Google, and why we need to make tax a bit simpler

A case for the Fair Tax Mark.

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

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.

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. 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.

 

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

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.

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.

- See more at: http://economia.icaew.com/opinion/june2013/editor-view-time-for-the-tax-...

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. 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.

 

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

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.

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.

- See more at: http://economia.icaew.com/opinion/june2013/editor-view-time-for-the-tax-...

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. 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.

 

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

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.

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.

- See more at: http://economia.icaew.com/opinion/june2013/editor-view-time-for-the-tax-...

This article first appeared on economia

Photograph: Getty Images

Richard Cree is the Editor of Economia.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Forget planning for no deal. The government isn't really planning for Brexit at all

The British government is simply not in a position to handle life after the EU.

No deal is better than a bad deal? That phrase has essentially vanished from Theresa May’s lips since the loss of her parliamentary majority in June, but it lives on in the minds of her boosters in the commentariat and the most committed parts of the Brexit press. In fact, they have a new meme: criticising the civil service and ministers who backed a Remain vote for “not preparing” for a no deal Brexit.

Leaving without a deal would mean, among other things, dropping out of the Open Skies agreement which allows British aeroplanes to fly to the United States and European Union. It would lead very quickly to food shortages and also mean that radioactive isotopes, used among other things for cancer treatment, wouldn’t be able to cross into the UK anymore. “Planning for no deal” actually means “making a deal”.  (Where the Brexit elite may have a point is that the consequences of no deal are sufficiently disruptive on both sides that the British government shouldn’t  worry too much about the two-year time frame set out in Article 50, as both sides have too big an incentive to always agree to extra time. I don’t think this is likely for political reasons but there is a good economic case for it.)

For the most part, you can’t really plan for no deal. There are however some things the government could prepare for. They could, for instance, start hiring additional staff for customs checks and investing in a bigger IT system to be able to handle the increased volume of work that would need to take place at the British border. It would need to begin issuing compulsory purchases to build new customs posts at ports, particularly along the 300-mile stretch of the Irish border – where Northern Ireland, outside the European Union, would immediately have a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, which would remain inside the bloc. But as Newsnight’s Christopher Cook details, the government is doing none of these things.

Now, in a way, you might say that this is a good decision on the government’s part. Frankly, these measures would only be about as useful as doing your seatbelt up before driving off the Grand Canyon. Buying up land and properties along the Irish border has the potential to cause political headaches that neither the British nor Irish governments need. However, as Cook notes, much of the government’s negotiating strategy seems to be based around convincing the EU27 that the United Kingdom might actually walk away without a deal, so not making even these inadequate plans makes a mockery of their own strategy. 

But the frothing about preparing for “no deal” ignores a far bigger problem: the government isn’t really preparing for any deal, and certainly not the one envisaged in May’s Lancaster House speech, where she set out the terms of Britain’s Brexit negotiations, or in her letter to the EU27 triggering Article 50. Just to reiterate: the government’s proposal is that the United Kingdom will leave both the single market and the customs union. Its regulations will no longer be set or enforced by the European Court of Justice or related bodies.

That means that, when Britain leaves the EU, it will need, at a minimum: to beef up the number of staff, the quality of its computer systems and the amount of physical space given over to customs checks and other assorted border work. It will need to hire its own food and standards inspectors to travel the globe checking the quality of products exported to the United Kingdom. It will need to increase the size of its own regulatory bodies.

The Foreign Office is doing some good and important work on preparing Britain’s re-entry into the World Trade Organisation as a nation with its own set of tariffs. But across the government, the level of preparation is simply not where it should be.

And all that’s assuming that May gets exactly what she wants. It’s not that the government isn’t preparing for no deal, or isn’t preparing for a bad deal. It can’t even be said to be preparing for what it believes is a great deal. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.