Good news is coming in waves from the EU.

First there was support for country-by-country reporting.

Then support for a Robin Hood Tax.

And third – yesterday the EU Parliament passed a resolution calling for more EU tax-related assistance and clamp downs on tax evasion and tax fraud to boost revenue and efficiency in the developing countries. As the Parliament noted (slightly edited):

The tax and development resolution, drafted by Development Committee Chair Eva Joly (Greens/EFA, FR), says that EU and developing countries should seek to boost their tax revenues by combating tax evasion and harmful tax practices. This, it says, will not only reduce poverty but also eventually lead to a “governance dividend”.

The tax and development resolution calls for more tax-related development assistance from EU Member States and a clampdown on tax havens. Developing countries should at the same time reduce their reliance on foreign aid, by putting in place viable tax systems, it adds. Recent studies suggest that revenue loss due to tax fraud amounts to ten times the development aid injected into the economy. As much as €800 billion is lost annually from developing countries to tax havens and illicit financial flows, it adds.

Multinationals should be prevented from “transferring their profits to countries with the most favourable tax regimes” and should pay their taxes in the countries where they actually generated the profits, says the tax and development resolution. One way to combat harmful tax structures would be to withdraw banking licences from banks that work with tax havens, say MEPs.

The Parliament’s tax and development resolution criticizes a European Commission paper on promoting good governance in tax matters for ignoring the fact that trade liberalisation, and in particular economic partnership agreements, substantially reduce the customs revenues of low-income countries.

The Joly report was adopted by a show of hands.

I know this is non-binding. But it’s a powerful statement of political support for these issues and I warmly welcome that as another important step forward in beating tax abuse and tax havens and the drain they put on developing countries.

 

From the FT this morning:

From Henry Banyenzaki MP.

Sir, News that the European Union is to pass legally binding measures on country by country reporting for extractive companies has given a lift to transparency campaigners here (“EU closer to adopting financial reform similar to US”, March 4). The committee I chair in parliament soon will have much of the information on oil revenue that we need to hold our executive accountable.

The recent oil finds in Uganda, estimated at 2bn barrels, have the potential to transform our country, reducing poverty and pushing us to middle-income status. However, our neighbours in Congo have shown that natural resources do not always lead to development. Swift implementation of these reforms, and assurances that payments will be broken down project by project, will give us the best chance possible to avoid the resource curse and allow all Ugandans to benefit from our oil.

Henry Banyenzaki,

National Resistance Movement, Uganda

Chair, Uganda Parliamentary Forum on Oil and Gas

That’s why country-by-country reporting is important.

That’s why the EU must adopt it.

This is about relieving poverty.

And yet big business – like Shell, big firms of accountants – like PWC and Deloitte, and the accountancy profession in the shape of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the International Accounting Standards Board all oppose it.
Why are they opposed to the relief of poverty in developing countries?
If they’d like to explain I’ll give them the space to do so.

 

The FT is emphatic in an editorial this morning: it says the time has come for country-by-country reporting in the extractive industries. As it notes:

The Dodd-Frank Act, which the US Congress passed last year, was designed to reform financial regulation. But it may also prove an important tool in the fight against international corruption. The legislation requires US-listed companies involved in oil, gas or minerals extraction anywhere in the world to report all payments they make to governments to the Securities and Exchange Commission, project by project and country by country. Those that fail to do so face exclusion from US capital markets. Moves are afoot to introduce a similar law in the European Union this year. This is good news.

And as it adds:

Mineral deposits should be a blessing for the country where they are found. More often, however, they are a curse. When citizens do not know how much their governments are paid, they cannot ensure that resource revenues are well spent, or that their country is getting a fair deal. Transparency alone will not make resource-rich countries more open and stable, but without it, nothing will change.

Companies will benefit too. By levelling the playing field on which they compete, transparency legislation reduces the scope for unfair competition through bribes.

