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.

Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.