Tax avoiders like Jimmy Carr have nothing to fear from Osborne

The Chancellor's plans will allow the vast majority of tax avoidance to continue uninterrupted.

"I regard tax evasion and indeed aggressive tax avoidance as morally repugnant." So said George Osborne in his Budget speech in March.  I hope he meant it. The trouble is he has not evidenced it.

Last week, the government started a consultation on the introduction of what is, in effect, the tax anti-avoidance rule recommended  by Graham Aaranson QC as a result of a review Osborne commissioned in 2010. The government says that this is a general anti-avoidance rule. The trouble is that is precisely what it isn’t.

I can say that with confidence. Aaranson himself said in his report:

I have concluded that introducing a broad spectrum general anti-avoidance rule would not be beneficial for the UK tax system. 

In other words, what Aaranson suggested was not a general anti-avoidance rule. He did instead propose:

[I]ntroducing a moderate rule which does not apply to responsible tax planning, and is instead targeted at abusive arrangements, would be beneficial for the UK tax system.

The trouble is that his plan – now adopted almost wholesale by the government - is intended as a result to only attack what he described as the "most egregious" tax abuse schemes. I met with Aaranson during his review process. What he clearly meant was that his intention was that the vast majority of tax planning should continue uninterrupted. Indeed, he says in his report that a broadly based general anti-avoidance rule

Would carry a real risk of undermining the ability of business and individuals to carry out sensible and responsible tax planning.  Such tax planning is an entirely appropriate response to the complexities of a tax system such as the UK’s. 

May would disagree. He was also worried that such a scheme:

Would also inevitably in practice give discretionary power to HMRC who would effectively become the arbiter of the limits of responsible tax planning. 

To make sure that didn’t happen he wanted representatives of the tax profession – dedicated almost solely to tax avoidance as it is – to decide which schemes were acceptable or not. That’s like putting the foxes in charge of the hen house.

That’s why I doubt that Osborne is committed to tackling tax avoidance. And it is why I have always supported a general anti-avoidance principle in the UK, and not a general anti-avoidance rule. As a tax avoidance specialist said in the Times (£) today:

It’s a game of cat and mouse. The revenue closes one scheme, we find a way round it.

That is what happens when you have a rule. A principle is something quite different. It looks at intent. It is not about box ticking, as rules are (which is why they are so easy to get round - general anti-avoidance rules included). It is about looking at what you did and using that evidence to assess on the balance of probabilities what your intentions were.

So, if, for example, you arranged your affairs so that you provided your services via a series of companies, one of which happened to be in Jersey which lent you back the tax free income it had received so that you appeared to have no legal requirement to pay tax in a way that a more commercially obvious arrangement might have given rise to then it would be reasonable for someone – and I think that someone should be HM Revenue & Customs – to decide you’re tax avoiding. And if that’s what they decide then if we had a general anti-avoidance principle they could say that the scheme was abusive and take the obvious step of simply ignoring all the steps put into the arrangement likely to be solely or mainly included to save tax. They’d then tax the commercial substance of the deal and not the artificial arrangement put in place solely to avoid tax.

Of course any such HMRC ruling would be subject to appeal to the courts, but the taxpayer would have to show why the scheme was not tax avoidance: the burden of proof would be on them.

This changes the way we assess tax in the UK, without doubt, and in a way Aaranson and Osborne clearly do not intend. But even the Times said today in its leader:

The British tax system is unfair. It charges the vast majority of people the basic rate of income tax, and expects them to pay. It asks a minority to pay higher rates of tax, and then invites them to avoid it.

That is true. A general anti-avoidance principle rather than a general anti-avoidance rule would radically change this and would provide the power needed to deliver a fair tax system in the UK. That’s why Michael Meacher MP is tabling a private member’s bill to introduce a general anti-avoidance principle into UK tax law this week.

It’s what the Times wants. It’s what the UK needs. But will Osborne find the moral will to back it?

Comedian Jimmy Carr channels proceeds from DVD sales and television appearances through a Jersey-based company. Photograph: Getty Images.

