Sometimes I wonder why I allow comments on this blog: so many commentators promote abusive ideas or simply seek to abuse the hassle quite often seems to outweigh the benefit. Then along comes comments, like the one I’ve already referred to this morning, or this one on the fundamental problems VAT abuse through Jersey and Guernsey causes to UK small businesses, and I realise providing a voice can be worthwhile:

The whole Jersey scam makes me mad.  Very simply, I am losing money..!

I sell manufacturer own ink cartridges.  "I can get those cheaper on the internet" is a common cry. When compared against mainland based retailers, my customers tend to see the error of their ways finding that I am indeed cheap and pay up!

But then there are the customers who have found the sites in the channel islands.

I was horrified to find a particular item that I was selling on my shelf for £12.85 is available for £10.90 on the web site that my customer buys his inks from.  Do the maths… yes, that is the same price as I am selling it without VAT!!!  How can I compete when there is a built in 17.5% discount The on-line retailer doesn’t even have to begin to be competitive.  That particular customer could be worth £400 turnover each quarter to me on cartridges alone – not to mention the lost revenue to the public purse!

This loop hole MUST be closed. We cannot compete.

I recently had a letter from HMRC after I complained to my MP.  In this letter, they stated that the VAT office are "monitoring the situation"..

I’m monitoring my P & L!

Gary,

Thame, Oxfordshire

All I can offer is best wishes to Gary – and the hope that this government might listen more than the last did on this issue.

If you want to let me know what response you et Gary I’d be happy to share it with a bigger audience.

 

A commentator on the blog this morning said, in response to a piece on country-by-country reporting:

Could you outline how you expect the information to be used? As an auditor of SME international groups I am sick of the amount of disclosure that we have to deal with under International Financial Reporting Standards.

Answer: we only expect this to apply to quotes companies. That’s not to say there is no abuse elsewhere – there is. But right now we have to pick the prime targets where the yield will be greatest and the benefit to society at alge highest, and that fundamentally means quoted companies.

The commentator continued, perhaps more tellingly, so say:

As you doubtless know, some jurisdictions such as the USA already require filing of monitoring returns for overseas subs anyway.

The sad reality is that HMRC do not have the staff to read and digest the reporting, and enquire where appropriate. If you want to tackle transfer pricing abuse, I believe we need a new cohort of chartered accountants (perhaps 5,000) trained by HMRC, untainted by the big 4, ready to pick groups apart within weeks of filing their tax returns. That would be a real investment in closing the tax gap. Nothing less will work.

Yes, yes, yes, is my response.

But have no doubt about it: country-by-country reporting would, if available, be the most amazing risk assessment tool to allow those accountants (whose contribution to HMRC would massively outweigh their cost) to decide which were the best cases to pick for investigation.

That’s one of country-by-country reporting’s many benefits.

 

FT Alphaville » Bets against pound reach record.

Speculators raised their bets against sterling to record levels after the recent UK general election, as worries escalated over the government’s finances, the FT said.

I thought the Tories said electing them would stop this happening?

Another rune George must have read incorrectly is all I can presume.

Which assumes George uses things as sophisticated as runes to help him manage the economy, of course.

 

I’m in Oslo this morning to talk about the International Accounting Standards Board proposals for accounting for the extractive industries, and those relating to the demand for country-by-country reporting in this sector in particular.

The slides I’ll be using are here.

I’ll be publishing much more on this issue soon. Suffice to say, that as I note in the slides there are four fundamental problems with the IASB response:

ÔÇó Their refusal to consider the needs of civil society
ÔÇó Failure to define materiality appropriately
ÔÇó Technical incoherence of the response
ÔÇó The voluntary opt out from disclosure built into the IASB proposal

In combination these failures mean:

ÔÇó The IASB are not fulfilling their public duty to require preparation of accounts for the public benefit
ÔÇó The IASB are not fulfilling their duty to make special consideration of the needs of developing countries
ÔÇó The IASB are imposing artificial criteria to ensure civil societies needs for accounting information are not properly appraised or met
ÔÇó The IASB have offered a technically inadequate response to the request for country-by-country reporting
ÔÇó They have ensured that even if the proposal was adopted it would be entirely voluntary disclosure – which negates the
whole purpose.

The result is that

ÔÇó Demand must now be made that the IASB change its approach to this issue, and that to the use of accounts for social purposes by civil society and others who do not provide capital to companies

Governments, civil society, individuals who never intend to invest or trade with a  company, regulators and many more besides need particular accounting data to meet their needs.

The International Accounting Standards Board denies this and refuses to supply it.

For a body supposedly working in the public interest that is extraordinary.

 

As the latest wave of economic insanity created by right-wing economists creates a mania for cuts and the creation of unemployment in the UK and across Europe the TUC has launched Cuts Watch.

Follow it here.

My small contribution today was an appearance on the Jeremy Vine show arguing that there was no such thing as a non-job but if there was being a highly paid DJ for the BBC must come a pretty close run thing to being one.

