This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/17/mutinationals-tax-bad-smell-editorial
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
Multinationals and tax: a bad smell | Multinationals and tax: a bad smell |
(4 months later) | |
Call it the smell test. When Google justifies paying minimal taxes in the UK because "no money changes hands" here, while admitting that up to 70% of its relevant ad revenues are handled by UK staff, then all may be legal – but something still doesn't smell right. When Amazon negotiates the deals in its Slough office, but gets the paperwork done in ultra-low-tax Luxembourg, the whiff really is pretty overpowering. When a high court judge allows as legal a "sweetheart" deal struck by Revenue and Customs with Goldman Sachs to let the bank off £20m in payments, but also slams the settlement as "not a glorious episode in the history of the Revenue", then something really stinks. | Call it the smell test. When Google justifies paying minimal taxes in the UK because "no money changes hands" here, while admitting that up to 70% of its relevant ad revenues are handled by UK staff, then all may be legal – but something still doesn't smell right. When Amazon negotiates the deals in its Slough office, but gets the paperwork done in ultra-low-tax Luxembourg, the whiff really is pretty overpowering. When a high court judge allows as legal a "sweetheart" deal struck by Revenue and Customs with Goldman Sachs to let the bank off £20m in payments, but also slams the settlement as "not a glorious episode in the history of the Revenue", then something really stinks. |
These three incidences of the bilking of the public purse are from just the last couple of days. In each case, the full gory details only came into the public domain because of committed (in some cases bloody minded) individuals and organisations. Google had to face the wrath of Margaret Hodge after former employees pointed out that the internet giant's previous testimony had been misleading. The extent of Amazon's business dealings in the UK, a country in which it claims not to be what tax lawyers call a "permanent establishment", have emerged through a Guardian investigation this week. And we only know that HMRC waived a £20m bill for Goldman Sachs so as to avoid "potential embarrassment" to George Osborne because of a legal challenge by the pressure group UK Uncut. Without backbench MPs and whistleblowers, journalists and activists, all of these details would have been obscured from the public gaze. And that really doesn't smell right. | These three incidences of the bilking of the public purse are from just the last couple of days. In each case, the full gory details only came into the public domain because of committed (in some cases bloody minded) individuals and organisations. Google had to face the wrath of Margaret Hodge after former employees pointed out that the internet giant's previous testimony had been misleading. The extent of Amazon's business dealings in the UK, a country in which it claims not to be what tax lawyers call a "permanent establishment", have emerged through a Guardian investigation this week. And we only know that HMRC waived a £20m bill for Goldman Sachs so as to avoid "potential embarrassment" to George Osborne because of a legal challenge by the pressure group UK Uncut. Without backbench MPs and whistleblowers, journalists and activists, all of these details would have been obscured from the public gaze. And that really doesn't smell right. |
What has been on display again this week is the brokenness of our system of taxing businesses. True, that is a big conclusion – yet hardly anyone disputes it: not campaigners and academics nor tax accountants, nor even government ministers. George Osborne summed up the problem admirably in his March budget speech: "We want the global rules governing the taxation of multinational firms to be updated from the 1920s when they were first written, and made relevant to the global internet economy of the 21st century." | What has been on display again this week is the brokenness of our system of taxing businesses. True, that is a big conclusion – yet hardly anyone disputes it: not campaigners and academics nor tax accountants, nor even government ministers. George Osborne summed up the problem admirably in his March budget speech: "We want the global rules governing the taxation of multinational firms to be updated from the 1920s when they were first written, and made relevant to the global internet economy of the 21st century." |
Under the current system, a modest bookshop on a local highstreet faces proportionately greater exposure to Revenue and Customs than does a multibillion dollar internet retailer such as Amazon. With clever accountants and suitably aggressive lawyers, corporation tax can become as voluntary as a collection plate passed around at the end of a service. According to Alex Cobham at Washington's Centre for Global Development, Bermuda and other tiny secrecy jurisdictions make up less than 1% of world GDP but somehow account for 14% of US companies' profits. The consequent shortfall in tax is obviously bad for crisis-hit western countries slashing their welfare bills and public services; but it is absolutely lethal for developing countries without the tax-collection infrastructure or political clout to strike even a bad bargain with powerful multinationals. Imagine a Zambian equivalent of Margaret Hodge; now ask yourself whether Google would bother flying one of its top executives over to Lusaka for a parliamentary pelting. | Under the current system, a modest bookshop on a local highstreet faces proportionately greater exposure to Revenue and Customs than does a multibillion dollar internet retailer such as Amazon. With clever accountants and suitably aggressive lawyers, corporation tax can become as voluntary as a collection plate passed around at the end of a service. According to Alex Cobham at Washington's Centre for Global Development, Bermuda and other tiny secrecy jurisdictions make up less than 1% of world GDP but somehow account for 14% of US companies' profits. The consequent shortfall in tax is obviously bad for crisis-hit western countries slashing their welfare bills and public services; but it is absolutely lethal for developing countries without the tax-collection infrastructure or political clout to strike even a bad bargain with powerful multinationals. Imagine a Zambian equivalent of Margaret Hodge; now ask yourself whether Google would bother flying one of its top executives over to Lusaka for a parliamentary pelting. |
Whether it's Jimmy Carr or Starbucks, public anger over tax avoidance must be most evident in the UK. No wonder David Cameron has made a new deal on tax a key objective of this summer's G8 summit. The economist Paul Collier, who is advising the government, has suggested multinationals report the scale of their economic activity in each state. Such transparency would be cheap and easy for the likes of Google to provide (isn't providing information its business?); but even that has been resisted by big business. Yet it would be a modest first step; as would Revenue and Customs disclosing all of its sweetheart deals. Openness might be a small victory, but it could open the way to much bigger ones. | Whether it's Jimmy Carr or Starbucks, public anger over tax avoidance must be most evident in the UK. No wonder David Cameron has made a new deal on tax a key objective of this summer's G8 summit. The economist Paul Collier, who is advising the government, has suggested multinationals report the scale of their economic activity in each state. Such transparency would be cheap and easy for the likes of Google to provide (isn't providing information its business?); but even that has been resisted by big business. Yet it would be a modest first step; as would Revenue and Customs disclosing all of its sweetheart deals. Openness might be a small victory, but it could open the way to much bigger ones. |
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
Previous version
1
Next version