Budget 2010: Offshore tax haven crackdown 'to raise £1.5bn' | Business | guardian.co.uk .
Chas Roy-Chowdhury, head of taxation at the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, said the government had latched on to tax avoidance as a crowd-pleaser, but it would raise only limited amounts of cash. "Tax havens are always going to take a bashing from the chancellor, but it's something of a sideshow.
"With so many more pressing problems for the nation's finances, it really is frustrating that the chancellor is overly focusing on an area with so little impact on the economy.
"The UK receives a significant level of business from offshore jurisdictions, but changes by the chancellor regarding tax avoidance could threaten this. Tax havens do not have a significant part to play in any current financial problems."
Chas - answer m a question. Where do you think the money offshore comes from if it is not from us in the first place? And if it is from us in the first place why is it there if not for tax abuse?
The words "ethics" and "Association of Chartered Certified Accountants" have always been hard to associate. Chas goes out of his way to prove why.
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:
[…] Francine McKenna has that covered. Prem Sikka throws his weight behind this topic at The Guardian. Richard Murphy will on occasion weigh in with different angles. Caleb Newquist is picking up the beat in typical raunchy fashion:Where was […]
“And if it is from us in the first place why is it there if not for tax abuse?”
Many people do value privacy in their financial affairs. Only a small minority does so for tax reasons. Examples:
Many families in less stable countries live in the fear of kidnapping or other forms of blackmails. They hide their assets to avoid becoming a target for the perpetrators of these odious crimes.
For many business persons, privacy about financial matters is essential. They do not wish their partners, competitors or those they negotiate with to know about their financial resources.
Sometimes you are so fixated on taxes (obsessed?) that you miss the broader issues.
[…] Francine McKenna has that covered. Prem Sikka throws his weight behind this topic at The Guardian. Richard Murphy will on occasion weigh in with different angles. Caleb Newquist is picking up the beat in typical raunchy fashion: Where was […]
[…] Francine McKenna has that covered. Prem Sikka throws his weight behind this topic at The Guardian. Richard Murphy will on occasion weigh in with different angles. Caleb Newquist is picking up the beat in typical raunchy fashion: Where was […]
@Ted G
This is absolute nonsense
There is no evidence whatsoever that any secrecy jurisdiction has ever on any occasion saved a single person from blackmail or kidnap
The reality is that those with wealth conspicuously display it – read Veblen
Drive a big Merc
Live in a big house
Dress in Luis Vuitton (or however you spell it) and that invites kidnap
All else you say is nonsense
As for business needing privacy – also complete nonsense. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/03/20/why-we-need-financial-transparency/
What you’re arguing for is monopolistic abuse. Shame on you
Richard
Nuanced as ever in your replies as usual.
I respectfully suggest that you do not know what you are talking about. Having close relatives scattered around Central and South America (Mexico, Colombia and Ecuador in particular) I can assure you that they do not go around displaying their wealth for fear of being mugged, assaulted, abducted or killed. And they carefully hide their assets in order to not become the target of kidnapping for a ransom. If you ever spent even a month in Mexico or Bogota you would know better.
I also think that your post is revealing of your ultimate motives: if I follow you correctly, the rich invite it on themselves to be kidnapped, assaulted, raped and murdered, all this because they are successful. And you make it sound like these crimes are perfectly acceptable.
I have to say I agree with you Richard (ouch), if these people fear kidnap or blackmail they keep a lower profile, move to a safer location or take out K&R Insurance.
Moving their riches to an offshore jurisdiction would not prevent this.
I have to say that a lot of money does flow into the UK through offshore finance and many capital projects with outside finance use offshore structures in Crown Dependencies to mitigate their tax affairs, which ultimately helps to create jobs and therefore help with tax revenues.
Next thing, John, you will be saying that we should go easy on money laundering because the drugs/extortion/people trafficking money flows back into the UK via the city and creates jobs. No, John, once you start backing down before these people, it’s the thin end of the wedge. What other laws would you like to have not enforced to please these peole?
@Ted G
I presume your reply is intended to be offensive, and offence is taken
Your comment is absolutely absurd
I argue for the rule of law, the creation of strong societies, safe environments, the upholding of property rights and fair trade in which people can prosper
Secrecy jurisdictions undermine all these things – and deliberately so, by undermining law, undermining democracy, undermining the taxes needed to pay for police, destroying fair trade and more
And all of that is done deliberately I suggest
That’s why they have to go
It is you who is supporting the criminal – not me
A forthright apology is the pre-condition of your replying
Richard
Richard,
Respect for the rule of law, particularly in tax matters, depends upon the tax as being seen as fair by those who are required to pay it. If it is seen as not fair, people expend a disproportionate amount of effort on seeing whether there is a way – legal or not – around it. The most obvious example of this would be the amount of tax the UK levies on tobacco. Tobacco is very bad and there are all sorts of health reasons why it should be taxed highly. But the people who smoke don’t see it that way and so see no moral problem with buying ciggies from the back of a van at half the shop price. What proportion of UK tobacco is illegally imported? Fairly high, I would suggest. Not because people wish to break the law, but because they do not see a connection between the tax they pay and the benefits that flow from it. Instead, they see an all-powerful, self-obsessed government full of people “on the make” (and it was and would be the same under the Tories).
In short, a strong society depends upon a social contract: that the government cares about the people. There isn’t that belief at present, certainly not among those in the private sector or those in the south. And if the Tories get in (which I hope they won’t: the best result for the Tories is a narrow loss coupled with a decisive majority of the popular vote in England) I have no doubt that the 25% of the population on benefits will feel as excluded as those in the private sector srrently feel exploited.
I’m embarrassed that a leading light of my own institute can say something so foolish.
Not at all James, money laundering is illegal. Putting the (debatable) moral issues to one side, currently tax avoidance is not.
Although I don’t always agree with him, I’ve always had a lot of time for Chas. On this occasion I profoundly disagree and consider the final para of those reported statements to be unwise, unhelpful and unprofessional. I am hopeful that Chas’s reported comments in that 3rd para (at least) have either been misquoted or selectively reported out of context.
When I was Chairman of the ICAEW Tax Faculty I rather envied the relative freedom Chas appeared to have, even then, to speak on behalf of ACCA without first needing to get approval for his comments. To this extent the ACCA could distance themselves from his latest reported remarks. Alternatively they could confirm that they endorse Chas’s remarks as published. I don’t think that would be wise.
Having said all that Richard, your headline purports to tar us all with the same brush. Chas speaks for ACCA, as you note in your post. Contrary to implication of the title of your post, however, he does not represent the whole “accountancy profession”.
@Mark Lee
As you know Mark, I respect your opinions
And on this occasion it seems we agree – except on the last point
I agree Chas does not represent he whole profession
But in my opinion when a professional body of the size of the ACCA does allow someone like Chas to speak so unwisely without restraint it does tar the whole profession – me included
That’s why I’m so annoyed!
But we’re only differing on minor issues of interpretation
As usual
Richard