The Paradise Papers have revealed secret boltholes for many firms and individuals around the world, from sportsmen and the Queen to giants like Apple. But what are people’s thoughts on tax avoidance, which is very different from the illicit tax evasion? Tax avoidance has a large range of angles to consider, from investment to the moral dilemma of national tax, the spirit of the law, and of course financial protection.
Below Finance Monthly hears Your Thoughts on tax avoidance and offshore tax law loopholes, referencing the latest leaks and the information found therein, with experts from all round, covering various sectors.
Simon Browning, Partner, UHY Hacker Young:
The net is continuing to close in on a variety of tax planning and more information from the Paradise Papers will no doubt fuel HMRC’s efforts of collecting the tax gap.
In my opinion, there are two types of taxpayers who are getting caught up in the headline of ‘tax avoidance’:
- “Those who have little awareness or understanding of the tax plans they have entered into through their advisors, although ignorance should not be a defence, of course; and
- “Those who have knowingly relied upon tax planning that may have fallen within the letter of the law but perhaps not the spirit of it.
We are seeing many more arguments in the press about the moral position of taxpayers and it is clear the landscape has changed over the past five years or so, with tax avoidance appearing to be as abhorrent as tax evasion.
However, it is the courts that decide on tax matters and not the press, so we need to be careful not to tar everyone with the same brush and to allow informed decisions to be made through the correct channels.
The continuing change in landscape makes it very difficult for taxpayers and advisers to know where the line now is between acceptable tax planning and abusive avoidance.
It will be very interesting to see how HMRC and international tax authorities deal with the information from the Paradise Papers and whether they can successfully filter their way through commercial tax saving arrangements as compared to abuse of apparent loopholes.
Karl Pemberton, Managing Director, Active Chartered Financial Planners:
First and foremost, we must stress that we’re not ‘tax advisers’, albeit we do have a remit to consider taxation when advising clients on their investments.
The issue for us here is morality, as Tax Avoidance (or mitigation) is not illegal. Every client that invests within an ISA does so for the taxable benefits it brings. Similarly, so does a pension. If the tax breaks were not there, I doubt people would use them as they do. Investing offshore has always been a legitimate way of investing too, however some of the more complex schemes raised of late raises a question of morality, rather than legality.
I believe it’s the amounts involved that make it feel immoral to the majority of the general public. If, for example, we see someone who is taking home a large pay packet not paying the tax man the ‘fair’ amount, it makes people feel angry, as they’re already winning the lottery, as it were. The problem is, if it’s immoral to ‘legally avoid tax’ at all, the amounts should be irrelevant. This issue of morality, therefore, makes it impossible to police, as everyone has differing views.
If we’re saying that ‘avoiding tax’ at any level is wrong, then that should also mean the end to ISAs, pensions, and every accountancy business in the country, as this is their purpose in the end. It would become an absolute minefield.
Miles Dean, Managing Partner, Milestone International Tax:
It would be very surprising if the affairs of those individuals concerned were illegal or nefarious. It is the theft of the papers that is illegal.
Some of the documents relate to matters 75 years ago when the world was a very different place. Recent developments have made a significant impact on the use of tax havens, namely the common reporting standard (CRS) and FATCA. Both FATCA and CRS are automatic exchange of information protocols that mean privacy is no longer what it used to be.
Just because an individual makes an investment that is based offshore does not mean that they have done anything wrong – if they fail to disclose it (and the return they make) on their tax return then that’s tax evasion. But to make the quantum leap and suggest that everyone from the Queen to Bono is dodging tax because some of their investments are made via Bermuda, Cayman or Malta is stupidity on a grand scale.
Regarding Lord Ashcroft, if he is non-UK domiciled then he will benefit from the remittance basis of taxation. The fact that he took steps to mitigate his UK liability (legally) is a matter for him and his conscience, not the media.
The comments this morning by Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell are wide of the mark – imposing a withholding tax on dividends will not stop tax abuse - it would simply make the UK less competitive as a jurisdiction for large multinationals, at a time when we need to be more competitive than ever.
