Best quote of yesterday was Margaret Hodge:
'I think that you do evil'
But run close by Anna Walker of UK Uncut:
"The government talks tough on tax, but does not do much"
Whilst Lin Homer of HMRC picks up worst of the day, for the sheer arrogance and inability to comprehend what's needed that it reveals:
"We see — but understand more fully — some of the information that might seem to the general public to be surprising."
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
To be fair to Lin Homer she is just saying that if OECD allows these actions there is not a lot she can do until the rules are changed.
So we need to get the OECD to change the rules
Not true
Article 5 is not allowed to create domestic abuse. That’s clear
She can do what she likes. Art 5 does not over-rule tax sovereignty
he OECD is not a world government
Yes but this assumes she has a free hand to act. If OECD made it clear that sales occur where money is paid (say) she would have a stronger hand – assuming she wants to overcome the problem
The OECD is not a world government
Homer was a catastrophic failure in all her previous roles at Birmingham City Council, the UKBA, and Ministry of Transport. So why was she appointed to ‘head’ HMRC, especially when she is not a tax expert? I say it is to allow Ian Barlow (ex-KPMG chair of HMRC’s board) and Edward Troup (ex-tax avoidance lawyer and head of Tax Profession at HMRC – the real executive head of the dept) to have a field day.
The PAC should address the composition of HMRC’s board. What the UK Uncut decision yesterday shows it that HMRC has virtually unlimited discretion that is beyond judicial and legislative control. Therefore, the people that exercise that discretion effectively contol the tax system, and at the moment those people are big business representatives and their cronies.
Whilst I am no tax expert – nor do I claim to be – it seems like the system is unfair and wrong. However, Margaret Hodge is neither a tax expert, lawyer or accountant. Yesterday, she played a starring role in judge, jury and executioner. For all her rhetoric she displayed little understanding or substance. I would suggest that HMRC takes a good hard look at Google, Amazon et al. again and politicians should do more to support them. She is no better than Tony Blair who loved his headlines and sensationalism.
Hodge plays the vital role of the parliamentarian – bringing the informed but not necessarily expert eye to injustice
Why is that so hard to understand?
Agreed. Margaret Hodge is part of the mechanism that is shining the light that has exposed what’s going on in the darkness and the shadows. That is her act of public service. The last time I looked PAC is not in a position to do much else.
The tax and accountancy profession calls for a much more informed debate, which from where I’m standing is code for “you don’t understand and we do”. Sometimes things go so far that an “informed” debate has to be circumvented to tackle the injustice. The profession would like, I suspect, to have a debate that gets bogged down in detail and never emerges with anything like what is clearly needed. But that is the defensive reflex of the vested interest.
the whole point of Richard’s work here, Tom Bergin’s reports on Starbucks and Google, HMRC’s own whistleblower is that HMRC are not enforcing the laws they currently have. and this is deliberate because it has been captured by big business and the big 4 accountancy firms. blaming the OECD or the law is very dishonest.
Don’t you just love conspiracy theories. Strangely the Hodge comments on how the accountancy firms work with HMRC did not exactly stand up to scrutiny.
Yes it did
I know it did
So Mike, while Margaret Hodge shines a light on pretty clear skullduggery and Lin Homer obsfucates, condescends and exposes her very limited knowledge of a subject she is nominally in charge of you choose to attack the former? Bizarre.
Neither is Lin Homer a tax expert, but I’d rather our Margaret was in charge of HMRC than Homer.
Whn Lin Homer says:-
“We see — but understand more fully — some of the information that might seem to the general public to be surprising.”
Does she mean that HMRC will do their level best to ensure that the General Public don’t see the sweetheart deals, because they would be shocked? The man on the proverbial Clapham Omnibus would then clearly see that the once acclaimed “Taxpayers’ Charter” lies in tatters!
frankly I was a bit surprised about the whole reverse charge discussion at the PAC – whilst it might not be the easiest concept to grasp, if you are going to accuse Google of avoiding VAT via their structure I would have thought they might have taken the time to actually understand how VAT works on a basic level and then understand how it works in the context of Ireland and the UK.
perhaps they didnt want to ask a tax expert for a briefing beforehand for fear of being accused of being captured !?!?
even more amusing was the fact that the MP asking the question said he was a chartered accountant !
I was also slightly surprised
What was also bizarre was they never said this only applied to VAT registered customers
Richard, I’m interested in your views on how we would mange any move away from article 5. I assume it would have to apply to apply to all companies, not just Goggle or Amazon. How would we calculate the tax due? And could other countries still tax on the Article 5 basis, so possibly leading to profits taxed twice?
See blog on unitary tax and links