Treasury considers shifting tax burden for mid-sized companies

Move could lower avoidance rates if done well.

The Telegraph's Roland Gribben reports:

Two key proposals designed to simplify taxation of their businesses and shareholders by replacing the current set-up with a single layer and align tax treatment with commercial reality have been submitted to the Treasury.

One involves giving medium-sized companies the opportunity to elect to be taxed as if they were partnerships or sole proprietors to produce a single tax level for business profits.

The second would extend the real estate investment trust regime to include all privately owned businesses, freeing them of corporation tax but paying taxable dividends to shareholders.

It's a scary experience, pre-empting the treasury. As I wrote last month, such a move could be remarkably effective at tackling tax avoidance. It is a lot harder for individuals to avoid tax than it is for businesses to, if for no other reason than that individuals have an actual corporeal existence and find it significantly harder to be "headquartered" in a country they've never actually been to.

The Telegraph quotes the senior tax partner of the consultancy which drew up the reforms as suggesting that the changes as described would not reduce the tax take. That seems doubtful – especially the former suggestion, since allowing companies to elect to change their taxation rate all-but-guarantees that the only companies which take up the offer are those which would lower their taxable income by doing so. Realistically, such a move would have to be combined with an increase in the dividend tax rate to keep the tax take level. That increase would then probably require an increase in the marginal tax rate – at least at the top –  to retain the incentives to investment in the current tax system… which means that it's a policy move which no politician would touch with a ten-foot pole.

Still, we can but dream. If the Treasury does take up the policy, expect it to focus more on the "making companies pay less tax" aspect of it, which is far more in line with previous moves.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Grenfell survivors were promised no rent rises – so why have the authorities gone quiet?

The council now says it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels.

In the aftermath of the Grenfell disaster, the government made a pledge that survivors would be rehoused permanently on the same rent they were paying previously.

For families who were left with nothing after the fire, knowing that no one would be financially worse off after being rehoused would have provided a glimmer of hope for a stable future.

And this is a commitment that we’ve heard time and again. Just last week, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) reaffirmed in a statement, that the former tenants “will pay no more in rent and service charges for their permanent social housing than they were paying before”.

But less than six weeks since the tragedy struck, Kensington and Chelsea Council has made it perfectly clear that responsibility for honouring this lies solely with DCLG.

When it recently published its proposed policy for allocating permanent housing to survivors, the council washed its hands of the promise, saying that it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels:

“These commitments fall within the remit of the Government rather than the Council... It is anticipated that the Department for Communities and Local Government will make a public statement about commitments that fall within its remit, and provide details of the period of time over which any such commitments will apply.”

And the final version of the policy waters down the promise even further by downplaying the government’s promise to match rents on a permanent basis, while still making clear it’s nothing to do with the council:

It is anticipated that DCLG will make a public statement about its commitment to meeting the rent and/or service charge liabilities of households rehoused under this policy, including details of the period of time over which any such commitment will apply. Therefore, such commitments fall outside the remit of this policy.”

It seems Kensington and Chelsea council intends to do nothing itself to alter the rents of long-term homes on which survivors will soon be able to bid.

But if the council won’t take responsibility, how much power does central government actually have to do this? Beyond a statement of intent, it has said very little on how it can or will intervene. This could leave Grenfell survivors without any reassurance that they won’t be worse off than they were before the fire.

As the survivors begin to bid for permanent homes, it is vital they are aware of any financial commitments they are making – or families could find themselves signing up to permanent tenancies without knowing if they will be able to afford them after the 12 months they get rent free.

Strangely, the council’s public Q&A to residents on rehousing is more optimistic. It says that the government has confirmed that rents and service charges will be no greater than residents were paying at Grenfell Walk – but is still silent on the ambiguity as to how this will be achieved.

Urgent clarification is needed from the government on how it plans to make good on its promise to protect the people of Grenfell Tower from financial hardship and further heartache down the line.

Kate Webb is head of policy at the housing charity Shelter. Follow her @KateBWebb.