Finance Bill
Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and David Gauke(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I begin by expressing my gratitude for your dispensation, Mrs Laing. I will, of course, take interventions, and I hope it will not disconcert Members if I remain standing at the Dispatch Box while doing so. There is a great deal to cover and a large number of amendments have been tabled by Opposition Members, many of which I shall have to cover briefly. I shall try to provide as much information as I can as quickly as I can and respond to points raised in the course of the debate.
Clauses 144 to 146 make administrative changes to the general anti-abuse rule—the GAAR procedure—and introduce a new penalty for those who enter into abusive tax arrangements. Clause 144 allows Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to make a provisional GAAR counteraction where it believes additional tax is due but the assessment time limits are due to expire. Clause 145 is an administrative change to strengthen the GAAR’s procedural efficiency. The GAAR procedure currently requires each user of the same type of marketed tax avoidance arrangements to be referred separately to the GAAR advisory panel. This is an inefficient use of HMRC’s and the advisory panel’s resources, so clause 145 corrects this. Clause 146 introduces a new penalty of 60% for taxpayers who enter into abusive tax arrangements that are counteracted under the GAAR.
The Government have tabled 84 amendments to clauses 144 to 146, making minor changes to ensure that the legislation works as intended, but let me respond now to new clause 4 and amendment 4, which relate to the GAAR clauses I have just outlined. New clause 4 asks the Government to conduct a review of the GAAR in a year’s time. The GAAR advisory panel is already required to publish anonymised reports of the cases it considers. It is difficult to see how this new clause could provide a better insight into GAAR cases than this.
Amendment 4 proposes that a penalty of 100% is introduced for the GAAR. While under HMRC’s existing penalty rules a penalty of 70% to 100% will usually be charged in cases of fraud, it is right for the GAAR penalty to sit just below this. Under the new measure, tax avoiders can be charged penalties under the existing penalty rules and the GAAR penalty up to a maximum of 100%. As such, the amendment does little more than what we are already suggesting, and I therefore urge the House to reject it.
Clause 147 and schedule 18 introduce the new serial avoidance regime and a new threshold condition for the existing POTAS—promoters of tax avoidance schemes— regime introduced by clause 148. The new serial avoidance regime will tackle those tax avoiders who use multiple tax avoidance schemes. It will work by putting avoiders on notice when HMRC defeats a scheme they have used. If they use further schemes and HMRC defeats them, they will face serious and escalating sanctions, including a penalty starting at 20% of tax understated and reaching 60% for a third scheme defeat while under notice. Clause 148 introduces a new threshold condition for the promoters of tax avoidance schemes regime so that promoters who have promoted three schemes that have been defeated by HMRC over an eight-year period risk entering the POTAS regime.
The Government have tabled 27 amendments to clause 148 and schedule 18. The amendments to schedule 18 provide for those who try to avoid tax through companies they own or partnerships to be brought within the scope of the new regime. Amendments to clause 148 provide for POTAS to cover circumstances where tax avoidance is promoted through associated persons. The remaining amendments make minor changes to ensure the schemes work as intended.
Clause 149 introduces a new requirement for large businesses to publish their tax strategies, ensuring greater transparency about their tax approach to HMRC, shareholders and the public. Transparency promotes good tax compliance while providing a fairer, more stable and competitive environment in which to do business. The strategy published by businesses must cover the areas specified in legislation, be updated annually and remain accessible. A penalty may be chargeable if a strategy is not published or if the information contained does not meet the requirements of the legislation.
The Government are also committed to tackling cases of aggressive tax planning. Schedule 19 introduces a new special measures process which will apply sanctions to large businesses that persistently undertake aggressive tax planning or refuse to work with HMRC in a collaborative and transparent way. Taken together, clause 149 and schedule 19 will help to reduce the appetite for aggressive tax planning and improve large business tax compliance.
On the amendments tabled by the Opposition, amendments 5 to 18 would collectively introduce a requirement for directors of a business to be personally, jointly and severally liable for a penalty of £25,000 should the business fail to comply with the legislation, rising to a monthly charge of £25,000 after the initial 12 months have passed. Amendments 9, 14 and 18 also propose that the said named directors should not be reimbursed in any way and would impose further penalties.
These amendments are disproportionate and go against the principle of encouraging behavioural change across businesses. Boards take a collective responsibility for any decisions made on behalf of their businesses and their tax strategy is no exception. Ultimately, this Government believe any penalty is a business responsibility, not one to be pursued across a group of directors. In summary, these amendments would result in less clarity around any sanctions, not more, and I urge the House to reject them.
The amendment to clause 149, tabled by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), seeks to require large multinational enterprises to publish a country-by-country report on their activities within their published tax strategy. As I have set out, this Government fully share her aims of increasing transparency and clamping down on avoidance and evasion wherever it occurs. Indeed, this Government have led the way in calling at an international level for public country-by-country reports. However, I do not believe that her amendment would help to achieve the objectives that we all share. It is technically flawed, and hence would not achieve the stated transparency or pro-business objectives that we all espouse.
The right hon. Lady has said that multinational businesses such as Google would be forced to publish headline information about where they do business, the money that they make and the tax that they pay, but that is not the case. According to Government legal advice, the amendment would, in practice, place such a requirement only on UK-headquartered multinationals. Foreign-headquartered multinationals such as Google would not be caught at all, and that undermines the transparency objective of the amendment.
