Tax Avoidance

Paul Farrelly Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We should pursue with equal vigour all those who game the rules in our country, whether it be benefit fraud or tax avoidance and evasion.

There remain serious questions for the Government to answer. I hope we hear some answers from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to these pressing questions. Did he ever speak to Lord Green about tax avoidance and evasion at HSBC? If not, why not? I am happy to give way to him, if he wants to clarify those matters now, but it does not seem as though he is willing to take up that offer. I hope he will see fit to answer some of those questions in his speech. The Prime Minister was asked about conversations with Lord Green four times during Prime Minister’s questions today, but he failed to answer each time.

It has been difficult to keep up with the conflicting reports about who knew what and when, but today the Government have claimed they knew that HSBC customers were in the frame for tax avoidance and evasion but not about any possible culpability by the bank itself. It is ridiculous to suggest that, despite having files showing that 1,100 customers of a bank possibly avoided or evaded tax, Ministers did not consider the possibility that perhaps the bank itself had a hand in it and did not bother to ask any questions of a ministerial colleague they knew was head of the bank over the period in question.

The Government were given the data in May 2010; Lord Green took office in January 2011; and the Swiss tax deal was signed in August 2011. In fact, the Minister and David Hartnett, the senior tax official, started negotiating the Swiss tax deal straight after the data on HSBC were received from the French authorities, so at a time when the Government knew, or should have known, that serious wrongdoing had been going on.

I think we need some answers from the Minister about whether he ever discussed the Swiss tax deal with Lord Green, who was, after all, a colleague who had run an organisation with a Swiss banking arm. We need the Minister to explain the conversations he had—or the conversations that, on reflection, he now feels he should have had—with colleagues in government, and to clarify whether he has any regrets.

We also need to hear explicitly from Lord Green—our motion calls for this—with a full and frank statement about what he knew and what discussions he had with those in government about his knowledge of what was going on in the Swiss arm of HSBC. I also think it is about time we heard from the Chancellor. He has been quiet since Sunday, when all this started to come to light, so we need to hear from him as the head of the Treasury what he knew.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Richard Brooks is a fine journalist for Private Eye, not the BBC, and has done seminal work in investigating tax avoidance and evasion. Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that neither HSBC nor any of the individuals involved are being prosecuted shows that HMRC is still a pussycat when it comes to big tax avoiders, yet will eagerly go after the small fry and small businesses?

[Shabana Mahmood]

There are real questions to be answered about how HMRC conducts its investigations and the rigour with which it pursues its different investigations. These take place, of course, within the context of legislation set by this Government, so ultimately these are matters for the Government. It is also the Government who decide on the amount of resources HMRC gets to do its job—an issue that I have discussed with the Minister on a number of occasions.

Fundamentally, the failure to act is symptomatic of the Government’s failure to tackle abuse within the tax system. That is why people are losing faith in it. Our motion sets out what we would do to restore that faith in the system. First, we have said that we will introduce penalties for those caught by the general anti-abuse rule, which is supposed to catch those who set up abusive schemes—the most egregious forms of abuse. However, there is currently no penalty scheme association with the so-called GAAR, which lacks teeth.

A Labour Government would introduce a tough penalty regime with fines of up to 100% of the value of the tax avoided. That will provide a tough and genuine deterrent to those who try to abuse the system and avoid paying their fair share of tax. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that the Government are now consulting on whether to have a penalties regime for the GAAR—but only after we announced our policy that we would have such a regime.

The truth is that when the GAAR was introduced, there was a huge amount of discussion and a review was carried out for the Government, with lots of academic work done on whether or not we should have a general anti-abuse rule in this country. The Government could and should have introduced penalties immediately. Where they have failed to act, we will act.

Secondly, the quoted eurobond exemption is used legitimately by many companies to raise finance on the international bond market, but it is also abused by some companies to shift profits out of the UK into tax havens, and so reduce the amount of corporation tax they pay. HMRC itself identified the problem, but the Government failed to act. Again, where they failed to act, we will act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I am going to make a little progress. Since we came to power in 2010, we have made a huge investment in HMRC to tackle avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. That investment has clearly made a difference. HMRC has secured more than £85 billion in compliance yield since the beginning of the Parliament, £31 billion of which was from large businesses and £850 million of which was from high net worth individuals.

HMRC’s successes were recognised last week by the National Audit Office in its report “Increasing the effectiveness of tax collection: a stock-take of progress since 2010”. In that report, HMRC’s response to the recommendations to tackling marketed tax avoidance has been exemplary, particularly in terms of co-ordinating action and seeking new powers to tackle promoters and scheme users. In every year of this Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has stood up at the Dispatch Box and closed loophole after loophole, which, I am afraid to say, had been left open by the previous Administration.

We have made more than 40 changes to tax laws since 2010. Let me trot through just a few of them as I am conscious of time. We stopped groups of companies clubbing together to reduce their overall tax bill by using loans and derivatives between themselves; we stopped businesses using trusts to pay employees in order to pay less tax; we stopped banking groups avoiding tax on profits that they were able to make by buying back their own debt cheaply; we blocked the practice by which companies could wipe out their tax bills by accessing losses made in a different group and we stopped hedge fund managers in partnerships obtaining unfair tax advantages by allocating profits to companies they controlled.

