brains to byzantine new tax avoidance strategies.

Of course, this builds on two things. The first is the Tesco / Guardian debacle of a year ago. The Guardian got a part of their story wrong and Tesco sued. They also, undeniably, and as I pointed out very strongly on this blog, got the story absolutely right: Tesco were deliberate tax avoiders. Thankfully Private Eye joined the debate and Tesco won a very hollow victory against the Guardian as a consequence.

Second, at the same time as the Guardian were talking about Tesco the TUC published my report ‘The Missing Billions’. It’s that report that let’s Polly say with conviction that the corporate tax rate of FTSE companies has fallen persistently this decade. But what is clear is that the Guardian was bloodied by the Tesco fight, but not bowed:

Delving into the truth of company taxes has taken the Guardian team months of digging, talking to whistle-blowers, and following the knotted strings that lead through a labyrinth of subsidiaries in secretive tax havens.

And as she says:

Public companies are anything but public about tax. Annual accounts are opaque, not obliged to spell out how much tax was paid where, or the tax-advantageous deals between their subsidiaries.

But this we know: a third of FTSE 100 companies paid no tax in 2005-2006, and another third paid a minute proportion of their operating profits. Thanks to avoidance, HMRC says 12 of the UK’s largest firms “extinguished all liabilities in 2005-2006″.

Of course, as the Guardian’s lawyers point out, everything unearthed that looks to the naked eye like a breathtaking affront to ordinary PAYE payers is legal. But that does note mean that there is nothing that can be done about this abuse. All that is required to effect change is imagination and political will. Polly’s prescription is clear:


The EU and the US united could effectively shut down havens and force them to reveal secretive accounts: if they refused to comply, all banking connections could be cut.

There should be a common international tax regime with no loopholes, while still letting each country set its own rates.

Start with transparency: make all companies consolidate their accounts to report which countries their profits arise from, where taxes are paid, and the precise dealings between subsidiaries.

All are of course prescriptions readers of this blog will be familiar with. The accounting reform was originally authored by me.

But she agrees with me: this will require political will. She argues:

[C]ulture change starts with words and outrage, with naming and shaming, withdrawing peerages and knighthoods, refusing honours to any with dubious tax histories. [But i]nstead, governments woo business regardless of tax behaviour. Downing Street is the ever open ear, quaking at company threats to relocate.

And all the while those companies say they are committed to corporate social responsibility. But as Polly says:

The way to prove they are the “good corporate citizen” they claim to be is by paying the modest 28% that is the starting rate for all companies.

Maybe culture change won’t happen until we get out there with saucepans to rattle and bang some shame into those inside corporate headquarters.

Now there’s an idea.

Read the rest of the reports as they roll out over the coming fortnight.

Disclosure: I have advised the Guardian on tax related issues



 

The following press comment has been issued by Jersey Finance:

Jersey Finance notes the inaccurate comments made today by the TUC with regard to the UK banking sector’s offshore activities.

There is no credible or practical evidence to suggest that international financial centres threaten financial stability. Jersey is a well-regulated jurisdiction which meets or exceeds all of the relevant international financial standards for financial stability and transparency expected from the world’s leading financial centres.

Well regulated financial centres such as Jersey provide a broad range of services which are not related in any way to tax evasion. Under the EU Savings Directive all UK resident private individuals with assets in Jersey are subject to either full information exchange with UK tax authorities or withholding tax.

Furthermore, whilst Jersey adheres firmly to the principles of confidentiality for legitimate investors, Jersey has never had banking secrecy laws, and has implemented measures to ensure that it can co-operate with any country in the world when investigations are underway into criminal and fraudulent use of the global financial services system.”

Who mentioned tax evasion? The TUC did not. They said:

There is no suggestion that anyone has broken any tax laws

That then leads one to wonder why Jersey threw in a lot of extraneous comment to which they press release by the TUC did not refer, but about which Jersey thought it worth commenting.