The amendment also risks putting UK multinationals at a competitive disadvantage by imposing a reporting requirement that does not apply to foreign competitors operating in the same market. For example, a company headquartered in the UK, whether on the mainland or in Northern Ireland, would have to file public reports, but a company headquartered in the Republic of Ireland—or, indeed, pretty well anywhere else—would not. That, I think, contradicts the level playing field objective whose importance the right hon. Lady has emphasised. At a time of increased uncertainty, we should be particularly cautious about disadvantaging UK-based businesses and imposing on them a further commitment that does not apply to their foreign competitors.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially as he is in pain. He said earlier that the amendment was “technically flawed”, but that is not the advice that my right hon. Friend has received. It seems to me that, in reality, the Government are more driven by their ideas about tax competition. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case? If it is, I suggest to him that transparency is more important for the British people in particular, and that if any global company chooses to leave the UK simply because of demands for transparency and demands that it pay fair tax, which will be a rare occurrence, it may well be that it is not the sort of company that we want to be headquartered here.
Mr Gauke
There are some issues of timing, but I must emphasise that the only companies that would fall within the scope of the amendment would be UK-headquartered companies. The Googles of this world would be unaffected. We believe that all this should be done on a multilateral basis, and—although my timing may be slightly unfortunate—I should point out that considerable progress has been made at European Union level. Indeed, the relevant commissioner has said that we are on the cusp of a deal and that he hopes that it will be concluded during the course of the Slovakian presidency, in the second half of this year. The UK has been leading the way in that debate, and, indeed, we have been calling for the Commission to toughen up its rules.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I want to make two points about the response to whistleblowing. First, as I read the clause, it would lead to a review of whistleblowing in the banking and financial services sector. During my period as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, we did a lot of work on the whistleblowing from Falciani on the Swiss bank accounts and on the PwC leaks in Luxembourg. What was so interesting was that the only action that the two financial institutions took was to try to pursue the whistleblowers through the courts—trying to get them indicted and jailed. That is unacceptable.
Secondly, the internal HMRC lawyer who gave us the evidence that demonstrated that a sweetheart deal had been entered into with Goldman Sachs could not, in the end, return to his job. Everything of his was rifled through from his wife’s computer to his telephone and everything else. That is not good enough. I urge the Minister to think again and to instigate a review.
Mr Gauke
I note what the right hon. Lady says, but I will not let her comments about sweetheart deals pass. We have discussed the matter before, and I point her in the direction of Sir Andrew Park’s review of those settlements and his conclusion that there were no sweetheart deals. This is an issue that she and I have discussed before and no doubt will discuss again, and I fear that we will not reach agreement. I note her points, but I am not persuaded by the case for new clause 8.
Tax Avoidance and Multinational Companies
Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and David Gauke(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Margaret Hodge
I agree entirely. The Minister talks about the work done by the Public Accounts Committee. The law is not a complete ass. I do not believe that. When the National Audit Office looked at, I think, 10 cases—I will be corrected if I am wrong—it found three where HMRC had not abided by its own rules. Every time something like this happens, it damages British jobs and British businesses—nobody else. We have definite proof that a sweetheart deal was entered into with Goldman Sachs.
Dame Margaret Hodge
No. With the greatest respect, those are not the facts. The judge looked at five cases. The NAO looked at 10 cases and found in three of them that HMRC had not abided by its own rules.
The reason the Chancellor and his team do not get it is the people they talk to about tax. A small army of tax professionals and multinational companies are the only people with whom they converse. I have to say to the Minister that there is a difference between good working relationships, which I applaud, and undue influence and preferential treatment, which I do not. Talking to stakeholders is a good thing. Being captured by stakeholders is a bad thing.
We just have to look at the evidence—and not just the 25 meetings held with Google. If we look at the Tax Professionals Forum, its members are KPMG, Ernst and Young, Grant Thornton and so on. There is nobody from any of the tax campaigning organisations. There is nobody from any of the charities and no academic with a different view. Ernst and Young made £250 million in recent years by advising Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon.
Let us look at what the Minister has done. He appointed David Heaton from Baker Tilly to the Government’s advisory panel on the general anti-abuse rule, which was supposed to look at closing loopholes. That particular gentleman was captured on video describing
“ways to keep the money out of the Chancellor’s grubby hands”.
Let us look at what happened to Dave Hartnett—within six months he was going to work at HSBC and within a year he was going to work at Deloitte. Let us look at Edward Troup, who is now our commissioner on taxation. He wrote in the Financial Times that “Taxation is legalised extortion.” This is a small bunch of people who all have the same interests.
I want to make two other brief points. The Government say they want companies to pay proper tax, but the Government are obsessed with tax competition. That means far from tackling tax havens and so on, they are trying to make the UK an alternative best tax haven in the world. We only have to look at three changes the Government brought through on the control of foreign company rules, Eurobonds and the infamous patent box tax relief to see that that is right.
We do not know whether the Google settlement is fair, because under the existing law—the Minister is right—we cannot see it. I personally do not accept that HMRC properly challenged Google on the evidence the Public Accounts Committee collected, which demonstrated that it engages in economic activity here in the UK. I personally do not think the whistleblowers were listened to properly. Google does sell here. It does complete sales here. It does research and development here. Its economic activity is here. What on earth is that massive complex in King’s Cross for if not to undertake economic activity?
I have to say to the Minister that he has lost the argument on transparency. He ought to cave in gracefully and open up the books of these multinational companies so we can restore confidence.