According to the FT:
Britain's biggest companies set aside £2.7bn last year to cover the cost of tax disputes with UK and international authorities as public anger about aggressive corporate tax avoidance grew. This was a 62 per cent rise on the amount FTSE 100 companies earmarked for tax litigation in 2015, as governments around the world intensified their efforts to make large multinationals pay more tax.
Thomson Reuters, the news and data company that compiled the FTSE 100 figures, said increased use of technology by authorities, including HMRC, to spot underpayments, and the stricter application of rules worldwide, contributed to the rise.
HMRC in particular is known to be pursuing a more sophisticated and forensic approach to corporate tax disputes than ever, adopting tough tactics typically used in commercial litigation.
What can I say, except that tax justice is yielding a positive reward for society.
And this is before country-by-country reporting hits in. I then expect a further increase in yields.
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!
Its a good sign for sure. Unfortunately it looks a boon for lawyers as well. Perhaps Britain’s biggest companies could cut out the middleman and set aside £2.7bn for paying more taxes instead of paying for more tax disputes.
That would be a start.
Well done HMRC then.
It seems much of the criticism hurled at it was by uninformed sources?
I’ve always thought HMRC suffer from having to put up with ridiculous claims from lazy journalists without having the right to reply to specifics.
And every independent judicial enquiry, which get to look at the actual details of the case rather than fairy tale imaginings, has found no evidence of ‘sweetheart deals’ or suchlike.
And the key word here, of course, is evidence. I have no evidence about your tax affairs Richard as you keep them a closely guarded secret, as is your right, and so it would be completely wrong to make allegations about them.
And yet some in the press make all sorts of allegations about others.
With the greatest of respect, the change in this area has become of pressure brought to bear
And it still needs to be brought to bear as last week’s hearing on Amazon and eBAy where HMRC have been grossly negligent (they may sue me for saying so if they wish but I will win) is evidence if what happens when the media does not focus on them
In others words, you’re talking the usual neoliberal bullshit
I object, to the term ‘neoliberal’ having been adopted to mean ‘paleoconservative’.
Much too late to do anything about it of course.
Newspeak rules.
Congratulations to you Richard and to your colleagues. It is testament to your dedication, consistency of message and hard work over many years.
I also agree with Marco’s comment.
Thanks
The Scottish government has recently stated it’s intention to change its tax policies in accordance with the rest of the Scottish parliament to help fund public services and a social welfare net. Given the limitations posed by devolution, as well as the possibility of capital flight and avoidance, are you going to make a post investigating the possibilities of what it could and should do?
Devolution allies increased rates
There is almost no evidence that people move for tax reasons
Tax on investment income is not devolved and that is where flight happens
I suggest Scotland will have to monitor HMRC performance closely
Beyond that what is there to say?
Do you think the key for the SNP to raising more taxes within devolved structures would be to increase the basic rate, tinker with the top bands (say, increase the 45p top rate to 50p) or some other solution? Or would the current status quo suffice? Given the prominent role you play in the lively debate that surrounds Scottish finances, your contributions may be valuable.
I am on my way to Edinburgh right now
I’ll think about it
I see not a hope that relative inequality will decrease because of Brexit: elites are mobile and have a habit of protecting themselves. I am sure they always thought this possible
Obe tenth of global GDP ( still) held in offshore tax
havens ———– zerohedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-16/one-tenth-global-gdp-now-held-offshore-tax-havens
That’s Zucman
He underestimates it
The allocation of funds set aside to deal with litigation on tax matters is tantamount to an admission of fraudulent practice.
It’s a bit like budgeting for the cost of parking tickets.