Fire and brimstone
September 26, 2005
Simon Sweetham has sparked a furious outpouring about the appointment of KPMG by HMRC to review the administrative burden faced by small business taxation. At a cost to all of us of £6 million. Here’s some of the debate:
Simon opines: "But deep down it bothers me that the people doing this work are KPMG,
and that they are trousering over £6 million in the process. KPMG know
lots and lots about business – big business – and they know lots and
lots about clever tax avoidance: but do they know anything about small
business? Do they really know what the real problems are, and can they
measure the very important stress factors which don’t obviously show up
on the balance sheet ?"Alastair Harris adds: "Any firm of accoutants earns substantial fee income from the tax system
- sounds like a significant conflict of interest? Surely this would be
better placed with an independent academic institution?"Richard Murphy chips in with: "Candidly it sickens me that a contract of this sort goes to a firm
whose American division has just been fined $456 million dollars to
avoid criminal prosecution over abusive tax shelters, with eight of its
former partners were indicted and with the firm needing an independent
monitor….KPMG London will be saying this has nothing to do with them. But that’s nonsense, as we all know…KPMG should be barred from all public contracts until they can prove they have mended their ways."
I’ve suggested an alternative approach. Bypass KPMG. Prove government wrong to be wasting money when this can be approached differently. Use the collective power of the 15,000+ firms in the UK to canvass and represent client opinion. It can be done very quickly, cheaply and effectively. Present those findings to both government and press. There are ways to do that. Don’t make this a single purpose campaign but as a springboard for the voice of the silent majority who would welcome change where that change benefits everyone.
