Tax avoidance: cracks in the offshore crackdown
With UK Uncut planning protests in Starbucks and MPs calling on the government to “get a grip” on corporate tax avoidance, the issue has never been higher on the political agenda.
After grilling representatives from Starbucks, Google and Amazon, the public accounts committee has now published a damning report on the efforts of HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) to stop multinationals avoiding UK tax by shifting profits between subsidiaries in different countries.
But there was an immediate riposte from the Treasury with the announcement of a new “clampdown on tax dodgers”.
A bewildering flurry of numbers ensued: either £77m or £154m of extra investment, depending on which news report you read. Estimates of potential savings range from £2bn to £10bn, while HMRC claims it has already scooped £29bn of “additional revenues” from large businesses in the last six years.
We found that: the Treasury changed its mind about this announcement within 24 hours; there’s little detail about how corporate tax avoidance specifically will be addressed; and HMRC has been evasive about its record on taking on big multinationals.
“HMRC will be given an extra £154m over the next two years to help crack down on tax avoidance.”
Daily Mail, 3 December 2012
We’re not picking on the Mail – about half of the papers said the same thing, and no wonder, as the Treasury sent out a press release on Sunday promising “£77m a year for each of the next two years”.
In fact, the real sum of money to be dished out was half that sum - £77m over two years, as confirmed by a second press release on Monday.
We don’t know whether this was a slip of the pen on the part of the civil servant who wrote the first release, a Thick of It-style screw-up, or a last-minute decision to hold back another announcement about even more money in the autumn statement on Wednesday.
In any event, all this talk of “extra investment” has to been seen in the wider context of the deep, long-term cuts to HMRC that we’ve seen in recent years.
HMRC’s budget fell by 14 per cent between 2005/06 and 2009/10, an average cut of 3.6 per cent a year, and full-time equivalent posts fell from 97,073 in April 2005 to 66,992 in November 2010.
Then the coalition announced further budget cuts of 25 per cent in real terms by 2014/15. But there was a last-minute reprieve, with the chancellor handing back £917m as long as the tax inspectors promised to collect an extra £7bn a year.
Now they will get another £77m over two years as long as they bring in an additional £2bn. But this isn’t “extra investment”, it just means the cut is not as deep as first envisaged.
“We have been very successful in reducing tax avoidance by large businesses in recent years.”
HMRC statement, 3 December 2012
HMRC has been at pains to defend its record here, saying: “We relentlessly challenge those that persist in avoiding tax and have recovered £29bn additional revenues from large businesses in the last six years… These figures speak for themselves.”
We were promised a breakdown of this number, but none has been forthcoming yet. So it’s not immediately clear what HMRC is on about here.
The authority publishes estimates of how much tax it thinks is not being paid each year, but the total estimates for unpaid corporation tax are less than £29bn in six years.
We can only speculate that what HMRC is really saying here is that it has been doing what you would expect it to do: monitoring how much tax companies who are paying, and challenging them when they pay too little.
Clearly, that’s a good thing, but it’s what we pay our tax authorities to do. How are these “additional revenues”? Additional to what? And do the figures really “speak for themselves”? Is £29bn more or less money than was collected in the previous six years? We don’t know.
What about actually taking on big multinationals that use offshore subsidiaries to minimise their UK tax bill?
The satirical magazine Private Eye has led criticism of HMRC’s record in this area, repeatedly alleging that the taxman aggressively pursues individuals and small businesses, but gives the biggest corporations an easy ride.
The magazine claims that since 2004, the authorities have not pursued a single big firm for the kind of aggressive tax avoidance that is making MPs and voters angry.
HMRC refutes this, and has given us details of five cases where they have taken big companies all the way to a tribunal or a higher court for corporate tax avoidance.
That’s five rulings in the last couple of years from the 783 biggest firms HMRC deals with ”for accounting periods ending in or after 2004″. So not nothing, but not a flurry of writs either.
Still, at least we got a straighter answer than the public accounts committee got this summer, when HMRC preferred to talk about thousands of ”items of litigation” and ”issues under enquiry” rather than five court cases.
As far as this latest “crackdown” is concerned, the emphasis seems to be more on super-rich individuals rather than on the corporate/offshore world.
