Google seems to have provided Labour with a them on which it can speak with one voice. Having already noted what Margaret Hodge has to say on the issue this morning in the Observer I then saw that John McDonnell had written on the issue in the Sunday Times (paywall), saying:
Any increase in the contribution of large companies whose tax affairs have been questioned is, of course, to be welcomed, but let us make no mistake: this comes as a result of much hard work and campaigning.
Tax experts, grassroots campaigners and MPs including Jeremy Corbyn and me have spent years raising awareness of these problems.
If George Osborne implicitly admits we were right at last, that is something to celebrate at least.
But until we know what has been agreed here and for the future – and until all big companies are paying their share like the rest of us – there is clearly a lot of work still to be done.
Again, it is hard to disagree. This is also factually accurate: this is the issue about which I first met John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn. At the time we were criticising New Labour for its approach: the settlement is now on another government's watch and neither should be getting credit for their actions. Margaret and John do not, I suspect, agree on that much. At least they do on this.
But John would be wise to take on Margaret's demands for country-by-country reporting and better transparency from HMRC on large business tax affairs. That turns this into a positive agenda. Adding HMRC reform into the mix would make it a very strong platform. And that's what's needed.
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:
Tax is always negotiated at scale.
Indeed, whenever HMRC start to enquire.
That’s the reality.
This pretence of certainty is just that — a pretence.
Live with the uncertainty of life and its ambiguities — even in tax. That’s the reality now and always will be.
Then there is no need to do it so badly
If you accept there is to be negotiation, how do you expect it to happen without appropriate confidentiality protections for the taxpayer?
I expect none of us know for sure whether or not the negotiations were conducted well or badly. We don’t know all the factors involved.
Prem Sikka has been quoted suggesting a sweetheart deal.
Assuming he has been quoted accurately, do you condemn or endorse his comment?
Agreement of an appropriate basis for transfer pricing is normal
I see no reason why the tax affairs of multinational corporations need to be private
And I have said Google have got an extraordinarily small settlement. It sounds as if Prem shares that opinion. We havce not spoken about it, at least as yet
Negotiation?
On payment of tax?
How long had this been going on?
Nobody told me, as a PAYE and VAT taxpayer, that I could haggle with the revenue to negotiate a lower rate for my contribution to society. This being the case I reckon I’m owed enough from the past forty odd years to be able to retire comfortably to Cleethorpes, or even Skegness!
Unless of course this only applies to the oxygen breathers rather than us serfs and plebeian masses.
In which case I’m afraid that those defending this shenanigans and it’s confidentiality have to accept the logic that their position is anti the rule of law – where one of the basic fundamental criteria is equality before the law.
You didn’t tick the right option
Skeggy or Cleethorpes? Better miniature railway at Cleethorpes as I recall
But that’s cutting the distinctions fine