In the 1980s I was a volunteer for Oxfam. At the time I remember discussing the role an accountant could play in campaigning on development with Susan George and others. And the best most people could come up with was to act as treasurer behind the scenes.
I'm not that good behind the scenes, and there's no need for any accountant to play that role in campaigning for development now. Put simply, accountants now have the opportunity to deliver more value for development than just about any other group in society. What they need to do is back the call for 'Country-by-Country' reporting by multinational corporations.
Country-by-Country reporting could be created by an IFRS. It would require that a multinational corporation declare:
1. In which countries it operates;
2. What it is called in that location;
3. What its financial performance is in every country in which it operates, identifying both third party and intra-group trade as well as labour related information;
4. How much tax (and other benefits) it pays to government locally as a consequence.
It would have to do this for all territories in which it operated, without exception. Any country is deemed material in its own right in Country-by-Country reporting.
The benefits of this approach are enormous those interested in trade, labour rights, development, the environment, tax, CSR, transparency and even plain straightforward risk to which shareholders are exposed.
Take just the development case. The developing countries of the world are poor, by definition. Aid helps alleviate this problem but creates a dependency, harms the democratic accountability of developing country governments because they aren't accountable to their electorates for what they spend and aid directly contributes to corruption. Local declaration of economic activity by MNCs with the resulting accountability for taxes paid could break this cycle and help create fully independent, accountable governments capable of raising their own taxation revenues.
The consider what this disclosure could also do when it comes to tax. Multinational companies have more opportunity than any other group in society to plan their tax affairs. They can seek to shift their profits from state to state to find the lowest overall bill. Country-by-Country reporting requires disclosure of the profits that companies record in each country in which they operate and the taxes that they pay on them. This means they can be held accountable for what they do and don't pay. It's estimated that if this problem were tackled enough tax could be collected to pay for the Millennium Development Goals.
We've prepared a summary of ten good reasons why Country-by-Country reporting could contribute to a better world. It's available here. Please take the time to read 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:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] What was interesting was the convergence of ideas. Dave Hartnett, Director General of HMRC stole some of my themes in the first presentation of the day, and was kind enough to give this blog the first plug of the day. John Whiting of PWC, despite his claims to the contrary, is slowly revising the Total Tax Contribution framework to reflect many of my concerns. He went as far as to endorse country-by-country reporting and the need for the reconciliation of the tax charge in accounts with the tax actually paid by companies, both of them themes that have come out of my work. It’s a just a shame he can’t yet agree that this reporting should be mandatory and audited and be backed by the key indicators from country-by-country profit and loss accounts that prove the credibility of the tax data he recognises is needed. […]
[…] Mike was amusing. He expressed surprise at the finding, which has in fact been well known for some time e.g. PWC trailed it in a report for the 100 Group a couple of years ago. And his response, that it’s as unreasonable to ask a large company to declare its tax on a national basis as it would be to do so on a regional basis in the UK was ludicrous. Mike and big business might wish to fantasise about a global world without governments with the power to impose tax, but the reality is that those governments exist and corporations are accountable to them. So unless Mike comes out strongly in favour of formula apportionment then national reporting is going to remain a necessity. And even if that happens, the case for country by country corporate reporting remains – as all businesses know only to well. Which is why they do it, and would do so whether it was required for tax or not. […]
[…] Another reason for country-by-country reporting. […]
[…] Ten reasons for country by country reporting of the type we requested from the IASB, and as rejected by them, can be found here. […]
[…] Now suppose we had country-by-country reporting. How much more would we know? […]
[…] Adopting country-by-country reporting would be one thing that would reduce the risk. After all, pensioners are real people living in real places with real interest in what is happening in their locale. Which is why reporting for their benefit might be of importance. […]
[…] But if they were to do this honestly then the benefit would be enormous. Aid is about 0.5% of world GDP. Global taxes are in excess of 30% of world GDP. They’re less in developing countries but corporate taxes are more important in these locations than in developed countries, If those s taxes were only 4% of GDP in developing countries (as they should be in the UK) they would still be massively more than all aid flows. Let me repeat that: ensuring that these taxes are paid would generate more income for developing countries than any aid initiative yet known could achieve. And country-by-country reporting could achieve that, and much more. […]
[…] Why not go the whole hog? Then we’d really know what was going on. […]