I suspect that’s as much as I should quote, but the editorial then goes on to dismiss three further arguments. Firstly, it says that to argue that this would benefit the Chinese is wrong. Second, it says that such disclosure cannot undermine the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. In fact, it rightly says the EITI would be enhanced. That’s a straight rebuttal to Shell. Thirdly it dismisses the idea that such disclosure conflicts with local regulation – the spurious argument put forward by many.

In that case it says:

Requiring transparency for financial market listing is a simple and effective way to stamp this out. It is high time that the EU, and all countries where extractive companies are listed, followed the US lead.

Listing agreements are one way to do this. The EU would be better. And an International Financial Reporting Standards better still.

But of course, despite the mounting pressure the International Accounting Standards Board wtill refuse to act. Why is that?

 
The following blog has been reposted from the blog of the Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development, of which Tax Research LLP is a member. It was written by Mar??a Jos?© Romero and Susana Ruiz of Euordad – another Task Force member:
Practice Costs Spain, Developing Countries Dearly in Much-Needed Tax Revenue

A recent report by the Spanish observatory on Corporate Social Responsibility, which comprises several civil society organisations, reveals that ALL companies listed in the Spanish stock exchange operate directly or indirectly through jurisdictions which are considered opaque by theFinancial Secrecy Index of the Tax Justice Network.

The report entitled, “Corporate Social Responsibility in the annual report of companies in the IBEX35,” highlights that more than 80% of companies that are part of the benchmark stock market index (IBEX 35) in the Spanish stock exchange (the Bolsa de Madrid) operate through tax havens. The remaining companies either have shareholders that are based in or have shares in tax havens. This means that all listed companies operate either directly or indirectly through tax havens.

The report finds that 28 Spanish companies have as many as 272 subsidiaries in 27 secrecy jurisdictions, from where they can operate without disclosing relevant financial information about their activities (such as the taxes they pay, profits they make and people they employ in the countries where they operate).

The extractive company Repsol stands out as the group with the highest number of subsidiaries domiciled in tax havens, with as many as 38; it is closely followed by Santander Bank with 34, BBVA Bank with 23 and the infrastructure company Ferrovial with 22. The secrecy jurisdictions with the highest concentration of Spanish company subsidiaries are the Netherlands, Delaware, Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, Switzerland, Puerto Rico and Panama.

Spanish company Abertis, for example, obtained the license to operate three airports in Bolivia. But between the operating company in Bolivia and the headquarters in Spain, it owns no less than eight intermediary companies located in tax havens, such as Delaware.

Tax dodging: Are companies complying with their commitments on corporate social responsibility?

This dramatic increase in investments from the IBEX35 companies in tax havens could have had a harsh impact on the Spanish public coffers, as Spain’s corporate income tax revenue has more than halved between 2007 and 2009. However, during the same period, these companies have continued to make huge profits. [1]

The damage could be even bigger in developing countries where they operate. Their systematic use of tax havens makes it practically impossible for poorer countries’ tax authorities to collect the type of information that they would need to fairly tax the Spanish companies.

Legal but unethical, and against the spirit of the law

This lucrative search for ways to pay less – creating complex corporate structures, routing money through opaque tax havens, and employing highly paid professionals to find loopholes – is legal. However, it is not only ethically questionable, as some CSO recent reports conclude, but it also goes against the spirit of the law, which is established to ensure that companies pay their fair share of taxes, not to encourage them to use the loopholes in the law to minimise their tax liabilities. This strategy is clearly incoherent with principles of responsible investment, and public statements from these companies that claim that they contribute to sustainable economic social and environmental development.

Legally binding laws are needed to make companies pay their fair share of taxes

The report highlights the lack of transparency in the ways these companies report financial information, but it also highlights other non-financial issues such as their social and environmental impact. This proves that voluntary reporting standards are not enough: mandatory reporting standards are urgently needed to radically enhance transparency on corporate performance.

This is even more the case when companies, including those in the IBEX35, operate and make profits through theirsubsidiaries in developing countries. Paying taxes in developing countries is one of the most important contributions made by foreign investors in return for the profits made in those same countries. So far, it is completely unknown what their contribution to the public coffers is in developing countries where they operate.

