Editor's view: Time for the Fair Tax Mark?

Comments (4)

So, it’s another week and another episode in the endless soap of the Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) pursuit of what it sees as corporate tax dodgers and, this week, of Google in particular

For its part, Google is sticking resolutely to the line that it is doing nothing illegal in organising its affairs to take advantage of lower rates of corporation tax rates elsewhere. HMRC is, rightly, refusing to comment on the details of any particular case, while at the same time launching a stout defence of its record of investigating such large corporate “customers”. And once again, the Big Four are in the spotlight for their part in advising clients how to reduce tax bills. The view within the profession is that they no longer engage in the worst sort of egregious avoidance schemes, having already recognised the changing mood music in the country. 

Overlaying all this scrutiny of one company’s affairs in one country is the broader international picture and the imminent arrival of the leaders of the G8, ostensibly to discuss changes to the global tax system above all else.

Reputation is not just about what people, corporations and politicians actually do. At least, and maybe more, important is what they are perceived to be doing

The potential difficulties in agreeing changes to the international tax system have already been highlighted with Bermuda refusing to play ball on an information-sharing deal for Britain’s Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, and Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, refusing to agree to a proposed new deal on global tax. France has also refused to agree to a proposed EU-US free trade agreement unless it gets certain cultural exemptions. I suppose that’s in the nature of international discussion and diplomacy.

David Cameron likes to talk about the UK being in “a global race”, while his chancellor is keen to promote the UK as a low-tax destination for businesses. The government’s Corporation Tax Road Map sets out the ambition to use low taxes as a means of attracting inward investment. But this global tax race is inevitably a race to the bottom. Germany has already started to question the appropriateness of the UK’s patent box legislation, which offers tax breaks for companies investing in research and development activity in the UK.

A government that seeks to attract investment through lower taxes can’t attack corporations using low tax jurisdictions elsewhere with any sort of credibility. That is one reason that all the political criticism aimed at Google has thus far come from the PAC and the opposition. Indeed, David Cameron was happy to host Google’s chairman Eric Schmidt at a Downing Street meeting of his Business Advisory Group last month.

After a new round of lobbying scandals, trust in the political system (still only recovering from the expenses scandal) is low, while scepticism about the unhealthily close relationship between politicians and business leaders is sky high. Every move is watched and analysed by a media itself only recovering from its own scandals. It is an atmosphere in which speculation and conspiracy theories thrive.

So people can claim that Google gets “let off” taxes because it’s done a deal with David Cameron or speculate that HMRC lets big business get away without paying its fair share because its senior civil servants get well-paid jobs with the big accountancy firms when they leave. As with all such conspiracies there is little truth in most of this idle tittle-tattle. But reputation is not just about what people, corporations and politicians actually do. At least, and maybe more, important is what they are perceived to be doing.

Into this arena when, however much it frustrates practitioners, the tax debate has moved away from being a black and white legal issue to being a much less clear cut reputational risk issue, it was interesting to see the launch of the Fair Tax Mark. This is a far more effective and practical attempt to do something that was floated in this column in January.

It's hard to find many people who think the UK tax system is too simple

This is a good manifestation of the idea of Nudge economics, in which positive reinforcement for good behaviours is shown to have a greater effect than punishment of undesirable behaviours.

This was a theory former number 10 adviser Steve “Big Society” Hilton pushed David Cameron towards early on. So the PM should be keen to embrace the Fair Tax Mark. Perhaps unsurprisingly, PAC chairman Margaret Hodge has welcomed the move.

It’s hard to find many people who think the UK tax system is too simple. Tax in the UK (as it is in most countries) is a complicated matter, but it can be simplified.

While that process of actually simplifying the tax code is an extremely slow process, initiatives such as the Fair Tax Mark, which compares taxes actually paid against those that could have been paid and assesses the methods use to avoid tax, present the non-tax-literate public an immediately accessible way to judge a company’s tax behaviour.

It will be interesting what take-up the initiative gets with policymakers, accountants, and most crucial of all, with the public.

 


Richard Cree  Richard Cree is editor of economia


 

Related articles

Tax transparency plans go awry

Editor's view: Martin Sorrell, tax and ethics

Big Four grilled by MPs

Cameron's G8 tax intentions

 

Rating
4.93 (7 votes cast)

Comment on this article

1000  characters left

Displaying 1 to 4 of 4 results

  • Comment by Paul Connolly

    Your quote: "This is a good manifestation of the idea of Nudge economics, in which positive reinforcement for good behaviours is shown to have a greater effect than punishment of undesirable behaviours." is interesting. Sounds like you are training dogs rather than engaging with highly trained Finance Directors.

  • Comment by Stephen Herring, Tax Partner, BDO LLP

    My worries are not limited to the flawed methodology, lack of understanding and dodgy mathematics of the so-called 'Fair Tax Mark' lobby (although all of these comments are correct!)but extend to the underlying value judgements which regard most businesses and almost all global business executives as evil.

  • Comment by Anonymous

    I agree with Christie - I do think that a marking system is a good idea for all the reasons in the article above, but the Fair Tax methodology is totally flawed and just demonstrates a lack of understanding of large company taxation.

  • Comment by Christie Malry / FCAblog

    Unfortunately Fair Tax Mark uses completely the wrong methodology, has dodgy mathematics underpinning it and fails to recognise the incentives that were put into the tax code by politicians. It says more about Richard Murphy's toxic politics than it does about the companies on which the campaign reports. Ben Saunders has written a very good analysis of the campaign's flaws here: http://bensaunderscta.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/fair-tax-mark-i-really-dont-think-so/