The reality, of course, was I wasn’t arguing for Jeremy to lose his job. I’m arguing that all jobs are real jobs – in business and the private sector – until someone decides they aren’t.

And right now, with no private sector alternatives available George Osborne’s decision to cut is one to create the ultimate no-job; being unemployed.

 

Introduction

I am often asked what I mean by "’tax justice’. As a result, and as a contribution to the Briefing Sheet series I am developing, I have written the following summary of what I think tax justice is. It is also available as a briefing sheet.

Tax justice

Tax justice is a broadly based concept. It relates to individuals and all taxable entities. But it also relates to tax systems as a whole.

Tax compliance – the duty of the taxpayer

For the individual taxpayer tax justice is about tax compliance. This happens when the individual seeks to pay the right amount of tax (but no more) in the right place at the right time where right means that the economic substance of the transactions they undertake coincides with the place and form in which they report them for taxation purposes.

Tax and society

But tax justice is about much more than the individual: tax justice is also about the existence of tax systems that promote social well being within and between societies. It is about the creation of environments in which all people can prosper. That necessarily means that the state institutions and businesses that meet the needs of people can also prosper. But it means yet more than that: it means that those who fail to prosper are protected from misfortune until such time as they can prosper again.

That means tax justice is about four things above and beyond the duty of the individual to be tax compliant. First it is about understanding why we tax. Second it is about defining the attributes of a good tax system. Third it is about defining the process that delivers tax justice and finally it is about understanding transparency – without which tax justice is not possible.

The 5 Rs for taxing

There are five reasons for taxation. Tax is used to:

1. Raise revenue;

2. Reprice goods and services considered to be incorrectly priced by the market such as tobacco, alcohol, carbon emissions etc. and by providing tax reliefs e.g. for childcare;

3. Redistribute income and wealth;

4. Raise representation within the democratic process because it has been found that only when an electorate and a government are bound by the common interest of tax does democratic accountability really work; and finally to facilitate:

5. Reorganisation of the economy through fiscal policy.

If tax justice is to prevail taxes must be set taking all these considerations into account.

The 10 Cs of a good tax system

An efficient taxation system has nine attributes with one over-riding characteristic to which they all contribute. An efficient tax system is:

1. Comprehensive – in other words, it is broad based;

2. Complete – with as few loopholes as possible;

3. Comprehensible – it is as certain as is reasonably possible;

4. Compassionate – it takes into account the capacity to pay;

5. Compact – it is written as straightforwardly as possible;

6. Compliant with human rights;

7. Compensatory – it is perceived as fair and redistributes income and wealth as necessary to achieve this aim;

8. Complementary to social objectives;

9. Computable – the liability can be calculated with reasonable accuracy;

All of which facilitate the chance that it will be:

10. Competently managed.

In combination these are key attributes of a good tax system.

The 6 steps to tax justice

Tax justice can be defined as a six stage process:

1. Define the tax base. This is the first essential step in creating progressive taxation and in promoting the better use of resources within society.

2. Find what is to be taxed. If the tax base cannot be accurately located then there is no point trying to tax it.

3. Count the tax base. Unless the tax base can be quantified it cannot be taxed.

4. Tax the tax base at the right rates of tax. In the process making sure the inter-relationship between the various tax bases is properly managed to ensure that the essential revenue raising, repricing and redistributive qualities of a just tax system is vital.

5. Allocate the resulting revenues efficiently and to best social effect

6. Report – governments must be accountable for what they do with tax revenues or the democratic principle fails.

The 11 steps to financial transparency

Tax justice cannot happen by chance. To achieve it information is needed. That means all potentially taxable people, whether they are human beings or legal entities created under law, must be transparent about what they do, are and have done.

Financial transparency exists when the following information is readily available to all who might need it to appraise transactions they or others might undertake or have undertaken with another natural or legal person:

1. Who that other person is;

2. Where the person is;

3. What right the person has to enter into a transaction;

4. What capacity the person has to enter into a transaction;

And with regard to entities that are not natural persons:

5. What the nature of the entity is;

6. On whose behalf the entity is managed;

7. Who manages the entity;

8. What transactions the entity has entered into;

9. Where it has entered into those transactions;

10. Who has actually benefited from the transactions;

11. Whether all obligations arising from the transactions have been properly fulfilled.

Creating tax justice

Tax justice is not simple, as is already apparent. That, however, is not a problem: a great deal of what humans do is not simple, and yet it is achieved none the less. Tax justice is possible: that is what is important.

These five criteria, tax compliance on the part of taxpayers and the four sets of attributes on which just tax systems are built, are the foundations of tax justice. Together they create a world in which social justice can prevail for all.

That is what tax justice seeks to achieve.

 

The Hong Kong stock exchange has changed its listing rules for extractive sector companies.

