I do hope HMRC are called before parliament to explain their misstatement of the tax avoidance gap

 Tax gap  13 Responses »
May 182012
 

HMRC’s attack on my work on the tax gap is almost amusing in some ways.

Amongst their claims is one that says total tax avoidance in 2009-10 was just £5 billion.

And yet when the 50p tax rate was introduced they reckoned (page 39) there was more than £6 billion of tax avoidance in 2009-10 as a result of shifting in the timing of dividends for that one reason alone.

So, just to make this clear,  in 2009-10, the year for which their latest tax gap estimate for tax avoidance was prepared, they said in September 2011 there was just £5 billion of tax avoidance in all (making up part of the total tax gap in their estimate of £35 billion) and yet by March 2012 they were admitting tax avoidance for just one reason in that year exceeded £6 billion. And yet despite that they are still telling parliament their estimate of the tax gap is better than mine.

Now that’s an interesting idea, not least because it would require there to be negative tax avoidance for all other purposes and taxes if their claim was to be true.

Alternatively, and as is glaringly obvious, their claim is wildly inaccurate.

Candidly, how they have the nerve to present such misinformation is hard to determine. I hope they get called in to defend such wilful misrepresentations to Parliament, because they should be.

 Posted by Richard Murphy at 3:34 pm

Why HMRC are wrong on the corporate tax avoidance gap

 Tax avoidance  4 Responses »
May 182012
 

In their report to the Treasury Select Committee on my work H M Revenue & Customs say:

Avoidance

For corporation tax avoidance, Tax Research UK calculates the ‘expectation gap’. They describe this as a measure of the difference between the contribution society expects business to make by way of tax paid, and what is actually paid. This is defined as:

the difference between the headline or declared tax rate for companies, and the rate of tax they actually pay.

This means that legitimate use of specific exemptions and reliefs such as capital allowances or double taxation relief, which reduce the amount of tax payable, are badged as avoidance.

This is, with the greatest of respect to HMRC, disingenuous, and they know it. The reason why my estimate of corporate tax avoidance and theirs are so different is that when calculating corporate tax gaps HMRC has started with the assumption that the tax returns it gets are right and avoidance only exists if on investigation of the return an activity is found that they wish to challenge as avoidance. This is what is called a ‘bottom up’ approach to calculating a tax gap. I, on the other hand, started from the accounts of multinational companies and tried to estimate what part of their profit should reasonably be taxed in the UK to estimate a tax gap.

An example helps explain the difference. In April 2012 the Mail on Sunday looked at the accounts of five US internet giants – Apple, Google, Amazon, eBay and Facebook. What they found was that the companies’ American accounts suggested that they had between them total sales income of £12.2billion in Britain in 2010. The Mail then suggested, using a methodology pioneered by Tax Research UK,  that on the basis of their global profit margins it would have implied they should have, if all things had been equal, declared profits in the UK of almost £2.5 billion. UK corporation tax on that sum at 28 per cent (as was due in 2010) would have given them a bill of £685 million. Instead they paid just over £19 million between them in tax in 2010 at an average rate of 0.8 per cent.

It has to be stressed all this is legal – and almost certainly done with HMRC approval – and arises because the companies in question bill their sales to UK customers from outside the UK and their UK operations are simply service functions.  The HMRC approach to tax avoidance would not pick up the difference of £666 million found in these cases. The Tax Research approach would.  Unsurprisingly the figures are very different as a result. The HMRC approach may be to approve what the companies do as being strictly correct but it is very obvious that very few people would think that outcome appropriate and reasonable. The result is that HMRC have dramatically understated tax avoidance in the UK.

Now I don’t dispute that using my approach and because of the limitations in tax disclosure in corporate accounts it is not impossible that the exploitation of reliefs allowed by parliament may also be included in my estimate of the tax gap – but I explicitly acknowledge this in my work by looking at the impact of such allowances on deferred tax provisions. It is disingenuous of HMRC to ignore this. And by doing so I showed that capital allowances, which you would logically expect to reverse over time, do not. The aggregate deferred tax liabilities of the top 50 FTSE 100 companies over an extended period looked like this based on my research:

If paying tax late is an objective of tax avoidance – and few would dispute it – then from 2,000 to 2007 large companies got very, very good at it. The situation only change in the crash when massive bank losses knocked about £19 billion of total deferred tax balances. In other words – if we’re looking at tax not paid as being tax avoided – and for all practical purposes it is – then those capital allowances HMRC refer to are very useful indeed in making sure tax is not paid.

