Disclosing a one page summary is not publishing a tax return

Posted on July 11 2016

I was noted in the Guardian as saying yesterday, in the context of the publication of tax information by Andrea Leadsom:

This isn't her tax return, it's a tax computation. It's a summary of numerical information but not an explanation of where it came from. It excludes all the information that might be of interest, so she has not published her tax return.

To be blunt, the claim that a tax return has been published when only a one page summary has been put on public record is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth.

A tax return would tell us all those who employed Andrea Leadsom and also provide the additional information appropriate only to MPs.

It would, if schedules were included, tell us the source of dividends and so indicate potential conflicts of interest.

It might do the same with charitable donations.

It might also provide information on what assets were sold to give rise to a capital gain.

Very importantly, it would discuss if any tax avoidance arrangements had been entered into.

And what are called the 'white space' disclosures would be on public record.

But we saw none of that.

So shall we stop the pretence that tax returns have been published?

I would not mind if it was made clear that a summary had been published; it's the misrepresentation I object to with the suggestion that the matter is closed when it clearly is not  based on what has been published here.

Surely by now politicians should have realised that publishing extracts from the truth does not work? Apparently not, is all I can conclude.

And if a summary was desired that some simple notes would have made all the difference. As example:

  1. All earnings from employment arose from work as an MP
  2. The major dividends received came from X, Y and Z
  3. The main charities to which donations were made were A, B and C
  4. The capital gain arose on the disposal of X: disposal proceeds were £Y.
  5. No tax avoidance schemes had been entered into.
  6. No other disclosures were made.

We would then know a great deal more. As is it we are just dancing in the dark, as Bruce Springsteen might put it.

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:

6

6 Responses

  1. PSR says:
    July 11 2016 at 11:12 am

    Mmmmmm – just seems like yet more Darkness on the Edge of Town to me.

  2. Sylvia says:
    July 11 2016 at 1:16 pm

    Different song,but, Dancing in the dark sung by Frank Sinatra, more my era and so much more charismatic, Billy May orchestra.

  3. miriam says:
    July 11 2016 at 2:57 pm

    what would you think of the tax being took at point of sale like debit cards do and receipts being sent to the tax office

  4. Marco Fante says:
    July 11 2016 at 8:10 pm

    Richard,

    Have you seen this from Australia?

    “CORPORATE TAX MINIMISATION COSTS GOVERNMENTS $US1 TRILLION SAYS ACCOUNTING INSIDER”

    “The big four accounting firms have been branded as aggressive, unethical, and accused of “perpetrating the greatest tax crimes in history” by a leading corporate tax authority.”

    “Mr Rozvany spent 32 years working in the corporate tax field, for Ernst and Young, Coopers and Lybrand (now PwC) and the defunct Arthur Anderson.
    He was head of tax for chemical giant ICI in Australia as well as for the world’s largest insurer, Allianz.
    Mr Rozvany is Australia’s most published author on transfer pricing”

    His proposals (in the rest of the article)are quite interesting:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-11/corporate-tax-minimisation-costs-governments-1-trillion/7587092