(This article is republished with permission from Tax Journal – download it as a pdf)

Starting this year large companies operating in the UK are required to publish an annual statement explaining their tax strategy. The new rules apply to UK companies, partnerships and groups with a turnover above £200m or a balance sheet over £2bn. It will also apply to the UK operations of multinationals, where the group is large enough to be covered by the OECD country by country reporting rules (i.e. has a global turnover of more than €750m). Companies will not be required to publish evidence that the strategy is being applied; however, if their returns appear to be inconsistent with what they say in their strategy, this will raise a red flag for HMRC when it reviews risk.

Many of the biggest UK companies already publish something on their approach to tax, as part of their annual report, corporate responsibility or sustainability report, or in a free-standing statement. Nearly two thirds of the FTSE 100 publish something. Declarations range from haikus to epics.

Screen Shot 2017-02-21 at 09.51.27.png

How useful are tax strategy statements?

Marks & Spencer take a boiled down approach at half a page: ‘We take our responsibility to pay our fair share of tax seriously and our approach is in keeping with our long standing values and aligned to our shareholders’ interests.’ Others offer a bit more detail. A few companies, such as Anglo American, SABMiller (now part ofAnheuser-Busch InBev), Unilever and Vodafone, produce epics. Continue reading ‘Publishing Corporate Tax Strategies’

Last week I was at a conference held by Tax Justice Norway, Chr Michelson Institute (CMI) and the Norwegian School of Economics (NHH) in Bergen. The conference was called “Lifting the Veil of Secrecy: Tax Havens, Capital Flows and Developing Countries”. It included academics, legal practitioners and campaigners, and covered a wide ground ranging from illicit financial flows and tax evasion to corporate lobbying on tax issues, to implementation of BEPs, to whether a broader shake up to the balance between ‘source vs residence’ in international taxation is needed.

screen-shot-2016-11-28-at-12-37-09I am grateful to the organisers for inviting me and asking me to give a brief presentation on myths and truths about the scale of resources at stake from multinational taxation in developing countries (here is the short version, and here is a  longer version I presented at CMI the following day). I also wrote a briefing for CMI on illicit flows (‘are we looking under the wrong lamppost?’)

There were many insightful and thought provoking presentations. Thomas Tørsløv presented his elegant paper investigating whether lower income countries are more exposed to multinational tax avoidance than more developed countries. Brooke Harrington gave an intriguing talk about her time as a trainee wealth manager (and I am off to buy the book). Len Seabroke and Duncan Wigan from Copenhagen Business School talked about their must-read study of the tactics of the Tax Justice Network (Beserking, cornering, narrating and templating) and PhD student Rasmus Christensen (otherwise known as @fairskat) presented his study of the movers and shakers in the tax professionals corner (‘Octopuses’ and ‘Arrows’). (and many more – You can download  all the presentations  here as a zip file). Continue reading ‘Tax dialogues: getting beyond ‘too hot’ and ‘too cold’’

Congratulations to James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam (and 17 others) who won their employment tribunal case against Uber last week.

The case concerned whether Uber drivers in the UK are self-employed independent contractors or ‘workers’ for Uber. The tribunal ruled that drivers work for Uber, not the other way round and therefore they are entitled to national minimum wage and paid annual holiday. It has been hailed as a ground-breaking case for testing the boundaries of the app-enabled gig economy.

But are the implications of the case less-than-meets-the-eye? And what kind of regulations needed to protect Uber drivers (and others in the gig economy), while enabling disruptive innovation for sustainable development?

Technology enabled platforms offer hope that that  they can help solve the world’s big problems creating better marketplaces and radically more efficient and accessible services. McKinsey reckon that by 2025 app based talent platforms could add $2.7 trillion to global GDP, while creating millions of new jobs. Uber is just one example, from New York to Kampala, it is seeking to shake up stagnant and inefficient transport systems and provide a better service both to drivers and riders.

But United Private Hire Drivers (UPHD) a trade body co-founded by Farrar and Aslam, and Networked Rights say that Uber’s business model is not so innovative, but actually works through old-fashioned exploitation; pushing risks onto the least powerful players in the supply chain and forcing (or tricking) them to operate below-cost.

