The serious press has picked up and covered the Tax Justice Network’s new report on the flaws in the UK – Swiss tax deal.

The following are some highlights:

Swiss-U.K. Tax Agreement May Be ‘Revenue-Negative,’ Group Says

Bloomberg - Leigh Baldwin - ‎7 hours ago‎
Switzerland’s decision to impose withholding duties on untaxed British funds may generate only a “fraction” of anticipated revenue, the Tax Justice Network said.

Swiss tax deal could end up costing UK

The Guardian (blog) - ‎7 hours ago‎
The UK’s tax agreement with Switzerland will not bring in as much revenue as expected, critics say.  Britain’s controversial tax deal with the Swiss government will raise considerably less than claimed

‘Fatal flaws’ in UK-Swiss tax deal attacked

Financial Times - Vanessa Houlder - ‎11 hours ago‎
Campaigners are stepping up their attack on a newly signed tax deal struck with Switzerland, which they say is subject to a series of “fatal flaws” that will give evaders a cost-free means of maintaining their anonymity.

Revealed: Loopholes in Swiss tax deal mean £7bn windfall could be lost

Bureau of Investigative Journalism - Nick Mathiason - ‎7 hours ago‎
An agreement between the UK and Swiss governments, which beleaguered permanent secretary for tax Dave Hartnett has stated will raise between £4bn – £7bn, is so fundamentally flawed it could actually lose the UK tax revenue.

 

 

The following press release was issued by the Tax Justice Network this morning, and I’m proud to be associated with it:

  • UK/Swiss tax deal could see UK lose money
  • 10 loopholes identified that mean this agreement won’t deliver
  • TJN urges immediate cancellation of agreement

An agreement between the UK and Swiss governments, which permanent secretary for tax Dave Hartnett has stated will raise between £4bn – £7bn, is so fundamentally flawed it could actually lose the UK tax revenue.

A forensic analysis of the agreement by the Tax Justice Network reveals a series of fatal flaws in the two-week old tax deal. Though the analysis focuses on the UK, it is of great relevance to Germany, which recently signed a near-identical deal with Switzerland under similar false promises, as well as for other countries considering signing similar bilateral deals.

The UK-Swiss deal, signed on 6 October, is supposedly designed to capture assets held by wealthy UK residents who have evaded taxes by secreting their fortunes in Swiss banks.

But the 10 loopholes identified by TJN – and we believe there are more loopholes than that – means there is virtually no chance the agreement will raise anywhere near the £4-7bn suggested by Dave Hartnett.

The loopholes provide numerous ways for accountants, lawyers and bankers to help their UK clients escape the new rules.

Loopholes include:

  1. Provisions which allow UK wealthy individuals who hold their assets in so-called discretionary trusts, foundations and similar structures to evade the new rules. These structures are extremely popular with wealthy tax evaders and make it impossible to identify who currently owns the assets. Accountants and lawyers who set these structures up are poised to do a roaring trade.
  2. Wealthy UK individuals can side-step the rules by creating trading, manufacturing or commercial operations as these fall outside the scope of the new deal.
  3. Branches of Swiss banks in other countries are not included in the provisions so UK Swiss banks account holders can simply move their assets to a foreign branch of a Swiss bank to escape the agreement’s scope.
  4. While the new deal includes interest, dividends and capital gains on ‘bankable assets’, it crucially does not extend to:
    - Wages;
    - Royalties;
    - Income on property;
    - Directors’ fees; and
    - Loans
    This allows advisers to UK residents to siphon out benefits through these routes, untaxed.

The deal does not come into force until May 2013 allowing 17 months for advisers to make alternative arrangements and move assets to escape the deal.

These loopholes and more besides (see accompanying in-depth report) leads the Tax Justice Network to challenge claims by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) that this agreement will see a £4-£7bn inflow of tax receipts into the UK.