The government is promising to boost the team that focus on wealthy individuals by at least 100 extra staff. The promise to bring in “more people and additional legal support” to target multinationals is more vague. How many people? We don’t know.
How much of this extra £2bn the Treasury hopes to raise will come from individual millionaires, and how much will be from corporate tax-dodgers? There’s no official estimate.
Earlier this year we asked HMRC how much money they have actually managed to claw back from specifically targeting offshore structures, and after much to-ing and fro-ing the final answer was pretty modest: “Two offshore campaigns which raised around £500m on their own.”
But then, as Starbucks summed up the situation in written evidence to the public accounts committee: “Each jurisdiction is competing for tax revenue dollars as well as competing to attract business to their jurisdiction.”
By Patrick Worrall


There are 7 comments on this post
Thanks for clearing up the £77m investment figure. Even if it had been double that, it’s still dwarfed by the £3bn spending cuts and 10,000 job cuts the Chancellor announced in his spending review back in 2010.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The setting up of HMRC was a disaster waiting to happen & has been compounded by the enormous staff cuts. HMRC has essentially 2 businesses – a mass market business and a highly sophisticated “customised” business. the first requires a wholly different set of skills & approach from the second. The sensible thing would be to split the department & allow each part to focus on its wholly different areas of business, developing the relevant skills, knowledge & experience for that business – and, incidentally, getting a top management team that also can focus on key tasks rather than coping amateurishly with too wide a range of issues. Another outcome of Treasury arrogance, ignorance & short-sightedness.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Cathy/Patrick,
Yawn.
Net affect of neocon pols “protests” and tax collectors “efforts”?
Zero.
Where will all the hot money go without bolt holes for the rich and their crooked chums? Switzerland remains the biggest bolt hole of all and no government has made more than a perfunctory effort to even criticise them, let alone isolate them and identify them for the gangster state they are.
Does anybody REALLY think the tories, New Labour and the Lib Dems have the slightest intention of honestly pursuing this to its logical conclusion – which is a global crackdown by ALL governments?
The fact is the UK and most of its politicians are as guilty as any other country of allowing its wealth to be looted. The difference is we are probably the most hypocritical about it. What do you think Canary Wharf is, a branch of the Womens Institute? Every time you look at that collection of wretched high rise architecture you are looking at corruption stacked high; I’m glad it’s your aspect, not mine.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
they wrecked it with cost cutting, so called time savers like self assessment and online forms plus a disastrous merger with customs.
they even had plans under the last govt to turn large and corporate business inspectors into call centre operative where rather than be inspected business was expected to be nice and honest by ringing up to see if what they were doing was legal.
they have also only been checking up on messy accounts which are usually just lax proceedures whereas the pristine accounts are often the bent ones. reinvestigation is finding that 40% of well dressed returns in small businesses are hiding a lot of extra hidden trading. ie a cafe with a stated turnover of 80k a year which had hidden 500k of extras when they were looked at properly.
if they want more tax they need to increase the staff. if they want more duties they need to set up customs and excise as a seperate entity again. small sections work better than large cumbersome ones, as proven by the nhs debacle or the MOD
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The cases of Amazon, Vodafone & Starbucks have been quite well publicised now, so public awareness is increasing.
Perhaps the government could compile an alternative FTSE100 type league table, whereby companies are ranked according to the proportion of tax they pay relative to their turnover and annual profits.
Perhaps details of executive remuneration and bonuses could be included too? (e.g. % of profits spent on exec salaries & ratio of top salary to lowest/median organisational salary).
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Just read Fact Checks article on benefit rates 2nd Jan 13. It seems the rich have a choice to pay tax while the PAYEd suffer and benefit dependent face horrific cuts in the next few years.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Increasing public awareness about which global company is practicing tax avoidance is UK’s first step towards fighting against it.
Google, Microsoft, Amazon, all these firms have been caught red-handed. I just read an article about the Starbucks case, and they seem to be reviewing their tax approach. Is it just to save their reputation? Here is one interesting review : http://www.cfo-insight.com/reporting-forecasting/tax/starbucks-u-turn-on-tax-may-set-precedent-business-says/
Like or Dislike:
0
0