Tony Benn: "What a world we would have created if we had listened to him"

LEAP Chair John McDonnell MP pays tribute to Tony Benn

LEAP chair John McDonnell MP spoke in Parliament yesterday (20/03/14) paying tribute to Tony Benn (click to watch via Youtube).

John, who also chairs the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs (founded by Tony Benn), said:

"I want to go back not to the manifesto of 1983, but to Labour’s programme of 1982, which was the Bennite programme, and virtually all of it was written by Tony Benn. It is worth looking back at what it said. It was absolutely prophetic. It basically said, “We will create a society that is more democratic, more fair, more just and more equal.” How would we do it? Tony’s ideas in that programme were straightforward: we would undertake a fundamental, irreversible shift in the redistribution of wealth and power. How would we do that? Through a fair and just tax system, tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance, taking control of the Bank of England, preventing speculation in the City and the banks because it could be dangerous to our long-term economic health, and creating full employment. That is what he was about. That is what he inspired us to do.

"It is interesting that he said we should invest in housing, health and education; give all young people the opportunity to stay on at school with an education maintenance allowance; and make sure that they had a guarantee of an apprenticeship or training and the opportunity to go to university, not by paying a fee but on a grant. That was his programme in 1982. It was prophetic and years in advance of its time. He said that what we needed to create the wealth was an industrial strategy—a manufacturing base based on new technology and skills. Actually, I remember him talking in one of his speeches about alternative energy sources, well in advance of the debate about climate change.

"He inspired my generation and he inspired generations to come. What a world we would have created if we had listened to him. But more important, what a world we can create now if we listen to him.

"Solidarity and go well, comrade. You made a significant contribution to all of our lives. I hope we will be able to implement the lessons you taught us, when Labour next gets back into power."

The above are extracts from John's speech. Read it in full

Google and ExxonMobil run rings around outdated tax laws

Prem Sikka

Tax avoidance shows no sign of abating. Google, the company with the slogan “Don’t be evil", is at it again. The company has been named and shamed by the UK House of Commons' Public Accounts Committee, but that has not persuaded directors to change their ways.

According to information filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Google group of companies generated global revenues of US$50.175 billion last year. Some US$4.872 billion (nearly £3.25 billion) of revenues came from the UK.

Google explains these revenues are “based on the billing addresses of our customers for the Google segment and the ship-to-addresses of our customers for the Mobile segment”. But this does not mean the revenues are necessarily booked in the UK, which acts as a marketing mechanism for its Ireland operations. As the Public Accounts Committee heard, through careful attention to detail, a large part of the revenues is booked in Ireland.

Despite the US data, Google’s UK operations reported a revenues of just £506m in 2012, some way short of the figure reported to the SEC. This gave rise to a UK profit of £36.2 million and a corporate tax bill of £11.2 million.

Google’s Irish arm reported revenues of €15.5 billion (£13 billion), of which €11 billion is wiped out by “administrative expenses”. The Irish operations reported a profit of €154m (£131m) in 2012, but paid just €17m (£14.5m) in tax.

Google uses complex corporate structures. Royalty payments, masquerading as administrative expenses, are a key part of the profit shifting strategies. For example, its intellectual property is held in Bermuda, which does not levy corporate taxes. Various subsidiaries pay royalty fees which result in tax deductible expenses in Ireland and elsewhere, but tax-free income in Bermuda.

Google’s SEC filing shows the company had foreign income before taxes of just over US$8 billion for 2012. Most of the income from foreign operations was recorded by an Irish subsidiary. The foreign tax paid/payable was US$358m, equivalent to a rate of 4.43%. The accounts received the customary clean bill of health from auditors Ernst & Young.

Another company using complex corporate structures and intergroup transactions to avoid taxes is ExxonMobil. Its Spanish subsidiary operated for a while from the same address as its auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers. The Spanish company apparently had one employee on an annual salary of €55,000, but it reported net profits of €9.9 billion for the period 2009 to 2011. The key to this was a strategy designed to take advantage of Spanish laws for attracting foreign investment. The company shuffled the payment of dividends and avoided taxes in the US elsewhere.

We can all ask companies to honour their promises of ethical and responsible conduct, but such calls have little effect. All over the world tax authorities are overwhelmed by the tide of avoidance and lack the financial and political resources to investigate giant corporations.

Yes, they can be more aggressive and governments can move to deprive tax dodging companies of any public contracts. But such efforts need to be accompanied by a fundamental reform of the way corporate profits are taxed. The current system is over a hundred years old and is fundamentally flawed.

For example, Google, ExxonMobil and other companies may have hundreds of subsidiaries, but they are unified entities with a common board of directors, common share ownership and a common strategy that directs their operations. The companies publish consolidated financial statements for the group as a whole, which recognise that transactions within the group of companies, do not add any economic value. These transactions have zero effect on their consolidated profits.

Yet the tax treatment is entirely different. For tax purposes Google and ExxonMobil are not treated as a single entity. Instead they are treated as hundreds of separate entities. This encourages them to play royalty and other games and shift profits through artificial transactions and arbitrage the global tax systems.

So the obvious solution is to treat multinational corporations as single unified entities. Their global profit, with some modifications, needs to be allocated to various countries on the basis of employee, sales, assets or other key determinants of profits and taxed at the appropriate rates.

Such a system already operates within some federal states, most notably the United States, Canada, Switzerland and Argentina. It prevents companies from artificially locating domestic profits to internal tax havens. Thus, a company trading in California cannot easily avoid taxes on its local profits by claiming that it is a located in Delaware, which offers minimal taxes on varieties of corporate income.

The above reforms do not necessarily need international agreement and can be implemented unilaterally by any government. It has considerable similarities with the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base proposed by the European Union.

The EU’s plan could make a serious dent in tax avoidance, but is opposed by the corporate dominated Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development (OECD). The OECD’s preference is to tweak the current system, which cannot address the fault lines.

Without a fundamental reform companies like Google and ExxonMobil will continue to deprive national governments of much needed revenues.

• This article first appeared on The Conversation website.

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

Big business is policing tax avoidance – what could possibly go wrong?

David Heaton's resignation from an advisory panel on tax abuse exposes the perils of hiving off tax avoidance enforcement

Prem Sikka

The privatisation of Royal Mail is making headlines, but another form of privatisation is attracting less attention – of UK law enforcement in vital areas, such as organised tax avoidance. Now it is business interests that decide whether Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) can go after those involved in abusive tax avoidance schemes, and this includes those who are close to the tax avoidance industry.

The flaws in the privatisation of law enforcement have been highlighted by the resignation of David Heaton from the government's flagship general anti-abuse rule (Gaar) panel. The panel is supposed to tackle tax abuses but Heaton was freely giving tips for dodging taxes. Heaton is a partner in accountancy firm Baker Tilly and is also a recent chair of the Tax Faculty at the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Baker Tilly is no stranger to tax controversies as the firm's revenues are dependent on novel interpretations of tax laws. In January 2011, the UK government raised VAT from 17.5% to 20% and the firm urged companies to do their billing in advance and thus avoid the hike. In recent years, Baker Tilly has expanded its revenue-earning capacity by absorbing organisations chastised for designing aggressive tax-avoidance schemes.

The Gaar legislation came into effect on 1 July 2013 and is part of a trend of giving business a key role in law enforcement. Originally, it was intended to enable HMRC to challenge "aggressive" tax avoidance, but was soon diluted to focus only on the most abusive forms of tax avoidance. The flaws were noted by Lord MacGregor, chair of the House of Lords economic affairs sub-committee on the finance bill, who said that: "There is a misconception that Gaar will mean the likes of Starbucks and Amazon will be slapped with massive tax bills. This is wrong and the government needs to explain that to the public. Gaar is narrowly defined and will only impact on the most abusive of tax avoidance".

The Gaar legislation contains a "double reasonableness" test and requires HMRC to show that the tax avoidance schemes under scrutiny "cannot [reasonably] be regarded as a reasonable course of action". An avoidance scheme will be treated as abusive only if it would not be reasonable to hold such a view. So, if a dubious practice is widespread and established then it may well be considered to be reasonable.

HMRC is further shackled in that it can't easily go to the courts to enforce Gaar because it needs permission from a panel of experts on whether the arrangements in question constitute a reasonable course of action. The panel members are unpaid and this inevitably favours businesses that can bear the cost of seconding staff. In addition to Heaton, other members of the panel are Patrick Mears (chair), a senior tax partner at law firm Allen and Overy; Michael Hardwick, a consultant at law firm Linklaters; Brian Jackson, vice-president for group tax at Burberry group plc and previously tax partner at KPMG; Sue Laing, a partner at law firm Boodle Hatfield; Gary Shiels, a business consultant; and Bob Wheatcroft, a partner in accountancy firm Armstrong Watson.

There is no representation from NGOs and others who routinely expose tax avoidance. If matters reach a court, then judges need to take into account the opinion of the Gaar advisory panel given to the HMRC. The legislation says little about the public accountability of the panel.

George Osborne courted public opinion by saying that he found tax avoidance/evasion "morally repugnant", but the government's sense of morality is to appoint foxes to guard the henhouse. No doubt, members of the Gaar panel are devoted to serving the public interest, but their conception of the public interest is likely to be informed by their business and professional interests, especially as their profits and bonuses are dependent on serving clients. So who is safeguarding the interests of the ordinary people?

Neoliberals would defend the current arrangements by arguing that government needs people who know the practices and are thus best suited to be the guards. If that logic had any substance then those falling on hard times or suffering because of the bedroom tax should be deciding who can reasonably be prosecuted for, say, benefit fraud. But that is not the case. The government has mobilised the full might of the state to tackle benefit fraud estimated to be around £1.9bn a year, but the same does not apply to tax avoidance/evasion running at between £35bn and £100bn a year.

This article first appeared on Comment is Free

5 reasons why you can't take this government seriously on tax justice

At the G8, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, sought to make clamping down on tax havens the centrepiece of the summit. As Prem Sikka explains, the post-summit communique was 'high on vague promises, low on delivery'.

But even before the inevitable puncturing of Cameron's hubris, there were several reasons why this government cannot be taken seriously on tax justice* ...

1. Government minister says he wants the UK to be a tax haven

Last year, Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said it was "a compliment" for the UK to be described as a tax haven, and added: "That is exactly what we are trying to do."

2. George Osborne slashing taxes for big business and the rich

If there's one hallmark of a tax haven, it's low or minimal tax rates. Corporation tax was slashed from 52% in 1979 to 33% by 1997. New Labour cut it further, to 28%, and Osborne has already driven it down to 23% - and aims to get it down to 20% by 2015. This is how he described it at the last Budget:

"A headline rate that is not just lower than our competitors, but dramatically lower.
18% lower than the US.
16% lower than Japan.
12% below France and 8% below Germany.
An advertisement for investment and jobs in Britain." 

Actually, it's an advertisement to for big business to pay less tax - undercutting both other nation's tax rates and shifting the tax burden onto the working poor (as we have previously shown). Of course, cutting the top rate of tax from 50% to 45%, also facilitated avoidance.

3. Many government ministers' wealth is based on tax avoidance and evasion

As Guardian investigations have proven in the case of Cameron's family fortune, and as Channel 4 Dispatches showed in the case of George Osborne, Andrew 'plebgate' Mitchell, and Phillip Hammond.

4. You can't collect taxes without the resources to do it - and this government is cutting resources

HM Revenue & Customs is the body tasked with collecting taxes owed, tackling evasion and clamping down on contrived avoidance schemes. Combined the tax gap (uncollected, evaded and avoided) is estimated at £120 billion ... every year.

Yet the government is slashing the resources available to HMRC - as this PCS infographic shows:

5. Treasury minister in charge of tackling avoidance and evasion is in denial

Treasury minister David Gauke seems to be in a constant state of denial and cover-up

• When MPs investigated and found senior HMRC bosses to close to business, Gauke described the claims as 'absurd'. The same committee also found HMRC was "too poorly resourced" (see above).
• He approved a plan to persecute an HMRC whistleblower who exposed the 'sweetheart deal' with Goldman Sachs
• He claims the UK tax gap is 'only £35 billion' (still substantial) when all serious estimates put it at £120 billion (see Richard Murphy's analysis here)

Of course Gauke did used to work for a legal firm that specialised in tax avoidance.

There's five reasons why this government cannot be taken seriously on tax justice. Please use the comments to add more!!

* For a serious look at tax justice, see the Tax Justice Network

G8 summit: High on vague promises, low on delivery

Prem Sikka

The G8 summit in Lough Erne was preceded by much hype and promises  about action on tax avoidance and corporate secrecy, but it has  delivered little. The leaders' communiqué commits governments to nothing more than vague promises.

The most welcome development is that the ten-point communiqué  endorses automatic exchange of information in matters relating to tax evasion, assuming that something is always classified as “tax evasion”  rather than its greyer cousin “tax avoidance”. Thus if a resident of the UK has stashed cash in a tax haven, then that jurisdiction would be obliged to inform the UK tax authorities.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has published its proposals,  but the G8 has made no mention of any time scale for implementation. Neither does the communiqué say anything about how this information exchange is to be co-ordinated or enforced.

More importantly, how the UK is going to persuade its secretive Crown Dependencies to sign the exchange? How will places such as the Cayman Islands comply with this protocol when they do not levy income or corporate taxes, and thus do not have the infrastructure for collecting  data about taxes or tax avoidance vehicles?

The promise to reveal beneficial ownership of companies looks  attractive, as anonymous companies facilitate tax avoidance/evasion, money laundering and flight of capital. The communiqué states that this

"could be achieved through central registries of company beneficial ownership and basic information at national or state level. Countries should consider measures to facilitate access to company  beneficial ownership information by financial institutions and other regulated businesses. Some basic company information should be publicly accessible."

A number of things are noticeable. There is no intention to let the public know the details about ownership of companies. There is no mention of any timescale within which any reforms are to be implemented.  Maybe this absence of detail is indicative of oppositions that some  governments are likely to encounter from their local economic elites.

The US has a particular problem in that its own tax havens Delaware, Nevada and New Jersey need to be persuaded to embrace openness, something they have so far resisted. The UK will also have to do much to  get anywhere near the promise. At present foreign companies, including  those registered in secretive tax havens, can be directors of the companies registered in the UK. Shares in UK companies can be held by nominees, who may not be resident in the UK. Yet there is no commitment to introduce any legislation. The  failure of the UK to lead by example may also embolden the UK Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories to resist some of the changes.

Trusts are a key vehicle for providing secrecy and avoiding taxes. The communiqué advocates more information about them too, but not for the general public. It says that the information about them should be  accessible by law enforcement, tax administrations and other relevant authorities including, as appropriate, financial intelligence units. So the public bears the cost of tax avoidance perpetrated through trusts but will not be permitted to know the beneficiaries. Again, there is no  mention of any time scale. Once again, the UK will have much to do because there is no public record of the number of trusts, or their beneficiaries.

With tax revenues, developing countries can lift their population out of poverty. So it is welcome to note that the communiqué states that “Developing countries should have the information and capacity to collect the taxes owed them … Other countries have a duty to help them”. But, once again, there is no firm commitment to deliver any policy changes in the G8 countries.

With a daily diet of revelations about tax avoidance by giant corporations, such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Starbucks and eBay, there was a feeling that the G8 would start a dialogue about changing the system for taxing corporate profits. The communiqué states that “Countries should change rules that let companies shift their profits across borders to avoid taxes”, but change to what? There is no commitment and no foundations have been laid for taking the matters forwards at the next G20 or the G8 meeting even though alternative models exist.

The kindest thing that one could say about the G8 communiqué is that as a result of public anger, issues such as tax avoidance and corporate secrecy are on the political agenda. However, the summit has not delivered.

Perhaps, the expectations were too high. After all, most G8 leaders are facing declining popularity at home. The UK Prime Minister is facing dissent within the Conservative Party, the policy disagreements with  coalition partners Liberal Democrats are becoming more vocal (e.g. over benefit and tax cuts), and his popularity ratings are down. Similarly,  with intransigence by the Republican Party US President Obama can’t push through his preferred policies through the legislature. So they all  need some trophies to take home, which look and sound good but will not commit them to any firm legislative action.

Another thought is that with no representations from Africa, India, China and Brazil, the G8’s terms for ending tax avoidance or corporate secrecy may not be acceptable to the emerging economic powerhouses. So the action will move to next year’s G20 summit. As always, corporate elites will be operating behind the scenes and colonising the political  agenda. Any progress on eroding secrecy and tax avoidance is going to be slow, and that is a good reason for civil society to continue to campaign for change.

This article first appeared on The Conversation website

Osborne's 45% tax rate has already cost us billions

When George Osborne announced he would slash the top rate of tax from 50% to 45% - he made some ridiculous claims about how the 50% tax rate (in effect for only one year) had not raised much money (see point 2 of this post).

It was clear that £16 billion of tax had been brought forward (mostly in high earners' bonuses) to avoid falling under the 50% rate.

Today it became clear that same thing seems to have happened in reverse: to avoid the 50% tax rate the bonuses of the highest earners have been deferred to fall under the 45% rate.

The Morning Star reports:

"Britain has been conned out of billions of pounds by scheming bosses who put off their bumper bonuses until after bankers' mate George Osborne slashed the top rate of tax"

Indeed. The evidence is clear from table in the ONS Labour Market Statistics released today which shows that compared with a year ago finance sector bonuses were up 75%, in construction up 63%, and in the service sector up 52%.

Given any pick up in the economy is only marginal - and in some sectors non-existent - then it is patently obvious that businesses have deferred bonuses (largely the preserve of the top earners) to collectively avoid billions in tax.

As I told the Morning Star:

"Just as bonuses were brought forward to avoid the 50 per cent rate when it came in, so now bonuses from last year were deferred to avoid paying it again."

"At a time when the coalition is failing to reduce the deficit and has jacked up VAT on all of us, this tax cut for the highest 1 per cent of earners is a disgrace.

"These figures show that Labour would be right to restore the 50 per cent rate and to do so without notice to prevent avoidance through income-shifting."

And indeed to his credit, one of the few sensible things that Ed Balls said last week was that Labour favoured "keeping the 50p tax rate" - and let's hope he meant 'restoring' too should Labour get back in office in 2015.

Laughably the Treasury "dodged the evidence", the Morning Star reports - and instead commented that the 50p tax rate was "not effective at raising revenue" - which is a spurious claim given the billions of income shifted forward and then back to avoid it ... something that would not have been possible had the tax been in place for consecutive years, without the announced reduction.

So there we have it, the rich dodge their taxes thanks to Osborne's forewarned tax cut, the Treasury dodges questions and denies the evidence that contradicts Osborne ...

Country-by-country reporting is a victory for citizens over companies

Prem Sikka

The Twitter age is about to chalk up its first success in the grey world of corporate accounting. It has been reported that the European Union will seek to make large companies disclose the taxes they pay and profits they make on a country-by-country basis.

This is part of the crackdown on corporations avoiding their obligations. The concerns are driven by tax avoidance, as companies have sales, employees and assets in one place, but end up booking them in jurisdictions with comparatively few employees, sales and assets. The idea behind country by country (CbC) reporting is to enable citizens to scrutinise corporate practices and ask critical questions.

The EU proposals mark the beginning, but CbC is a much broader idea. It supplements the traditional model of publishing profit and loss account, balance sheet and a cash flow statement. These statements relate to the company as a single economic entity and do not provide any disaggregated information. So these statements do not reveal the taxes a company may have paid in each country, or the profits and losses made there.

The traditional approach in accounting circles has been to require companies to publish “segmental reports”, in which company directors offer a commentary on major operating segments, products and services, the geographical areas in which they operate and their major customers. Such reports are too general and do not focus on each country.

In contrast, CbC requires companies to publish a table showing sales, costs, profits, losses, taxes, loans, subsidies and employees for each country of its operations. It could even be used to demand information about carbon emissions and other corporate footprints in each country. Such a table would show that a location has relatively few employees but is reporting very high profits, or that a country has a high proportion of a company’s sales and employees, but pays little or no tax. Armed with this information, citizens may be able to construct shadow accounts and question conventional accounts offered by corporations – the ones that say, “we are good citizens, we pay taxes and really care for the community”.

CbC is the culmination of a decade-long campaign by civil society organisations. When fully enacted, it will be the first accounting standard formulated and developed by civil society rather than the traditional accounting standard setters. It represents the first time activists have demanded and secured an accounting standard that the establishment was not keen on in the social media age.


In 2003, in my capacity as director of the Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs (AABA), I encouraged Richard Murphy, a chartered accountant, to draft a proposal that could highlight flight of capital, profits and the mismatch between profits, employees, assets and tax.

The first draft was published in 2003 and has continued to be refined. Initially, meetings were sought with the more traditional accounting standard setters, such as the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), but they showed no interest.

There was considerable opposition from the professional accountancy bodies. For example, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales was vehemently opposed to it. Major accounting firms and corporations were also opposed to CbC.

For example, Deloitte said “we do not believe that imposing incremental country by country disclosure in financial statements prepared under IFRSs is warranted”. A survey in 2010 did not show much enthusiasm for CbC among FTSE 100 directors. The usual arguments were that disclosure would be costly, even though companies should already have the information about the performance of their subsidiaries in each country of their operation. The cost of publishing this internally held information is negligible.

The main turning point was the support given by NGOs, such as Christian-Aid, Publish What You Pay (PWYP), War on Want, Tax Justice Network, Oxfam and many others, not only in the UK and the EU, but also in developing countries and the US. The credit for this must go to Richard Murphy. This campaign was joined by some Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and also Labour MPs.

Much to the dismay of the accounting establishment, their pressure persuaded the EU to launch a consultation exercise in 2010 and has now resulted in partial implementation of CbC. No doubt, there is more to come.

The story of the country by country reporting is that in the digital era, it may well be possible to mobilise alternative centres of power, at least in crafting new accounting disclosure rules. This announcement has been a victory for those of us who campaign for greater transparency on tax. Let’s hope it’s the first of many.

Prem Sikka is senior adviser to Tax Justice Network.

This article first appeared on The Conversation website

We are light years away from the days of Cadbury capitalism

Prem Sikka

The tax debate offers insight into the possible trajectories of capitalism.

Organised tax avoidance does not create anything of social value, but encourages concentration of wealth in relatively few hands. It is part of the unsustainable technique for increasing short-term profits. Companies have become adept at increasing profits through imposition of wage freezes of workers and dilution of their pension rights. This has been supplemented through management of how and where taxes are paid.

Public attention is now focused not only on the tax practices of multinational corporations, such as Google and Amazon, but also on traditional retailers such as Marks and Spencer. And then there is the tax industry. This is dominated by accountants, lawyers and finance experts. The role of the Big Four accountancy firms – KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Deloitte and Ernst & Young – in designing, marketing and implementing complex tax operations has been scrutinised by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

Anyone looking at the websites of accountancy firms will see claims of ethics, integrity, and a burning desire to serve the public interest and uphold the law. Yet, following a briefing from a former PwC insider the PAC chairperson said (see page Ev4) that the firm “will approve a tax product if there is a 25% chance – a one-in-four chance – of it being upheld. That means that you are offering schemes to your clients where you have judged there is a 75% risk of it then being deemed unlawful”.

The PwC partner at the committee’s hearing denied this. Partners from other firms claimed their thresholds were 50%. By their own admission the firms are selling tax avoidance schemes with the knowledge that there is a 50% chance that their practices will be found to be unlawful. The firms know that in the age of austerity the tax authorities will never have sufficient resources to challenge them. So they continue, with the sole aim of producing private profits.

We are light years away from the capitalism of Cadbury and Quaker, which had some social conscience. Highly organised tax avoidance is the outcome of the relentless promotion of enterprise culture and deregulation over the last 35 years. It has persuaded many to believe that ‘bending the rules’ for personal gain is a sign of business acumen. Any ‘deal’, regardless of the social consequences is considered to be acceptable as long as it produces private profits, especially where competitive pressures link promotion, prestige, status and reward, markets, niches with meeting business targets. Those able to sail close to the wind are seen as financial wizards, media stars and are much in demand. The shame no longer resides in participation in activities that undermine social fabric, or even in being caught. Fines and sentences have just become another business cost.

In March 2013, Ernst & Young paid a fine of $123 million to the US tax authorities to resolve allegations of tax fraud. The firm admitted wrongful conduct by certain partners and employees. A number of its former personnel have received prison sentences. Previously, KPMG paid a fine of $456 million after admitting “criminal wrongdoing” over the sale of avoidance schemes and a number of its former personnel also received prison sentences. Despite massive reductions in the rate of corporation tax and top rates of personal income tax, the tax avoidance industry shows no sign of abating.

A large number of tax avoidance schemes have been declared illegal by the UK courts. The UK Ministers have referred to the schemes marketed by the big accountancy firms as “blatantly abusive avoidance scams”, but this has not been followed up with any investigation, inquiry, prosecutions or fines. No accountancy firm has ever been fined or disciplined by its professional body for selling unlawful tax avoidance schemes. In fact, there are no negative consequences for the designers of such schemes.

The big firms, HMRC, the Treasury and senior civil servants and politicians (see chapter five for evidence) maintain a close relationship. The firms provide jobs for some former and potential ministers. They donate money and services to political parties/former partners now hold senior positions at HMRC and the Treasury.

Democracy is a major casualty of a rampant tax avoidance industry. We can all be persuaded to vote for a political party that promises investment in education, healthcare, pensions, security and transport, but the ultimate veto rests with the tax avoidance industry and its clients. They can scupper any chances of public investment by designing schemes that erode tax revenues. The result? The loss of hard won social rights and inability of governments to deliver on their promises.

• This article first appeared on The Conversation website

Are Tax Dodgers the Real Scroungers?‏

Looks like an excellent event organised by Sussex LRC, a week today as part of the Brighton Festival Fringe.

Are Tax Dodgers the Real Scroungers?‏

Wednesday 22 May

7pm

Community Base, 113 Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XG

Speakers: Richard Murphy (Tax Justice Network), Mark Serwotka (PCS), Katy Clark MP

Sadly, it seems tickets are sold out - though contact sussexlrc@hotmail.co.uk in case of late returns. But we'll try to get a report and even video from the meeting, if possible.

In the meantime, you'll have to make do with this Class blogpost 'Who are the real scroungers?' - which should be a good teaser for the meeting.

But even more clearly - are tax dodgers the real scroungers? Look at this graphic and make up your own mind ...

MPs expose tax firms' 'inside track' on loopholes

MPs and unions today fiercely criticised an "unhealthily cosy relationship" between the Treasury and big accountancy firms that enables wealthy people and companies to avoid paying tax.

The public accounts committee said that it was "very concerned" at the way the "big four" accountancy firms - Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PwC - were able to exploit loopholes in the tax laws.

It noted that staff were regularly seconded from these accountancy firms to advise the Treasury on technical issues when drafting legislation, only to return to advise clients on how to use those laws to avoid tax.

This "insider knowledge" on changes to Britain's tax laws enables them to identify loopholes in legislation quickly, the committee said.

Committee chairwoman Margaret Hodge said the practice represented a "ridiculous conflict of interest" which should be banned.

"The large accountancy firms are in a powerful position in the tax world and have an unhealthily cosy relationship with government," she said.

She warned that HM Revenue & Customs was engaged in a "battle it cannot win" in seeking to stem the losses to the exchequer from tax avoidance.

It had far fewer resources than the big four firms which employ almost 9,000 staff and earn over £2 billion a year from their tax work in Britain.

Left Economics Advisory Panel co-ordinator Andrew Fisher called for an end to the "revolving door between HM Treasury and the tax avoidance industry.

"At a time when cuts are forcing millions into poverty and thousands into homelessness, the continued existence of the tax avoidance industry should shame any civilised nation.