The new rules say:

18.05 (6) if relevant and material to the Mineral Company’s business operations, information on the following [must be disclosed]:-

(c) compliance with host country laws, regulations and permits, and payments made to host country governments in respect of tax, royalties and other significant payments on a country by country basis;

That makes Hong Kong the first stock exchange in the world to require country-by-country reporting.

Congratulations to Vanessa Herringshaw, all at Revenue Watch and Publish What You Pay who have worked so hard on this dimension of country-by-country reporting.

 

FT.com / Europe – Berlin prepares for €10bn yearly cuts.

From the FT:

The German government is to begin a drastic budget austerity programme next year to set an example to the rest of the eurozone, and comply with a “debt guillotine” that has been written into the German constitution.

The cuts are expected to total at least €10bn ($13bn, £9bn) a year until 2016, ¬?government officials said.

When every government is cutting there’s no hope whatsoever that the UK will have export led growth.

Which means that the private sector in this country will not be picking up anyone made unemployed by George Osborne this morning.

Which means the £6bn of cuts announced this morning are a farce. This is simply an announcement of a planned increase in unemployment.

And as I have shown – the result will be reduced government income and increased benefits spending which will in combination match the savings made whilst leaving a pile more people unemployed with all the resulting social costs.

Down this path lies double dip recession and depression, with no cut in the state deficit at the same time.

And that’s the path Osborne is choosing to follow.

It’s an economic suicide note.

 

The Telegraph reported last weekend that “Vince Cable, the new Business Secretary, has placed tackling tax avoidance by businesses at the top of his list of priorities.”

That’s welcome news, albeit that as he’s not a Treasury minister, it might seem a little surprising. Or is it?

Tax is not a simple issue. Some – like those who supported flat taxes not so long ago – might like to think tax is just a matter of multiplying income by a specified tax rate and then you have you answer. In the UK there is endless debate about what that tax rate is. And as Vince Cable will well know, that is within the Treasury domain. But, and this he also knows, if there is no identifiable income then there is no tax to collect, whatever the rate. And as a great many of the problems relating to the identification of income concern corporate accounting issues, and that subject is within Vince Cable’s domain at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, he could have a big role to play.

There are a number of ways in which Vince Cable could address this issue that would have astonishing impact on UK tax revenue. Most importantly, he could support whilst in office the introduction of a new mandatory accounting standard for country-by-country reporting. As the Telegraph reports:

He has long held the view that multinational companies should be forced to report profits and losses and tax bills on a country by country basis rather than simply a global basis and may support current OECD and EU reviews of international accounting standards in this area.

Country by country reporting is a radical new approach to accounting. Expressed simply, it would require that every multinational corporation be required to present not just the single set of accounts that they do at present that show a global view of the corporation’s activity, but an additional profit and loss account and limited balance sheet for every single country – without exception – in which it operates. What is more, trade within the group between the different countries in which it operates would also have to be revealed under the rules of this new type of accounting.

This would have enormous impact. Firstly because more than 60% of all world trade is between related companies; that is companies under common ownership. Not one pound, euro, dollar, yen or anything else of this trade is revealed in the published glossy accounts of multinational corporations and yet it is this intra-group trade that gives rise to transfer mispricing abuse – now thought to be the biggest source of tax loss to the Exchequers of the world as a result of the activities of multinational corporations. Under country-by-country reporting all this trade would be out in the open, making it much easier to identify potential abusers. The UK’s HM Revenue & Customs have admitted they would undoubtedly collect more tax as a consequence.

Second, there is no doubt that multinational corporations, and banks in particular, make massive use of tax havens – or secrecy jurisdictions as many now prefer to call them. The combination of group accounts that disclose no intra-group trade and the absolute opacity of these places means we know nothing about what multinational corporations do in these places. Country-by-country reporting would break secrecy jurisdictions open – and reveal who is using tax havens to move their profits out of the hands of major tax authorities.

The potential tax yield in developed and developing countries alike more than justifies this reform – which would cost business little since it must have, by law, all the information required to publish this information. There are other reasons for wanting the reform though.

Country-by-country reporting says where a company is. Unless you know a multinational corporations is in a place there is no chance of holding it to account as a good corporate citizen of that place. Better governance, enhanced corporate responsibility and better interaction with society must follow from country-by-country reporting in that case.

And shareholders benefit too. Almost all recent major corporate failures have involved tax haven abuse. And corporate risk from trading in high risk environments is disguised by current accounting – leaving shareholders in the dark far too often about the risk they are taking in associating with companies taking, in turn, risks shareholders would never countenance as acceptable. Disclosure of the geo-political risk within multinational corporations is vital if shareholders are to make appropriate decisions.

So Vince has a tax reform agenda he can pursue. And since this issue is on the agenda of the OECD and the International Accounting Standards Board it needs a UK champion who believes in the merits of business and in its accountability at the same time.

Is Vince the man?

Note: this blog first appeared on Left Futures

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