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

It's not WhatsApp that was at fault in the Westminster attacks. It's our prisons

Britain's criminal justice system neither deterred nor rehabilitated Khalid Masood, and may even have facilitated his radicalisation. 

The dust has settled, the evidence has been collected and the government has decided who is to blame for the attack on Westminster. That’s right, its WhatsApp and their end-to-end encryption of messages. Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, wants tech companies to install a backdoor into messages like these that the government can then access.

There are a couple of problems here, not least that Adrian Russell aka Khalid Masood was known to the security services but considered to be low-risk. Even if the government had had the ability to gain entry to his WhatsApp, they wouldn’t have used it. Then there’s the fact that end-to-end encryption doesn’t just protect criminals and terrorists – it protects users from criminals and terrorists. Any backdoor will be vulnerable to attack, not only from our own government and foreign powers, but by non-state actors including fraudsters, and other terrorists.

(I’m parking, also, the question of whether these are powers that should be handed to any government in perpetuity, particularly one in a country like Britain’s, where near-unchecked power is handed to the executive as long as it has a parliamentary majority.)

But the biggest problem is that there is an obvious area where government policy failed in the case of Masood: Britain’s prisons system.

Masood acted alone though it’s not yet clear if he was merely inspired by international jihadism – that is, he read news reports, watched their videos on social media and came up with the plan himself – or he was “enabled” – that is, he sought out and received help on how to plan his attack from the self-styled Islamic State.

But what we know for certain is that he was, as is a recurring feature of the “radicalisation journey”, in possession of a string of minor convictions from 1982 to 2002 and that he served jail time. As the point of having prisons is surely to deter both would-be offenders and rehabilitate its current occupants so they don’t offend again, Masood’s act of terror is an open-and-shut case of failure in the prison system. Not only he did prison fail to prevent him committing further crimes, he went on to commit one very major crime.  That he appears to have been radicalised in prison only compounds the failure.

The sad thing is that not so very long ago a Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice was thinking seriously about prison and re-offending. While there was room to critique some of Michael Gove’s solutions to that problem, they were all a hell of a lot better than “let’s ban WhatsApp”. 

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