In that case their claims ring very hollow indeed and their method of calculation simply exonerates corporate tax abuse that seems morally repugnant to most right across the political spectrum.

As such I stand by my claim that my estimate of tax avoidance is far more accurate than theirs.

But whilst they persist with their line no wonder big companies and the tax avoidance profession are now queueing up to say HMRC have got this right.

 Posted by Richard Murphy at 3:15 pm

Why I include tax paid late in the tax gap

 Tax gap  7 Responses »
May 182012
 

In HMRC’s response to my work on the tax gap, published by the Treasury Select Committee today, they say:

Non-payment

The figure for unpaid tax of £28bn that Tax Research UK use is a snapshot of the total amounts owing to HMRC on a particular day. We think this gives a misleading impression of tax that is lost. Most tax paid late is collected within a few days, and over 90% is eventually collected. Therefore the figure we include in our tax gap estimate shows only the amounts we don’t ever collect. 90% of this arises because of insolvency.

So why do I include tax paid late in my estimate? Well, one very good reason is the fact that in 2005 HMRC issued the following diagram of the tax gap through the Large Business Service:

There, wou will note,  in general non-compliance is tax paid late. If it’s good enough for HMRC to include it in the tax gap it’s good enough for me. The problem is for them to explain why they’ve chosen to understate the tax gap as a result of ignoring this number, not for me to justify its inclusion. And that’s especially true when there are very good reasons for including it.

The fact is that ignoring tax debt as part of the tax gap is not helpful at a time when the government is borrowing about £120 billion a year, precisely because it is not collecting enough in tax. Every pound of late paid tax is a pound borrowed and when the government  have made the reduction in government borrowing their key economic objective to exclude tax paid late from the tax gap is completely nonsensical. This sum has to be included or very obviously the goal of collecting this sum, which is essential to H M Revenue & Customs’ objectives, will not receive the emphasis it deserves in the allocation of resources.

That’s why I’m right to include this figure in the tax gap and HMRC are wrong to exclude it.

 Posted by Richard Murphy at 2:32 pm

Can HMRC really say my work on the tax gap is ‘dangerous’?

 Tax gap, Uncategorized  16 Responses »
May 182012
 

I’ve just re-published HMRC’s new commentary on my work on the Tax Gap, published by the Treasury Select Committee.

I suspect no one will be surprised to hear that I do not agree with HMRC’s analysis. What worries me most though is that they are not even attempting an objective analysis. In a long paragraph that proceeds their analysis they say they think they have good reason to comment on my work. That paragraph is especially telling, and I comment on it as follows, in each case quoting the original text and then my analysis of it:

Finally we have to be aware that because the concept of a tax gap is of public interest others will calculate a total. The external work has tended to produce estimates that we think are misleadingly high. (See the annex for a detailed discussion of why we are convinced that our estimate of around £35bn is much more accurate than the Tax Research UK estimate of £120bn).

It’s nice of the Revenue to acknowledge that my work is the de facto alternative to their own; to say it is misleading is a deeply subjective statement implying intent. I have no intention of misleading anyone. My work is offered in good faith to correct very clear errors that I have persistently noted in HMRC’s own work.  Both our figures are estimates, of course. It is inappropriate to describe one as misleading.

We think that these estimates could be dangerous if not countered by HMRC’s published estimates.

Respectfully, now we’re moving into the realms of fantasy. To say that it is dangerous to have alternative tax estimates in existence undermines HMRC’s credibility. This is misleading. They justify this saying:

Partly because they give a misleading view of HMRC’s effectiveness and the amount of uncollected revenues.

Part of the purpose of my work is to argue that HMRC is ineffective. I do not deny that. But then, it is, as a matter of fact ineffective. Because of my work HMRC have had to admit that fact: they never published comprehensive tax gap estimates before I did so. Second, HMRC is ineffective because its senior management have decided to make it their objective to half the number of staff in HMRC in a decade from near enough 100,000 in 2005 to a planned total of just over 50,000 in 2015. Over 30,000 people have already gone. And the simple fact is that you can’t close the tax gap without people to check accounts, visit missing traders, pursue uncollected tax and handle investigations. YThose people are no longer at HMRC, which is why they’re having to resort to doing deals to get tax in from large companies, and simply ignore the fact that in wide areas of their work they are wholly ineffective. On statistic will suffice for now. As my research has shown, in 2009-10 HMRC asked 1,796,000 companies (out of 2.8 million that existed) to submit tax returns. Only 1,183,000 did submit a return. That means 34% of companies asked to submit a tax return did not do so whilst only 42% of all companies actually submitted a return. If that’s HMRC being effective their standards of assessment for effectiveness are pitifully low. And that’s why I suggest they’re not collecting tax.

They have another reason for thinking my work dangerous though:

But also because [Tax Research UK's estimates]  encourage the perception that deliberate non-compliance in the UK is the norm—a perception which could encourage further non-compliance.

Hang on – that’s saying whatever the truth is they want to publish as low a number as possible to pretend that HMRC is doing just fine and people aren’t fiddling whatever the truth might be. That’s little short of an admission that what they are putting out is simply propaganda and is not an attempt at creating a true and fair picture of the problem (something which, unfortunately, their inconsistent choice of methodologies only confirms to be the case).

Is non-compliance the norm? Well I’d suggest 34% of companies ignoring a request to submiot a tax return is just that.

And when it comes to the self employed, this table from their latest tax gap publication is pretty damning:

Near enough half of all self assessment tax returns are wrong according to HMRC. If that is not non-compliance as a norm I do not know what is. Their claim looks very threadbare, if I am kind to it, despite which they say:

We are confident that deliberate non-compliance is far from the norm—and that it is important to demonstrate this by publishing our own estimate of the total tax gap.

I’m sorry –  but making misleading claims undermines the whole credibility of that estimate – and as this analysis of just one paragraph shows, HMRC’s work is misleading, and I would contend mine is not.

But I will come back to this in more detail on other issues, soon.

 Posted by Richard Murphy at 12:37 pm

HMRC comment on my tax gap estimates, via the Treasury Select Committee

 Tax gap  1 Response »
May 182012
 

It’s not very often HMRC and Parliament dedicate a chunk of a publication to my work, but the Treasury Select Committee have done so this morning, putting out the following, written by HMRC, as part of their response to that committee on the Tax Gap.

In view of the fact I will, inevitably, be writing responses to it over the next day or so I reproduce it in full here:

Annex: External calculations of the tax gap

There is a huge difference between the £35bn tax gap calculated by HMRC and the £120bn figure for the tax gap quoted by Tax Research UK. The scale of the difference has caused confusion and concern. Part of the reason for the disparity is that the two estimates are not directly comparable—partly because the definitions used are quite different. Nevertheless we think the £120bn figure is very misleading. It confuses the tax gap with cash flow and legitimate reliefs in a number of areas.

Table 1: the table attempts to show where our estimates differ. The main points of difference are described below.

Tax Research UK HMRC (2009-10)
Unpaid Tax £28bn Unpaid Tax £4bn
Tax avoidance £25bn Avoidance £5bn
Evasion £70bn Hidden economy, evasion, error, failure to take reasonable care, legal interpretation and criminal attacks £26bn
Total £123bn £35bn

Non-payment

The figure for unpaid tax of £28bn that Tax Research UK use is a snapshot of the total amounts owing to HMRC on a particular day. We think this gives a misleading impression of tax that is lost. Most tax paid late is collected within a few days, and over 90% is eventually collected. Therefore the figure we include in our tax gap estimate shows only the amounts we don’t ever collect. 90% of this arises because of insolvency.

Avoidance

For corporation tax avoidance, Tax Research UK calculates the ‘expectation gap’. They describe this as a measure of the difference between the contribution society expects business to make by way of tax paid, and what is actually paid. This is defined as:

the difference between the headline or declared tax rate for companies, and the rate of tax they actually pay.

This means that legitimate use of specific exemptions and reliefs such as capital allowances or double taxation relief, which reduce the amount of tax payable, are badged as avoidance. Avoidance is also drawn very widely. For example it includes tax not paid by non-domiciles who choose not to remit their income to the UK. We do not consider this part of the tax gap—the remittance basis is a choice intended by Parliament.

Evasion

Tax Research UK particularly criticises HMRC’s use of bottom-up methodologies to measure the direct tax gap and applies the VAT gap rate to arrive at an evasion figure for all direct taxes. This is highly inappropriate for three reasons:

  • the VAT gap includes all forms of non-compliance such as non-payment, avoidance and criminal attack as well as evasion. So the VAT gap arises from much more than just suppression of turnover that might feed through to evasion of direct taxes;
  • the use of the VAT gap in this way counts debt and avoidance twice for direct taxes—an arithmetical error, and
  • very importantly, tax gaps vary considerably by type of tax.

Tax gaps for taxes using deduction of tax at source, or with significant third party reporting requirements are much lower than for taxes without these features. This is established by very detailed research in the US and Denmark[3] and borne out by UK experience. Using the percentage VAT gap—9.7% for 2010-11 is the latest estimate—to estimate a tax gap for business profits of companies and sole traders may give an answer of the right order of magnitude. But it gives completely the wrong answer for the income tax due from employees where PAYE is operated. International research suggests a tax gap for this of around 1%. This incorrect assumption accounts for £30bn of the £120bn estimate.

Tax Research UK have supported their evasion estimate through comparison with an academic paper produced for the World Bank[4] which contains estimates of the size of the hidden economy for a number of countries including the UK. The estimate for the hidden economy in the UK is 13% of GDP which Tax Research UK then convert to a tax gap estimate of £73bn. Rather than support the Tax Research UK figure we believe that this comparison, if anything, further undermines it. The methodology uses a variant of a ‘currency demand’ model to estimate the size of the hidden economy. The use of ‘currency demand’ models for this purpose has been comprehensively and extensively criticised in unusually strong terms by other academics[5] [6] and national statistical bodies.[7] [8] The main theme of the criticism is that the methodology relies upon the application of assumptions which result in estimates that are much too large to be plausible. For example the Australian Bureau of Statistics explore what it would mean for Australia to have a hidden economy of 15% (as predicted in an application of this methodology by the same author). Critically they point out that a hidden economy of this overall size implies much higher levels of non-compliance in the areas of the economy where there is scope for underreporting. For example it implies underreporting of around 50% for every single self-employed taxpayer—which they reject as being implausible. Certainly non-compliance of the scale suggested for the UK is completely incompatible with all of our customer research and operational data.

As a result of the general concern about the use such models a body consisting of a number of international organisations including OECD, IMF, the World Bank, UN and the European Commission have issued a strongly worded statement advising against use.[9] Part of their statement says:

Unofficial estimates are often based on macroeconomic models. For instance, they may assume a fixed relation between the size of the economy and money in circulation. Such methods may yield grossly exaggerated results, attracting the attention of politicians and newspapers and thereby gaining wide publicity.

In a more recent report ‘Reducing opportunities for tax non-compliance in the underground economy’,[10] OECD comment:

the OECD (and other international organisations) reject these methods as being useful in obtaining exhaustive estimates of GDP or in estimating underground production and have observed that when applied they produce for most countries spectacularly high estimates of NOE [Non Observed Economy] activities which have no sound scientific base but which, nevertheless, attract much attention from the media and other parties.

Gross or net?

HMRC’s published estimates are net of compliance yield. The Tax Research UK figures do not take into account direct tax compliance yield—for example £13.9bn for year 2010-11.

Conclusion

Tax gap measurement is not an exact science. But we are confident that £35bn is a much more realistic estimate of the tax gap than £120bn.

 

2   We periodically review this conclusion to check whether there are top down techniques for the direct taxes that we could use. Our latest review was published in August 2011.Seehttp://www.hmrc.gov.uk/research/taxgap-workingpaper.pdf Back

3   Unwilling or Unable to Cheat? Evidence from a Randomized Tax Audit Experiment in Denmark, Henrik J Kleven, Martin B. Knudsen, Claus T. Kriener, Soren Pederson , Emmanuel Saez;Tax Gap for Tax Year 2006, IRS(http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/overview_tax_gap_2006.pdf) Back

4   Shadow Economies All over the World New Estimates for 162 Countries from 1999 to 2007; Friedrich Schneider, Andreas Buehn, Claudio E. Montenegro July 2010 Back