Richard Murphy is an adviser to the Tax Justice Network and the TUC on taxation and economic issues. He is also the director of Tax Research LLP.

Photo: Getty Images/AFP
Show Hide image

Why is the government charging more women for selling sex but turning a blind eye to buyers?

Since 2013, the number of women charged for selling sex gone up while the number of men charged for buying it has gone down.

It’s no surprise that prostitution policy is an area rarely visited by our legislators. It’s politically charged - a place where the need to prevent exploitation seemingly clashes head on with notions of liberal freedom; where there are few simple answers, a disputed evidence base, and no votes.

There’s also little evidence to suggest that MPs are different from the rest of the population - where one-in-ten men have purchased sex. It is little wonder therefore that our report on how the law should change, published in 2014, was the first major cross-party intervention on the subject in twenty years.

Some take the view that by removing all legal constraints, it will make the inherently exploitative trade of prostitution, safer. It’s not just me that questions this approach, though I accept that - equally - there’s no consensus that my preferred measure of criminalising the purchase of sex, while decriminalising the sale, would fundamentally change the scale of the problem.

Where all sides come together, however, is in the desire to see women diverted from the law courts. It is still possible for women (and it still is women; prostitution remains highly genderised) to go to prison for offences related to prostitution. Today, in 2015.

The total number of prosecutions for all prostitution offences in England and Wales has been decreasing since 2010, but not in a uniform fashion. This does not reflect a reduction in the size of the trade, or the violent nature of it.

There were once consistently more prosecutions for kerb crawling, profiting, and control of prostitution. But since 2013, there have been more prosecutions for soliciting or loitering than for profit from prostitution and kerb crawling each year.

In simple terms, offences committed by men with choice, freedom and money in their pocket are having a blind eye turned to them, while women are being targeted - and this trend is accelerating. In the law courts, and in prosecutions, it is the most vulnerable party in the transaction, who is taking the burden of criminality.

Take on-street sex buying as an example. In 2013-14 just 237 prosecutions were brought for kerb crawling, but there were 553 - more than twice as many - for loitering and soliciting.

There is a similar pattern in the 2014/15 figures: 227 charges for kerb crawling reached court, while 456 prosecutions were initiated against those who were selling sex. Just 83 prosecutions for control of prostitution, or ‘pimping’, were brought in that same year.

These are men and women on the same street. It takes a high level of liberal delusion to be convinced that prostitution is caused by a surge of women wishing to sell sex, rather than men who wish to buy it. And yet women who sell sex are the ones being targeted in our law courts, not the men that create the demand in the first place.

This situation even goes against the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) own guidance. They say:

“Prostitution is addressed as sexual exploitation within the overall CPS Violence Against Women strategy because of its gendered nature… At the same time, those who abuse and exploit those involved in prostitution should be rigorously investigated and prosecuted, and enforcement activity focused on those who create the demand for on-street sex, such as kerb crawlers.”

Why then, is this happening? For the same reason it always does - in our criminal justice system stigmatised, poor women are valued less than moneyed, professional men.

My debate in Parliament today raises these issues directly with the government ministers responsible. But to be honest, the prosecution-bias against women in the courts isn’t the problem; merely a symptom of it. This bias will only be tackled when the law reflects the inherent harm of the trade to women, rather than sending the mixed signals of today.

That’s why I welcome the work of the End Demand Alliance, composed of over 40 organisations working to end the demand that fuels sex trafficking and prostitution, advocating the adoption of the Sex Buyer Law throughout the UK.

This would criminalise paying for sex, while decriminalising its sale and providing support and exiting services for those exploited by prostitution. Regardless of these big changes in the law, I don’t see how anyone can support the current state of affairs where there are more prosecutions brought against women than men involved in prostitution.

The authorities are targeting women because they're easier to arrest and prosecute. It goes against their own guidance, common sense and natural justice.
And it needs to stop.

Gavin Shuker is MP for Luton South and chair of the All Party Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade.