Five questions answered on the crackdown on tax avoidance

G20 finance ministers make an announcement.

G20 finance ministers meeting in Moscow today announced a global crackdown on tax arbitrage by multinational companies. We answer five questions on the proposed crackdown.

Why has this crackdown been launched?

It’s been announced in a bid to tackle base erosion and profit sharing by multinational firms and hopes to address recent sustained criticism of the low tax paid by firms such as Google, Amazon and Starbucks.

It’s hoped it will push up tax rates for firms that specifically arrange their tax affairs so they only pay a small amount. 

What’s the plan?

An action plan has been drawn up by Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for the G20. It sets out more than a dozen ideas to block gaps between national tax systems and tackle practices that artificially separate taxable income from the activity that generates it.

It includes proposals to tackle abuses of tax and to prevent tax avoidance by shifting intangibles between group companies.

It also aims to neutralise the impact of “hybrid” structures used to reduce billions of dollars of tax.

Other countries that are outside the OECD, such as China and India, will be invited to take part in the programme.

What will the outcome be?

This will depend on the co-operation of governments over the next two years, but it is largely hoped that “the golden age of ‘we don’t pay taxes anywhere’ is over,” as said by Pascal Saint-Amans, the top tax official at the OECD.

But this may not happen if commitments of business and governments dwindle.

What have the experts said?

Will Morris, chair of the BIAC’s tax committee, speaking to The Financial Times, said: “In some areas, the international tax system has not kept pace with globalisation and changing business models, and it is appropriate to look again at those areas and consider, based on all the evidence, whether any changes are required.”

What have the critics said about this initiative? 

A campaign group that pushes for tax reform, The Tax Justice Network, also speaking to the FT said:  “piecemeal recommendations for states to apply patches to the increasingly leaky international tax system...would be like trying to plug the holes in a sieve.”

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Show Hide image

Will Euroscepticism prove an unbeatable advantage in the Conservative leadership race?

Conservative members who are eager for Brexit are still searching for a heavyweight champion - and they could yet inherit the earth.

Put your money on Liam Fox? The former Defence Secretary has been given a boost by the news that ConservativeHome’s rolling survey of party members preferences for the next Conservative leader. Jeremy Wilson at BusinessInsider and James Millar at the Sunday Post have both tipped Fox for the top job.

Are they right? The expectation among Conservative MPs is that there will be several candidates from the Tory right: Dominic Raab, Priti Patel and potentially Owen Paterson could all be candidates, while Boris Johnson, in the words of one: “rides both horses – is he the candidate of the left, of the right, or both?”

MPs will whittle down the field of candidates to a top two, who will then be voted on by the membership.  (As Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 Committee, notes in his interview with my colleague George Eaton, Conservative MPs could choose to offer a wider field if they so desired, but would be unlikely to surrender more power to party activists.)

The extreme likelihood is that that contest will be between two candidates: George Osborne and not-George Osborne.  “We know that the Chancellor has a bye to the final,” one minister observes, “But once you’re in the final – well, then it’s anyone’s game.”

Could “not-George Osborne” be Liam Fox? Well, the difficulty, as one MP observes, is we don’t really know what the Conservative leadership election is about:

“We don’t even know what the questions are to which the candidates will attempt to present themselves as the answer. Usually, that question would be: who can win us the election? But now that Labour have Corbyn, that question is taken care of.”

So what’s the question that MPs will be asking? We simply don’t know – and it may be that they come to a very different conclusion to their members, just as in 2001, when Ken Clarke won among MPs – before being defeated in a landslide by Conservative activists.

Much depends not only on the outcome of the European referendum, but also on its conduct. If the contest is particularly bruising, it may be that MPs are looking for a candidate who will “heal and settle”, in the words of one. That would disadvantage Fox, who will likely be a combative presence in the European referendum, and could benefit Boris Johnson, who, as one MP put it, “rides both horses” and will be less intimately linked with the referendum and its outcome than Osborne.

But equally, it could be that Euroscepticism proves to be a less powerful card than we currently expect. Ignoring the not inconsiderable organisational hurdles that have to be cleared to beat Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and potentially any or all of the “next generation” of Sajid Javid, Nicky Morgan or Stephen Crabb, we simply don’t know what the reaction of Conservative members to the In-Out referendum will be.

Firstly, there’s a non-trivial possibility that Leave could still win, despite its difficulties at centre-forward. The incentive to “reward” an Outer will be smaller. But if Britain votes to Remain – and if that vote is seen by Conservative members as the result of “dirty tricks” by the Conservative leadership – it could be that many members, far from sticking around for another three to four years to vote in the election, simply decide to leave. The last time that Cameron went against the dearest instincts of many of his party grassroots, the result was victory for the Prime Minister – and an activist base that, as the result of defections to Ukip and cancelled membership fees, is more socially liberal and more sympathetic to Cameron than it was before. Don’t forget that, for all the worry about “entryism” in the Labour leadership, it was “exitism” – of Labour members who supported David Miliband and liked the New Labour years  - that shifted that party towards Jeremy Corbyn.

It could be that if – as Brady predicts in this week’s New Statesman – the final two is an Inner and an Outer, the Eurosceptic candidate finds that the members who might have backed them are simply no longer around.

It comes back to the biggest known unknown in the race to succeed Cameron: Conservative members. For the first time in British political history, a Prime Minister will be chosen, not by MPs with an electoral mandate of their own or by voters at a general election but by an entirelyself-selecting group: party members. And we simply don't know enough about what they feel - yet. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.