5   Estimating the Underground Economy MIMIC models-Trevor Breusch, November 2005 Back

6   The Shadow Economy in OECD Countries : Panel Data Evidence-Konstantin Kholodilin, Ulrich Thiessen, May 2011 Back

7   The Underground Economy and Australia’s GDP-Australian Bureau of Statistics, March 2004 Back

8   Estimating the Underground Economy in Canada, 1992-2008-Statistics Canada June 2011 Back

9   Estimates of the unrecorded economy and national accounts, Declaration of the ISWGNA (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/sna/nn22-en.pdf) Back

10   Reducing opportunities for tax non-compliance in the underground economy, Forum on Tax Administration : SME Compliance sub-group ( http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/16/49427993.pdf) Back

 

 Posted by Richard Murphy at 11:35 am

The UK is not broke – but Tory economic policies are

 Economics  24 Responses »
May 182012
 

The usual ‘Britain is broke’ lines were trotted out on Question Time last night.

That is nonsense. Britain is not broke, nor can it go broke. If you can print your own money you can’t ever go broke. The mnost you can do is devalue your currency. But we’re unlikely to be doing that any time soon when the Euro is in its current state. What we are facing is a political and not an economic crisis. As Philip Stephens says in the FT this morning:

Fiscal retrenchment can be credible only if it retains the consent of electorates. In the absence of economic growth, how long will Spanish, Portuguese, Irish and Italian voters bear the fiscal pain? Austerity policies designed to sustain credibility have now begun to have precisely the opposite effect.

That’s heading our way. Inevitably. Martin Wolf in the FT, again this morning, has said:

Can it make sense for policy makers to stick with their policies, regardless of adverse changes in circumstances and outcomes? David Cameron thinks not. In a speech earlier this week, Britain’s prime minister advises the eurozone to change its monetary policies and fiscal institutions. But what does he think about the policies his government is following at home? On that he is not for turning. The policies decided when the coalition came into office two years ago are, he insists, also correct now.

As he notes:

Mr Cameron insists that “we are moving in the right direction”.

But as he asks:

How can Mr Cameron believe the economy is moving in the right direction when it is not moving?

Because as Martin Wolf notes:

The reason Mr Cameron believes this is because he is fixated not with the dire economic performance, but with the public sector’s balance sheet – and not even the whole balance sheet, but with its liabilities. “We cannot blow the budget on more spending and more debt,” he says.

The result is that:

With real interest rates close to zero – yes, zero – it is impossible to believe that the government cannot find investments to make itself, or investments it can make with the private sector, or private investments whose tail risks it can insure that do not earn more than the real cost of funds. If that were not true, the UK would be finished.

In that sense, and that sense alone we are broke, but broke only because the Tories are choosing to break us.

As Wolf notes – we need massive investment. I have explained, endlessly, how we could fund it through closing the tax gap, green quantitative easing and requiring pension funds to invest in new infrastructure bonds in exchange for tax relief. It’s not hard to do. Wolf agrees. As he notes

It is a scandal that in an exceptionally severe downturn, the Treasury, in its majestic unwisdom, slashed its investment so deeply. Penny wise, pound-foolish does not come close to it.

In its fear of the spectre of a bond price collapse, the government is consigning the UK to stagnation. It is refusing to take advantage of the borrowing opportunities of a lifetime. It is unwilling to contemplate even a clearly time-limited fiscal boost out of fear that the gilt markets would promptly panic. It is determined to persist with its course, regardless of the unexpectedly adverse changes in the external environment. The result is likely to be a permanent reduction in the output of the UK, not to mention permanent damage to a whole generation of the unemployed. I have words for such behaviour. Not on this list is the word “sensible”.

 We’re not broke, as I said. But Tory economic policy is, beyond doubt.

 Posted by Richard Murphy at 9:06 am

Full disclosure: I’m a member of the Co-op

 Uncategorized  3 Responses »
May 172012
 

I try to make sure I make appropriate disclosure of my conflicts of interest.

So I should make disclosure of the fact I’ve joined the Co-operative movement.

It’s long overdue. I’ve banked with them for a decade, but I thought I’d mention it – to encourage others to do join as well.

