I have just received the following from Margaret Hodge in her capacity as chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Responsible Taxation:
I have to say I find this a quite astonishing line up.
As I noted yesterday, the IoD wants to abolish all taxes on capital, including corporation tax.
Mike Devereux wrote an article for the FT in 2012 under the title 'The best reform of corporation tax would be its abolition', advocating in its place a sales based destination tax - which is very close to being VAT and so a consumption tax levied on ordinary people. Why this, and variations on it would be a disaster I explained here.
And the IFS has always mimicked Devereux on this: he was the key author of the IFS Mirrlees Review on this issue. I don't know Helen Miller but if she follows the IFS line she will be not far from where Mike Devereux is.
So, the likelihood is three speakers who will say let's call time on corporation tax, which is staggering since Margaret Hodge established the APPG by appearing to call in all the NGOs who have campaigned on tax issues to get their support, not one of whom would want corporation tax abolished.
So what's the explanation? Well, first this did not come from Margaret Hodge: it come from Covi. And Covi is KPMG's captive think tank. How do I know: by looking at their funding. In their first annual report, just published, they say their funding is as follows:
Power to Change did not fund Covi as a think tank: they paid for consultancy. KPMG dominate the think tank funding. And the result is a body that many of us have long suspected might really exist to represent KPMG's views. And Covi runs the APPG. Which effectively means KPMG do.
They might just get away with running one event like this that is so hopelessly unbalanced but do it again and there is no hope of its credibility surviving intact.
If they had any wisdom at all they'd be putting someone like John Christensen of Alex Cobham from TJN on this panel now: then there might be a hope of both balance and credibility with the campaigning groups and NGOs who were asked to lend their support to this group. But right now the APPG's credibility hangs by a thread.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Mike Devereux worked at the IFS from the early 1980s until 1990, I believe.
I don’t know if he’s related to Sir Robert Devereux, permanent secretary at DWP, but they do look a bit alike!
Suppose CT which accounts for about 7% of revenue for the exchequer was abolished, and other taxes increased proportionately so it was revenue neutral ( not incidence neutral of course, nothing could be ).
If that happens, would KPMG UK’s revenues go up or down? I suspect the answer is ‘down’. This could be like the case of a turkey endorsing Christmas or a smoker endorsing a smoking ban.
You should go Richard and find out why KPMG are promoting something that could harm their business model.
Oh come on: world wide planning opprtunities would increase significantly
Hi Richard
I hope you are well and don’t find it impolite if I reply to this post, as I have in the past (1), rather than directly in person or by email.
Interest in CoVi’s work is always welcomed. However I’ve a few points of clarification.
Firstly, the APPG on Responsible Tax is governed by a Chair and Officers who set the scope of the work and events. CoVi provide secretariat services as detailed in the publicly available Memorandum of Understanding (2). These responsibilities include sending out emails from our systems but not deciding their content. I will make sure your feedback on the forthcoming event are passed on to the APPG Chair and Officers.
We’ve been proud to pioneer a model for digital democracy which allows anyone to comment directly on the APPG’s work in an open and transparent way. The individuals who you mention as representing the NGOs and campaigners have been contributors in this way (3).
You were at the meeting with the APPG Chair where we discussed CoVi’s other work, so are aware that these interests have been disclosed. I would encourage those who want to know more to sign up to hear more about the work of the APPG on Responsible Tax and be informed of 3 more forthcoming events in March which will I’m sure showcase how open the group is to a variety of voices and views (4).
Secondly, in terms of CoVi’s other work on tax – that which is unrelated to the APPG – you’ve been to a number of our roundtables and contributed through video interviews and blogs, for which we’ve been grateful. I hope that through these experiences have shown that even our sponsored work is independent in terms of focus and editorial oversight. (5)
Additionally, you have also been directly involved with our wider work, such as the event “An Open Cinema event with Richard Murphy” which took place before Christmas, not because of any funding from any sponsors, but thanks to the hard work and dedication of CoVi’s small but dedicated team who fitted this around other priorities. (6)
A final point to make is that CoVi’s financial information above is taken from our first annual report since we launched in 2014. This is proudly displayed on our website for anyone to access (7) and we’ve taken care to follow the guidance from Whofundsyou.org on financial disclosures from think tanks. (8)
As a relatively new organisation we can’t claim to have a track record as strong as yours on emphasising the importance of financial transparency but what I can say is that we have disclosed all of this information with the best of intentions and it is disheartening when they are misinterpreted, not just for myself as founder but for my colleagues who have committed energy and a personal sense of purpose to this work and find their motivations questioned by those who they respect as experts. I expect it is often for reasons such as these why other organisations might be inclined to shy away from these sorts of disclosures.
I would encourage anyone with any questions about CoVi to contact me directly caroline.macfarland [at] covi.org.uk.
Best wishes
Caroline
(Director, CoVi – http://www.covi.org.uk)
(1) http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/12/09/its-time-for-kpmg-to-answer-questions-on-tax-reporting-standards/
(2) http://www.appgresponsibletax.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Secretariat-MOU.pdf
(3) http://www.appgresponsibletax.org.uk/category/submissions/
(4) http://www.appgresponsibletax.org.uk/sign-up/
(5) http://www.responsibletax.org.uk/tagged/richardmurphy
(6) http://covi.org.uk/project/the-seven-year-itch-where-are-we-now/
(7) http://covi.org.uk/about-us/
(8) http://whofundsyou.org/
All noted Caroline
And I gave discussed this with Margaret Hodge’s office
And I am not alone in my concerns: and I suspect we will always have them whilst you are primarily funded by KPMG
The model if sponsored think tanks is, I am afraid too well known for us to not have such concerns
Helen Miller was the IFS woman whom I referred to in an earlier post (she said that CT was not a tax on capital, it’s a tax on profits). She was opposed to the IoD spokesman’s position.
Hard to see how a tax on profits is not a tax on capital
But if she opposes the IoD that is good
Somewhat off topic, but :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-accused-of-missing-chance-to-crack-down-on-tax-avoidance-with-eu-proposals-a6851561.html
“Mr Gauke said the current international rules were clear that profits are taxed in the place of economic activity rather than where sales are made”
So, how is the place of economic activity measured? Isn’t selling a widget part of economic activity? Perhaps consumption needs extrapolating from assembly?
Who writes these international “rules” and where are they documented?
Mr Gauke does not seem to udnerstand that British sales made by British reps to British businesses appearing on a UK web site requiring clicks by British customers to create value is acticvity in the UK
Sur we should allow signfiicant payment for use of US technology. My calucaltion suggest up to 62% of sale value would be fair. But Google wants nearly 80%
It appears that John Christensen has been added to the speaker list for this event.
He has
My blog may have been noticed