This could be easily fixed if companies were to report the profits they make, and taxes they pay (among other crucial financial information) on a country-by-country basis. This reporting standard would allow for assessing the performance of individual companies within a group, thereby increasing transparency and helping fight tax avoidance.

Financial transparency is crucial to providing the right information to any country’s tax authorities on the profits made and staff employed, so tax authorities can determine whether companies are paying their fair share of taxes. However, for countries where the capacity of tax authorities is relatively weak, such as in developing countries, financial transparency is – if possible – even more important.

The report concludes that in times of crisis, with a decrease in social rights, with freezes in salaries and pensions, and with public money used to rescue private companies, citizens demand transparent information; however, voluntary guidelines are not making the grade. That is why civil society is calling for clear and harmonised, legally bindingrules.

Notes:

[1] Whilst profits actually dropped by 14% over this time-span (2007-2009), they still remained quite large, and the loss in profit margins was dramatically less than the loss in corporate tax revenue that the Spanish tax authorities experienced.

 

There’s an article under the above title in the FT by George Soros this morning.

I recommend reading it.

 

The FT reports this morning:

Momentum is building across the European Union to replicate the corporate transparency enforcements contained in the US Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, with draft proposals expected by November, according to EU officials.

“Dodd-Frank Plus”, the shorthand name for the international replication of the US law, could require fuller disclosure of money flows between companies and governments.

Klaus Rudischhauser, a senior‚Ää European‚ÄâCommission official dealing with Africa told the Financial Times: “The process is launched. We will make a proposal to include mandatory country-by-country disclosure by November, with Dodd-Frank as a minimum [standard]. The question at the moment is, should we include other companies not in the extractive industries such as forestry or consumer goods, and also should there be disclosure of profits in addition to disclosure of taxes,” Mr Rudischhauser added.

My information is that this will be included as a new part of the EU’s Transparency Directive.

I won’t count chicken’s yet, of course. And my first thought is to warmly congratulate those on Publish What You Pay for their work on this issue.

But I also have some personal satisfaction at seeing this happen. Last night I watched the BBC 1 programme ‘Famous, Rich and in the Slums‘. I’m not a big fan of Comic Relief style fund raising but this programme was excellent, and quite different to the usual tear jerking stuff they use. I recommend watching it. And I know Kenya is not the focus of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, but it is surrounded by countries that are. And what you saw were failed, exploitative markets reducing people to misery and abject poverty whilst mysteriously the world of commerce went on a few miles away.

I have nothing against commerce. But I do have big issues with corruption, exploitation and the failure to relieve poverty out of resources that should belong to government. That’s why soon after I wrote the first version of country-by-country reporting in 2003 I began to discuss it with Global Witness, Save the Children and others. The result was a document called Extracting Transparency – written by me and endorsed by a range of NGOs calling for country-by-country reporting for the extractive industries.

There is a link. I was angry in 2003, and in 2005 when the EI country-by-country reporting campaign began and I’m angry now about the exploitation of ordinary people – ordinary people who can and should have the opportunity to live better lives. But if we get country-by-country reporting in the extractive industries – universally and to a common standard – I think we’ll take a step forward in beating that corruption. And ordinary people will benefit. Of that I have no doubt.

I make no claim that country-by-country reporting for the extractive industries is all my work – because it isn’t. I have enormous respect for those who have dedicated years to this – none more so than Vanessa Herringshaw at Revenue Watch - but it began with an idea. I’m glad to have contributed that. Now I want to see it happen. Really happen. And I want to see some reduction in poverty as a result. Because that is what it has always been about.

The support of the EU for that objective is very, very welcome.

But of coursed then they’ll have to move on and deliver country-by-country reporting universally – because that’s the only way to hold all business to account locally for what they do globally – including their tax avoidance. The campaign is not over yet.

 

As the Tax Justice Network report this morning:

A new report issued this morning by the UK government’sInternational Development Committee has raised concerns about the manner in which CDC - the government-owned development bank formerly known as the Commonwealth Development Corporation- has been routing investments via tax havens, and has called on HM Treasury to investigate these practices. The report also calls on CDC to adopt best practice on tax matters.

