PwC's strange vision of tax and cost

by admin on December 1, 2007

in Featured,General,Tax and Ethics

Pwctax

Richard Murphy argues that PwC makes a “fundamental accounting flaw inherent within” its Total Tax Contribution report. Richard says in relation to the diagram reproduced below:

Seen the problem yet? It’s this: the total tax rate is expressed as a percentage of profit.

Richard is correct but I believe it is much worse than he suggests. PwC’s argument isn’t only flawed, it is thoroughly misleading. Here’s why:

PwC is making a fundamental assumption that profit taxes are a cost of doing business. They are not. This has been argued before. Take a look at this non-sensical diagram for example:

Pwctax2

Labour and other taxes are often tied to locally incurred costs. Labour rates for example in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are a fraction of those in OECD-High income countries. Therefore, the impact of taxes related to labour alone are a fraction of those incurred in other territories. That’s why there’s a rush to outsource to the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries. Two weeks ago, a person I met who operates throughout Asia who said that labour arbitrage is such a huge differentiator that wage inflation of 25-30% hardly represents a blip compared to the charged out rates applied back in the West.

Lumping percentages together in this way conveys a thoroughly skewed picture which, on face value, would discourage anyone from doing business in the BRIC countries. More to the point, does PwC think we’re all idiots? A year 1 CIMA student could work out just how appallingly illogical this argument really is. Or as Richard put it:

It’s illiterate in accounting terms…It’s flawed in economic terms. It’s biased. And it fails to consider the impact of its findings. Apart from that, it’s a profound waste of the World Bank’s money.

The sadness in all this is that well meaning people are being hood winked by consulting brands that are intellectually bankrupt and thoroughly discredited in the wider context of CSR. But it matters not to them. When you’re painting a picture of this kind, it is so much easier to sell GRC services tied to falsehoods around CSR. Especially if you can make the seductive, if entirely false claim that business tax is a cost of doing business.

One more nail in the profession’s reputational coffin.

Technorati Tags: , ,

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

Dennis, breaking the p&l like that is treading on dangerous ground. Dividends, taxes and employment costs ( and you might split out directors remuneration) are stakeholder costs - why is one more important than any of the others? Extraordinary items are unfortunately no more, and once you get into revaluation reserves you go beyond most people's ability to understand accounts, and that is before IFRS takes control!

I'm not claiming support with the PWC report - to be honest I have no interest in such meaningless drivel. I wonder how many do?

But I still don't understand the distinction you are making - from either an accounting or economic perspective.

@alastair - It's not a question of like or dislike. I take a particular ethical stand on these issues for reasons of conscience and others are free to disagree.

I doubt as you or I are going to agree but it's worth stating anyway - profits tax is not a cost of doing business but a charge that is levied as the result of doing business. It is a calculated charge that arises outside the P&L as you well know.

Even if you don't like that argument, the way PwC has 'totted' up is flawed on multiple levels. That should be enough to give pause for thought.

There are many debits to P&L that are nothing to do with the cost of doing business. Dividends for one, extraordinary items, prior year adjustments, valuation and revaluation reserve provisions. There is an ever expanding list. We now have such magical measures as EBITA or EBITDA.

I guess you don't like this then!

Not sure I understand your point about profit taxes not being a cost to business. In accounting terms they are an explicit debit to the p&l - so what else would you call that other than cost. I think perhaps you are making the mistake of equating the business with its owners?

Previous post:

Next post: