{"id":24432,"date":"2014-03-19T07:34:55","date_gmt":"2014-03-19T07:34:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=24432"},"modified":"2014-03-19T07:34:55","modified_gmt":"2014-03-19T07:34:55","slug":"the-uks-hypocrisy-on-country-by-country-reporting-is-revealed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2014\/03\/19\/the-uks-hypocrisy-on-country-by-country-reporting-is-revealed\/","title":{"rendered":"The UK’s hypocrisy on country-by-country reporting is revealed"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the Lough Erne G8 declaration last year the UK promoted issues on tax and transparency. As a result that declaration said <\/a>(para 25):<\/p>\n

Comprehensive and relevant information on the financial position of multinational\u00a0enterprises aids all tax administrations effectively to identify and assess tax risks. The\u00a0information would be of greatest use to tax authorities, including those of developing\u00a0countries, if it were presented in a standardised format focusing on high level information\u00a0on the global allocation of profits and taxes paid. We call on the OECD to develop a\u00a0common template for country-by-country reporting to tax authorities by major\u00a0multinational enterprises, taking account of concerns regarding non-cooperative\u00a0jurisdictions. This will improve the flow of information between multinational enterprises\u00a0and tax authorities in the countries in which the multinationals operate to enhance\u00a0transparency and improve risk assessment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The UK's position on\u00a0country-by-country reporting would appear to have been clear: it was for it. But since then the UK has \u00a0done just about everything it can to oppose culture by country reporting both in the European Union and at the\u00a0Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. \u00a0Yesterday as a curious side-effect of the debate in Parliament on the Fair Tax Mark<\/a>\u00a0we learned why. David Gauke, The \u00a0Exchequer \u00a0Secretary, said in that debate<\/a>:<\/p>\n

I will make three points. First, the UK believes that there is a need for greater transparency. There have been discussions about that issue in the G8, in particular about the UK Government\u2019s proposal that companies should provide information about where their activity takes place and where they pay tax.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So he acknowledges the commitment made, but then:<\/p>\n

I will not digress for long on this point, Mr Howarth, but a year or so ago I had a meeting at Euston tower with the HMRC officials who deal with transfer pricing matters. They said it would help them to have a relatively simple form to provide information about the companies into which they enquire so they know where those companies make their profits and where they pay tax. The officials said it would help them to have high-level information that could tell them, for example, that a high proportion of profits were being transferred to a low-tax jurisdiction. They said that type of information would enable them to assess risks and determine where to put their resources. That conversation and others resulted in our proposal for the high-level tool.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So in other words, he wants transparency, but not a lot of it. That, to be polite, is quite absurd. They acknowledge all the benefits of the design of\u00a0country-by-country reporting but then would rather not have too much of it. Gauke offers the real political explanation:<\/p>\n

Secondly, we want to ensure that we have the information that can help HMRC to make risk assessments and know where to focus its efforts. However, we want to do so without in any way compromising our desire not to impose unnecessary burdens on businesses and not to create a whole lot of bureaucracy that does not necessarily help tax authorities much.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is the \"would you awfully mind giving us a little bit of data, if that's OK with you, to keep the critics happy, you know\" approach to tax collection that is rampant in HMRC. First,\u00a0country-by-country reporting would help tax authorities a lot. Second, once you demand information on profit by territory (and the OECD template does) then the obligations has\u00a0been imposed, like it or not, for all data since profit is a residual of other transactions, not a figure in its own right. Thirdly, to suggest there are significant costs is absurd: \u00a0if companies are not preparing data on this basis now then they are failing to maintain proper books and records for accounting purposes because they would not have an idea where their tax liabilities might be arising, and that is a breach of the rules concerning internal controls both in UK company law and in the US's Sarbane Oxley provisions.<\/p>\n

But then Gauke made his most pernicious comment:<\/p>\n

The hon. Lady may not have much sympathy with our third point, but the long-standing position of the UK Government\u2013under all parties\u2013is that tax is principally a matter for member states. We have concerns about a tax measure being included in a non-tax directive, thereby undermining the competency of member states in direct tax matters.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is absurd. Country-by-country reporting is not and never has been<\/a>\u00a0 just about tax, \u00a0and anyone with the slightest \u00a0understanding of the issue would know that it is actually about corporate transparency and accounting \u00a0which has an incidental taxation advantage. But, \u00a0despite this the UK has \u00a0used the tax excuse to block an advance in European corporate accounting transparency\u00a0 that was heavily backed by the \u00a0European Parliament and by the Commission.<\/p>\n

So much for a government that believes in transparency: \u00a0 that claim was an exercise in pure hypocrisy \u00a0that has now been revealed. \u00a0As ever, the interests of the City of London come first, and that is why, \u00a0no doubt,\u00a0country-by-country reporting \u00a0has been opposed.<\/p>\n

Lough Erne always seemed too good to be true. Now we know it was.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the Lough Erne G8 declaration last year the UK promoted issues on tax and transparency. As a result that declaration said (para 25): Comprehensive
 Read the full article…<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[79,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-country-by-country","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}