The EU Parliament called on the European Commission to table a proposal for introducing a "Fair Tax Payer" label yesterday.
In that case this must be the best time yet for companies to apply for a Fair Tax Mark
There are full details of how to do it, here.
And yes, I am a director of the Fair Tax Mark. But for the record, I am not paid and the Fair Tax Mark Limited is a not-for-profit company.
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:
So you will never benefit financially from the Fair Tax Mark?
I can’t say never: that would be unwise
I guess it plausible I could be paid but I am not
And I cannot gain any other way
So what happens to the fees companies pay the Fair Tax Mark? Presumably they are paid to you or other team members?
Mainly to our staff, yes
Plus other overheads
What happened to the work on criteria for a foreign owned multinational?
Give us time…
And demand for it
What a g8 idea – lets hope it gets used and advertised by responsible companies asap.
Good luck
Matt
Richard, you’ve slipped from “Potential Advisor to Government” to “Lobbyist” to “green ink using loon” in the space of six months.
Actually as far as I can see I become Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University
And as far as I can tell you are just here to offer personal abuse
You won’t be doing it again
Must be something to do with global warming and climate change? It’s another hundred and five days ’till All Fools Day.
Why does the European Parliament need to get involved?
As far as I know, there are no legal/regulatory impediments to you setting up FTM (or anyone else doing similar).
I’d welcome correction if I am wrong about this.
In theory they do not need to be involved
In practice, this is a call for consistent standards. For that their involvement is important, just as it is to IFRS
I’ve been reading the origins of credit rating agencies ( Fitch, S&P etc ), punting review systems and ship classification societies ( Lloyds, DNV etc ) and have to make a volte face and admit that I’m much in favour of the Fair Tax Mark, or that at least it should exist.
If in a free trade economy a company willingly pays the fee because they think getting the FTM will add more value to their business ( or subtract from their competition ) then why shouldn’t they do so. They may have been cajoled but they’ve certainly not been coerced.
The ship classifications are far less binary than just Yes or No, you’re certified or not. Early on they had 5 time-bound rating options for standard of hull and 3 for equipment and developed from there. Perhaps the FTM should become more nuanced like this.
What we don’t want in a free market economy is compulsion nor a monopoly provider of certification of tax worthiness, so it’s Yes to FTM but No to the EU Parliament who appear to want virtue-signalling to be mandatory.
I think there will in the end be only standard
But isn’t standardisation the opposite of what FTM stands for, viz, as Baxter Basics suggests?
My guess (if the thing does get standardised as you suggest):
1) Responsibility for dispensing certification will go to the state. There is little point doing otherwise.
They may outsource the delivery to the private sector but the state would retain responsibility to the public for it.
2) If it becomes a procurement requirement, the stakes will go up. Operators who are denied a certificate won’t take the matter lying down.
3) It will become a lawyer’s paradise in terms of judicial reviews. The argument will be ‘if I am complying with the law, I should get a certificate’. Seems a pretty good argument, if you want the state to observe ‘rule of law’.
4) So unless you have a tax conviction, you’ll be entitled to a certificate.
5) So the only bidders excluded from procurements will be those with actual tax convictions.
6) Which is back to where we are now. Except the lawyers have made some money.
IFRS is not state run
Or certified
You really do not realise that?
And that non-compliance with them can be a procurement bar in some cases?
But you’re saying the European Commission now wants to get involved. That’s not a private organisation.
Or are you saying the European Commission’s proposal will be to set up a private organisation to run this, as a private organisation?
The IFRS is sponsored by the EU
It is a private organisation
Here is some public data on how it is funded: http://www.ifrs.org/About-us/Documents/AnnualReport_2014FinancialSupporters.pdf.
EC puts in about £3m, about half of what the accounting firms put in.
Are you saying you’d be happy for the EC’s proposals to include setting up (or grant funding) an analogous body to the IFRS or indeed, giving them responsibility for it?
The EC has clearly signalled it has lost confidence in the IASB
So it would have to be a new body, stakeholder controlled