The G8 will talk about tax automatic information exchange today. And it will talk about disclosing the beneficial ownership of companies and trusts and I welcome both moves. However, just as it is important to remember that corporate tax transparency begins at home, so too is it important to recall that automatic information exchange should also be on the domestic agenda.
In 2011 I wrote a report on the failings of Companies House and the UK corporate tax system - both of which evidence dramatic failures to collect the data they need to create anything like a fair or just tax system in the UK in which all businesses can feel confident that they compete on a level playing field with the tax cheats. As a result of my findings I made 18 recommendations in all, the first five of which were:
1. All banks in the UK must report to both H M Revenue & Customs and Companies House if they open or close a bank account for a UK limited company. If this information is known by H M Revenue & Customs they will know which companies are really trading in the UK, meaning that accounts can be demanded from all those that are trading;
2. No application for the striking off of a company which has a bank account should be accepted by the Registrar of Companies until it has received up to date accounts to support that application and is satisfied that H M Revenue & Customs has received all tax owing to it;
3. It should be illegal for anyone in the UK to assist, directly or indirectly, a UK company to open a bank account with a bank outside the UK without that person who provides assistance having notified both H M Revenue & Customs and Companies House of the fact that they have done so, with full details of the account opened being supplied ;
4. UK banks should be required to provide full and direct disclosure to H M Revenue & Customs of the bank statements of companies that fail to submit either their accounts to Companies House on time or their corporation tax return to H M Revenue & Customs on time. They should also be required to provide the full names and addresses of all those authorised to operate that account;
5. The tax liabilities of UK limited companies should become the personal responsibility and liability of their directors if their companies have failed to submit either their accounts to Companies House on time or their corporation tax return to H M Revenue & Customs on time, with this liability only being avoidable if all documents are filed and payment is made or if a proper liquidation of the company takes place with it being shown that the inability of the company to pay arose through no fault of the directors.
This is automatic information exchange - in the UK. It is about making sure that the UK's banks make available to te authorities that need to know it:
a) Which companies are trading here
b) Where they are
c) Who directs them
d) Who owns them
e) Their trading if they won't disclose it
f) A means to collect tax owing if the company fails to do so.
I can just imagine the squeals of protest if this were proposed in parliament (as I think it will be during this session, on which more news anon). So let's be clear that:
a) No one has to use a company — they can always trade in their own name, when they'd be personally liable;
b) Companies are legal people — not natural ones. Legal people can, as the report notes, disappear with remarkable ease. Real people not so easily, thankfully. So we need special measures to find legal people — especially if they are at risk of doing a runner;
c) It's vital we stop people offshoring bank accounts to get round this legislation — hence item (3);
d) It's essential that H M Revenue & Customs and Companies House be made to police their obligations.
If enacted legislation to achieve this aim would do three things:
i) It would enforce transparency in the UK by providing an independent verification source that has to check the data for money laundering purposes - which banks do
ii) It would ensure that the data to chase the right companies that might owe tax is available - and provide a means of collecting it
iii) It would create a level playing field between honest and dishonest business - which is vital if the economy is to prosper.
It's hard to see why any government would object to that.
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:
You seem to think that the only purpose for a company is to avoid personal liability.
What about:
– A company has far greater access to capital for the running of the business
– A company pays tax on its own profits
– Shareholders are not liable for the debts of the business
– Increased asset protection.
Yes – but that’ for a tiny minority
Justin, you’ve omitted the purpose of obfuscating ownership/tax liability through the creation of a string of companies in different jurisdictions or, indeed, in the “cloud”, a la Apple, all of which is what full transparency is designed to combat. What’s not to like?
Well to be honest, the above is not original, I lifted them from the ATO website. Thought it would be interesting to have a taxman perspective from the advice they give taxpayers.
http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/PrintFriendly.aspx?doc=/content/00182084.htm
@Justin: I take it that these proposals are simply a way of ensuring that the kind of disclosure everyone *already* accepts should happen for companies, does happen.
I take it Richard’s point about being able to trade as oneself is simply to point out that if the privacy of one’s trading is *that* important to you, there are ways of achieving it – this would not be *forcing* the disclosure of this information willy-nilly, it would be saying *if* you are going to enjoy the privileges of trading as a company, you must be transparent with all information relevant to taxation.
Your point simply highlights (correctly, for all I know) that if one valued the privacy/secrecy of one’s trading affairs so much that one preferred to trade in one’s own name, there might in some cases be other advantages besides avoiding personal liability that one might thereby forego.
Fair point (assuming the facts are as you present them).
How weighty an objection it is to effective measures to combat tax secrecy, I’m not so sure.