X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

MPs criticise ‘voluntary’ tax arrangements for Starbucks and other big companies

3 December 2012

9:01 AM

3 December 2012

9:01 AM

Danny Alexander might be glad that a PR panic before the Public Accounts Committee published its report into HMRC and the ability of multinational companies to avoid paying their share of corporation tax means he could be able to visit a Starbucks again in the near future. But his remarks on Radio 4 this morning show what a mess our tax system has got into. As PAC chair Margaret Hodge observed on Radio 5Live, there is now ‘a danger that corporation tax is becoming a voluntary tax’, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s remarks did little to diminish that impression. Alexander said:

‘I think what I’d say is, look, if any company wants to come to see HMRC to say we think we might be paying too little tax and we want to pay a little bit more and we think we owe a little bit more within the law, then of course, that is a good thing, but there are millions of small companies up and down this country who pay the proper amount of tax, day in, day out, who think like I do, that at a time of economic pressure, that at a time of austerity, it is vitally important that everyone pays the right amount of tax, because to be honest, if everyone else paid the right amount of tax, then everyone else could pay a little bit less.’

This all sounds very cosy, doesn’t it? That if a finance director of a multi-national company suddenly has a burst of altruism, they can pop along to HMRC, and, over a latte, they can discuss paying a bit more money to the exchequer. Starbucks’ announcement at the weekend was simply that it was going to hold meetings with HMRC about the level of tax it was paying currently. But tax doesn’t work like the National Blood Service, relying on the goodwill of generous volunteers, and it shouldn’t feel voluntary for a company to pay its full share of tax. Neither should it rely on the moral fury of Starbucks customers boycotting the chain’s gingerbread lattes, or Margaret Hodge turning off her Kindle in protest at Amazon’s tax arrangements.

[Alt-Text]


And this is why the PAC’s report was as scathing about the way HMRC functions as it was about the way companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Google manage their affairs. The MPs believed it was ‘unclear whether HMRC has the necessary resources or are devoting the time and effort to collect the appropriate level of tax’. The report added:

‘HMRC needs a change in mindset in the way it approaches collecting tax from multinationals. At the moment there is a pervasive acceptance of the status quo by the top officials in HMRC and we have seen little evidence of a desire to be more assertive. For example, it is perplexing that, on transfer pricing HMRC consider a royalty fee of 6 per cent or 4.7 per cent can be competitive when the company involved consistently makes a loss. We expect HMRC to prosecute multinational companies who do not pay the tax due in the UK.’

The evidence that HMRC gave to the committee was not, as Coffee House reported at the time, particularly impressive. The report said ‘HMRC were unconvincingly positive’ and the department was ‘too passive in its approach’ to the Tax Gap – the difference between the amount of money the department believes it is owed and the amount that is actually collected.

Alexander did also say the government plans to ‘put more resources at the disposal of HMRC to make sure that they have the ability to get under the skin of what it is that companies and rich individuals too are doing in the tax system’. There is also a stated determination by the government to push G20 members to work together to tackle the profit-shifting activities of multi-national companies. But, like the Jimmy Carr case, reports like this will also add to the case advanced by tax campaigners that there needs to be a simplified tax system in the UK so that big companies can’t wield the might of what John Humphrys called ‘fancy accountants’ to avoid paying their share.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close