Time for another “tax land”.
Where to start? Jersey seems as good a place as any. Jersey is also considering its constitutional options. This is not new news. I was in Jersey a couple of years ago and independence was also being discussed amongst the lawyers I was meeting. Jersey is in a different position to Scotland as it is for all intents and purposes already fiscally autonomous and is a British Crown dependency. An article on this from the Guardian can be found here. This is from the Guardian article:
“A barrage of regulatory clampdowns and political attacks on the Channel Islands’ controversial financial industry has prompted one of Jersey’s most senior politicians to call for preparations to be made to break the “thrall of Whitehall” and declare independence from the UK. Sir Philip Bailhache, the island’s assistant chief minister, said: “I feel that we get a raw deal. I feel it’s not fair. I think that the duty of Jersey politicians now is to try to explain what the island is doing and not to take things lying down. The island should be prepared to stand up for itself and should be ready to become independent if it were necessary in Jersey’s interest to do so.”
It seems that the constitutional genie is well and truly out: Scotland, Falkland Islands, Jersey and now it seems on UK membership of the European Union.
Now to the announcement by the Scottish Government of its intention to create its own tax administration and collection agency, to be called Revenue Scotland. Its main job initially will be to administer the two new Scottish taxes devolved under the Scotland Act. The fact that it is to work closely with Registers of Scotland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, also makes sense. These new taxes, a Scottish Stamp Duty Land Tax and a Landfill Tax, will be directly linked to the work done by these organisations. A press release from the Scottish Government on this can be found here.
As regular readers of this blog will know I have been writing about this issue for many years now. Whilst I welcome this announcement I still think we need to be more radical. We need to review all government tax, law and registration services.
I was not surprised to see some negative comments about the Revenue Scotland announcement. However, if Scotland has its own tax system it needs its own tax administration and collection agency. That applies just as much under the Scotland Act as independence. That though is not the only reason.
Let’s not forget the fact that UK tax law is based on English legal principles, or how HMRC and HM Treasury dealt with the introduction of Stamp Duty Land Tax in Scotland, or the inheritance tax changes to trusts, or the proposed planning-gain supplement, or the Scottish Government’s local income tax proposal or VAT and the new Scottish police and fire services. All good reasons for welcoming Revenue Scotland.
The Scottish Government is in no doubt that Revenue Scotland will be able to administer the new Scottish taxes at a lower cost than HMRC. I agree with that. I have also noticed that no-one seems to remember one of the more ridiculous claims made when the Calman Commission proposals were being debated. The Scotland Office claimed that the cost of administering a separate Scottish tax system would be the same as the present UK system. Complete and utter nonsense. The Scotland Office paper can be found here.
One last point on Revenue Scotland. I met with a number of Scottish Government officials just before the 2011 Scottish election on this issue. It was quite clear that they wanted nothing to do with this idea and only met with me at the insistence of a Scottish Minister. Thank you Jim Mather. I wonder if their attitude has changed in any way? Let’s hope so as this is just the start.
The Scottish Government has also published its consultation on a Land and Buildings Transaction Tax. This will replace Stamp Duty Land Tax. The consultation for Scotland’s replacement to Landfill tax will follow later this year. I use the word “summer” advisedly. The consultation can be found here.
And there’s more. The Scottish Government has finally published its consultation in a “plastic bag tax”. The consultation can be found here and a press release from the Scottish Government here.
Even the UK Government is playing its part. The UK Government is consulting on whether to allow the Scottish Government the power to issue its own bonds. The move would potentially allow Scottish Ministers to raise hundreds of millions of pounds. A provision in the Scotland Act 2012 has already enabled the UK government to amend the way in which Scottish Ministers can borrow from 2015-16. An article on this from the BBC news website can be found here. The consultation can be found here.
One last point on fiscal powers. The UK government is reportedly considering proposals to devolve complete control of income tax if Scotland votes ‘no’ in the independence referendum. This sums up nicely what is wrong with the UK Government’s approach to this debate. If the UK Government has a serious proposal to make, make it. If not be quiet.
Now to tax and morality. David Cameron branded comedian Jimmy Carr “morally wrong” for seeking to avoid paying his fair share of tax. Mr Carr is understood to use an aggressive, though legal, tax avoidance scheme which enables members to pay income tax as low as 1%. This is dangerous territory for David Cameron. Already the press have published the names of many others who are involved in similar schemes. If David Cameron seriously wants to tackle this issue he must act against all those who seek to evade tax. Has he considered the public disclosure of all tax returns or a minimum percentage of tax that must be paid? I suspect not.
This is not just a UK Government issue. The Herald discovered that Transport Initiatives Edinburgh used tax loopholes to allow directors to avoid paying income tax rates on £1 million in fees and bonuses. The company, which closed last year due to its handling of the trams project, paid directors and consultants through their firms. As a result, they were subject to 20% corporation tax rather than 40% income tax. The article from the Herald can be found here.
The evidence that the “rules” do not apply to everyone is growing. Whether it is the 3,000 UK civil servants being paid through a company, or the payments made to those who were partially responsible for the trams fiasco in Edinburgh or the celebrities avoiding tax. I am resisting the urge to say it was ever thus but in times such as this it does seem even more reprehensible.
One last point. I often am quite critical of HMRC. I would argue for good reason. That said, is it really time to cut 10,000 jobs? An article on this and the proposed strike by HMRC staff can be found on the BBC news website here.
Have a good week.