TJN regards this as a major over-estimation which misleads the British public. In fact, as we argue in our report, there is a real likelihood the serious loopholes, flaws and knock-on effects will actually reduce the already pitiful tax take from UK individuals keeping their assets in Swiss banks in the medium and long-term.

TJN fears this deal will also undermine ongoing efforts to improve transparency and tackle tax evasion through the European Union Savings Tax Directive. An initiative that Switzerland – along with Austria, Luxembourg and Jersey – are doing everything in their power to scupper.

John Christensen, director of the Tax Justice Network, said:
“It’s hard to see how the British public will benefit in any way from this flawed agreement. Worse, it will reverse years of progress made by the EU towards tackling tax evasion through automatic information exchange. It is impossible to see how the HMRC can describe this deal as being in Britain’s interests.”

Nicholas Shaxson, author of Treasure Islands - tax havens and the men who stole the world, said:
“There is a very strong likelihood that that this deal which guarantees tax haven secrecy, will spread like a cancer through the global financial system. This is because many countries are now considering similar agreements. They are either tax havens that want to copy Switzerland, or victims of tax evasion that want to copy the UK. This deal has to be killed.”

Dr David McNair, Economic Adviser at Christian Aid, said:
“This stunning analysis from the Tax Justice Network shows that the UK’s deal with the global headquarters of bank secrecy is likely to undermine the UK’s tax revenues as well as those across the developing world. It’s no wonder Swiss bankers and their clients are delighted. But everyday people in the UK and developing countries will lose out. It is imperative that the UK now takes strong action on financial secrecy at the G20 in Cannes.”

Contacts:

Nick Shaxson +41 79 477 1070

John Christensen +44 797 986 8302

Richard Murphy +44 777 552 1797

Notes for Editors

1) The Swiss-UK tax deal retains the principle of Swiss banking secrecy. In return, tax evading UK citizens will pay a charge of 19% – 34% of the absolute value of their account. In addition, they will pay taxes on subsequent income of between 27% and 48% annually. Switzerland will pay the UK 500 million Swiss Francs (about £350 million) of this up front.

2) Estimates of the amount of UK taxpayer assets in Switzerland range between £40bn and £125bn. In 2010, the UK received £16.9m in tax from Switzerland under a withholding tax arrangement in the context of the EU Savings Tax Directive. That Directive is also full of loopholes, which are being patched up.

3) Historical revenues from the EU Savings Tax Directive are the only realistic benchmark against which estimates can be made for the UK-Swiss deal. Our calculations show that the absolute maximum revenue for this deal is £1 billion from the capital charge – but almost certainly it will be far lower than that. Future income will most likely be lower than under the current EU Savings Tax Directive. Britain’s only certain revenue from this deal is the CHF 500 million (£350 million) up-front payment.

4) Some loopholes stem from the fact that this is a bilateral deal, unlike the EU’s multilateral arrangements. Any countries considering similar deals should be aware that it is impossible to close these loopholes without a multilateral approach.

5) The analysis of the UK-Swiss Tax Agreement was conducted by Nicholas Shaxson, author of Treasure Islands – Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World, in consultation with several people inside and outside TJN.

The full report is here.

 

The discussion I was involved with on Radio 4 yesterday is here.

I hope I clearly rebutted the suggestion that protestors must have all the answers to the world’s problems before they say there’s something wrong. That is the coward’s way out for politicians who are getting us into deeper mess and are clueless as to what to do about it.

 

The following comes from the Real World Economic Review blog and shows the percentage growth in income for three groups in the USA from 1979 to 2007.

Of course the data will be slightly different in the UK, but not much.

This is what #occupylondon is about

 

Call for Papers for a Workshop on

TAX AVOIDANCE, CORRUPTION AND CRISIS

Essex University, July 2012

The 2012 research workshop co-organised by the Association for Accountancy & Business Affairs and the Tax Justice Network will explore connections between tax avoidance, corruption and crisis.  The themes that might be explored within this remit are wide, potentially including issues such as how tax avoidance harms progressive tax systems, distorts markets and infringes human rights; the role of financial professionals in promoting financial and legal secrecy; and how secrecy jurisdictions have contributed to economic, financial, political and social crises around the world.

