I have now published (at the request of those who supplied them to me) the drafts of the EU Accounting and Transparency directives as they apply to country-by-country reporting. Of the two the Accounting Directive is much the more detailed and since the two are meant to be consistent it it to the Accounting Directive (AD) that I will refer.
Chapter 9 of this draft contains the issues of relevance for this is the draft AD itself rather than the preamble and notes to it.
Highlighting what I think are some of the key issues, the following jump out:
1) The AD applies to all large companies in the extractive industries and forestry.
2) Government is very widely defined to mean a government, regional government and a government agency.
3) Project level reporting is currently included - as requested by Publish What You Pay.
4) Large undertakings are required to file an annual report on payments made by them in aggregate across all their subsidiaries operating in a jurisdiction to the government of that place and its agencies.
5) Payment includes payments in kind.
6) Only taxes relating to the extractive industries are covered. sales and payroll taxes are excluded, although sales taxes are likely to be minimal anyway.
7) Materiality is defined in terms of the recipient country not the paying company.
8) It is not entirely clear that the report is part of the annual accounts and it is not clear whether it has to be audited, but the reference to Chapter 2 of Directive 2009/101/EC implies that this is the case because I can't see what else it could mean since it does not seem to add this new report to the list of disclosures required there but adds it into those disclosures - and that can only be in the accounts.
9) Reporting exemptions are offered but thankfully will be very hard as written for any company to use.
10) The EU is reserving the right to define materiality specifically.
So that's the good news.
Now the problems:
1) Defining an extractive industries company will be a nightmare.
2) I suspect project reporting to be a major obstacle - but welcome it.
3) There is a real problem that only tax payments are to be included. Let's not for a minute pretend that this is as a result country-by-country reporting because it is not. It's just disclosure data that will be very hard to interpret because no one will know what sales and profits are, for example, in the countries in question meaning that very little meaningful interpretation of the data disclosed form an accounting perspective will be possible. I'll address this in more detail, later.
4) More broadly, I welcome the fact that the AD seems to require reporting whether or not the EI company is actually extracting resources in a territory or not - meaning that, for example, profits taxes appear to have to be reported everywhere, although I am troubled that tax havens will not be covered since a non-payment can't trigger disclosure under the rules noted and that is a major omission.
5) There is no requirement in here to demand some other very basic disclosures we have asked for including:
- a list of every country in the company operates
- a list of its subsidiaries by territory
6) No reserves data by country is required, meaning a massive information source critical to civil society in many developing countries is omitted from disclosure.
7) The data demanded appears to be cash flow data. This imposes serious cost on companies and is inconsistent with the accounting basis used by companies themselves. More logically accounting data requiring profit and loss account charges due by category of liability reconciled with opening and closing liabilities due and total payments made in aggregate would have been of much ore use as this then becomes accounting data.
8) But most problematically, this is not accounting data. So, for example, without sales data the rate of royalty paid cannot be checked and consistency over time cannot be appraised. Likewise without profits data whether or not taxes due on profits are reasonably stated cannot be appraised. And if data is not required for all territories - such as tax havens - then the risk of profits being artificially relocated from developing countries to such places cannot be appraised.
I do of course welcome this development but it is a very long way short indeed of meaningful accounting disclosure that will really hold these companies to account. In that sense this is a profound disappointment: the message that capital must be held to account for what it does not just in developing countries but on its flow into and out of such places has bot been heard as yet. That's worrying.
Country-by-country reporting has come a very long way since I published the first version of it in January 2003 but it still has a long way to go as well. The campaign has to go on - and pressure has to still be brought to bear on the EU to get these reforms through, with improvements if possible.
My thanks to all who are bringing that pressure to bear in Publish What You Pay and elsewhere: their efforts have been quite extraordinary, and will be in the months to come too, I know.
NB: published in haste and maybe subject to revision later
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:
NEWS FLASH – Isle of Man general election and change of Prime Minister
Will the new Prime Minister (in waiting) Allan Bell be the man to restore self-respect to this once proud island?
Mr Bell’s suspect record stretches back over two decades, with classic failures of judgment involving, among others: the replica of the Bounty, importation of used tyres for Jurby race track, the Aqua Leisure Centre, appointment of the members the Failed Supervision Commission, failure to control MEA capital expenditure, and more recently the costly debacle of the ‘Scheme of Arrangement’ for the collapsed bank, KSF (IOM); and the £2.2 million overspend on Euros for the Ronaldsway Airport runway extension.
However, far and away, Mr Bell’s greatest lack of judgement involved his intervention in the planning process for the Mount Murray tourist development. A Commission of Inquiry concluded: “Indeed, he became so closely associated with the developer that he virtually surrendered his powers of sensible independent judgement.” (MM COI, Part One Report, para 11.132)
The Manx Herald suggests: – “Mr Bell has learned little since then, becoming in our view too closely associated with ‘High Net Worth Individuals’ and many leaders in the business community. We fear, if he becomes Chief Minister, his judgement could once again fall foul of his over blown ego, resulting in the distinct possibility the words ‘you can do exactly what you want’ being repeated.”
So the unfortunate Manx people will be subject to further sleaze and depravation — more reason to step up the campaign for real change on the Isle of Man.
Over to you Richard Murphy — and the many others who will make this change a reality.
Surely, we should be concentrating on the underlying problem, rather than the symptoms of the problem. The underlying problem here is the race to the bottom on non-payroll taxes.
Whilst there is (a huge amount of) money to be made by re-engineering profits to a low-tax regime, there will always be (small, illegitimate) tax regimes willing to under-tax profits re-engineered from (larger, legitimate) tax regimes, and (highly-paid and highly-motivated) accountants and lawyers who will always find ways to run rings around the (well-meaning) politicians and bureacrats.
As far as can see, the critical factor in addressing the the underlying problem is a global rising minimum rate of non-payroll taxes. If there was nothing to gain by re-engineereing profits to low-tax regimes, the whole tax-avoidance industry would collapse, and resistance to ‘country by country reporting’ would collapse with it.
Higher non-payroll taxes would also allow each tax regime to reduce payroll-related taxes on a revenue-neutral basis, thereby reducing the cost-to-employ, and stimulating high-employment enterprise (which would then have to pay the higher non-payroll taxes.