"Trade unions like PCS and Unite and campaigners like the Tax Justice Network and UK Uncut should feel proud that they have forced this injustice into the public glare."

PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said: "This cosy network around the Treasury and the big accountancy firms helps wealthy individuals and companies to deprive our exchequer of tens of billions of pounds a year.

"This then helps the government to peddle the myth that there's no money for our public services."

This article first appeared in the Morning Star

Big UK tax avoiders will easily get round new government policy

Prem Sikka

The UK government has finally responded to public anger about organised tax avoidance. The key policy is that from April 2013, potential suppliers to central government for contracts of £2m or more will have to declare whether they indulged in tax avoidance. Those with a history of indulgence in aggressive tax avoidance schemes during the previous 10 years, as evidenced by negative tax tribunal decisions and court cases, could be barred from contracts. Their existing contracts could also be terminated. The policy is high on gimmicks and empty gestures, and short on substance.

The proposed policy only applies to bidders for central government contracts. Thus tax avoiders can continue to make profits from local government, government agencies and other government-funded organisations – including universities, hospitals, schools and public bodies. Banks, railway companies, gas, electricity, water, steel, biotechnology, motor vehicle and arms companies receive taxpayer-funded loans, guarantees and subsidies, but their addiction to tax avoidance will not be touched by the proposed policy.

The policy will apply to one bidder, or a company, at a time and not to all members of a group of companies even though they will share the profits. Thus, one subsidiary in a group can secure a government contract by claiming to be clean, while other affiliates and subsidiaries can continue to rob the public purse through tax avoidance. There is nothing to prevent a company from forming another subsidiary for the sole purpose of bidding for a contract while continuing with nefarious practices elsewhere.

Starbucks, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and others can continue to route transactions through offshore subsidiaries and suck out profits through loans, royalties and management fee programmes and thus reduce their taxable profits in the UK. Such strategies are not covered by the government policy and these companies can continue to receive taxpayer-funded contracts.

The policy will not apply to the tax avoidance industry, consisting of accountants, lawyers and finance experts devising new dodges. Earlier this week, a US court declared that an avoidance scheme jointly developed and marketed by UK-based Barclays Bank and accountancy firm KPMG was unlawful. The scheme, codenamed Stars – or Structured Trust Advantaged Repackaged Securities – enabled its participants to manufacture artificial tax credits on loans. This scheme was sold to the US-based Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM). The US tax authorities launched a test case and a court rejected BNYM's claim for tax credits of $900m. The presiding judge said that that avoidance scheme "was an elaborate series of pre-arranged steps designed as a subterfuge for generating, monetising and transferring the value of foreign tax credits among the Stars participants" (page 25). It "lacked economic substance" (page 53) and was a "sham" transaction (page 54). Whether equivalent schemes have been used by UK corporations is not yet known.

The above case highlights a number of issues. The UK-based organisations causing havoc in the US, Africa, Asia and elsewhere will not be restrained. They can still secure taxpayer-funded contracts in the UK. Now suppose that the Bank of New York Mellon scheme was applied by Barclays Bank to its own affairs and declared to be unlawful by a UK court. If so, possibly Barclays may be deterred from bidding for a central government contract, but there will be no penalties for KPMG as accountancy firms are not covered by the proposed rules.

The recent inquiry by the public accounts committee into the operations of PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte, KPMG and Ernst & Young noted that the firms are the centre of a global tax avoidance industry. Even though a US court has declared one of these schemes to be unlawful, the UK government does not investigate them, close them, or recover legal costs of fighting the schemes devised by them. No accountancy firm has ever been disciplined by any professional accountancy body for peddling avoidance schemes, even when they have been shown to be unlawful. The firms continue to act as advisers to government departments, make profits from taxpayers through private finance initiative, information technology and consultancy contracts. There is clearly no business like accountancy business.

The proposed government policy will not work. It expects corporations who can construct opaque corporate structures and sham transactions to come clean. That will not happen. In addition, a government loth to invest in public regulation will not have the sufficient manpower to police any self-certifications by big business.

An effective policy should prevent tax avoiders and their advisers from making any profit from taxpayers. It should apply to all the players in the tax avoidance industry, regardless of whether their schemes are peddled at home or abroad.

This article first appeared on Guardian Comment is Free

Durable change a long way off for scandal-ridden UK banking system

The role of Barclays bank in manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) continues to dominate international financial media.

The bank has already attracted fines from regulators in the UK and theUSA.
But further revelations are likely as US Senate Committees are flexing their muscles, the UK parliament has launched an inquiry and the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has announced a criminal investigation. The temptation will be to look for scapegoats and prevent consideration of the systemic factors.

Barclays has a dark history. For example, in 2010, Barclays Bank paid US$298m in fines for “knowingly and willfully” violating international sanctions by handling hundreds of millions of dollars in clandestine transactions with banks in Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma.

In February 2012, the UK government introduced retrospective legislation to halt two tax avoidance schemes that would have enabled Barclays to avoid around £500 million in corporate taxes. However, Barclays is not alone. Only last month, the UK financial regulator reported that Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland mis-sold loans and hedging products to small and medium sized businesses. The financial sector has been a serial offender.

Here are a few examples.

The UK experienced a secondary banking crash in the mid-1970s. The crash revealed fraud and deceit at many banks. The UK government bailed them out and in turn had to secure a loan from the International Monetary Fund.

In the 1980s, the financial sector sold around 8.5 million endowment policies, which were linked to repayment of mortgages. The products were not suitable for everyone but were pushed just the same, and the risks were not explained to the customers.

A 2004 parliamentary report found that some 60% of the endowment policyholders have been the victims of mis-selling and face a shortfall of around £40 billion. This was followed-up by a pensions mis-selling scandal where 1.4 million people had been sold inappropriate pension schemes. The possible losses may have been £13.5 billion.

The 1990s saw the precipice bonds scandal. Around 250,000 retired people been persuaded to invest £5 billion in highly risky bonds, misleadingly sold as “low risk” products. Thousands of investors lost 80% of their savings. Then came the Split Capital Investment Trusts scandal. Once again financial products had been mis-sold and deceptively described as low risk. Some 50,000 investors may have lost £770 million.

New millennium came with a new financial scandal – the payment protection insurance (PPI) scandal. People taking out loans were forced to buy expensive insurance, which generated around £5.4 billion in annual premiums for banks and provided little protection for borrowers. This scandal is still being played out and banks may be forced to pay £10 billion in compensation.

The above has been accompanied by money laundering, tax avoidance, tax evasion, fraudulent practices to inflate share prices and of course the banking crash, which has brought the global economy to its knees.

Whichever way you look at it, banks have been serial offenders and continue to act with impunity. The entrepreneurial culture of making private profits at almost any cost has had disastrous social consequences. Fines and forced compensations have just become another business cost and the usual predatory practices have continued.

There are two main drivers of the financial scandals. Firstly, markets exert incessant pressures for ever rising profits and don’t care much whether they come from normal trade, money laundering, tax avoidance and other dodges. Secondly, the idea of assessing people’s worth through wealth is deeply embedded in western societies.

