As the Guardian and other papers have reported, the CBI has:
for the first time admitted that "black box" tax schemes devised with the sole aim of avoiding tax are unjustifiable even if they are legal.
In a document called Tax and British Business â€“ Making the Case, the CBI attempts to explain how businesses legitimately limit the amount of tax they pay without resorting to complexÂ tax avoidanceÂ schemes. It uses international comparisons to argue that UK firms pay more than their counterparts in Germany, France and the US after tax breaks and reliefs are considered.
It uses international comparisons to argue that UK firms pay more than their counterparts in Germany, France and the US after tax breaks and reliefs are considered.
Lamely, John Cridland of the CBI apparently said:
Cridland said most businesses enjoyed tax reliefs on research and development and capital purchases, which were encouraged by the government.
"Business should not engage in abusive tax arrangements. However, in running their normal day-to-day activities, as well as in commercial transactions large and small, businesses need to manage their tax affairs as a key part in operating their businesses," he said.
The TUC's Tax Gap report, by Richard Murphy, argued that businesses avoided at least Â£12bn tax a year through sophisticated tax planning and offshoring of profits. Murphy said in the 2008 report that his calculations showed firms had an effective tax rate of 22.5%.
The Treasury webÂ siteÂ acknowledgesÂ this beganÂ the whole debate on this issue of the tax gap. It's taken four years for that debate to reach the point where the CBI now admits that the mantra "it's legal so it's acceptable" cannot be true. That's quicker than glacial progress, but not much. However, having made this breakthrough we're now in a different place: once this point has beenÂ conceded, and that is clearlyÂ theÂ case, the game changes. Now we're into the arena in which I said this argument was always located - which is that of ethical judgement.
No one, of course, denies that business should not claim allowances andÂ reliefsÂ clearlyÂ intended for their use. To claim capitalÂ allowancesÂ and R & DÂ reliefÂ is tax compliant in most cases (there can be doubts when leasing is involved in some cases).Â Tax compliance is seeking to pay the right amount of tax (but no more) in the right place at the right time where right means that the economic substance of the transactions undertaken coincides with the place and form in which they are reported for taxation purposes. Â So let's leave that issue aside: we can argueÂ whetherÂ thereÂ shouldÂ be capital allowances but if there are no one is saying business should not claim them.
Cridland, the CBI and its tax committee all know that is not the issue. The issues are:
- Â the use of tax havens;
- Â the hiding of intra-groupÂ transactions;
- Â the ability this gives to hideÂ transfer mispricing;
- Â the movement of assets -Â whetherÂ intangibleÂ or cash - off shore to abuse the taxÂ systemsÂ of country like the UK;
- Â the use of special purpose vehicles toÂ hideÂ assets,Â includingÂ for tax;
- Â the sale of offshore services that are intended toÂ undermineÂ the tax systems of democraticÂ statesÂ byÂ multinational corporations;
and much more.
So my suggestion to the CBI is that they stop ducking the issue. As I said in the Independent today:
The GAAR will only tackle the very periphery of abuse. It will leave the vast majority of tax avoidance by multinationals completely untouched.
I think it's time we took on the core of theÂ problem, not the periphery. So do the people of the UK. It's time the CBIÂ realisedÂ that andÂ demandedÂ real change from its members.