Continue reading ‘Uber, London: smart apps demand smart regulation’

screen-shot-2016-10-21-at-13-17-02This article appeared in Tax Journal on 13 October 2016 and is reproduced with permission. (Available as a pdf)

The art of estimating the scale of tax avoidance involves tentative extrapolations, careful assumptions and caveats. The data available is patchy, calculations are educated guestimates, and studies must first deal with the problem that the term ‘avoidance’ itself means different things to different people. Continue reading ‘Making sense of the cost of tax avoidance’

Report Cover

I was excited to hear last year that ICAI (the UK’s Independent Commission for Aid Impact) was embarking on a Learning Review of DFID’s programme of work on international tax avoidance and evasion. It is a small programme (according to the report around £3 million a year, and three advisors who participate in international committees) which runs alongside DFID’s much larger in-country tax work. But if there is an area of development that would benefit from a careful analysis by an independent organisation this is it.

The problem is this isn’t it. The report released this week raises some important issues and makes high level recommendations about joined-up action which are fair enough, if a bit general: DFID should draw on learning from its in-country work, it should collaborate with other departments on tax capacity building, it should set explicit objectives and it should identify where UK tax policies impact on the priority concerns of developing countries.

However while calling for coherence, ICAI’s substantive criticisms of DFID’s approach are a mass of contradictions, and though everyone will find something interesting and something they agree with in this report, the analysis is superficial. It only goes as far as aggregating differing feedback from its soundings, rather than developing a single coherent analysis about donors’ roles on this issue and DFID’s performance. Continue reading ‘ICAI’s Learning Review of DFID’s approach to tax is disappointing’

A couple of weeks ago UNCTAD published a study on illicit financial flows through trade misinvoicing which they said “revealed staggering revenue losses to developing countries”. It made the extraordinary claim that “virtually all gold exported by South Africa leaves the country unreported” and suggested this was explained by  massive smuggling. The South African authorities took these claims seriously and responded robustly. [I wrote about the study here and have tracked the responses to it here].

Yesterday they published a further statement ‘UNCTAD welcomes discussion, transparency on commodities and misinvoicing’. It is disappointing, as it simply repeats the basic misunderstanding which led to the wild claims (‘mismatches in the trade data = ‘misinvoicing’), while adding new layers of confusion. It is also a bit odd, as it does not acknowledge the responses to their central claim on South African gold -by the South African Revenue Service, the South African Statistician General or the Chamber of Mines.

The statement is quite long, and so this blog post is too, but it is worth being clear on this stuff. The text in red is UNCTAD’s statement. Continue reading ‘Trade misinvoicing: UNCTAD is still confused’

[Updated on August 2nd and 3rd, and 16th  and December 27th and August 21 2017 – updates at the bottom]

This is a running update post following my post of July 20th 2016: Misinvoicing or Misunderstanding? . I will keep updating it.

The story so far

On July 16 2016 UNCTAD published a study on Trade Misinvoicing in Primary Commodities in Developing Countries with the headline “Some developing countries are losing 67% of commodity exports to misinvoicing”.

The study by Professor  Léonce Ndikumana, a leading expert on capital flight from Africa, looked at mismatches in the data from the UN COMTRADE database on exports of commodities such as cocoa, copper, gold, and oil from Chile, Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, South Africa, and Zambia. It was presented as revealing “staggering revenue losses to developing countries from commodity trade mispricing”, including  the explosive claim that between 2000 and 2014, $78.2 billion of gold – or 67% of overall gold exports were ‘misinvoiced’ (i.e. smuggled) out of  South Africa, and other claims such as that Zambian copper exported to Switzerland was going missing.

UNCTAD gave the study a lot of weight Dr.Mukhisa Kituyi Secretary General of UNCTAD said “This research provides new detail on the magnitude of this issue, made even worse by the fact that some developing countries depend on just a handful of commodities for their health and education budgets. Importing countries and companies, which want to protect their reputations, should get ahead of the transparency game and partner with us to further research these issues”. It was also highlighted by Deputy Secretary General Joakim Reiter in the closing statement to UNCTAD’s Global Commodities Forum.  Continue reading ‘The Great Gold Heist That Never Was’