Profit-related pay became the mantra from the 1970s onwards and has been a key driver of the abuses. The typical tenure of a FTSE 350 companies CEO is around four years and declining. In this time, people at the top need to collect as much personal loot as possible and have little regard for any long-term consequences. The performance related pay applies at the lower echelons as well and again encourages short-termism and neglect of any social consequences.

In principle, regulators and politicians should be able to able to check the abuses, but the UK political institutions are weak. There is little competition amongst the political parties to devise socially responsible policies.

For the last 40 years, they have all offered various shades of light-touch regulation and veneration of markets. There has been no attempt to alleviate market pressures by forcing banks to operate as cooperatives or mutuals. Corporate and wealthy elites fund political parties and have organised effective regulation and accountability off the political agenda.

The regulators of the financial sector come primarily from the same industry and have sympathies for the narrow short-term interests of that industry. After a stint as a regulator, they then return to the same industry. The revolving-doors and ingrained conflicts of interest have prevented effective regulation and accountability.

Reforming political institutions is a necessary condition of controlling banking frauds, but a durable change is not on the horizon.

PRESS RELEASE: Questions to answer over Osborne’s dodgy dossier

This press release was issued today, following our post yesterday on the HMRC's publication on the 50p tax rate.

PRESS NOTICE:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Questions need to be answered over Osborne’s Budget Day dodgy dossier

LEAP has raised several serious questions about the dossier used by Chancellor George Osborne to justify cutting the 50% tax rate at the Budget last week. The dossier, published by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) ‘The Exchequer effect of the 50 per cent additional rate of income tax’ was published on Budget Day, and makes the case for the 50% tax rate to be scrapped and replaced with the 45% rate.

Today (26 March) is the last day of the post-Budget debate, culminating in a vote on the Budget. LEAP Chair John McDonnell will be raising this issue in Parliament, which has led to a tax cut for the highest 1% of earners at a time of austerity.

LEAP’s analysis raises questions about a numbers of issues, including: political interference in drafting the dossier; the efforts made by HMRC in maximising compliance with the 50% rate; and why HMRC based its assumptions on different Taxable Income Elasticity measures in 2009 when the tax was announced.

John McDonnell MP, LEAP Chair, said:

"There are serious questions to be answered by George Osborne about the political impartiality of this document, in light of the analysis by LEAP – which raises massive doubts about the conclusion that the 50% rate will raise only an additional £100m.

"I will be raising this issue in Parliament because it is of deep significance to the both the justice of our taxation system, and to the integrity of the civil service."

Andrew Fisher, LEAP Director, said:

"This dodgy dossier is deeply flawed in its analysis of the tax avoidance associated with the 50p rate. Its politically convenient and economically dubious conclusions seem more like the work of political placemen than politically neutral civil servants. There are several questions that need to be answered if taxpayers are to have any faith in the tax system.

"Osborne claimed that the 50% tax was bad for Britain’s competitiveness, yet in the Budget debate he justified cutting it by claiming other measures would raise five times as much from the same group. The Chancellor is spinning both ways, but we need to get to the truth."

-Ends-

The LEAP analysis can be read in below on the blog

The coalition's dodgy dossier - Questions that need to be answered

Waking up this morning, Cameron's government has more immediate concerns than the fall-out from the Budget. Cash for access is nothing new (Greg Palast exposed LLM and New Labour ministers in 1998), but it will further batter Tory poll ratings ahead of the May elections.

However, I think there's another scandal about to emerge, which also has echoes of another New Labour previous: a dodgy dossier.


The document is the publication by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) used to underpin Osborne's case for reducing the 50% tax rate to 45% in the Budget. (Richard Murphy has also raised questions about the dossier and its conclusions)

Now we know the HMRC has form (e.g. tax deals with Vodafone, Goldman Sachs, and numerous other multinationals and wealthy individuals). But it is still an executive agency of HM Treasury and staffed by politically neutral civil servants.

There are echoes again of HMRC's lax attitude to tax avoidance in this statement, which bears deeper analysis:

"there was a considerable behavioural response to the rate change, including a substantial amount of forestalling: between £16 billion and £18 billion of income is estimated to have been brought forward to 2009-10 to avoid the additional rate of tax. This behavioural response is entirely legitimate, and difficult to prevent using anti-avoidance legislation."

The first issue with this statement is the value judgement that avoidance activity is "entirely legitimate". It's true to say that New Labour was stupid in signposting with a year's notice a tax rise to the super-rich, but what does it tell us about the culture of HMRC at the highest levels, that they believe rich people avoiding tax is "entirely legitimate"?

The second issue with this statement is what it - and the dossier throughout largely - doesn't say: that this was a single year effect. It is obvious that high earners would bring forward bonuses, dividends etc by a year to avoid paying so much the following year when the 50% tax rate came in. But that cannot be repeated, so the £16-18bn in years two and subsequent would give us an extra £1.6-£1.8bn in revenue.

Although the document is largely carefully couched and liberally littered with pharses like "the estimates above are subject to a wide range of uncertainty" that is not reflected in either a) what Osborne said the Budget; and b) it's own ridiculous conclusion.

Cunningly, the dossier's conclusion is not to be found in Chapter 6: Conclusions. Instead, the real conclusion is to be found in the extra-dodgy Annex A - Table A2 of which contains Osborne's highly dubious claim that reducing the rate to 45% will only cost the Exchequer £100m (allowing him to claim his stamp duty changes will raise five times as much).

Much of the document is based on an academic concept: Taxable Income Elasticity (TIE) which in simple terms looks at the responsiveness of taxable incomes and tax revenues to different tax rates. Again in simple terms, the lower the TIE score the lower the opportunities for avoidance.

For the purposes of the document, HMRC uses a TIE of 0.48 (see Chapter 5), yet the calculations used in 2009 (when the 50% rate was announced) were based on a TIE of 0.35.

But HMRC is not a neutral academic observer of TIE. Its role - surely (at least in theory) - is to maximise tax revenues, a large part of which is to mitigate against tax avoidance. Even Osborne in his Budget statement said "I regard tax evasion and – indeed – aggressive tax avoidance – as morally repugnant".

So if HMRC identifies a higher TIE, it should not be simply reporting it, or worse suggesting tax rates should fall in response, but producing a practical strategy to minimise avoidance.

So the questions that need to be asked are these:

1. Was there an earlier draft (or drafts) that was less conclusive?
2. What input was there from ministers or their special advisers?
3. Who signed off the final document?
   
4. Why was the HMRC commissioned to do this analysis and not the 'independent' OBR?
5. Why was a TIE of 0.35 used (presumably by HMRC) in 2009, but a TIE of 0.48 used in 2012?
6. Why did HMRC not suggest practical steps for reducing this avoidance?
7. Will HMRC and HM Treasury publish all correspondence relating to the commissioning and drafting of this dossier?
8. What behavioural analysis has HMRC or HM Treasury completed or commissioned on the effects of the new changes to stamp duty?
   

The most dishonest Budget ever?