First it claims Jersey is well regulated. But as we all now know, the regulation in question was wrong and did not produce financial stability. So what is the benefit that Jersey is claiming?

Second, Jersey did contribute to the failure of Northern Rock amongst other things. If that was not an active contribution to financial instability in the UK what was?

Third, we all know tax evasion is not the only reason for using a secrecy jurisdiction: secrecy is as important. And as a matter of fact corporate disclosure in Jersey is non-existent: nothing can be found out about what any corporation does there, at all. It is also impossible to tell whether the very, very limited information about Jersey companies placed on public record has any bearing to reality at all since the use of nominees is so widespread.

Next, its information exchange is quite different in reality from what it claims in this press release. Just a handful of pieces of information have been exchanged with the USA under Jersey’s longest standing information exchange agreement. No one can suggest this is effective information exchange. And elsewhere Jersey goes out of their way to reassure people they are as uncooperative as possible with exchange requests, and have the right to refuse them, which they clearly imply that they use. As they put it:

A high threshold therefore exists before the Jersey authorities will accede to a request under a TIEA.

Some of my tax authority friends might put it differently: the reality is that unless another state can prove it already knows the information it is seeking from Jersey then Jersey will not confirm its existence. That is not what I call information exchange. Jersey knows that, and makes that clear in its marketing offered to those who are concerned that their nefarious activities in the island might be discovered. Contrast that with the observations made above. I know which version I believe. I know which version the facts support.

Given these restrictions on securing data it does not need banking secrecy laws, any more than the UK does: we and Jersey construct them just as effectively (as the Swiss point out, regularly) using trusts and corporate nominee laws. So this is a completely pointless argument: even if technically correct it offers no substance to the debate.

But let’s deal with the biggest indication of where Jersey really stands on the issue of openness, transparency, tax evasion and information exchange. That is its approach to the EU Savings Tax Directive (STD). The STD only exists for one purpose, and that is to stop tax evasion. It is otherwise pointless. That’s what the EU says. They’re right.

Under the STD most participant jurisdictions exchange information on interest income earned within their country which has been paid to persons resident in another EU member state with the government of that other country in which the recipient lives. It is widely known from research in the USA that when people know that information on their earnings is automatically supplied to their government the rate of compliance with tax disclosure rules increase from about 50% to the high 90s. So automatic information exchange is an incredibly effective weapon in tackling tax evasion.

Jersey was forced by the UK to become a party to the STD. It worked very hard to avoid it. There was only one explanation for that: it wanted to preserve the right of people to use its bank accounts to evade tax.

When forced to cooperate Jersey opted for the withholding tax option that is only available in the STD because of the refusal of EU states like Luxembourg, Austria and Belgium to expose the activities of tax evaders. Jersey joined that club of nations who quite deliberately refuse to exchange information but do instead withhold what have been to date relatively nominal sums from the interest paid which are highly unlikely to satisfy the tax liability of the recipient in the state in which they are resident, so allowing them to continue to evade tax in that place.

There is no reason whatsoever for a person to opt to have tax withholding unless they are evading tax in their home state. No one has ever been able to present me with an alternative reason for a person to opt for this arrangement. I would suggest that well over 90% of those opting for withholding do evade. More than half of those given the choice on whether to information exchange or have withholding applied to their Jersey accounts opted for withholding.

Jersey, of course, knows that. It even profits from it: it keeps 25% of the tax withheld. But worse it makes clear what its government’s policy is: it is to build a financial services sector populated by the likes of RBS, Lloyds, Barclays and HSBC that deliberately and knowingly profits from tax evasion. That this tax evasion takes place is widely known: it is likely that half of those who declared bank accounts in the Crown Dependencies with those banks and HBOS that were subject to the 2007 UK Revenue tax amnesty were in Jersey. That means up to 20,000 accounts were used for tax evasion with those banks at that time. Another 80,000 accounts are no under investigation. There are 100 more banks to add to the enquiry. And of course, this is only for the UK. Tax evasion is, on the basis of this evidence, rampant in the island. Even a cautious extrapolation would suggests there are hundreds of thousands of accounts in the island on which the income is not declared for tax. Marty Sullivan at Tax Analysts has suggested there may be $500 billion invested in the island on which tax is evaded.

