Barclays and KPMG involved in $660m tax ‘sham structure’

Prem Sikka

What are the chances that in the face of public criticisms, big business would curb its tax avoidance practices? Well, not much, as evidenced by a case decided by the US Court of Federal Claims.
Salem Financial Inc v United States relates to a complex financial transactions known as STARS (Structured Trust Advantaged Repackaged Securities). The case involved Salem Inc, a subsidiary of North Carolina based bank, BB&T.

The scheme was designed by Barclays Bank, a major UK financial institution; KPMG, one of the world’s biggest accountancy firms; and Sidley Austin, a US law firm. At the centre of the dispute is a tax liability of some US$660m.

Through collaboration with Barclays, KPMG specialised in developing transactions that took advantage of differences between international tax systems. Barclays marketed some versions of STARS to a number of corporations, including AIG, Microsoft, Intel, and Prudential. KPMG introduced the STARS transaction to BB&T at a January 17, 2002 meeting and used a slide show to outline the steps necessary for the scheme to work. KPMG had little prior business relationship with BB&T.

Contrived transactions

The key idea of the tax avoidance scheme was to generate large-scale foreign tax credits which could in turn be used to enhance revenue and reduce taxes payable by BB&T in the US. A series of transactions with circular cash flows were designed to create the tax savings.

The court noted that in essence the scheme called for BB&T to establish a trust containing approximately US$6 billion in revenue-producing bank assets. The monthly revenue from the trust was then cycled through a UK trustee, an act that served as a basis for UK taxation. Although the revenue was immediately returned to BB&T’s trust, the assessment of UK taxes generated tax credits that were shared 50/50 between Barclays and BB&T.

A US$1.5 billion loan from Barclays to BB&T was also part of the structured transaction, although the loan was not necessary to the objective of generating foreign tax credits. The Barclays monthly payment to BB&T represented BB&T’s share of the tax credits, and had the effect of reducing the interest cost of BB&T’s loan.

The main question for the 21-day court hearing was whether the STARS transaction had any purpose other than to generate tax savings, and if not, whether penalties should be assessed against BB&T. The 67-page court judgment found in favour of the government and the company has been ordered to pay US$680 million plus penalties of US$112 million.

After examining some 1,250 exhibits the judge referred to the scheme as “an abusive tax avoidance scheme” and said that the “conduct of those persons from BB&T, Barclays, KPMG, and the Sidley Austin law firm who were involved in this and other transactions was nothing short of reprehensible”.

The judge went on: “The professionals involved should have known better than to follow the STARS path, rife with its conflicts of interest, questionable pro forma legal and accounting opinions, and a taxpayer with a seemingly insatiable appetite for tax avoidance”. The whole STARS set-up was described as “a sham structure”.

Controversial pasts

Barclays and KPMG are no strangers to tax avoidance controversies. After lengthy investigations by the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and action by the US Department of Justice, KPMG were fined US$456 million for “criminal wrongdoing” in tax matters and a number of its former personnel were also given prison sentences. The firm has also been the subject of investigation of the UK House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, but this has not dulled its appetite for profits through the sale of tax avoidance schemes.

Barclays relies upon taxpayer guarantees for its core business, but operates a very lucrative tax avoidance business which is estimated to have generated around a billion pounds in fees each year between 2007 and 2010. Last year the UK government had to introduce emergency legislation to negate two avoidance schemes used by Barclays for its own business which could have deprived the UK Treasury of around £500 million. Despite fines and prison sentences major businesses remain addicted to tax avoidance. Public opprobrium has become just another cost of doing business.

It is time to shut down businesses who routinely pick citizens’ pockets through tax avoidance. Their schemes are undermining revenues that are much needed to revive the economy and provide education, healthcare, pensions, security and other public goods that distinguish civilised societies from the rest.

Yet the UK government continues to shower gifts on tax avoiders, KPMG continues to receive public contracts and Barclays is propped up by taxpayer-funded guarantees and loans. Only this week Ed Miliband hired KPMG’s deputy chairman for advice on low pay. Rather than giving them another consultancy job, politicians should be asking KPMG to explain the firm’s role in the erosion of social fabric.


This article first appeared on The Conversation website

The race is on, but the field is limited in the auditing business

Prem Sikka

Isn’t it interesting how governments go through the rituals of promoting competition, but little actually changes? The latest example is the UK Competition Commission’s report on the UK auditing industry.
The report is supposedly concerned with enhancing competition in the UK auditing market. The current position is dire. Thanks to the close alignment between corporate interests, policymakers and politicians, successive governments permitted restrained mergers.

Today the auditing market is dominated by just four accounting firms. These are PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, Deloitte & Touche and KPMG (known as the Big Four firms), and between them they audit 99 of the UK’s biggest listed companies (FTSE100) and around 240 of the next 250. On average, a FTSE100 auditor remains in office for about 48 years; for the FTSE250 the average is 36 years. The Big Four firms are dominant in most western countries. Their global income from auditing and consultancy services is about £77 billion (US$115 billion) and some £7.9 billion ($11.9bn) of it comes from the UK. This provides plenty of financial and political resources to thwart any unwelcome policies.

The probability of another accounting firm breaking into this magic circle is extremely low as the entry costs are high. The challengers need help but there is little on the table from the Competition Commission. The Commission does not want to break-up the Big Four firms or place any limits on the proportion of market they can dominate. It does not want to place any time limits on the audit firm’s tenure either.

This monopoly of company audits has been the springboard for the growth of the Big Four accounting firms. Audits give accounting firms easy access to company boards and lets the accountants sell all kind of additional services, ranging from tax avoidance, advice on mergers and takeovers to printing T-shirts, badges and laying golf courses. All this increases fee dependency on clients and must lessen the probability of speaking out against unsavoury practices. At the dawn of the banking crash, concerned savers were forming queues outside distressed banks and governments were bailing out banks, but auditors gave their customary clean bill of health to all distressed banks. This silence was not followed by any investigation by the UK government. There is no action by any regulator either. Even if they act, it takes years. The matters relating to the audit of automaker MG Rover by Deloitte were referred to the Financial Reporting Council, the UK regulator, in 2005. It finally reported on 29 July 2013.

The regulatory inertia neither encourages competition nor improves the quality of audits. Last year, a tax tribunal heard a case relating to a tax avoidance scheme designed by Ernst & Young for Iliffe News and Media. The company was very profitable, but was concerned that healthy profits would encourage employees to demand higher wages. So Ernst & Young, who were also the company’s auditors, designed a scheme that would artificially depress profits and avoid tax too. The company’s board minutes stated that Ernst & Young confirmed that the use of the scheme would also “significantly lessen the transparency of reported results”. Despite such episodes, the Competition Commission does not want to ban the sale of consultancy by auditors to their audit clients. The best that it can come-up with is that companies might put audits out of tender every five years.

The Competition Commission could have increased the market pressures on auditors to improve quality of audits by empowering consumers of audit opinions, but it does not do that. Auditors only owe a “duty of care” to the company rather than to any individual shareholder, creditor or any other stakeholder. So individuals can do little to bring negligent auditors to book. Court cases such as MAN Nutzfahrzeuge AG & Anor v Freightliner Ltd & Anor [2007] show that there is little recourse against auditors even when they are found to be negligent.

At annual general meetings (AGMs) shareholders are asked to vote on auditor appointment and remuneration, but this resolution is not supported by any information about quality of audit work, lawsuits or regulatory action against auditors. Shareholders are not given any sight of auditor working papers. Shareholders have no idea of the work done by auditors. Auditing firms are commercial concerns and their success is measured by profits. In pursuit of profits, the firms reduce the time allocated to each audit even though audits are labour intensive and need a higher time budget. The hope is that aspiring accountants will work evenings and week-ends for free. Academic research shows that a large number of audit staff do not go along with such strategies and resort to falsification of audit work or ignore awkward transactions because they require more time than is allocated. Audit failures are manufactured by the business model and organisation culture of accountancy firms, but this does not even appear on the radar of the Competition Commission.

There is little meaningful public information about auditors. There is no public availability of audit contract, information composition of the audit team, time spent on the job, details of meetings with company directors, or anything else that might enable the consumers of audit opinions to assess audit quality.

The Competition Commission has capitulated to the lobbying power of the Big Four and failed to introduce any meaningful reforms. Maybe such issues will be considered after the next banking crash.


This article first appeared on The Conversation website

Top Tax shirkers - HMRC makes its case

The Guardian today reports an amazing story today. The much debated 50% top tax rate, which came into effect in April 2010, has raised precisely £0 so far.

Why's that (i hear you ask)? Has Will Hutton's Pay Commission enforced that no one should earn over £150,000? Don't be silly. Has the right-wing media prediction that all talent (aka overpaid people) will leave the country come true? No.

In fact, the reason the new 50p tax band has raised not a penny is because HM Revenue & Customs only had one year to adapt its computer system to collect the tax. Apparently that is insufficient time. Seriously.

HMRC has written out to 24,000 people affected by the new tax rate. The letter reads:

"Although the new rate started in April 2010, you may be aware that you are only being taxed through the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) system at 40% on some of your jobs or pensions, rather than at 50%. We were unable to introduce the changes needed to PAYE to collect the 50% rate from people who had more than one job or pension for the tax year 2010/11. This is because the start date was brought forward a year to April 2010 by budget 2009."

Corporation Tax is being reduced to 27% within a year, then 26% then next year, 25% the year after that and 24% the following year. I'm not a gambling man, but I'm willing to bet there's no delay in adapting systems to reduce tax for big business.

Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union, which represents workers at HMRC, said:

"It defies belief that HMRC wasn't able to get its computer system geared up for this and it now means high earners will be getting away without paying their dues while ordinary taxpayers face a VAT rise and cuts in public services.

"It also effectively gives the wealthiest taxpayers time to limit their tax liability, which would just add to the tens of billions of pounds that is avoided, evaded or uncollected every year. After a succession of embarrassing episodes, senior management need to get a grip and the government must see there is an alternative to cuts that have been so damaging to the department."

The PCS website also puts the case for Barclays and KPMG today - and there's every reason to vote for either of these facilitators of 'tax shirking'.

You can also vote for HMRC at: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/tax/hmrc. I just have - because the cuts in HMRC are the biggest gift to corporate and super-rich tax avoiders.