John McDonnell’s comments illustrate just how magnificently out of touch he is with reality. A worrying thought given he’s likely to be our next Chancellor.
Dr Daniel Cash, Lecturer in Law, Aston University:
Offshore investing, in very general terms and in order to provide a realism check, is legal. The ability to invest one’s funds offshore, traditionally in a small jurisdiction that does not have the most sophisticated regulatory structure, is noted as being a viable and useful investment strategy for a number of reasons. Whether it is to diversify one’s exposure to risk, to protect one’s assets from political variabilities (like war or political instability, for example), or to protect against market volatility, there are a number of benefits to investing offshore. However, ‘investing offshore’ masks a number of variances which really should be revealed: offshore investing may relate to an investment fund being ‘domiciled’ abroad, which is legal, but offshore investing is sometimes cited when people attempt to remove their income from tax authorities, which is not legal. Whilst some who are caught in the crosshairs of this latest scandals have not, necessarily, been accused of operating illegally, it is really the close connection between the business and political elite and these tax-avoiding schemes which is causing the scandal to have such an impact. Whilst allegations of illegality will likely be forthcoming, at the moment the focus is on both a. proximity between the scheme and the elite, and also b. the issue of declaration, as witnessed by the story enveloping Lord Ashcroft at the moment. Yet, the proximity-issue points to a much larger issue, and one which, rather regrettably, is difficult to paint in a positive manner.
The former British Prime Minister, David Cameron, once opined that tax avoidance – in relation to the comedian Jimmy Carr being outed as using an aggressive tax-avoidance scheme – is ‘morally wrong’, with his successor, Theresa May, vowing to combat tax-avoidance almost immediately after taking office. However, the first point to note is that it will be incredibly interesting to hear Theresa May’s responses to this latest leak, one which puts some of her Party’s most revered figures in the centre of the scandal (one doubts she will be as forthcoming this time). The second point is more abstract; the absolutely incredible amount of people and corporations caught up in this scandal can only tell us one thing: tax avoidance, or at least doing everything possible to reduce one’s tax burden, is inherent within society (particularly, rather obviously, for those with large reserves of funds). This should not really be revelatory, but the response to the Paradise Papers suggests that maybe it is. This latest instance of proof that influential people systematically ‘game the system’, should be the spark that initiates deep-rooted reform of the market-centred society we live in, but one should be able to realise how fanciful that thought is when looking at the impact of the Panama Papers; that is quite a way to end on the back of what, to all intents and purposes, should have been an era-defining revelation in its own right, but now represents par-for-the-course.
Nigar Hashimzade, PhD. Professor of Economics, Durham University Business School:
The recently leaked documents yet again brought to light offshore investments by firms and individuals, many of whom are politicians and celebrities. Most of the tax-reducing arrangements mentioned in these documents, however, are perfectly legal. Among many questions this may raise, two are “Is investing abroad a bad thing?” and “Do tax laws favour the rich? “
Investment in global financial markets is similar to global trade. Both remove territorial constraints to economic activities and bring benefits. Investing abroad should be thus no more objectionable than buying imported cars or imported vegetables. However, offshore opportunities are not available to the majority of taxpayers, - typically, they are for very large investments, - so the issue here is the underlying inequality of opportunities, rather than an evil nature of global markets.
According to the official statistics, in 2017/18 tax year the top one percent of UK taxpayers earned 12% of the total pre-tax income and paid 27.7% of the total income tax revenue. The bottom fifty percent earned 25.3% of total pre-tax income and contributed 9.7% of the total income tax revenues. In 1999-2000 these numbers were 11% and 21.3% for the top one percent, and for the bottom fifty percent they were 23.8% and 11.6%, respectively. This reflects growing progressivity of the UK personal income tax, which also appears to have outpaced the growth in income gap.