In 2013, we introduced the UK’s first general anti-abuse rule to tackle abusive tax avoidance arrangements and to deter those who might be tempted to use them. We are not stopping there. We are currently consulting on options to target serial avoiders and, on the very measure the Opposition seek in their motion, a general anti-abuse rule penalty.

In the Finance Act 2014, we introduced a set of ground-breaking measures aimed at the small minority of wealthy people in this country who involve themselves in tax avoidance schemes. If individuals and businesses are suspected of involvement in tax avoidance schemes, they have to pay HMRC the disputed amount of tax up front while the dispute is being resolved.

Accelerated payments remove the cash-flow advantage that those who deliberately try to bend the tax rules by avoiding tax previously had over the majority who paid their tax up front. We saw the problem and we dealt with it.

[Paul Farrelly]

Given that list, will the Minister explain to the House why tax avoidance schemes used by multinationals such as the double Irish and the Dutch sandwich are still in existence and what the Government are doing to tackle that sort of multinational tax avoidance, which we have debated and scrutinised here on many occasions?

[Mr Gauke]

I will happily deal with that point. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will turn to that very point in a moment or so. He raises a very fair question.

[Mr Gauke]

The CFC regime is part of corporation tax. The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. As a consequence of our changes to the controlled foreign companies regime, we are seeing businesses move operations back to the United Kingdom. It was not that long ago—2007 and 2008—when business after business was looking to move its head office out of the UK. That flow has not only been staunched but reversed. We are seeing businesses choosing to locate in the United Kingdom, which is good for business, a successful achievement for this country and something of which we should be proud.

The changes in accelerated payments will bring forward billions in tax revenue in the coming years to help us afford the public services on which the country depends. I am pleased to say that, since the introduction of accelerated payments only a few months ago, avoiders have already agreed to pay more than £185 million to the Exchequer’s coffers, and millions more is being collected from those who, having received their up-front bill, have conceded their tax position and settled.

As well as tackling the end users of tax avoidance, we have also introduced structural changes targeted at the small but persistent minority of promoters who peddle schemes that typically use concealment or misdescription. If those promoters do not change their behaviour voluntarily, HMRC now has powers to monitor, fine and publicly name them. All this has contributed to the fall in the use of tax avoidance schemes over this Parliament. The Opposition motion suggests several areas for further action—this Government will always give a fair hearing to measures that increase compliance and tackle evasion—but they have to be properly thought through and I am afraid that some of their suggestions simply do not pass that test.

Therefore, we will not be abolishing the intermediary relief in contract for difference trading. There is no way to raise sums of the kind mentioned by the Opposition without causing serious damage to London’s position as a global centre for listing companies, as was recognised back in 1997, when the measure was introduced, and again in 2007, when it was expanded. Yes, it is relevant that the Labour party was in government at the time.

Nor will we introduce a deeming test for self-employment in the construction industry. We considered that, but it was not practicable. Indeed, to be categorised as self-employed, a bricklayer would have had to supply their own bricks. Instead, we have addressed false self-employment in construction and other industries through the Finance Act 2014 measures on onshore intermediaries, raising £2.1 billion in the process.

The Opposition motion urges us to close the quoted eurobonds exemption loophole, but it is not a loophole. I have explained repeatedly to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood that that measure would create an administrative burden, but not raise money. I have even offered a meeting with officials to discuss that, which, once again, she has declined. She set out a new proposal, but it has been looked at and it is simply not practicable.

The Opposition might be trying to recover lost ground, given their failure to get on top of avoidance and evasion, but they have to do better than this. We have led the way not only domestically, but internationally. Let me deal with the point about multinational companies. We originated the base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, process and have set out our commitments to multilateral action through the G20 and the OECD. In last year’s autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced UK action on two of the internationally agreed outputs of the BEPS project. We are introducing legislation to implement the G20-OECD agreed model for country-by-country reporting, which will require multinational companies to provide tax authorities with high-level information on profit, corporation tax paid and certain indicators of economic activity for risk assessment.

We are consulting on implementing the G20-OECD agreed rules for neutralising hybrid mismatch arrangements. We have gone further still to strengthen our defences against the erosion of the UK tax base. As a complement to the BEPS process, we have introduced the new diverted profits tax to counter the use of aggressive tax planning by large multinationals that seek to avoid paying tax in the UK on profits generated from economic activity here.

[Paul Farrelly]

I am aware of the international dimension, but HMRC has been criticised frequently for its timidity in challenging some of those arrangements. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the important concept of permanent establishment. For example, has HMRC challenged Amazon’s tax arrangements, whereby everything is billed through Luxembourg and it claims, for tax reasons, not to have a permanent establishment in the UK, despite having huge warehouse operations?

[Mr Gauke]

The first point to make is that it is a matter for HMRC to challenge in accordance with the law, and taxpayer confidentiality applies. As a Minister, I do not get involved in individual cases.

Furthermore, if we want to address broader matters—I am not talking about any individual company here—and if the hon. Gentleman wants to address the issue of businesses carrying on activities here but not paying taxes here because they do not have a permanent establishment, the diverted profits tax is just the measure he should want. It is designed to address that issue.

I say again that I am not talking about the specific case, but in general the measure deals with circumstances in which contrived and artificial arrangements are made so that a business manages to misuse, if you like, the permanent establishment rules. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but the Government are already dealing with it.