Other related themes are likely to emerge as the workshop programme develops.

The aim of this workshop is to bring together researchers, academics, journalists, policy staff of civil society organisations, consultants and professionals, elected politicians and/or their researchers, and government or international organisation officials to explore issues on these and related themes. The purpose of the workshop is to facilitate research through open-minded debate and discussion, and to generate ideas and proposals to inform and shape the political initiatives and campaigns already under way.

There will be a small charge for attendance at the Workshop. Participants are usually expected to finance their own travel although applications from students and others with limited means for bursary support will be considered. Accommodation at Essex University will be available at modest cost.

Anyone interested in participating should provide details of the nature of their interest, affiliations and any relevant research or publications to:
John Christensen, Tax Justice Network International Secretariat, john@taxjustice.net

Offers of papers are especially welcome and early submission is encouraged since applicants have exceeded available spaces in recent years. Any submissions will be actively considered by the organising committee which comprises:

John Christensen (Tax Justice Network)

Jo Marie Griesgraber (New Rules for Global Finance)

Prem Sikka (Essex University)

Richard Murphy (Tax Research LLP)

Ronen Palan (Birmingham University)

Sol Picciotto (Lancaster University)

 

I think it quite appropriate to reproduce the following press release from UK UnCut. The sentiment is widely shared, showing how in touch these people are:

Campers at Occupy London and activists from direct action group UK Uncut will join forces to descend upon the head office of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) on the afternoon of Monday 24th October to demand the resignation of HMRC boss Dave Hartnett [1].

Protesters- outraged at Hartnett’s role in approving secret sweetheart deals to let mega-rich corporations off billions in tax- will gather at the Occupy LSX camp at St. Paul’s Cathedral at 12 noon before marching on HMRC’s head office at Whitehall in an attempt to reach Hartnett’s office.

Hartnett was, last week, again dragged in front of parliament’s Public Accounts Commitee to answer questions on dodgy deals with Vodafone and Goldman Sachs that cost the taxpayer up to £6bn and £10m respectively [2]. MPs on the committee accused Hartnett of abusing his position to “cover up his own mistakes”.

A survey last year found that Hartnett was Whitehall’s most ‘wined and dined’ civil servant, treated by corporations 107 times in 3 years to top a survey of 172 senior civil servants [3]. Conservative MPs and commentators from across the political spectrum have joined the call for Hartnett to resign [4] [5] [6].

Occupy London supporter Kyshia Davey said: “HMRC has just announced it will be going after 146,000 pensioners to demand hundreds of pounds from them following a tax code cock-up. Meanwhile, its boss is striking secret deals with opulent corporations to let them off billions of pounds in tax. Hartnett is fatally undermining public confidence in the UK’s tax system at a time of austerity and he must resign immediately.”

UK Uncut activist Sam Gilbert added: “Whilst 25,000 rank-and-file staff at HMRC have been fired, leaving the organisation almost incapable of functioning, Hartnett has been carving out a career as the most ‘wined and dined’ civil servant in Whitehall. The money from Vodafone’s £6bn tax dodge alone could have prevented all of the cuts in public services over the past year.”

 

There has been recent dispute both on this blog and on Twitter about whether a company has a duty to maximise its profits, or not. This is the law, from the Companies Act 2006:

172: Duty to promote the success of the company

(1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—

(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,

(b)the interests of the company’s employees,

(c)the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,

(d)the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment,

(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and

(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.

(2)Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its members were to achieving those purposes.

(3)The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company.

So, where does it say that profit maximisation has to be the object of the company? Quite clearly it doesn’t.