The pattern is even stronger in the United States. There, in 2014 the top one percent of taxpayers earned 20.58% of total income and paid 39.48% of all income taxes. The bottom fifty percent earned 11.27% of total income and contributed 2.75% of all income taxes. For each dollar earned, the top one percent taxpayers paid 27.1 cents in tax, whereas the taxpayers in the bottom fifty percent paid 3.5 cents, - a more than seven-fold difference.
Thus, a highly progressive income tax system in the UK and in the US leads to the highest burden of income tax falling on the richest taxpayers. What these numbers also tell us is that the income distribution in both countries is highly unequal. This is why rich taxpayers have opportunities unavailable to many, - in particular, they can afford incurring high costs of offshore investments that give them higher net returns. The task for the governments is to address the roots of inequality, and this goes far beyond changes in the tax law.
We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!
Grandstanding politicians are misinformed, hypocritical and “demonstrate monumental naivety” on the Paradise Papers debate, affirms the boss of one of the world’s largest independent financial services organisations.
The comments from Nigel Green, the Founder and CEO of deVere Group, come as the British leader of the opposition party, Corbyn, and the veteran US Senator and former presidential hopeful, Sanders, amongst others, speak out publicly in the wake of the leak of more than 13.4 million documents, dubbed the Paradise Papers.
Nigel Green explains: “The heightened level of sensationalism is out of control, masking the reality of the situation, and is being fuelled by misinformed, politicians out to score cynical political points.
“Corbyn implies the Queen, rock stars, and multinational firms, amongst others, must apologise for benefitting from legal, tax-efficient schemes. Meanwhile, Sanders maintains that money in offshore accounts illustrates the movement towards an ‘international oligarchy’.
“This hyperbole is unhelpful, misleading and demonstrates their monumental naivety.
“It’s time to set the record straight.”
He continues: “The murky world that these and other politicians and others are inaccurately describing is not one that I recognise.
“In the vast majority of international financial centres are now transparent and appropriately regulated. They provide a sought-after service for individuals – and not just the uber rich ones– and organisations across the globe.
“Indeed, they are an important, legitimate and beneficial cog in the global economy.”
Mr Green goes on to say: “Internationally-mobile individuals and firms typically find that offshore accounts are a sensible option because of their convenience. They offer centralised, safe, flexible and worldwide access to their funds no matter where they live and no matter to which country the person or firm might relocate in the future. Also, they provide a greater selection of multi-currency savings and investment options.
“Other, often ignored, benefits also include that they can assist firms from to avoid double taxation on the same income, and that they offer legitimate financial refuge for those in countries where there is economic, social and political turmoil.”
Mr Green adds: “For high-profile politicians to complain - and to take the moral high ground – on this, when it is they who have the powers to change tax laws and regimes, smacks of political opportunism and hypocrisy.
“The notion that the majority of individuals and firms in these allegations are ‘getting away’ with mitigating their taxes liabilities legally is absurd. It is akin to someone ‘getting away’ with driving at 50mph in a 50mph zone.”
“Tax is a legal impost and it is individuals and corporations duty to comply within the laws and organise their financial affairs in order to pay what they are required legally.”
The deVere CEO concludes: “Whilst the ‘Paradise Papers’ do indeed highlight that more needs to be done to increase efficiency and cooperation in some regards and jurisdictions, the current furore is distracting attention and resources away from the serious global issue of tax evasion.”
(Source: deVere Group)
HMRC has come under intense pressure to show it can be tough on tax evasion. Here are 10 ways, some high-tech, some very traditional, that HMRC can use to check if you are cheating.
Canada’s Budget 2017 has given voice to a number of matters, but among the chaos of themes and numbers, it can be hard to keep track of the big picture. Here Joy Thomas, MBA, FCPA, FCMA, C. Dir. President and CEO of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, talks to Finance Monthly about the uncertainty surrounding this year’s budget aims and tailors an overview for our readers.
Budget 2017 aims Canada toward economic renewal but does not offer a firm timetable for bringing an end to annual deficits.
The current budget plan would see the deficit peak at $28.5 billion in fiscal 2017-2018 and drop to $18.8 billion in fiscal 2021-2022.
