Sometimes it’s worth mentioning what I’ve been reading. I always intend to do this more than I do. It’s not I don’t read – I just run out of time to mention it.

A recent read has been Londongrad: From Russia With Cash by Mark Hollingsworth and Stewart Lansley, published by Fourth Estate, 2009

The book is topical and touches themes addressed here often. It is no coincidence that the return of the era of ever deepening recessions has coincided with the emergence of a domestic and global mega-rich class, a group with minimal national ties who move their multi-billion fortunes around the globe in search of the best short-term returns. As the book argues, there is perhaps no more dramatic example of this breed and the ‚Äòexuberant` behaviour of the world’s newly enriched than the Russian oligarchs who built vast personal fortunes out of the ashes of Soviet communism, not by creating new wealth from scratch, but by seizing a good deal of Russia’s historic wealth that had been built up over decades.

Londongrad tells the story of the wealthiest London-based oligarchs and how they manipulated the chaos of the Yeltsin years to engineer one of the most blatant transfers of national wealth in recent times.

There is a good deal of detail on how their newly acquired wealth was, as the book describes, ‚Äòsecreted abroad in a labyrinth of offshore accounts in an array of tax havens in the world’s most secretive tax havens. Stashed away it has been almost impossible to trace.’ This was, of course, one of the appeals of the book to me, but so was the fact that it was London that proved the final destination for much of this money.

As the authors explain, successive British governments along with the City turned a blind eye to the provenance of the wealth while bending the rules on tax, visas and corporate governance to ensure the money came here rather than elsewhere. In turn, the avalanche of money acted like an economic shock on the British economy. It made many individual Britons – playing the role of the ‚Äòfinancial bag-carriers of the world` – rich themselves, while also creating destabilising grey markets and contributing to the mass flow of international money into the City that fuelled the bubble that preceded the inevitable crash.

This book provides a real life case study of the rise of the world’s multi-billionaires, Britain’s remarkable compliance in Russia’s capital flight and of the impact of the transfer on London where most of it landed. It mixes analysis with the narrative of a thriller – the twist being that it relates to real people.

 

High Court gives green light for offshore tax clawback – Times Online .

This is an important case for HM Revenue & Customs to win.

The core of the argument was that 2008 legislation that allowed the Revenue to backdate claims against an abusive form of offshore trust were illegal as an infringement of the human right to enjoy property.

The claimant took advantage of a scheme designed and marketed by Montpelier Tax Consultants (Isle of Man). The judge was told that he settled a trust in the Isle of Man, the “Robert Huitson Family Settlement”. The 2008 legislation means that Mr Huitson faces an overall tax demand in excess of £100,000 relating to the money he paid into the family trust back to 2001. As the Times notes:

Court documents reveal that 57 other scheme users say they cannot meet similar tax demands even if they sell all their assets, and another 29 could settle only by selling or remortgaging their family homes.

Several users also say that they face personal bankruptcy.

David Elvin, QC, appearing for Mr Huitson, said that the retrospective provisions of the 2008 Act affected 2,500 scheme users and involved £300 million.

He argued that the retrospective element of the legislation was incompatible with the “right to free enjoyment of property”, as protected by Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

However, the judge dismissed the challenge and ruled that HMRC had not acted unlawfully or disproportionately in backdating.

Several key issues come out. First, and as I have been arguing for a while, there is no right to enjoy property if the tax due when securing it has not been paid: the tow are indivisible.

Second, the Revenue do have the right to stop abuse even if theyu have to do so retrospectively.

Thirdly, and almost predictably it was one of the Crown Dependencies at the centre of this abuse, proving yet again they are secrecy jurisdictions.

Fourth, it is vital the Revenue do get cases like this in the press: I welcome the fact they have.

Fifth, the accountancy profession cannot be relied upon to uphold ethical standards or the rule of law. The Times notes:

Chas Roy-Chowdhury, of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants said: “The case related to a particular trust arrangement but could have implications for similar offshore trust-based schemes.

“It is quite justified for the Government to attack complex schemes set up to avoid tax but it should not do it retrospectively.”

That’s a false argument: it’s just been ruled lawful to pursue tax cheats. the profession should be applauding, not condemning HMRC for doing so. Why is it that accountants are so keen to join bankers in the pit reserved for the pariahs in society?

 

Demystifying Accounting Dirty Tricks – Forbes.com.

My latest Forbes column explores the idea of the plimsoll line of accounting in more depth.

 

Seems like the long quoted estimate of 60% of world trade being between related parties is now out of date.

70% of world trade is now apparently between related parties according to discussion here this afternoon.

And not one penny, cent or yen of this appears in the accounts of multinational corporations – which is precisely why we need country-by-country reporting if they are to reflect the economic realities of the world.

 

I think it worth reproducing what Stephen Timms has said on country-by-country reporting. I do, of course, have a special interest in this – having written the first paper on the subject (even if it’s moved on a bit from then). He said yesterday:

The interest and controversy that Country-by-Country reporting has stirred up is not a bad gauge of how interesting this is as a tool.  I now want to get beyond that debate and see whether this is a workable, useful tool for international transparency.

There should be transparency about where companies earn their profits and where they pay their tax.  For people and companies to be part of the global economy they have to be willing to provide tax information.

Non-Governmental Organisations and Civil Society Groups are already demanding that multinationals report on a country by country basis.  But there is no internationally recognised framework for them to follow.

That is why, at the Second Conference on the Fight against International Tax Fraud and Evasion in Berlin last June, I argued Country-by-Country Reporting was an issue international policy makers needed to consider.  And then, following the Anglo French Summit last July, the British Prime Minister and French President called on the OECD to examine it.

I have read the OECD’s initial work, and I fully support the recommendation that we develop multinational guidelines in this area.  I now call on the OECD to look at the feasibility of introducing multinational guidelines on Country-by-Country Reporting through a full and open consultation with Governments, multinationals and Civil Society partners.  And I hope everyone here will support that call.

The framework would provide a consistent basis for all multinationals to follow, and establish international best practice.

I would stress that work to develop such guidelines should not impinge on the IASB’s current work on extractive industries, which the UK fully supports.  I understand that a discussion paper is due to be published in February and I look forward very much to reading it.

I believe that through these combined approaches, we can make decisive progress.

That’s the aim.

References for the day

 OECD  Comments Off
Jan 282010
 

The OECD statement on tax and development I referred to this morning is here.

Stephen Timms’ speech is here.

For those who want to check what I reported.

 

30 years of ‚ÄòMarket knows best’ have damaged fairness | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC.

Brendan Barber says on the TUC blog:

The final report of the National Equalities Panel (NEP), “An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK” is out today – you can download the full thing or exec summary from the Government Equalities Office website. It’s an exceptional piece of work, describing in graphic detail just how unfair and unequal our society has become thanks to ‚Äòmarket knows best’ policies.

The super-rich and powerful have a vested interest in closing down any debate about inequality by talking of the ‚Äòpolitics of envy’ or ‚Äòcore vote strategies’. But inequality damages the economy and society for the vast majority of the population. Politicians of every party must now meet the challenge set by this devastating analysis.

Time and again the politics of envy are seen on this blog – delivered by the right.

They don’t realise we aren’t envious. We want equality because it makes everyone better off – rich and poor alike.

This is about building better societies – and that’s a long, long way from the politics of envy. It’s time for the right to realise this.

 

From the Financial Task Force blog:

"A new GFI report due out later this week, The Implied Tax Revenue Loss of Trade Mispricing, finds that developing countries are losing as much as $100 billion a year to just one form of tax evasion: trade mispricing.

‘Furthermore, the report’s $100 billion figure is likely understated, as it only reflects tax revenue lost through trade mispricing occurring through re-invoicing. The report also only measures tax revenue lost on illicit money coming out of developing countries, it does not take into account money that is being held abroad.’"

Something to watch for. More details on magnitudes and measurements here.

Hat tip to TJN.

But now I know where the OECD is coming from on this issue.

 

Will Morris of GE Capital is on the platform challenging the call for country-by-country reporting at the OECD.

I know Will – and he’s a decent guy – but he’s loyal to his employer and seeks to offer smooth arguments that undermine the delivery of real reform to reporting systems that will deliver tax to developing countries.

In effect he is trying to build ring fences around reporting. So, with others from the sector he is happy to disclose data on tax paid in cash – but not the data that lets us assess whether that tax paid is meaningful, all of which would of course be reported on an incompatible accruals basis. That’s a massive ring fence. We need data on what’s due and what’s paid – which shows whether payment is on time – which is key. And we need data on turnover to validate VAT data, payrolls to validate labour tax payments and profits to validate corporation tax. This is vital – and they’re seeking to deny it to us.

Second they argue that disclosure is only nee3ded for some sectors – but that is impossible in the age of the conglomerate.

Third, he argues for disclosure in developing countries alone – but the problem is the profit is moved out of those countries before tax can ever be paid. So we have to know what is happening elsewhere too.

One standard, universally applied has to be the goal. Nothing else will do.

© 2005 - 2011 Tax Research UK.
Some rights reserved. Creative Commons License
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha