Prof Paul Collier of Oxford University is advising David Cameron on the development aspects of the G8 summit in June. In the Canadian Globe and Mail this weekend he argued:
The OECD wants to help by creating a database of guideline prices that companies would be required to use or to justify deviations. The G8 could give this political impetus. G8 countries have a direct interest in curbing the relocation of intellectual property. There's no ideal technical fix, but companies could be required to report the apportionment of their global profits. Transparency would discourage tax avoidance through fear of reputational damage.
Now if that penultimate sentence is not an endorsement of country-by-country reporting I don't know what is.
I hope Cameron is listening.
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!
So where does this leave the ‘patent box’?
Hopefully dead in the water
Let’s be honest – that’s where it should be
It’s simply a sop to a few pharma companies as far as I can see
A minimum tax based on turnover would ensure companies who are active in a country pay their fair share.
A fixed percentage of turnover would be simple to calculate, administer and collect and could work from Day 1 without requiring huge amounts of legislation to be passed. Importantly it would reduce complexity and avoid advisers jumping aboard another gravy train.
Unfortunately country by country reporting will not stop companies shifting profits if legislation allows them to do it. What is needed is a change to legislation and not a change to disclosures which only increases the compliance burden on companies and provides yet more fees to advisers who have to audit such information.
Developing countries use a minimum tax successfully to prevent multinationals stripping profits out and the US imposes a minimum tax on individuals because they were guilty of irresponsible tax planning around deductions resulting in rich people paying no tax.
I’m sorry to say that most of your claims here are just wrong
I have addressed all many times