Tax Avoidance

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I welcome the Front-Bench speakers to the debate. I have a high degree of respect for them both and I hope that between us, in this relatively informal environment, we can start the ball rolling on what is a serious topic for this Parliament: tax avoidance.

Let me put the Minister at ease by saying that I am not going to discuss the capital gains tax proposal or any of the media coverage of it. It is a key aspect of the coalition agreement. All I will say is that the thrust for change comes from the desire to close a loophole that allows for tax avoidance, where people receive economic rewards as capital rather than income so as to avoid higher rates of taxation. Obviously, that is a move for the privileged few that potentially costs the Exchequer millions. Recently, there have been both decent and some dodgy arguments in the media about the mooted capital gains tax proposals. I am prepared to acknowledge that a number of sensible points have been made apropos the need to encourage long-term investment rather than short-term gain, and the need to privilege savers above speculators. There has been much learned discussion about tapers, capital relief and so on. I remain fairly sanguine about the matter and will leave the Minister to his pre-Budget deliberations—provided that, within the coalition, we do not lose the essential goal of successfully attacking tax-avoiding abuse.

Tackling tax avoidance is important to the coalition, particularly in the present circumstances. If the central problem of this Parliament is reducing the structural deficit, there are essentially not two but three ways to help to do that: we can cut spending, which none of us wants to do unless necessary; we can increase taxation, which none of us wants to do unless necessary; or we can ensure that tax revenues are more often and more efficiently collected and not avoided, which all of us would be perfectly happy to do were it the panacea for all our ills. Unfortunately, in the present circumstances, it is not.

If the coalition is not ruthless in its pursuit of avoidance and evasion, now more than ever, we will stand accused of harming or at least being indifferent to the industrious and needy, to the advantage of the devious and the privileged few. That is scarcely fair or in line with the themes announced by the coalition of fair taxation and fair reward. So far in the history of this Parliament, little has been said by the Government about tax avoidance. I understand that the Minister has answered a few questions, both oral and written, but by and large he has given answers that I would describe as holding answers that refresh the position that we understand to be in place—that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does not take lightly the matter of tax avoidance and there is a big gap to be plugged. There is a big gap, because potentially large sums are to be obtained by a clampdown. The Treasury estimates the tax gap of tax avoided or evaded to be about £40 billion. The Tax Justice Network—not uninformed people—gives a figure of £120 billion. The truth is probably that we do not know the precise figure, and perhaps we should split the difference.

The reality is that we have made some progress in getting large sums back to the Exchequer as a result of a serious attack on tax avoidance. That is to the credit of Ministers in the previous Government, who recognised that a serious attack was necessary. The figures for 2008-09 provided by the Treasury suggest that about £12 billion of extra revenue was collected because of the forthright approach taken to tax avoidance. The figure expected for 2010-11—the Minister will be able to tell us whether we get anywhere near it—is a whopping £16 billion. Those are significant sums.

A distinction is often drawn between avoidance and evasion. I do not want to trespass into the area of evasion, as that is a different issue, although at times it is quite difficult to define the difference. Somebody said that the only real difference or line between evasion and avoidance is the thickness of a prison wall.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Or an accountant.

[Dr Pugh]

It is a different sort of accounting, let us put it like that. Evasion characteristically involves not only non-compliance, but a breach of tax law and often an element of downright and explicit dishonesty. However, in truth, some forms of avoidance are almost equally morally reprehensible if looked at from an ethical point of view rather than a technical or legal one. We think of past abuses of charity law, which people have explicitly used to make a fast buck with no real benefit to charity, thereby bringing the whole business of charity law into disrepute. We think of a genuine unwillingness on the part of some members of society to pay towards the maintenance of the society that enables them to thrive—the free-rider mentality that is found in certain sections of society and business.

On the other side, we must recognise that we are talking about an industry that does not hang its head in shame. It is staffed by clever and well rewarded people who are dedicated to not what they would call tax avoidance—although it is that in a sense—but, to give it another name, tax planning. As tax law becomes more sophisticated, the economic instruments with which tax planning is arranged become ever more complex and, because of the global reach of the economy these days, ever more global.

The demands for such services are huge and appreciable. There are some well rewarded people in the City whose life is almost entirely dedicated to some form of tax avoidance or tax planning—whatever they want to call it—which they regard as an entirely legitimate enterprise. One should not be too pompous about this. Few people volunteer to pay more tax than is due, or avoid opportunities that come their way to defray their own tax burden. Some people are capable of availing themselves of clever, post hoc rationalisations that run along the lines of: if they spend the money rather than paying it in tax, it will be spent to greater social benefit. That is not a plausible argument, but it is a comforting moral argument if one’s conscience bends in that direction. Such people argue that they can spend their money better than the state can for the social benefit of people in their community. That is a bit of sophistry with which we need not detain ourselves.

