Long standing tax commentator and adviser Robert Maas has written the first part of what he suggests might be a two part review of my book 'Over here and under taxed'.
Now Maas and I are unlikely to agree: when he writes the following it is unlikely we have common ground:
I have written elsewhere about Google, Amazon and Starbucks (Taxation, February 2013). None of them seem to me to be avoiding UK tax, even under Richard's definition.
In fact the best thing he says about the book is:
Although I disagree with most of the content, it flows well and I thought it value for money.
More acerbically he says:
But back to Richard's book. I found it very facile — although it is obviously not aimed at tax specialists. It is very heavy on Richard's personal involvement in challenging tax avoidance; he seems to be behind, or involved in, an awful lot of the public criticism of tax avoidance.
So let's deal with that facile point - which seems to figure on my argument that tax should be paid where the economic impact of a transaction arises and look at Maas' analysis of where tax should be paid on 'Over here and under taxed', where he says:
What is the fair share of tax to be paid in the UK on Richard's book? It was presumably written in the UK, published by a large US company, and sold to me by a Luxembourg website that I clicked through to from my house in the UK. Which country should fairly get the tax on my £1.83 (or rather on whatever profit has been made out of my £1.83)? Or should it be divided amongst the US, Luxembourg and the UK, and if so, how? The tax rate in the US is 35%, that in Luxembourg is 28.8% (effective) (I suspect actually that Amazon Europe are based there because it has a low VAT rate rather than a low corporate tax rate) and it is 23% in the UK. Richard appears to think that it is fair for the UK government to get the tax. It is not clear to me why.
Well let me explain tow things Robert. The first are some facts. The book was indeed written in the UK. I will pay tax on it. It was commissioned by a UK company, from the UK. It was produced here by them. And I suspect most copies will be sold on Amazon.co.uk where they say the book is only available for download in the UK. Now if that does not prove a link with the UK, what does Robert? Only the legal fiction of Amazon's Luxembourg location and the place of residence of Random House UK's shareholders in Maas' view - and that's enough, apparently, to mean that a transaction wholly located in the UK is taxed elsewhere in hi opinion. It's an interesting suggestion - but so obviously absurd I suspect few would agree with Robert Maas. Indeed, many might think his suggestion facile.
Others might think his reading of the book similarly deficient. And maybe just a little literally legalistic. Which brings me to my second point. Seeking to analyse a transaction in the way Maas does - by micro analysis of its component parts - as is also done in transfer pricing - is never going to result in a proper, or dare I say it, fair basis of taxation. For one very good reason that is because a transaction does not automatically give rise to a profit (ask a publisher, if in doubt). For another, the answers just are not obvious - and no arm's length pricing will ever make them so. Which is precisely where unitary taxation comes into play. It looks at real economic drivers - sales, labour, capital - and where they are located and apportions profits to the place where they are. Note: it does not allocate. It apportions. There is no argument in unitary taxation that one event suggests a profit on a transaction is in one place or another. There is instead a macro over-view of economic reality - which assumes, rather obviously that a group of companies exists and that legal contracts can be, and often are, little more than a sham - and then apportions profit on a basis that is closely linked to reality.
Is that fair? Well, not precisely - because fairness is ultimately and always an irreconcilable goal since there will always be differing perceptions of it. But it's a darned sight closer than Maas' rather odd view. And maybe that's why he's losing the debate and the tax justice campaign is winning 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:
Info only, email from my union:
Dear Unite member
Labour, Unite and can we be stronger together?
When Ed Miliband recently announced that he was seeking to change the relationship between the Labour Party and trades unions most people wondered what on earth he was up to?
Why change the relationship between working people and the party that they founded some hundred years ago? Why alter the system that ensures that trade union affiliation fees remain the cleanest money in UK politics?
But Ed is onto something. Participation in politics in this country is at an all-time low, hardly surprising given that politicians are seen as a distant, self-serving elite.
Let’s be frank, the relationship between the unions and Labour has not always worked for working people. Too often in the past the party has favoured establishment interests over improving the lives of ordinary people.
The status quo therefore could not continue. I had every intention of instigating a debate within our union on how it could be improved to your advantage.
This week that process begins. On Wednesday, your union’s Executive Committee and regional political committees gather to discuss what Ed’s proposals mean for our movement.
You can hear me address this event by logging onto to the live stream broadcast
Ed’s actions are bold and potentially historic. The details have yet to become clear, but they offer the prospect of tens of thousands of Unite members playing a more active role within the Labour Party.
That really is the way to refound Labour; to have people like you, connected to our communities, driving Labour to be the party that will deliver the changes these communities sorely need.
Your views in this will be vital so we will look for ways to discuss these proposals in the workplaces and communities of our nations, beginning with this week’s live stream broadcast.
Testing times
Ed’s changes do not signal a break in the union/Labour link, although recent developments have sorely tested this bond. The attacks levelled at Unite and the language used in the media have been nothing short of disgraceful. You can be assured that Unite has done nothing wrong and has always operated within the Labour Party rules. We will continue to defend our position against the smear campaign.
These happenings will not deflect us from pursuing our aims of promoting the core values of collectivism, community spirit, fairness, equality and justice.
So whatever you feel about politics right now, please support your union, Unite, as it strives to change it in this country for the better, and for us all.
With thanks
Len McCluskey
Unite general secretary
http://www.unitetheunion.public-i.tv/core/
What on earth is Len McCluskey doing on this comment page?
Anyway, as regards Robert Maas,who I know,he along with some of the tax profession, is indeed blinkered by a legalistic approach. I look forward to you reaching out more to members of the tax profession like myself, who do see the need for tax reform.
It’s not a dig,it’s your right to do so, but rather than hanging out with the usual left wing suspects I hope you can build bridges with a wider following so that we can achieve tax justice- which is the most important thing surely?
Both are important to me
I am more than happy to talk to the profession – and do
I am equally happy knowing Lem McCluskey and other union leader – which I also do
Tax justice is an issue that crosses political divides
“what on earth is Len McCluskey doing on this comment page?”
Whyever should he not appear? After all, Richard advises Unite on taxation matters
True
I suspect the last thing that Mr Miliband wants is for tens of thousands of ordinary people to join the labour party.
The thing I’m finding strange, if not bizarre, is that labour have a stationary target asking to be shot at, and are silent!
Given the sheer amount of money being poured into the conservative coffers by some extremely “dodgy” contributors, labour go on the defensive about union contributions as if they were obtained from drug cartels and white slavers.
Something is extremely weird here!