Let’s start with the independence debate.  Michael Moore has confirmed that the UK Government will not be bringing forward a proposal for further devolution.  I wonder if that will change if the opinion polls change.  This at least gives us a clear choice.  The choice being between “Calman minus” combined with the extremely unlikely scenario of Westminster devolving serious tax and fiscal powers after a ‘NO’ vote, and control over all tax and fiscal powers by 2016.

I think the ‘NO’ campaign has made a mistake here.  How those whose preferred choice is ‘devo plus’ or ‘devo max’ vote holds the key to which side wins in 2014.  Are they more likely to vote ‘NO’ as a result of Michael Moore’s statement?  The ‘NO’ campaign has not had a good start to the year.  The independence will cost £1 gaffe, support for the Scottish Government’s timetable for the transition to independence, the ridiculing of the claim that Scotland would need to ratify 8,500 treaties and then there was the loss of the UKs ‘AAA’ rating.  A serious proposal for further tax and fiscal powers would at least been a positive move by the ‘NO’ campaign and a change from the continuing negativity.

Now to a man who it seems can do anything.  Olympics gold medals, not a problem.  Forcing the HM Treasury into a u-turn, not a problem.  The UK Government has after all decided to grant a tax amnesty to non-resident athletes attending the London Grand Prix event this July. Olympic champion sprinter Usain Bolt announced that he would not attend unless his global earnings from sponsorship and endorsements were exempted, but until now HM Treasury had resisted the demand.  More on this from the STEP Journal can be found here.

A report by the House of Commons’ influential Public Accounts Committee says that promoters of so-called boutique tax avoidance schemes are “running rings around HMRC in a game of cat and mouse that HMRC is losing”.  It suggests that HMRC should publicly name those who sell ‘abusive’ schemes to as many clients as possible before HMRC shuts the scheme down.  This is estimated to cost the HM Treasury £5bn a year.  The Committee claimed that HMRC only knows about 46% of tax avoidance schemes, and that promoters who run the schemes find it unacceptably easy to put forward a “reasonable excuse” for not disclosing the scheme in order to escape a fine.  More on this from Accountancy Age can be found here and the Guardian here.

The UK government is to disqualify companies and individuals from bidding for public contracts if they have taken part in failed tax avoidance schemes.  This applies from 1 April 2013. Bidders will have to notify procurement departments if any tax return in the past 10 years has been found incorrect as a result of an HMRC challenge, or has contravened the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Scheme rules.  More on this from HM Treasury can be found here.

A mansion tax is back in the news.  Although as it is a local taxation proposal it is not just a matter for the UK Parliament.  Local taxation is controlled by the Scottish Parliament.  A point missed by most reports.  The Liberal Democrats proposal would see either a 1% levy on homes worth over £2m or the introduction of new council tax bands for expensive homes.  More on the Liberal Democrat proposal from the Guardian can be found here.  The Labour Party has also announced plans to introduce a mansion tax on all homes worth more than £2m in order to fund the reintroduction of the 10p tax rate abolished in 2007.  More on the Labour proposal from the BBC News website can be found here.

An ongoing programme of jobs cuts helped play a major part in HMRC exceeding their cost-savings target for 2011/12, according to a report by the National Audit Office.  The report can be found here.  The figures give an indication of the scale of the cuts suffered by HMRC.  Spending slashed by £269m over the 12 months to 31 March 2012.  This was 19% more than the anticipated £249m.  A reduction of £140m was made by axing 2,400 full-time equivalent members of staff. The department plans to have lowered its running costs by £950m between the UK Government’s 2010 sending review and the end of the 2014/15 tax year.  It expects to see the loss of 10,000 full-time equivalent employees and 300,000 square metres of estate.

Press reports indicate that the inheritance tax nil rate band is to be frozen for several more years beyond the already announced date of April 2015, as part of the UK Government’s plans for funding elderly care in England.  More on this from the Herald can be found here and the BBC news website here.  Another example of the problem that can arise under devolution when the tax power remains at Westminster, inheritance tax, and control over an associated area such as social care is devolved.

Now to the least surprising story of the month.  The Confederation of British Industry has warned that the new Financial Transaction Tax announced by the European Commission may have a detrimental effect on UK jobs and growth.  Matthew Fell, the CBI Director for Competitive Markets, said: “it is particularly worrying that the increased scope of the tax will now cover businesses’ risk management activities, as well as hitting financial services in non-participating member states, like the UK, because of extra-territoriality”.  More on this story from the Telegraph can be found here.

Now to Europe and how the EU is demanding action against tax-planning.  The European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has published a report proposing that member states revoke the banking licences of financial institutions that help their customers evade taxes.  More on this can be found here.

The heavy tax increases imposed by the Greek Government last year have actually caused a sharp fall in tax receipts. January’s tax revenues in Greece fell to €4.05bn, 16% down on the January 2012 figures, due to a collapse in consumption and a corresponding decrease in indirect tax payments.  More on this can be found here.

An interesting opinion piece can be found in the New York Times challenging the ‘Myth of the Rich Who Flee From Taxes’.  It was prompted by US Masters golf champion Phil Mickelson’s recent threat to decamp from California because the state’s top rate of income tax is increasing from 10.3 to 13.3%.  I agree with the conclusion reached.  It really is a myth although it does not stop those arguing against serious tax and fiscal powers for the Scottish Parliament from using it. The piece from the New York Times can be found here.

And lastly, well done to the Scottish teams who beat Ireland at the weekend.

Where to start?  I think I will start with the Scottish Futures Trust.  I remember well the negative reaction to the SFT when it was first proposed.  The coverage the SFT has received this week shows how much things have changed.  The fact that the long term costs of PFI are now widely known also shows how good an idea the SFT was.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

This raises another issue.  Notwithstanding the fiscal powers debate it is clear Scotland is increasingly doing things its own way.  On areas such as health or education the differences are well documented.  Now Scotland is to have its own food standards agency and a new governing body for the Scottish canals.  This is not because of Calman or the Scotland Act but because of the actions of the UK Government.  Add to this the Revenue Scotland announcement and you see the direction in which things are moving.

Now to a subject I have written about before, the Crown Estate.  It is now difficult to find someone against devolving control over the Crown Estate in Scotland to the Scottish Parliament other than the present UK Government.  If the UK Government is not even willing to cede control over this body to the Scottish Parliament then it is easy to accuse them of not seriously engaging in the fiscal powers debate.  A report on the latest ploy by the UK Government to not devolve control of the Crown Estate to the Scottish Parliament can be found here.

Now to the UK Government’s so called “Heritage tax”.  “The Heritage Alliance is disappointed that the UK Government has refused – despite widespread opposition and strong challenges to the rigour of its evidence base – to reconsider its Budget proposal to remove zero rating of VAT on approved alterations to listed buildings.”  No sign yet of a u-turn on this proposal.  More on this can be found here.

The Sunday Times recently reported that Scottish Government advisor Dr Andrew Cameron has advised that a tax break, which would allow wealthy landowners and investors to plant trees in exchange for tax offsets, would help Scotland meet its forest coverage goals. That would of course require further tax powers to be devolved if this was to be just a Scottish tax relief.  Let’s also not forget that the last attempt at something like this was a complete shambles.  Hopefully if this idea is revisited lessons will have been learned.  A story on this issue from 2002 can be found here.

Now to the “shared services” debate.  The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has found that a Whitehall scheme to share resources across departments has cost hundreds of millions of pounds more than it saved.  The scheme ran £500 million over budget, costing £1.4 billion, and of the five departments that took part, only one broke even.  A report on this from the Telegraph can be found here.  Sadly I am not surprised with this report.

Aggregates Levy is one of two other miscellaneous taxes recommended for devolving to the Scottish Parliament under the Calman Commission.  The other being Air Passenger Duty.  The UK Government has so far resisted devolving Aggregates Levy due to a European Court action by the British Aggregates Association.  An update on this from HMRC can be found here.  The UK Government are fast running out of excuses for not devolving Aggregates Levy.

I was not surprised to read that many elderly farmers are working long past retirement age because they fear losing agricultural property relief (APR).  APR is likely to reduce their liability to inheritance tax.  Their worries have been prompted by HMRC’s tactics of challenging APR on farmhouses at every opportunity.  A report on this from the STEP journal can be found here.

Now to matters slightly further afield.

The European Commission’s Brussels IV proposal to simplify the settlement of international successions has received the final backing of the European Union’s Council of Justice Ministers.  The regulation will come into force in 2015 and will apply directly in all member states, other than Denmark and the opting-out members UK and Ireland.  Hopefully this is something that the UK and Ireland will consider again in the near future.  A report on this from the European Commission can be found here.

Now to France.  As expected, France’s new Socialist government has announced a series of increases in personal and business taxation.  They include new wealth taxes and a tax on foreign owners of holiday homes.  A similar idea was floated last year by the Sarkozy administration but it was dropped when the French Government was advised that such a tax would not survive a challenge under European Union anti-discrimination legislation. Hollande may believe he can avoid this by calling the levy a “social charge” rather than a tax.  A report on this from the STEP journal can be found here.