Sure, ‘success of the company for the benefit of its members’ clearly implies a duty to generate profit, or at least a positive cash flow, but maximise it? No way! This is at best a constrained requirement, as is clear from sub-paragraphs a to f.

And in that case judgement has to be exercised. Tax cheating may not in that case be sound judgement. It is harmful to employees. It may be harmful to the members, who may have to pay more tax as a result in a personal capacity. It may harm the long term interests of the company whether by reason of risk of tax challenge or because the directors’ believe that the resources they need from the state may not be available to them.

So what is abundantly clear is that in UK law there is:

a) No duty to maximise profit

b) No duty to minimise tax bills

c)  A duty to exercise judgement.

And there is no way tax cheating can be reconciled with the legal obligation of the directors because it is clearly contrary to the interests of pension fund members, employees, the long term stability of the company and as such to its duty to suppliers, customers and others.

So shall we stop the absurd claim that tax avoidance is a duty once and for all? It’s not. And it’s time we said so, loud and clear.

Cheating is an exercise in poor judgement. As such it is contrary to company law.

 

I spend a lot of time criticising neoliberal policy here, and rightly so. But I also accept that the real right wing libertarian neoliberals argue that we have nothing like a neoliberal world right now and that we really live in a pretty left of centre social democratic environment. I suppose it’s to some degree all a matter of perspective: if you’re on the economic far right even the Tories seem like dangerous left wingers because they accept that government has a role beyond creating and enforcing private property rights which is all the hard nosed libertarians think it should do, bar waging war.

For some reason I was musing on this earlier this morning when well before dawn I was out walking with my dogs and a simple question occurred to me, which was who pays for street lights in the right wing libertarian model of society?

It’s not such a daft question. After all, street lights are a near perfect example of a property which will always be subject to free riding if paid for privately. Suppose for a moment a private supply model was created. So suppose, when I left home this morning I had to put 20p in a meter on a street lamp for a limited period of lighting, and repeat the process every time I turned a corner. Even if I’d done that there would have been no way I could have stopped the couple of other early risers I met this morning enjoying the benefit of the lighting I had paid for. Nor the occasional car that went by doing so either, come to that. It would be inevitable that in this case positive externalities would arise. But in that case resentment would (in neoliberal eyes) likely follow and as a result each and every person might opt for darkness rather than share the light. And that would mean that the street lighting might then not ‘pay’ and so would be removed, and we’d all be worse off.

Who knows where this could lead, or how grossly inefficient such a model would be in terms of massive admin cost and failure to supply an effective service. It’s hardly surprising is it that we came up wiuth a model of local government to do such things? And yet there is no doubt that the model of local government deeply offends neoliberal thinkers. This collectivism is an affront to market perfection.

Now the point may seem facile but I really don’t think it is. The argument against government involvement in the economy being put forward almost constantly now has little more logic to it than the argument I have just presented about private street lighting. Of course we can have private sector involvement in health care, for example, but the moment we do disputes about who does and does not benefit from a payment, who is entitled to what and where boundaries are drawn become prevalent. Indeed, if the Health and Social Care Bill becomes law expect a staggering proportion (in the US up to 50%) of all health care spending to be absorbed in boundary disputes about who has contractual obligation to do what and a right to be paid, or not, as a result; all with the aim of stopping free-riding. But wouldn’t it be so much better that we pay communally and require cooperation? As we do with street lights? Isn’t it glaringly obvious that the model of collective supply on a coordinated basis is vastly more efficient than any private alternative?

And in that case why are the Tories destroying the NHS?

 

Larry Summers has said in the FT this morning:

The central irony of financial crisis is that while it is caused by too much confidence, too much borrowing and lending and too much spending, it can only be resolved with more confidence, more borrowing and lending, and more spending.

But the borrowing has to be for investment this time.

And not investment in land and consumption.

But investment in productive capacity that delivers sustainability.

This time there has to be a Green New Deal.

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