MPs get action on avoidance

Kashflow logo
John Stokdyk
Share this content

The Treasury announcement on Monday adds less than 10% to the £917m already committed to anti-avoidance during the current spending review, but immediately followed the latest tirade from PAC chair Margaret Hodge in her continuing moral crusade against tax avoidance.

The hook for her latest intervention was the committee’s report on HMRC’s annual accounts for 2011-12, which included stinging criticisms for multinationals that exploited tax rules to minimise their UK corporation tax bills and HMRC for allowing them to do so unchallenged.

After listening to “unconvincing” and in some cases “evasive” evidence from Amazon, Google and Starbucks at a recent hearing, Hodge commented:“The inescapable conclusion is that multinationals are using structures and exploiting current tax legislation to move offshore profits that are clearly generated from economic activity in the UK.”

In her view, both HMRC and corporate taxpayers were failing to meet legitimate public expectations from the tax system.

“HMRC should be challenging this but its response so far to these big businesses and their aggressive tax planning has lacked determination and looks way too lenient. Policing the tax system must be at the heart of what HMRC does,” Hodge said.

The thought that huge global organisations generating significant profits in the UK were getting away with paying little or no corporation tax  was “outrageous” and “an insult to British businesses and individuals who pay their fair share" she added.

Please Login or Register to read the full article

The full article is available to registered members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register. Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.


Please login or register to join the discussion.

03rd Dec 2012 16:17

Family feud?

I do hope that the relatives of Ms Hodge, who are currently running a tax efficient family business, are grateful for her input.

Thanks (0)
03rd Dec 2012 18:33

I wonder...

....if Danny Alexander could be convinced that maybe half the £77M might be better spent asking AccWeb to do the work in finding and rectifying the tax avoidance, I'm not sure if HMRC are up to it?

It would be a great way for me to work my way to retirement and I'd feel good that, at last, after all these years I had done something to help the country.

Thanks (0)
04th Dec 2012 12:35


Why doesn't Osborne put a few million in the direction of the OTS and let them get on with what they were tasked.



Thanks (0)
04th Dec 2012 12:38

Whatever tax they

agree to pay will only come from thier employees. Less earnings for emplyees less tax take to make up the bit of corp tax they will have to pay.

HMRC then turn round and say "didn't we do a good job" Utter shambles.

Thanks (0)
05th Dec 2012 09:13

Lest we forget...

Margaret Hodge MP, the honourable member for Stemcor should not forget family trusts, such as the one where the profits from tax avoidance by Stemcor (the company set-up by her late father) are distributed.

Although I suspect she is following the old maxim "Do as I say, not as I do" in her hypocritical moral tirade.

Thanks (0)
05th Dec 2012 11:50

Where does the immorality begin?

I work from home, so I take my Home as Office allowance & reduce my CT. Admitedly, in some respects it costs me more to work here but I save in other ways. However, I deliberately chose this set-up in tax planning. This is just about the thinnest end of the wedge on Tax Avoidance I can think of. Is this immoral? I don't think so. So where does the immorality start?

Government sets the rules on what constitutes Tax Evasion. EVASION is where the immorality starts in my opinion. So if the Government think that Companies and individuals are acting immorally but legally, surely they should be blaming themselves as to the poor quality of legislation they have passed?

Or have I lost the plot, thinking that politicians would be prepared to say Mea Culpa and spend that £77m on plugging the loop-holes?

Thanks (0)
05th Dec 2012 11:52

Can we possibly address the issues?

I love the right wing thing of let's ignore the ball and play the man (woman in this case). As long as anyone in the Labour party and their extended family are not whiter than white, corporations should not have to pay tax. Am I understanding you correctly, Frustrated and Thorny Issues?

Thanks (0)
to HeavyMetalMike
05th Dec 2012 12:29

Not really...

J Lessels wrote:
I love the right wing thing of let's ignore the ball and play the man (woman in this case). As long as anyone in the Labour party and their extended family are not whiter than white, corporations should not have to pay tax. Am I understanding you correctly, Frustrated and Thorny Issues?

I was more interested in "playing the ball" of this being a typical example of political hypocrisy.

Amazon, Google, Starbucks AND Stemcor are all following the letter of UK tax law and correctly applying the terms of international tax treaties determined by UK governments past and present and enforced by HMRC.

Any avoidance measures taken by those companies (and many others) to reduce their tax bills without breaking the law are understandable as those companies have a responsibility to obey the tax law and also for many US companies a fiduciary duty to maximize returns to investors in so doing.

The recent moral outrage that it is easier for an international company to avoid tax than a purely domestic company (through transfer pricing and other games), should be firmly placed back in the lap of the politicians.

They and their civil service minions have written the many thousands of pages of the UK tax code and agreed and signed the EU Single Market treaties which these companies are following.

The reason I find the MP for Stemcor's moral outrage distasteful is that she and her parliamentary colleagues are both the cause of this problem and its only real solution.

They are too lazy and gutless to strip down the UK tax code to a reasonable, workable and irreducible minimum, which would substantially reduce UK tax avoidance.

They are too cowardly to face down the EU & European Courts to stop transfer pricing and similar scams which enable this avoidance.

If MP's had any ethical substance at all then they would be acting, not egotistical grandstanding.

Thanks (2)
By markfd
05th Dec 2012 13:37

You couldn't make it up...

...the execrable Hodge, principal previous claim to fame of covering up child abuse on her watch, hypocritically wants international businesses to pay more tax but not her own one.

Plus Starbucks has franchisees in the UK, presumably these are paying the same rates for IP and coffee etc. as the connected parties thus any TP enquiry would be pointless.  Other businesses are just setting up as the EU permits and has permitted for a long period of time.

Inevitable consequence = more bully boy HMRC tactics on small businesses, closing some perfectly compliant ones down.  Why would anyone set up a small business in the UK at the moment?  I wouldn't.

The LibCon imbeciles really are continuing Gordon Brown's scorched earth policy towards the UK economy. 

Thanks (0)