No hiding place (or fewer)

by admin on February 6, 2007

in General

Stories from Richard Murphy this last few days provide the opportunity for alternative views:

Some Stories Run and Run commenting on Bono’s tax arrangements:

Could it just be that people really do think there’s something seriously wrong with being a do-gooder and then structuring your affairs through a tax haven? Is there in fact a moral conscience on this issue? I think that might just be the case.

I’ve not heard of hypocrisy being debated as a moral construct recently but it’s an interesting idea. Personally, I think the hypocrisy card is a lot easier to play and understand by the man in the street. Whether that leads to moral indignation has yet to be tested. ‘Morality’ as a concept is very difficult position to sustain.

These Banks Should Be Ashamed of Themselves where Richard comments on the recent SC decision to grant a Section 20 notice where there appears to be significant tax at risk. He says:

As for the banks involved: each should be ashamed of two things. The first is that someone somewhere must have had suspicion about these accounts and yet the institutions in question did nothing about them. Second, I think they should be ashamed of the defences put forward for not disclosing.

Commissioner John F. Avery Jones does not find such issues:

I emphasise that no allegation is made against the Financial Institution.

This is either curious or plain wrong. In some cases, HMRC is expecting significant yield – 3 cases, £2.5 million:

In all cases there was both undeclared offshore bank interest and undeclared trading profits…they demonstrate the likely connection between undeclared foreign bank interest and other undeclared profits.

If there are undeclared trading profits then what the heck was going on? Brown envelopes handed over the counter? Full trading activities? Yet the banks are innocent of any involvement? Odd. I rather suspect we’re talking rocks and hard places. If HMRC infers the banks are involved then the FSA will have something to say about compliance. If, as I understand, RBS is involved then it wasn’t so long ago FSA slapped them with a £750K fine under the KYC rules. I wonder if Avery Jones was appraised of this at the time of the hearing. I suspect the banks were not willing to put up too much of a fuss yet had to be seen to defend cusrtomer rights to privacy (as they interpret that right.)

Finally, I consider whether under section 20(7) I am satisfied that in all the circumstances the Inspector is justified in proceeding under section 20. In doing so I must weigh up the burden imposed on the Financial Institution with the benefit to the Revenue.

This is weird. Who the heck cares what it costs the bank to furnish the information? If there’s sufficient tax at stake to make pursuing investigations worthwhile, then make disclosure unconditional.

Closing the Floodgates – TJN Report. This is a polemic. It is well worth the reading effort because for the first time, it tackles the supply side of tax abuse in a compelling manner. There are some weaknesses in the argument. It depends on a definition of ‘corruption’ that embraces commercial activities that while logical is far from universally accepted as appropriate. It also depends on making causal links between crime and tax abuse. That may be true but it is extremely hard to prove except in the possible case of tax evasion.

TJN is tackling huge issues and is to be applauded for its efforts. I do wonder whether some of its thinking could be a little too ambitious and may lead to TJN being stretched thinly.

It is hard to see how many of the abuses currently occurring can be tackled when so many nation states have wildly different tax systems and approaches. And to be perfectly blunt, success will be limited unless the US and UK are jointly prepared to unequivocally signal action on the world stage. That seems highly improbable except on a very limited basis. The US didn’t sign up for the Kyoto agreement. Why should its politicians sign up for anti-avoidance laws that are almost certain to prove unpopular with a super rich and powerful segment of the population. I don’t see it but I await with interest.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Chris - you're sounding terribly pinko in the choice of language (bias accepted) and I'm not sure what your point is.

Education is one thing but practice is quite another matter altogether. And OK - while I accept all talk of reform is political, I thought TJN is non-aligned. It is something TJN may have to consider as it pushes its agenda.

Hi Dennis,

When I did my degree, they told me that my strength was critical analysis. That said, I have read Closing The Floodgates by the Tax Justice Network (TJN), and I have to claim bias here as I undertook a very small part of the research. However, I see this paper as an educational document that can help those who have been led by the dominant discourses of transnational corporations, and I include the big 4 accountancy--audit firms here, in that they have instigated the race-to-the-bottom of corporate and personal income taxes in an unfounded argument to be competitive. This is of course at a cost to the low and middle earners who will be hit with increased indirect taxation.

The TJN tend to think out of the box, which at the time may be percieved as radical, but historically
tends to be the way forward for progressive political debate.

Tweaks and complexity? They're natural bedfellows in the minds of consultants -:)

I agree that it would certainly help to prop up a complex and creaking tax system that is not fit for purpose in the modern global world, and given what they have imposed on us accountants then I have little sympathy for my banking colleagues.

You may be right about the rules tweak, but I suspect it will prove much more complex than that.

There are some subtleties in your first point I had not thought about. International interpretation about what it means to know your customer varies.

My French bank wanted all documents related to the sale of our house before they'd take the money in.

Spain? A quick phone call to ask if I had an explanation for the funds transferred - but didn't want to know what the explanation is.

To the fundamental point - as the institutions receiving and sending funds, they would naturally be considered 1st line defence and therefore burdened pretty much the same as professionals. I appreciate that's a stretch (investments parked here there and everywhere) but you get my drift.

Financial institutions and especially banks, already operate sophisticated anti-fraud and intelligence systems. I see no technical reason why those same algorithms might not be tweaked to assess tax flight risk. Therefore the cost argument (OK - some cost) would evaporate.

It may not be enshrined in law right now but such a reform would be progressive and useful.

but remember that the requirement for banks is to know only who they are dealing with, and to have in place notification systems for suspicious transactions. There is a wider requirement on accountancy professionals.

Also remember that in this case the customers are likely to have a relationship in a different juristiction with a non UK subsidiary - so its not UK regulations that apply - they got stung because they kept the customer data on UK based servers, and the comissioner made a wider interpretation of what is a document.

I agree there are assumptions made and that they're not proven but then I was surprised at the relatively small number of offshore accounts where there was expected to be a collection of tax. HMRC can't test its assumptions without gaining access to the records so on balance, they're making reasonable requests.

As to 'services reasonably entitled to offer' - I thknk this is genuinely problematic. It needs to be contextualised in terms of FSA regulation and in particular KYC. Professionals know how onersou these issues can be so I fail to see why banks are not held accountable to the same standard.

re the section 20 notices (I believe there are 4) it is worth remembering that they have been allowed on the basis that there may be tax avoidance, but it is also accepted that for the majority of people subject to the notice it is likely that there is no tax avoidance. The figures quoted by the inspector are statistical extrapolations based on unproven assumptions, and it is clearly stated that the banks in question are offering services to their customers that they are reasonably entitled to offer. Can't see any shame in that.

Previous post:

Next post: