Twelve steps to stop tax avoidance

Tax avoidance is now endemic, with companies and the wealthy often paying derisory amounts of tax. Public anger has so far met with hollow rhetoric, handwringing and vested interest rationalisations. Robust steps to stamp it out are needed.

Today's tax avoidance goes far beyond loopholes and clever schemes. An elaborate, interlocking system for "legitimately" not paying tax allows vast amounts of money to trample over "official" tax and the economy.  

Tax revenues are being cored out. Britain is losing out on £60-85bn in company and personal taxes across the spectrum from "legitimate" avoidance, through "offshore" wealth, to outright evasion. Each £10bn lost is equivalent to the income taxes from two million average households.

Meanwhile taxes on company profits and returns from wealth (unearned income, capital gains etc) make disproportionately small contributions to the public purse. 

Avoidance gives larger, multi-national and "offshore" companies illegitimate market and competitive advantages. And gives overseas companies and offshore/avoidance "finance" all the cards in acquiring, running or asset stripping companies and markets. The effects feed down the entire tax, supply and value chains, distorting the economy and compounding the coring out of British jobs and businesses.  

And it's corrosive. Companies and people succeed for detrimental reasons, and everyone else comes under pressure to do the same. Those avoiding tax wrap themselves in the letter of the law and their "duty” to take advantage, even while, under threat of even more disappearing down the rabbit-hole, governments are pressured into reducing taxes even further. 

Endemic avoidance relies on means legitimated by the tax system:

  • Using companies, trusts and partnerships to shelter earnings or assets.
  • Overseas residency of people or companies, particularly in tax havens. 
  • Exploiting tax differences within the tax regime and between jurisdictions.
  • "Offshore" supply, production or ownership of companies or trade.
  • Transfer pricing; moving sales, costs or profits between subsidiaries or jurisdictions.

Criteria, rules and enforcement are then permissive. Nominal compliance requirements work hand-in-glove with opaque, fragmented financial reporting to subvert any rationale or constraints. And we permit, even encourage, a network of banks, tax havens, secrecy regimes, accountants and lawyers acting as the systems pro-active facilitators and cheerleaders. 

The Government's present “biggest ever crackdown” continues the tradition of curbing loopholes and avoidance only in the narrow "abuse" sense. Legitimated avoidance has been reaffirmed and extended (in parallel to cutting official corporation tax for large companies by a third). Indeed, changes to taxing earnings from overseas subsidiaries are an open license.

But international consensus that action is urgently needed is growing. In July all G20 countries, including Britain, endorsed the OECD's preliminary plan for tackling avoidance. This identified key problems but needs translating into concrete policies and action on the ground by national governments.

Curtailing British avoidance needs to simultaneously cut away its legitimating means, limit its advantages, make it harder to disguise and significantly strengthen enforcement. Specifically:

  1. Limit or remove the legal standing of – blacklist – companies or ownership from jurisdictions with cannibalistic tax and secrecy regimes (with "restricted" and "banned" categories).
  2. Restrict qualifying criteria for offshore and residency statuses.  Overseas ("offshore") ownership should be substantive not nominal; "non-domicile" status limited and finite in time; and "non-resident" status exclude those with lives, businesses or wealth in essence in or derived from the UK.  
  3. Curtail the benefits and permissiveness of offshore, ownership and residency statuses.  Non-domicile, non-resident, trusts and partnership advantages all need cutting back. Similarly, reverse the preferential treatment of "overseas" profits and firewall between remitted and non-remitted earnings.   
  4. Increase the costs and disadvantages of ownership or residency statuses. Tax charges can be increased, in particular made more progressive. Possibly (re)introduce an exit tax for British companies or citizens taking overseas residency, relocating or emigrating. 
  5. Require companies (and appropriate individuals) to provide transparent country-by-country accounts. Furthermore, the accounting and tax presumption for the assessment and validity of inter-group or cross-border charges would be strict apportionment of national sales and actual costs.
  6. If it exists, happens or is owned here, it's taxed here and taxed the same. For instance, tax UK on-line/remote sales where the sale is made; rather than as at present often "supplied" from "overseas" to avoid VAT and/or "booked" in another country to avoid company taxes.   
  7. Inhibit cross-jurisdiction costs, charges and tax exemptions that can be deducted for tax purposes, particularly between associated companies. These must be necessary, substantive and proportionate; with specific limitations on inter-group costs, debt, intellectual property and goodwill charges.
  8. Automatic information exchanges with other countries; not just existing by-request arrangements (where the number of UK requests is miniscule). Joining the existing European network is a good start.  
  9. Confront avoidance facilitators and promoters. Bar banks licensed or operating in Britain from operating in or providing facilities to British citizens or companies from "restricted jurisdictions". Require UK financial companies to automatically disclose all offshore accounts and holdings. And make advisory firms directly liable for tax penalties from avoidance they have promoted or facilitated. 
  10. Vigorous, properly empowered enforcement. Enact robust general anti-avoidance provisions. Significantly enhance HMRC's assessment powers, resources and personnel. And increase tax avoidance penalties, with both principals and intermediaries liable.  
  11. Major tax reform. Avoidance inducing disparities of tax treatment join improving economic performance, major fiscal problems and greater fairness in making reform long overdue. Today's complexity of taxes and rates needs replacing with consistent, equal treatment of all types of earnings – employment, unearned incomes, company profits and capital gains – while rebalancing between over-taxing of work and under-taxing big companies, wealth and "finance".
  12. Change the permissive and fatalistic culture. Given the corrosive damage being done, leaders and government can and should be taking vigorous action. Not paying proper taxes and mediating avoidance should cause explicit censure and sanctions. This includes recognising the City's complicity in wholesale tax avoidance from other countries as well as Britain.