Who has not had a discussion with a tradesman about paying in cash, while remaining completely oblivious to the consequences that might befall the Inland Revenue? Are we not sometimes encouraged by the state to modify our economic behaviour by being offered tax breaks and incentives?

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He touches on a matter that I have raised for many years. In areas of high unemployment, there is a tendency for the black economy to thrive. There is a tendency for small to medium-sized employers to employ people on the basis that he has just outlined, giving a cash payment of £100 or £150 per week for several hours per day or whatever. The raising of the income-tax level to £10,000, which the Liberal Democrats and my party have been advocating for some time, will help but not completely eradicate the desire of some to employ people on the side, in the black economy, for a few pounds per week, rather than doing it legitimately, which would raise more income for the state and bring people from the black economy into proper, better paid jobs.

[Dr Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the black economy needs a whole toolkit of approaches. I happen to have with me the report from the Public Accounts Committee entitled “Tackling the hidden economy”, which contains a number of rational, sensible and workable proposals, which will enable people to earn a living and at the same time pay taxation legitimately and fairly. Obviously the fairer the system is, the more prone people are to do that.

Tax avoidance properly, though, is the apparent attempt to frustrate the intent of tax law. That is fundamentally what it is. It is normally done by organising economic transactions in a way that ensures that whatever wealth, investment, profits, income or rewards people have or aim for, they escape the charge that the state would ordinarily impose on them. The state does not do that for idle purposes, but for the common good. Tax avoidance is therefore morally reprehensible. MPs flipped their homes and were rightly criticised in the media, but it was not the intention of the expenses scheme—or the capital gains tax regime, for that matter—to ensure that that would happen. People in this place availed themselves of a loophole. That is an almost classic case of tax avoidance, but one could give sundry examples, in various exotic formats.

The previous Government did an appreciable amount of work, endeavouring to ensure that tax avoidance, when spotted, gets dealt with. They fought what I would describe as a long guerrilla war against exactly what we are talking about: loopholes. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Mr Timms), who was a kind of platoon commander, for prosecuting that guerrilla war with some success. He tried to track down the loopholes and closed them where possible. I think that most hon. Members here, while reading through very dull tracts of successive Finance Acts, will have recognised that those provisions are there simply as part of the ongoing skirmishing between the tax planners—tax avoiders—and the Inland Revenue. By and large, however, what we have seen so far have been post hoc reactions to abuses that have been identified in charity law, with repo arrangements, or with controlled foreign companies—we had an awful lot of debate about controlled foreign companies in the last year of the previous Parliament, as well as stamp duty and other matters.

The Inland Revenue has been involved in constructing complex defences against complex devices and schemes. Quite frankly, even though we pretend to understand them properly as we sail through the Finance Act, many of the schemes are not adequately grasped by many Members. It used to amaze me how the right hon. Gentleman had command—or seemed to, at any rate—of some very complex schemes and some very complex remedies for them. The basic strategy, however, is one of shutting the door after the horse has bolted, which normally leads to those people who wish to persist with mechanisms for avoidance simply adjusting the scheme in some marginal way, modifying it and presenting a new scheme that leads to a new ad hoc adjustment, when it is spotted—it is, of course, not immediately spotted and cannot be dealt with retrospectively. Again, I am reminded of guerrilla war. It is rather like the US forces trying to deal with an ever-elusive Viet Cong that springs up around them in the jungle. My analogy slightly breaks down, however, when one recognises that the resources available to the people fighting that guerrilla war far exceeded those of the Government in this case.

The problem is therefore difficult to deal with, and is made immeasurably more complicated by the global reach of modern international capitalism, with the plethora of tax havens and the associated absence of transparency. Again, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for having done a great deal of work on that. In the last few months of the previous Parliament, there was a slew of double taxation treaties that attempted to deal with precisely that problem, devised meticulously and with extraordinary detail by very clever people in the Treasury. Generally speaking, what we were hoping for—and sometimes got—was greater transparency and sharing of information, but again we were involved in the post hoc job of trying to close down complex tax arrangements that seemed to evade many jurisdictions when it came to the pursuit of tax liabilities. Interestingly, PricewaterhouseCoopers recently suggested that it would make it a heck of a lot easier if big international companies were to list in full their assets right across the piece on a global basis, and suggested that as a new standard for accountancy. I agree, but I think it fairly unlikely that many such companies will follow suit. Big organisations that keep their property arm in Liechtenstein or wherever will not be the first candidates for laying all their cards on the table.

It is worth making the point, in passing, that the British Exchequer is not the only loser here. A substantial amount of tax leakage is caused by people not paying tax in developing countries, and it is distressing to see organisations such as the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which was set up for laudable ends and with massive national and public support, putting an awful lot of money into development projects in the developing world, but having the money sourced or put through private equity companies, many of which are in offshore tax havens.