The Budget speech is pure parliamentary pantomime, but even that was undermined this year by the numerous (and mostly accurate) leaks beforehand.

One surprise came before the budget, when February borrowing figures were published and shown to be far higher than expected at £15.2bn. This meant that there would be no net giveaways in the Budget, and reinforces what we have said throughout: if you really want to tackle the deficit you need to get people working (off benefits, paying tax) and spending (VAT revenues) + deficit closes. Even John Cridland, CBI chief, was on Radio 4 this morning conceding the real problem in the UK economy is lack of demand.

But back to the Budget, and to the theme promised in this blogpost's title: dishonesty. Here's a quick rundown of some fairly serious obfuscation or outright lies:

1) A further £10.5bn of welfare cuts
Osborne was rather opaque in his Budget statement, saying:

"I am today publishing analysis that shows that if in the next Spending Review we maintain the same rate of reductions in departmental spending as we have done in this review, we would need to make savings in welfare of £10 billion by 2016"

In the Budget red book (pp.87-88) the figure of £10.5bn is given by 2016-17 and £6.6n by 2015-16, but there is no specification at all as to which bits of the welfare budget might be targeted. All the red book states is:

"The Government will be examining the cost drivers for all areas of public spending, and identifying the further reforms needed to deliver a sustainable welfare system and public services within the resources available."

Of course the major reform that Osborne could pursue would be to create jobs. The OBR projections show even by 2016 unemployment will still be above 2 million. But what this unspecified £10.5bn shows is that Osborne's economic policies are failing, and - although his sums don't add up - he has already decided those with least should pay for it.

2) The higher rate tax stats
If the 'dodgy dossier' of the Blair government was Alistair Campbell's sexed-up Iraq work of fiction, then this government's own will be this gem from HMRC. All the same questions need to be asked because it looks less like the work of an impartial civil servant and more the work of a Tory researcher, without much in the way of analytical skill or economic nous.

It's major crime is to say it hasn't raised much (and less than predicted), only £1bn. A figure Vince Cable dismissed as not much. Of course that was hindered by £16bn of income shifting - highly paid people bringing forward their pay, bonuses, etc to avoid getting hit for 50% when it came in. In future years, such income shifting is impossible, and the amounts raised would be much higher - the Treasury document seems to think over £3bn per year.

The dodgy dossier talks long and gibberishly about the laffer curve (see our take here) and makes some very spurious conclusions that people avoid a 50% rate at £150,000, but not a 45% rate. Go figure!?

Finally of course is the brass neck with which Osborne, Cameron et al claim their stamp duty reforms will raise five times as much from the rich. Of course there'll be neither avoidance on any of that nor any behavioural changes as a result of these new taxes on selling homes worth £2m or more.

But what is most dishonest in some ways is the contradiction between Osborne's bluster against tax evasion and avoidance - "I regard tax evasion and – indeed – aggressive tax avoidance – as morally repugnant" - and the fact that in the face of large scale (though largely temporary) avoidance of the 50p rate, he has decided to reduce it.

Thankfully though, HMRC tells us, it will only cost us £100m per year. Of course if they have got that wrong (and they have) then we can expect more cuts or more borrowing.

3) The 'Granny tax'
I use the twitter-defined name as a shorthand, but Osborne has done is to freeze age-related allowances - the amount of income over-65s can earn tax-free - for existing pensioners, and scrap the relief for those retiring after April 2013.

This will cost millions of mid-income pensioners about £250-300 per year. It is a stealth tax on pensioners, and come May will probably prove as electorally misguided as Gordon Brown's 75p increase in the basic state pension over a decade ago.

The extra dishonesty factor about this is two-fold: 1) it was the only major item in the Budget not trailed in advance; and 2) Osborne announced it in his statement by saying "we will simplify the tax system for pensioners by doing away with the complexity of the additional age-related allowances".

4) The distributional analysis
Alongside the Budget, Osborne published the 'distributional analysis' to show the effects of the changes he has made on people's incomes (Annex B of the Budget red book).

What it does not include is the cutting of the 50p top tax rate to 45p - which would save someone like Bob Diamond at Barclays over £300,000 per year - as apparently "presenting a static analysis would not be representative of likely actual impacts".

What is also necessarily excluded from this analysis is the yet-to-be-specified but committed to £10.5bn extra welfare cuts which will disproportionately hit the lowest income deciles.

So what we see is an analysis that omits both the big tax break for the rich, and the future hammering of the poor. Convenient.


There are other things in the Budget too that will become clearer in time:

• Osborne promised "growth-friendly planning and employment laws" - which is short-hand for 'the environment and workers' rights be damned'
• The pension age will rise beyond 68: "I can confirm today that there will be an automatic review of the state pension age to ensure it keeps pace with increases in longevity". The problem with this is that increasing longevity is highly unequal, i.e. the richer are increasing their life expectancy at a quicker rate than the poorest. This is doubly bad news since poorer people also cannot afford to retire early, so their retirement gets squeezed, while the rich live for longer in retirement.

Still the unacceptable face of financial capitalism

Barclays Bank’s grim reputation for a predatory approach to business is undiminished, says Prem Sikka

The banks have got it made. They have ripped off people with exorbitant charges and measly returns on savings. They have picked people’s pockets with the mis-selling of payment protection insurance, endowment mortgages, personal pensions, precipice bonds and split capital investment trusts – to name just a few.

Banks have driven up the price of food and commodities through speculation, a major cause of commodity inflation. The state has guaranteed their profits through the Private Finance Initiative and the channelling of pensions and benefit payments through bank accounts. The taxpayer has bailed out banks through loans, subsidies and guarantees that add up to more than £1 trillion. Yet, in return, the banks cannot be relied on to pay democratically agreed taxes.

Barclays Bank is the latest example of the unacceptable entrepreneurial culture where bending the rules to avoid taxes and boost corporate profits is considered to be a skill. In 2009, Barclays paid £113 million in corporation tax to the United Kingdom – about 2.4 per cent of its £4.6 billion global annual profit.

Now the British Government has announced that Barclays tried to avoid £500 million of tax through two novel schemes. The first was designed to ensure that the profit arising to the bank from a buy-back of its own debt is not subject to corporation tax.

The second bit of alchemy was a scheme to convert non-taxable income into an amount carrying a repayable tax credit in an attempt to secure “repayment” from the Exchequer of tax that has not actually been paid. The £500 million that Barclays sought to avoid is equivalent to the cost of 100 new primary schools, or employing 16,000 nurses. Yet Barclays and its tax advisors were not bothered about the social consequences. The bank’s defence was that other corporations are also doing the same and it has not broken any laws.

Each year, Barclays publishes what it calls a Citizenship Report and claims that it is a socially responsible organisation. In 2008, soon after the banking crash, Barclays’ chief executive Bob Diamond publicly said that, in future, banks would be good citizens. In November 2010, major banks, including Barclays, signed the Government’s Code of Practice on Taxation and promised that “that banking groups, their subsidiaries, and their branches operating in the UK, will comply with the spirit, as well as the letter, of tax law” and “not undertake tax planning that aims to achieve a tax result that is contrary to the intentions of Parliament”.

