The Times had an article by Margaret Hodge MP and David Mitchell MP (Labour and Tory respectively) yesterday in which they said:
As debate turns to who will shoulder the cost of the pandemic, we must ensure global corporations are paying their fair share. Stricter enforcement of existing tax rules, fewer sweetheart deals with HMRC, and tougher action on the advisers who enable companies to avoid tax are just some of the steps the government should take before it considers tax increases for ordinary people.
To become a truly “Global Britain” then we must show leadership on international tax reform. But until a global agreement is reached, the government must increase corporate tax transparency by implementing public country-by-country reporting.
Lifting the veil of secrecy on corporate tax affairs would lead to less profits being siphoned offshore, raise billions for the public purse, and make the UK a world leader in financial transparency. After all, sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Unsurprisingly I agree. I created the idea of country-by-country reporting as we now have it in 2003. It's been a demand of the tax justice movement ever since it began. And it would be transformative.
Which is why I also called for it for Starbucks this week.
It's good to see cross-party support for it.
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:
“I created the idea of country-by-country reporting as we now have it”
When you spoke to the OECD at their conference, you were highly critical of CBCR “as we now have it”. Basically saying that CBCR “as we now have it” produced meaningless information and didn’t achieve what you wanted it to.
Seems odd to be claiming to have created something you describe as meaningless. You might want to refresh your memory by re-reading the slides you published on your website.
“To make it absolutely clear: an entity based report would not be CBCR” You said.
“aggregated data at the jurisdiction level makes literally no sense at all” You said.
“It provides data that is impossible to meaningfully interpret” You said.
So you are claiming to have created CBCR as we now have it but criticise what we now have as not CBCR? Strange and completely contradictory claims.
There were technical reasons why the OECD got their version of CBCR wrong, most especially around aggregation rather than consolidation
The GRI is much better
Both are based on my work, and both have said so
There is not the slightest contradiction in that – unless you want to be a pedant
You do
International law seems to be flouted all of the time.
It needs good leadership to achieve it but you will not find that here at present.
Also, I feel that too many of the Global institutions are based in the U.S. – one of the biggest repeat offenders of international law breaking going. This myth that America is a global force for good and should have these institutions within its is now very jaded in my view.