For those who doubt the significance of tax avoidance, read yesterday’s debate in parliament

Posted on January 8 2013

I recommend a reading of this debate to anyone who doubts the passion the subject of tax avoidance can now generate in parliament.

I'd also add it's worth reading Catherine McKinnell's response for Labour, and to then compare it with David Gauke's lame comments. Maybe Accountancy Age was right about his prospects this year.

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:

4

4 Responses

  1. David Lucas says:
    January 9 2013 at 11:04 am

    Quoting Michael Meacher in this debate.
    “This is scarcely surprising when the whole apparatus of tax policy has been captured by the corporate interest. The so called clamp down which the Government are promising will be run by the former City corporate lawyer and former tory special adviser,Edward Troup, who is now in charge of tax at HMRC. It will be overseen by the HMRC chairman, Ian Barlow, who ran the most aggressive tax avoidance scheme for KPMG. Even the HMRC’s ethics committee is chaired by Phil Hodkinson, who is a director of the Resolution insurance company based in a tax haven. All this tells a pretty clear story.”

    Not much chance of the government changing then.

    Further on in the debate Frank Field takes up the idea “- that we issue kitemarks to companies that Her Majesties Revenue and Customs believe have paid their fair share of taxes.”

    I don’t think even this will move the Government. I hate to use the analogy, but it needs a gun to their head.

    If all the “good” companies got together and demanded of the Government a “level playing field” on tax by a certain date, they would collectively NOT move off shore.

    This would surely kick the Government into action. What do you think?

    Keep up the good work and happy New Year.

    David Lucas