The Business End

Other people's business

Syndicate contentRSS

Now that Cameron supports tax justice, what must he do about it?

We can’t just rely on companies cleaning up their tax affairs. We need international, intergovernmental action on tax justice, and the UK should deliver it.

New Statesman
Image: ActionAid

When the Prime Minister stands in front of television cameras and uses your campaign slogan, you know something is happening.

On Tuesday in County Armagh, setting out his priorities for the G8 summit that the UK will host next June, David Cameron put the fight against tax dodging at the top of his international agenda:

“I want to us to achieve tax justice in our world, so that big companies pay their taxes”.

The focus on tax is not entirely a surprise. This year’s mountain of news stories about big companies accused of not paying their fair share is reaching a breaking point. But tax justice is bigger than Starbucks, Amazon or Google. The clever accounting that allows some companies to opt out of the tax system – both in the UK and in some of the poorest countries in the world – is made possible by two features of the international system itself.

This is why Cameron putting tax justice on the international agenda marks a new, important and hopeful shift in the government’s previously underpowered response to the global haemorrhage of public revenues.

First, international tax rules are desperately ill-equipped to meet the challenges of globalised business. They are powerless to stop profits being shifted into tax havens, and out of the countries where real sales are made, real people employed, real goods produced. Last week’s public scrutiny of UK high-street companies has lifted the lid on a bizarre world of goods bought via Swiss subsidiaries, and management services purportedly provided by firms operating from a post-box in the Cayman Islands. This world is dishearteningly familiar to ActionAid researchers, who have traced how multinational companies have used exactly the same strategies (pdf) to shrink their tax bills across Africa and Asia. The tax avoided by just one UK-headed multinational we investigated could, we estimate (pdf), pay to put a quarter of a million children in school in the developing countries where that company operates.

Second, this profit-shifting is possible and profitable thanks to the abusive offshore tax regimes of tax havens (pdf), whose secrecy rules also confound tax inspectors’ attempts to unpick clever accounting tricks, or to locate wealth simply stashed illegally in shell companies and anonymous trusts. Tax havens are not just a drain on scarce public finances. They are an affront to democracy, a deliberate block on legitimate governments’ efforts to raise their own revenues and prevent the corrupt theft of public funds.

On both counts – rebalancing the rules and shutting the tax havens – international agreement and concerted diplomatic muscle is needed. The G8 has come under criticism in recent years. But it remains unusually well-placed to push real international tax reform and prise open the tax havens – 40 per cent (pdf) of which are closely linked to the G8 countries themselves.

How could this be done? First, the G8 could use its weight to make tax havens disclose the wealth and assets that foreign companies and individuals funnel into their jurisdictions. The agreements to do this already exist. Tax havens should sign them, or face serious financial countermeasures. Second, we need to unlock the corporate "black boxes" into which tax haven-held assets are currently stuffed. To tear down the veil of offshore secrecy we need a legally-binding global standard, simply requiring the real, human owners of anonymous companies and trusts – their "beneficial ownership" – to be put on public record. A transparency convention with this standard at its heart, launched and signed by the G8, would be a game-changer not just for tax revenues, but for the fight against corruption, money-laundering and international crime – making us better-off, and keeping us safer.

And finally, Cameron has stressed that the G8’s approach to global injustice cannot be about "rich countries doing things to poor countries". It must be about "us putting our own house in order and helping developing countries to prosper". The spring clean must start at home. Before we get to Lough Erne in June, the UK’s own tax avoidance regime needs to be made fit for purpose: capable of protecting UK revenues, and closing the UK tax loopholes (pdf) that leach money out of developing countries too. The budget next spring is the place to do it.

This is a fight that could transform the UK’s public finances, ensure that scarce UK aid is not undermined by the haemorrhage of developing countries’ revenues, and ultimately allow those countries to fight poverty and hunger with their own resources. In Fermanagh next year we must seize the opportunity with both hands.

7 comments

Eddy S's picture

Is Margaret Hodge a secret billionaire while preaching about aviodance in the bbc? A hypocrite along with the tories.

RH47's picture

The Tories getting tough on rent seekers (as opposed to blowing smoke)? No chance. Does a dog chase its own tail in order to eat it?

Posh Tosh's picture

The rot started with Thatcher, whom cut down the Inland Revenue, she then placed direct entrants as tax inspectors. Theses people had studied text books for a couple of years and were shipped-in to replace tax workers that knew the system well, so hey you had snotty little boys and girls from public schools replaced long serving Higher grade tax officers that knew the system well. It was to enable her kind of sh1t to subvert all collection fetails of companies, and these snotty little boys and girls, well, they just wrote of billions pounds of uncollected taxes and revenue and many long-standing plc debts after they were supplied the names by Thatchers cohorts in despotism. This system has continued and many employees of twenty years work knowledge and more started to drift off into other employment - indeed many went to feed off what she was doing outside the Inland Revenue and again placed companies with vast knowledge to evade even more tax diversion into off-shore accounts.

We had IRSF taking bribes by saking people if they did not strike were union blacklisted, and those that did strike - well they could be sacked for striking.

I worked at Llanishen Cardiff in taxes and saw more than a touch of racism by the man that was a District Inspector for a District and yet overheard hm one day state, I do not want Black B***ards in the IRSF, neither do I want Y*ds, a few hours later a young Jewish male was sacked for wearing a colourful sweater, as he had to adhere to the rules that you dressed correctly - Yes, the District inspector that sacked strikers for striking and black-listed them for not striking, and had all his favourite young female assistants in his room one at a time wearing those same sort of sweaters, they would stay there an hour and ddget promotion to another job if they done him well. The young jewish lad that went to surf Newquay, wel he was bright, intelligent, and you know he never spoke his race or religion - I can never remember more than three Asian's working in the building. (In different departments).

He was top dog in the union and top dog in staff placement in Wales. He could have well replaced Jimmy Savile, only that the girls he liked were just over 16.

Posh Tosh's picture

ps Sorry me failing eyesight did not pick up a few typographical errors above.

Posh Tosh's picture

By the way the young Jewish male was not in a public liason work environment, indeed even the Union bots wore sweaters very alike. The only actual work criteria was that if you went into a room to converse ith tax-payers you had to be establishment work-code dressed.

The Daily Mail, the Manchester Evening News and the Guardian refused to publish the the full story.

Hugh C Markey's picture

Tax justice? Bloody Communist!!

Flying-officer Porker

Barrie J's picture

That major corporations can legally avoid paying tax is not some sort of poor bookeeping by successive governments or HMRC.
It has been government policy to allow them to do so.
If the government organised PAYE in such a way as to afford employees the opportunity not to have to pay tax, then I imagine many of us would take advantage of it.
I'm no fan of Starbucks, Google, Amazon, etc., but the blame rests with the government.
If you put a pound of fillet steak on the floor and the dog ate it - would it be the dog's fault or yours?

Latest tweets