But needed most is the political will and determination to take on the powerful vested interests that influence and lobby remorselessly to protect and extend today"s pernicious system. 

Photograph: Getty Images

One time Barrister, economist and media and technology entrepreneur, Chris Nicholas now writes and lectures on economic policy and political economy.

Getty
Show Hide image

As a Conservative MP, I want Parliament to get a proper debate on Brexit

The government should consider a Green Paper before Article 50. 

I am very pleased that the government has listened to the weight of opinion across the House of Commons – and the country – by agreeing to put its plan for Brexit before Parliament and the country for scrutiny before Article 50 is triggered. Such responsiveness will stand the government in good stead. A confrontation with Parliament, especially given the paeans to parliamentary sovereignty we heard from Leave campaigners during the referendum, would have done neither the Brexit process nor British democracy any good.

I support the government’s amendment to Labour’s motion, which commits the House to respecting the will of the British people expressed in the referendum campaign. I accept that result, and now I and other Conservatives who campaigned to Remain are focused on getting the best deal for Britain; a deal which respects the result of the referendum, while keeping Britain close to Europe and within the single market.

The government needs to bring a substantive plan before Parliament, which allows for a proper public and parliamentary debate. For this to happen, the plan provided must be detailed enough for MPs to have a view on its contents, and it must arrive in the House far enough in advance of Article 50 for us to have a proper debate. As five pro-European groups said yesterday, a Green Paper two months before Article 50 is invoked would be a sensible way of doing it. Or, in the words of David Davis just a few days before he was appointed to the Cabinet, a “pre-negotiation white paper” could be used to similar effect.

Clearly there are divisions, both between parties and between Leavers and Remainers, on what the Brexit deal should look like. But I, like other members of the Open Britain campaign and other pro-European Conservatives, have a number of priorities which I believe the government must prioritise in its negotiations.

On the economy, it is vital that the government strives to keep our country fully participating in the single market. Millions of jobs depend on the unfettered trade, free of both tariff and non-tariff barriers, we enjoy with the world’s biggest market. This is absolutely compatible with the result, as senior Leave campaigners such as Daniel Hannan assured voters before the referendum that Brexit would not threaten Britain’s place in the single market. The government must also undertake serious analysis on the consequences of leaving the customs union, and the worrying possibility that the UK could fall out of our participation in the EU’s Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with non-EU countries like South Korea.

If agreeing a new trading relationship with Europe in just two years appears unachievable, the government must look closely into the possibility of agreeing a transitional arrangement first. Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s chief negotiator, has said this would be possible and the Prime Minister was positive about this idea at the recent CBI Conference. A suitable transitional arrangement would prevent the biggest threat to British business – that of a "cliff edge" that would slap costly tariffs and customs checks on British exports the day after we leave.

Our future close relationship with the EU of course goes beyond economics. We need unprecedentedly close co-operation between the UK and the EU on security and intelligence sharing; openness to talented people from Europe and the world; and continued cooperation on issues like the environment. This must all go hand-in-hand with delivering reforms to immigration that will make the system fairer, many of which can be seen in European countries as diverse as the Netherlands and Switzerland.

This is what I and others will be arguing for in the House of Commons, from now until the day Britain leaves the European Union. A Brexit deal that delivers the result of the referendum while keeping our country prosperous, secure, open and tolerant. I congratulate the government on their decision to involve the House in their plan for Brexit - and look forward to seeing the details. 

Neil Carmichael is the Conservative MP for Stroud and supporter of the Open Britain campaign.