But the deficit reduction plan stops there. Setting a target date for a return to balanced budgets would have helped guide the government in its financial planning going forward. Knowing the ultimate destination would help promote business confidence, ensure funding for essential programs, and ease the impact on future generations.
Sustaining Prosperity
Of course, sustaining a prosperous economy needs more than strong fiscal management. The budget outlines several measures to help Canadians, their families and their businesses flourish. There are investments in training, innovation and infrastructure and a recognition of the importance of lifelong learning and youth employment.
Additional support is offered to help Canada’s workforce remain competitive amid automation and technological change. CPA Canada supports the government’s focus to address how Canadians deal with the effects of these broad economic forces. Canada’s future prosperity will be directly linked to the competitiveness of its workforce.
Fighting Tax Evasion
On the tax compliance side, the budget builds on earlier announced efforts to combat tax evasion and to improve compliance. An additional $523.9 million is being invested over five years to support the Canada Revenue Agency’s crackdown on tax cheats. The CRA will use the funds to increase its verification work, improve investigations targeting criminal tax evaders, and beef up its business intelligence infrastructure and risk assessment systems.
The CRA also will hire more auditors and specialists to focus on the underground economy, a widespread problem that cost the Canadian economy some $45.6 billion in 2013, according to Statistics Canada. CPA Canada works to help the government address under-the-table dealings through our representation on the Minister of National Revenue’s Underground Economy Advisory Committee.
Altogether these measures are expected to raise an extra $2.5 billion in tax revenues over five years, for an estimated return on investment of five to one.
The government reiterated its commitment to work with international partners to ensure a coherent and consistent response to fight tax evasion. CPA Canada is dedicated to supporting the government in this effort. The government’s commitment to strengthening compliance reinforces Canada’s determination to protect the public interest.
The budget also notes that the federal government will work with the provinces to implement strong standards for corporate and beneficial ownership transparency to provide safeguards against money laundering, terrorist financing, tax evasion and tax avoidance.
Tax System Review is Long Overdue
Several budget measures resulted from a review announced in 2016 of federal tax expenditures, which the new fiscal blueprint suggests will continue. For efficiency and simplicity, this budget streamlines some personal tax credits and cuts a handful of others. Tax incentives for scientific research and experimental development will be reviewed as part of a broader review of government support for innovation.
Tax preferences for private corporations will be studied further, with a white paper promised in the coming months. The government is concerned that strategies involving private corporations are being used to inappropriately reduce the personal taxes of high-income earners. These strategies include using private companies to split income among family members and to convert investment income to lower-taxed capital gains.
At the same time, the government plans to examine whether aspects of the current taxation of private corporations adversely affect genuine business transactions involving family members. Presumably this includes tax measures that impede transfers of family businesses from one generation to the next. This will be especially important in the coming years given the high number of businesses changing hands as the Baby Boomers retire.
These limited assessments are a positive step forward but a more comprehensive review is what Canada truly needs. An extensive review can identify areas that would help in redesigning the tax system so it not only enhances efficiencies for Canadians and the business community but also plays a role in cultivating long-term, sustainable economic and social growth. This represents the Canadian ideal of good business – an equitable system that focuses on both business and social development in creating a stronger Canada.
Adapting to Climate Change
Budget 2017 includes a range of measures addressing climate change adaptation, from managing health risks to increasing resources for First Nations and Inuit communities to assessing risks to federal transportation infrastructure. Among these measures, the budget devotes $2 billion for a Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund that will support the infrastructure Canada needs to deal with the changing climate’s impacts.
What’s missing, however, is a National Adaptation Plan that would coordinate these and other public and private sector initiatives. CPA Canada has urged the government to develop such a plan in consultation with Canadian businesses.
It’s Time for Action
With the current economic uncertainty south of the border, some suggest the government should take a “wait-and-see” approach. I disagree. We cannot afford to have the federal government become paralyzed in its decision making. Successful Canadian businesses must always navigate change. So too must the Canadian government, with a continued focus on strategies and measures that ensure Canada remains competitive and is able to attract and retain top talent.