I am absolutely sure its government knows that. And it deliberately facilitates that evasion by refusing to enter into full membership of the STD. This is a choice it makes. It is choice in favour of tax evasion. Everything it says and does has to be seen in this light.

And everything I have said on the STD applies equally to Guernsey and the Isle of Man where massive sums are also held.

These places choose to facilitate tax evasion. It’s a fact. Nothing they can say can change that, only radical reform of their financial services sector, meaning that there are full and transparent corporate registers and full, automatic information exchange on all income can change this. They can choose to do that. We’re waiting for it to happen.

The UK can demand this. Now. We want them to. The ball is not just in St Helier, St Petr Port and Douglas. It is in London. It’s time to kick it and destroy this secrecy forever.

Disclosure: I undertook the research for the TUC. I did not write the press release. The views expressed are my own. The TUC research did not relate to the issues discussed in this blog.

 

These are my links for January 29th through January 30th:

Jan 302009
 

The Big 4 have spent years demanding access t markets. And then this happens in India:

“During interrogation [the auditors, Subramani Gopala Krishnan and Talluri Srinivas] confessed their involvement in the crime,” deputy superintendent Rao said in a document requesting a Hyderabad court to remand them in custody for 15 days.

“They also colluded . . . in window dressing of the company’s accounts and lured the investors to invest the money.”

The accusations from the police that the auditors colluded in the fraud, considered India’s worst corporate scam, are likely to be heavily contested by PwC.

I am sure the last statement is true. But that the fraud happened over many years is undeniable. And either PWC were incompetent or these allegations are true. And that’s really not good, either way.

It is time for the profession to be reformed.

 

The BBC web site offered the rebuttals made by the four banks which were the subject of the research published by the TUC on their use of tax haven / secrecy jurisdictions. The responses are amusing:

The banks in question refuted any charge of tax avoidance.

Heaven forbid they should ever do such a thing – even though, as they often claim, it is legal.

Barclays said it is active in over 50 countries and, in order “to service its clients’ needs, it has incorporated subsidiaries in a number of jurisdictions. Barclays complies with taxation laws in the UK and the other countries in which it operates.”

But why does that require 143 subsidies in Cayman?

Lloyds Banking Group said that the “vast majority” of its business is based in the UK, but that it does have businesses outside the UK.

“Where we do conduct business overseas, our clear policy is to meet in full all tax payments and be fully compliant with the relevant tax laws and regulation,” it said.

Quite so – but not hard in Jersey where it has no less than 80 subsidiaries – where it will pay 10% tax at most now.

The Royal Bank of Scotland said: “RBS complies fully with all relevant offshore tax regimes. Any changes to those regimes are matters for regulators and governments.”

Again quite so – but we’re not worried about whether or not you pay your tax in Cayman – because there is no tax in Cayman. It’s whether you’re paying your tax here that worries us and whether you’re using UK tax payer’s money to finance your activities in Cayman and elsewhere that worries me even more.

As for HSBC it said that it:

did not take any money from the government and added that it “does not seek to avoid taxation and has an excellent relationship with HMRC and the other regulators and authorities under whose guidance and rules we operate.”

Which is absolutely irrelevant: a bank can tax avoid and still have an excellent reputation with HMRC.

So, let’s be honest: these rebuttals are deliberate exercises in avoiding the issue.

The issue is simple:

1) Why are you in tax havens?

2) How much of our money do you use there?

3) How much UK tax do you avoid as a result?

Just give us answers. The questions are easy enough to understand.

Jan 302009
 

From Bloomberg:

Britain’s main banks should provide more detail of their activities in offshore financial centers such as the Cayman Islands and Jersey, a union group said.

Barclays Plc, HSBC Holdings Plc, Lloyds Banking Group Plc and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc together have more than 1,000 subsidiaries in tax havens, according to a study by the Trades Union Congress, a 7 million-member umbrella organization.

The call for greater transparency highlights the increasing scrutiny banks are facing after Prime Minister Gordon Brown organized a bailout of the financial system that has added an estimated 1 trillion pounds ($1.4 trillion) to government liabilities. The U.K. directly owns stakes in Lloyds and RBS and has helped the other lenders through Bank of England facilities.

“There is no suggestion that anyone has broken any tax laws,” TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said in a statement. “But now that banks have public stakes or trade with the knowledge that the taxpayer stands ready to bail them out, the taxpayer has a right to know the full extent of bank activities and liabilities across the world.”

More than half of British voters oppose Brown’s decision to buy stakes in major banks, according to ICM survey for yesterday’s Guardian newspaper.

“Voters are increasingly angry at the banks,” Barber said. “The government should set up a tough public inquiry into why our financial system came so close to collapse and should investigate the full extent of their tax avoidance.”

Disclosure: I did the research for the TUC


 

KPMG has published its latest survey on the UK’s tax competitiveness.

It’s message is clear: it says the UK is slipping behind.

But look who it compares us to:

Let’s be blunt: Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are all small states who are tax havens. It’s an impossible business model for the UK to emulate. It’s also like asking us to move in the direction of Iceland. This is, to be blunt, economic madness.

Sue Bonney of KPMG says in the report that:

At a time when both the state and business are having to work closely in an unprecedented way to help us through the credit crunch, perhaps the feeling that we are all in this together will lead to increased mutual understanding and a better working relationship in the future.

She quite clearly does not understand the term “we”.

Alex Cobham of Christian Aid does (see earlier today).

We don’t want to be a tax haven. We know the harm they cause. We suffer the impact. KPMG may not. We do. That’s my point. That’s why they are so wrong. That’s why they’re the last people to help reform the tax system, economy or anything else right now.


 

These are my links for January 28th through January 29th:

 

I was discussing the International Accounting Standards Board and International Financial Reporting Standards projects with an accountant of high repute this morning. Our discussion was framed within the context of the current economic crisis.

We agreed that the IASB project had the supposed goal of facilitating globalisation and of reducing the cost of capital.

We agreed that it has failed in these aims. In fact we went further. We agreed it was positively harmful to those objectives.

As I put it: I believe in globalisation in the sense that trade on the basis of comparative advantage makes sense. I am a believer in the Ricardian economics of trade. But to deliver the benefits of Ricardian economics I have to understand what is happening locally or I can’t spot the local differences that justify trade.

IFRS 8 requires that a group of companies report segment information in its financial statements on the same basis that data is supplied to its board of directors. It provides a perverse incentive to undermine provision of the necessary information to pursue Ricardian advantage as a consequence. Whilst country-by-country reporting is not mandatory the boards of major corporations have gutted the financial reporting submitted to their boards of directors of any geographic content to avoid the need for information on that basis to also be submitted to their shareholders. As a result we have, for example, the perverse notion claim that Google, which relies very heavily on local content, considers itself to be just one operating segment without any local differentiation.

This is absurd. To allocate capital efficiently in a differentiated world where the potential returns upon it will vary it is essential that boards of directors and the shareholders to whom they report have local data on how that capital is used. If not that capital will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, be misallocated. The result will be sub-optimal economic performance. Worse, it might be deliberately sub-optimal as inappropriate goals are pursued.

The message on which we agreed was simple, but blunt: in a global world we have to account locally or we harm the well-being of all people, companies and governments.

It’s time the International Accounting Standards Board took real notice.