Austin Mitchell MP issued the following press release this afternoon:
Public Accounts Committee member Austin Mitchell MP today expressed concerns regarding the forthcoming General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR) legislation which aims to tackle widespread tax avoidance schemes in the UK.
Mr Mitchell stated:
“The Government is dragging its feet on tax avoidance, probably to help its friends in the City who bankroll the Tory Party.
I've urged British governments for years to combat such abuses. They are finally doing something about it with the new rule which comes into effect next month however they are the weakest in the world. Instead of being directed at avoidance it's a measure on abuses which limits the scope and is more difficult to prove. HMRC will be hamstrung by it because it can't act directly but only under a review panel which will refer cases. That panel is unpaid and should be absolutely independent but since this legislation has been drawn up by the tax avoidance industry the intention is to cram it with people from that industry who will be judge and jury in their own cases .I'm sure the Big Four accountancy firms and large multinational corporations will be only too willing to have staff seconded to this committee.”
Through his work on the Public Accounts Committee Mr Mitchell has recently been involved in investigations into the tax affairs of companies such as Starbucks, Amazon, and Google. He now intends to organise a group to apply to join the GAAR review panel made up of Labour MPs Kelvin Hopkins and John McDonnell, former Labour MP Jim Cousins, Professor of Economics at Essex University Prem Sikka, and Tax Justice Network campaigner Richard Murphy.
Mr Mitchell added:
“I'm volunteering my team of independent experts to join the review committee to work in the interests of the taxpayers and not the tax avoiders. I urge the Government to accept my generous offer and to quickly make clear it will not appoint anyone from the tax avoidance industry. Taxpayers all across the country eagerly await their answer.”
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:
Very interesting. Power to the people! I am not even convinced the advisory panel is constitutional as it appear to usurp the constitutional powers of the legislature (delegated to HMRC) to administer our taxes and those of the judiciary to determine arising disputes. But if we must have a panel, let it represent the people of this country rather than the vested interests that set it up to exclude any credible oversight. This is corporate capture gone mad!
Oliver
I’m not a constitutional expert so I can’t really comment on the constitutional validity of the panel. That said, I’m sure that Richard can offer a lay opinion given that he is a member of the advisory panel and I’m sure that he wouldn’t have stepped over that line.
I think that Richard would be a valuable addition to the final panel. I’ve spoken to others on the existing advisory panel and they have said how constructive/engaged he has been in the process. That’s great. A fully functional panel needs a variety of experience/background from its members. I agree that corporate capture would be bad. So would Austin Mitchell capture or Tax Research UK Capture or Vodafone capture or capture by anyone.
What I hope for is full-on argument and active discussion that moves things forward. I don’t know if a GAAR will work. I don’t know if a principle is required. Big change. Exciting!
What would be absolutely terrible would be a right-wing or left-wing or corporate star chamber.
TP
I am no longer on the panel
I appreciate the comments made
I am also aware that the terms of reference for the new panel make it inevitable that panelists will predominantly or solely come from big business, big accountants, big lawyers or those serving wealthy clients and that is a process of corporate capture
I think Austin is being tongue in cheek – but the point he’s making is completely valid – there is a need for balance