All the promises have been broken and show the folly of relying on voluntary codes. The Government will collect the £500 million in tax, but there are no penalties for violating the Code of Practice, which was lauded by Prime Minister David Cameron as a step towards “responsible capitalism”.

Barclays is no stranger to controversy. Last year, the World Development Movement estimated that Barclays generates a profit of around £340 million a year through food speculative activities, a major cause of hunger around the world. Barclays and 15 other banks are being investigated by the European Commission to ascertain whether they have colluded and/or may hold and abuse a dominant position in order to control the financial information relating to credit default swaps, which are complex financial instruments used to manage risks.

In April 2011, Liberal peer Lord Oakshott urged the government to investigate Barclays over the $12.3 billion (£7.4 billion) sale of toxic assets to a Cayman Islands company. The company was called Protium and was founded with a $12.6 billion loan from the bank. The deal had the potential to enable Barclays to avoid millions in taxes and a headline in the Daily Telegraph screamed ”Barclays’ Protium deal is all that’s wrong in the City”. Barclays is thought to have 174 subsidiaries and ventures registered in the Caymans, a place that does not levy any corporation tax and is known for lax regulation. The extent of speculative and tax avoidance activity routed through tax havens is not known.

Barclays and other multinational corporations indulge in tax avoidance for two main reasons. First, stock markets exert incessant pressures on corporations to report higher profits. Rather than competition, innovation, investment, better services to customers and communities, many companies find it easier to boost profits through tax avoidance. Second, this suits executives as their remuneration is linked to profits. Barclays’ chief executive Bob Diamond has been receiving mega-bucks in salary and bonuses, but there is silence on the extent to which they are financed by tax avoidance.

Tax avoidance enriches few and impoverishes many, but banks do not publish any meaningful information about their indulgence in tax avoidance. The annual accounts do not provide any indication of the profits boosted by tax avoidance schemes. Neither do they provide any information about the sales, profits, employees and taxes for each country of their operations.

Such information would show that subsidiaries in tax havens do little trading, have skeletal staff but somehow report huge profits, or that large amounts of revenues are generated in the Britain, but corporate taxes are avoided. This information would help to focus attention on the artificial shifting of profits, but successive governments have done nothing to create this transparency.

Organised tax avoidance affects us all. Democracy, responsibility and accountability should be mobilised to check it. All corporate tax returns and related correspondence should be publicly available so that we can all check corporate claims of social responsibility and good citizenship. The threat of public sunlight has the potential to check selfish impulses.

At the moment, there are no personal consequences for directors indulging in complex tax avoidance schemes or for accountants crafting complex avoidance schemes.

Many of the avoidance schemes have been declared to be abusive by the courts, but still there is no retribution against directors and accountants. The lack of penalties has created a gaming culture which drains the public purse. Legislation should be enacted to make directors and designers of abusive avoidance schemes personally liable for up to 10 times the amount of tax involved. The prospect of personal costs would provide some food for thought.

This article first appeared in Tribune

HMRC has a cosy relationship with the tax avoidance industry

MPs have criticised the agency but remained silent on its links with the big accounting firms that help companies avoid tax

Prem Sikka

The public accounts committee report on the operations of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is a damning indictment of the Treasury and tax officials. Some £25.5bn remains uncollected from disputes with 2,700 companies. The amounts are bigger than the budget for the secondary education or transport.

HMRC has entered into sweetheart deals that let multinational corporations off the hook, but there is little public accountability. Two deals have made newspaper headlines. The tax dispute with Vodafone was rumoured to be for around £6bn. HMRC and Vodafone denied this amount, but the committee noted that the company's accounts set aside around £2.2bn to meet its liability. It eventually settled for about £1.25bn. The second deal with Goldman Sachs related to unpaid tax on complex transactions and the company was not required to pay interest which had been expected to amount between £8m and £20m.

A major problem is that all deals are shrouded in secrecy, and therefore it is difficult to judge the efficiency and effectiveness of HMRC. The committee draws attention to numerous potential conflicts of interests and lunch/dinner meetings between the HMRC officials and corporate advisers to agree deals. Many of these meetings were not minuted, and where the minutes existed they were often not available. In the face of persistent questions from the committee, HMRC officials often sought refuge in confidentiality. The committee concluded that "there is a question about whether HMRC acted within the law and within its protocols" and that the government procedures lack the independence and transparency needed to provide sufficient assurance to parliament. Despite, this the National Audit Office has generally given a good write-up to HMRC.

The committee's report raises three broad questions. First, in common with other parliamentary hearings, the public accounts committee hearings made good theatre, but were not really effective. Leading witnesses, often briefed by lawyers, declined to provide the requisite information. This should be countered by forcing witnesses to provide evidence on oath. Rather than relying on goodwill the committee should insist on the evidence.

Second, the committee's report is short on meaningful reforms. Instead of the so-called independent review of sweetheart deals, or bureaucrats reviewing the work of other bureaucrats, it should have empowered the people. Thus the tax returns of all companies and related correspondence should be made publicly available. The disclosures will enable the people to make their judgment on complex avoidance schemes and secret deals reached with tax officials. Norway, Sweden and Finland already publish corporate tax returns in various forms and the same should be adopted by the UK too.

Third, the committee laments HMRC's cosy relationship with large companies, but is silent on the cosiness with the tax avoidance industry. It notes that HMRC officials attended numerous lunches, dinners and receptions organised by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), KPMG, Deloitte and Ernst & Young. The lavish hospitality is organised to promote private interests rather than enhance HMRC accountability.

Many former ministers act as advisers to big accounting firms. For example, Labour grandee Lord Peter Mandelson has been an adviser to Ernst & Young. Former ministers Lord Digby Jones and Lord Norman Warner of Brockley have been advisers to Deloitte. Former Labour home secretary Jacqui Smith is a consultant for KPMG. Former Conservative minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind has been an adviser to PwC. Do such political links skew the relationship between government departments and the private sector?

The links between the big accountancy firms and the Treasury attract no comments from the committee. For example, former PwC staffer Mark Hoban is the current financial secretary to the Treasury. Sir Nicholas Montagu, one-time chief of the Inland Revenue, joined PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2004 before moving on to other lucrative commercial appointments. PwC partner Richard Abadie has been the head of private finance initiative policy at the Treasury. In June 2009, former PwC partner Amyas Morse was appointed UK comptroller and auditor general and became responsible for directing the National Audit Office. Former PwC tax partner John Whiting is the director of the newly established Office of Tax Simplification, advising the government on simplification of tax laws. Chris Tailby, one-time tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers became head (until 2009) of anti-avoidance at HMRC. In July 2010, partners from KPMG, Ernst & Young, Grant Thornton and BDO became members of the government appointed Tax Professionals Forum and help shape the UK tax laws.

Unsurprisingly, little progress is made on curtailing tax avoidance. The revolving doors must raise questions about the cosiness with the tax avoidance industry and HMRC's willingness to do secretive deals. Yet the committee raises no questions.

This article first appeared on Guardian Comment is Free