Labour has, according to the Mirror, published the following ten point tax plan:
1 An immediate public inquiry "to establish the harm done to the UK's tax revenue and consider detailed proposals for reform". These could include forcing firms and trusts to publish more information.
2. Change the register of MPs' interests forcing members to publish all offshore holdings, no matter how small.
3. Create a 'Specialised Tax Enforcement unit' in HMRC, doubling the number of staff who scrutinise the affairs of the wealthiest individuals and firms.
4. Force foreign firms to list their owners and beneficiaries if they are bidding for public sector contracts.
5. Negotiate an EU deal forcing to multinational firms to file public reports on their dealings, country by country, and protecting whistleblowers.
6. Introduce a "General Anti-Avoidance Principle" and extend current rules to cover offshore abuses.
7. Crack down on accounting tricks, including telling courts to ignore “artificial steps” inserted in transactions to try and reduce tax.
8. Work with banks to find out more about who owns the companies and trusts they work with.
9. Introduce 'strict minimum standards' on transparency for crown dependencies and overseas territories like the British Virgin Islands - where more than 100,000 Panama Papers firms were based. That includes a public register of owners, directors, major shareholders and beneficial owners.
10. Draw up plans for a register of trusts which transfer trustees' residence offshore and tax avoidance schemes involving trusts which are disclosed to the HMRC under the current law.
That's not quite the same list that I would have drawn up; I would have been tougher on country-by-country reporting, for example. But it's a good start, and I welcome it, even if I think it's only fair to say that I think I recognise some of my own thinking in there, so that may not be too surprising.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Direct rule ruled out or still applicable in rule 9?
I presume it would always be a last resort and not policy
Amusing that Labour now proposes a General Anti-avoidance Principle but yet rejected it outright when in power as recommended by the Tax Law Review Committee.
Justin
Your commentary really is pathetically lame and lowest common denominator partisan
Because a decision was made in way at one time does not mean it cannot be right at another, when different people make it
Pleaee either reach a basic level of intellectual offering in the comments you make or I will just delete you
Richard
That is to say the least a rather stupid remark to make. The Labour Government you speak of is a different animal to the one we have now. The Tory animal horriblis is just that, not so very different from the Blair, Brown/Darling led Labour party previously in power. In case it has escaped your notice, McDonnell appointed by Jeremy Corbyn is a different kind of politician as are the members who have flocked to Labour as a consequence of JC’s Corbynomics plan. Unlike the Tory Party, which has millionaires in abundance, the Corbyn led Labour party is grass roots and virtually the total opposite of both previous Labour Blairite Government and the current Tory crew.
How, when you put forward your post, could you have missed this now well known and understood fact?
I will admit that I am still somewhat mistrustful of Labour: nevertheless, this really is the right thing for them to be saying and, even as the cynic that I am, I believe that Jeremy Corbyn is making real changes in the Parliamentary Labour Party.
He does need to: the capture of HMRC by the big four accountancy firms happened on Labour’s watch, and the corrupt and self-seeking Labour cabinet of the Brown years oversaw the Vodaphone Luxembourg fiasco and the ‘redomicile’ of Boots the Chemist. And, as another comment points out, Alastair Darling stamped out the General Anti-Avoidance Principle.
What’s changed is that the Labour Party – the *whole* party, not just a narrow elite of amoral careerists – are looking for real changes and real representation of the voters’ interests; and, on the other side of the House, we have had two successive governments who make no pretense of acting for the common good – the Chancellor’s family business is offshore tax shelters and the entirety of his policy and strategy is to maximise the concentration of wealth.
Me, I quite like the idea of a party that favours the interests of commerce and of wealthy people. ‘Favours’ them – me, really – but does not pursue their interests to the exclusion of all else and, worse, actively and maliciously pursue the detriment of all others.
So yes, I am encouraged by the noises coming out of the Labour shadow cabinet; and cautious. Today they are best alternative on offer, not just the least worst.
I’d go further than just ‘protecting’ whistleblowers as such ‘protection’ hasn’t been massively effective in the NHS (at least numerous reports in Private Eye suggest that it hasn’t been).
I’d give them a cut of the tax and fines retrieved. Something like 5% with a lower limit of a years salary would make the decision a lot easier to make when considering the effect on a career.
I suggested that at a meeting I spoke to last night
Labour certainly need to do something if we are not to see much more of this type of behaviour from Boots and their vulture capitalist backers destroying the NHS as well as our public finances, in part by avoiding a lot of UK tax despite taking over 40% of their UK revenue directly from the NHS.
This is the classic “rape and pillage” model so favoured by all the major financial centres across the world.
Should we be surprised – of course not.
Do some in the Labour party and every other so called left-wing politician need to reconsider the errors of their ways in ever thinking the capitalist financial market would do anything else – very much yes!
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/13/how-boots-went-rogue
Bit off-topic but Labour related: wonder whether McDonnell saying no donor money accepted from avoiders has secondry motive connected with Labour internal politics. Lord Sainsbury for example has in the past been suggested to have shifted shares around to save on CGT. John Mills donated (advised by Labour to do so I think) shares instead of money to save Labour a tax bill. What I’m getting to, is whether McDonnell also sees value in excluding support for neoliberal-Labour (Sainsbury near enough bankrolls Progress) and leverage for rights formulated agenda. In turn that makes membership and union funding more important and means left emphasis is even more boosted, and at least means any donor money that passes the avoidance test cannot expect any hope to shift policy direction or sway issues.
I have no idea what the plan is, or why
And it is too party related for me to be much engaged with
Yes that’s very fair, tbh when I pressed the button I sensed I had rashly stretched the debate too far ‘sideways’ – and I had – I apologise for that, a rash wrong-slot.
I should have stuck to the most important thing: how encouraging it is to see determined focus that gives hope this is the beginning of the end for tax havens and the extensive avoidance culture.
Not just because opposition potentially could bring in the measures, but because such formulation of strategy puts it on the table.
Mindful of expectation that media will treat it rather like MP Expenses with focus on ‘problem related to individuals’ that can blow over, the need to sustain focus on it as a cancerous cog is paramount.
Last nights Question Time discussion on inheritance tax was a lively discussion. It was a good job Angus Robertson was on the panel to argue the case for closing the tax gap, because I can’t say I was impressed by any of the other responses that lacked clarity and vision over what the audience were clearly very angry about.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b077nv3b/question-time-14042016
Thanks
I will take a look
I am impressed by Angus Robertson