There’s much more on this at TJN. But the minister, despite accepting the need for change, has asked the CEO to stay on for a year to supervise it – so perpetuating the management culture that has created so much abuse in this area. Whose side are the Tories on?

You don’t need to answer that one.

 

Larry Elliott has a good article under the title “The new scramble for Africa must have the courage to curb corruption” this morning. It does, of course, support country-by-country reporting in the extractive industries, to which George Osborne and Vince Cable lent their support yesterday. The idea originated long ago in a publication I wrote called Extracting Transparency.

Larry notes in the article that:

Vince Cable, the business secretary, says he is in favour of the initiative and the Treasury has made similar noises. Ministers are expected to voice their support at an experts’ conference Sarkozy has organised in Paris to discuss the issue next week.

Cable says that so far he has had no push back from UK companies, which is somewhat surprising.

It’s also wrong. There is massive opposition to this transparency in business. The call for country-by-country reporting has just been subject to a consultation by the European Union. As the submissions show the massed rank of opposition to this proposal, whose aim is to ensure the end of corruption and the increase in shareholder value as well as the beating of tax abuse, is enormous. Those bodies who oppose disclosure and so support the continuation of corruption (one follows the other – since none of them suggest an alternative mechanism for tackling the issue) include:

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Shell

European Banking Federation

Societe General

International Association of Oil and Gas Producers

Deloitte

Deutsche Bank

UK 100 Group of FTSE Finance Diectors

Federation of European Accountants

Glaxo Smith Kline

Repsol

The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

UK Accounting Standards Board

Belgian Accounting Standards Board

Association of British Insurers

Each and every one of them needs to be held to account for supporting corruption.

Each and every one of them could have said they wanted disclosure to help stop corruption. But they refused to do so. Thy put their own self interest first.

And for that they deserve all the blame they get.

And in due course special mention will go to PWC – watch this space.

 

Good news from the Observer today:

Britain is throwing its weight behind European efforts to force oil andmining companies to publish details of every penny they pay to governments in poor countries where they operate.

George Osborne told his fellow G20 finance ministers in Paris on Saturday that the coalition was keen to support an effort by the French president,Nicolas Sarkozy, to throw open the operations of the extractive industries in the developing world to public scrutiny.

“As we enter a new decade when the resources of Africa are going to be heavily developed, I strongly believe it’s in everyone’s interests that mining companies and others operate to the highest standards,” said Osborne. “That’s the way to ensure some of the world’s poorest benefit from the wealth that lies in the ground beneath them.”

When multinational resources firms move into African states they often bring the promise of economic development, but campaigners say the result is all too often a bonanza for a tiny elite, while most of the population sees few benefits. In oil-rich Equatorial Guinea, for example, GDP per head is $30,000, equivalent to that of Italy or Spain, but most of the population still live on less than $1 a day. Exports of oil, gas and minerals from Africa were worth $393bn in 2008, while the continent received $44bn in international aid, and natural resources accounted for almost a quarter of Africa’s growth between 2000 and 2008.

The long-running Publish What You Pay campaign, supported by a coalition of civil society groups worldwide, argues that if the scale of the payouts to host-country governments were revealed, voters would hold their leaders to account.

The business secretary, Vince Cable, will lead the government’s push to secure a European agreement on the issue. A business department source said that legitimate firms had nothing to fear. “For businesses, it’s something that they should support as well, in terms of creating a level playing-field,” she said. A Treasury spokesman said: “George and Vince are working together on this.”

This is a major step forward: the Tories have been major opponents of this move in Europe.

Of course the devil will be in the detail and we do need full country-by-country reporting, a point on which Publish What You Pay and I are in full agreement – unsurprisingly as this demand is based upon my work for them dating back to 2004.

But however seen this is a big step forward.

And the inexorable move towards full country-by-country reporting for all companies – including banks – moves closer by the day.

A much fuller briefing is available here.