 Posted by Richard Murphy at 5:24 pm

Taxing banks – or why we need a Robin Hood Tax

 Transaction tax  1 Response »
May 172012
 

As I’ve mentioned already today, this is a week of pretty intense campaigning for a Robin Hood Tax – a tax on financial transactions.

I wrote about this quite a bit in a report I did in 2009 called Taxing Banks. The data will be a little different now but the principle remains the same – which is that banks are undertaxed, financial speculation is to a very large degree in itself a zero-sum game that is, however, socially harmful because of the resources it draws away from productive use and if more tax was applied to it the volume of transactions might fall, those socially useless resources might be reallocated to productive use and we’d all be better off.

For these who want the somewhat longer version, Taxing Banks is here.

 

 Posted by Richard Murphy at 5:16 pm

US campaigners say “Tell us who you are”

 Uncategorized  Comments Off
May 172012
 

Today, 41 business and civil society groups sent a letter to every member of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate urging them to co-sponsor the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act (S. 1483/ H.R. 3416). This bipartisan bill, which is endorsed by the Obama Administration, would require companies to disclose their ultimate owners at the time of incorporation, making it much harder for corrupt politicians, tax dodgers, terrorists and other criminals to form and hide behind anonymous U.S. shell companies.

The signatories1, who include, among others, American Sustainable Business Council, Calvert Investments, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Citizens for Tax Justice, Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition, CtW Investment Group, Domini Social Investments LLC, Friends of the Earth – US, Global Financial Integrity, Global Witness, Human Rights Watch, Jubilee USA Network, Main Street Alliance, Oxfam America, Project On Government Oversight, Revenue Watch Institute, Sunlight Foundation and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, are concerned that it is legal to form companies in the United States with hidden ownership.

The letter states:

Increased corporate transparency would curb corruption and tax evasion, promote an equitable market economy, reduce the opacity of corporate campaign contributions, help ensure a fair and level playing field for small- and medium-sized businesses, foster global development and enhance national security…

Investigations continue to reveal that American and foreign terrorists, narco-traffickers, arms dealers, corrupt foreign officials, tax evaders, individuals targeted for financial sanctions and other criminals easily and regularly set up U.S. shell companies, without providing any information about who owns or controls such companies…This enables criminals to disguise their identities behind the anonymity provided to U.S. corporations and launder dirty money through the U.S. financial system.

The full letter can be read here.

Corporate secrecy fundamentally undermines U.S. laws to combat money laundering and tax evasion, as well as U.S. efforts to tackle global corruption. A recent World Bank reportfound that the U.S. was a favorite destination of corrupt politicians trying to set up shell companies to access the financial system. Once corrupt and other illicit funds have been moved through an anonymous corporate vehicle into the financial system, it is much harder to track them down. Shining a light on the ultimate owners of companies, would make it easier for law enforcement to do its job. To date, eight law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police and Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, have endorsed the legislation.

The Obama Administration also views corporate secrecy as a threat to national security. Through the U.S. Open Government Partnership Action Plan and the Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, the Administration has committed to work with Congress and advocate for legislation that would require meaningful disclosure of the ultimate (beneficial) ownership information of companies at the time they are set up.

“The President’s commitment to transparency must extend to working with Congress to prioritize ending hidden company ownership in the U.S.,” said Stefanie Ostfeld, Global Witness policy advisor. “The U.S. can no longer allow foreign corrupt dictators and other criminals to disguise their identities behind American shell companies in order to launder dirty money through the U.S. financial system.”

“Anonymous shell companies make the U.S. financial system a playground for both foreign and domestic corrupt, criminal, and tax evading money,” added Tom Cardamone, managing director at Global Financial Integrity.  “It is absolutely critical from a law enforcement, national security and governance perspective that we enact this piece of legislation.”

“It’s important that the U.S. government demonstrate leadership when it comes to dealing with financial secrecy,” commented Nicole Tichon, founding member of the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency (FACT) Coalition.  “As we seek cooperation from foreign jurisdictions in cracking down on terrorist financing, money laundering and tax evasion, we must ensure that the U.S. is not facilitating financial crime in our own backyard.”

 Note: Tax Justice Network USA is a member of the FACT Coalition

 Posted by Richard Murphy at 12:21 pm
 Older Entries  Newer Entries