The New York Times has published an article describing just how easy it is to set up a Delaware shell company without disclosing its beneficial ownership.  This is something that the US Government has regularly pilloried many other countries for.  Apparently Delaware has more corporate entities than people.  The article from the New York Times can be found here.

A Berkshire man has been convicted of evading £430,000 inheritance tax on a Swiss bank account he held jointly with his mother.  HMRC obtained Michael Shanly’s account details from the French authorities, who had bought them from a former employee of HSBC Geneva, who had stolen them from the bank.  This is a good example of the increasing co-operation between European countries and the increasing effectiveness of HMRC.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

Australia has introduced its highly controversial carbon tax, after years of bitter political wrangling.  The law forces about 300 of the worst-polluting firms to pay a A$23 (£15; $24) levy for every tonne of greenhouse gases they produce.  The Australian Government says the tax is needed to meet climate-change obligations of Australia – the highest emitter per-head in the developed world.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.  The environmental taxation debate in the UK, in contrast, has slipped down the political agenda over the last few years.

I think I will end with Cyprus.  The Cyprus government will not agree to cut its 10% corporation tax rate in order to secure a European rescue of its banking sector and public finances.  Cyprus may though have to agree to a further VAT increase as part of these negotiations.  Cyprus is taking a similar stance to the one taken by Ireland over the last couple of years.  A report on this can be found here.

Have a good weekend.

Let’s start with “GERS”.  No not the blue half of Glasgow but the: “Government and Expenditure Revenue Scotland 2010-11”, or GERS for short.

The latest GERS report was published this week and shows that Scotland contributed 9.6% of UK public sector revenue and received 9.3% of total UK public sector expenditure.  These figures include a per capita share of UK debt interest payments.  Scotland’s population is 8.4% of the UK total.  Scotland’s estimated current budget balance in 2010-11, which is primarily day to day expenditure, was a deficit of £6.4 billion, or 4.4% of GDP.  These figures include a geographical share of North Sea revenues.  The corresponding UK figures were a deficit of £97.8 billion or 6.6% of GDP for the same year.  That includes 100% of North Sea revenues.

As is usually the case with statistics, and probably even more so with those which are used as ammunition in the fiscal powers debate, economists and other commentators will argue back and forth on what these facts and figures tell us.  That is why I agree with Reform Scotland’s call for the Office for Budget Responsibility to provide forecasts for all taxes raised in Scotland and not just those that might be devolved by the Scotland Bill.  Reform Scotland’s press release can be found here.  More on GERS can be found here.

Now to the fiscal powers debate.  This week it was Labour’s turn to announce a “commission that will look at how devolution should change and what further powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.”  This means that none of the main political parties are arguing for the status quo or even just the Scotland Bill.  The Liberal Democrats have already announced their own commission and the Conservatives, or rather the UK Conservatives by way off the Prime Minister, have said that they will consider devolving further powers if Scotland votes no in 2014.

The announcement of yet another commission received quite a lot of media of coverage.  The fact that Labour think a second referendum will be required if Scotland votes “no” in 2014 was less commented upon.  I suspect that this will also be the view of both the Liberals and the Conservatives.  That clearly conflicts with the argument that Scotland needs an early referendum to stop “uncertainty”.  An article on this from the STV news website can be found here.

Aberdeen City Council is expected to apply for more than £90m of tax incremental funding (TIF) following a ‘yes’ vote in the Union Terrace Gardens referendum.  A report on this from the STV news website can be found here.  I have written before on why I support TIF and the type of thinking behind this type of idea.  The one caveat I have concerns the number of these projects. As was found in the United States, if too many projects are approved the ability to fund both old and future projects gets harder.  The Scottish Futures Trust is though well aware of what happened in places such as Illinois, where I worked as an attorney, and first came across TIF.  More on TIF can be found here.

I was not surprised to read that a last minute bid to stop the Scottish Government’s plan to levy a tax on supermarkets and large shops has been defeated.  The “Tesco tax”, as this proposal has been termed, will see retailers which sell alcohol and tobacco pay an extra £95m in business rates over the next three years.  A BBC news website piece on this can be found here.

Sometimes when you read a story about the workings of government, local or national, you just sigh.  This is one such story.  Whitehall departments have been criticised for overspending by £500m on schemes that were actually intended to save money.  The National Audit Office found that UK ministers failed to offer clear management for the setting up of pooled resource centres.  The aim was to stop costs being duplicated.  The ever excellent Labour MP Margaret Hodge, who chairs the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, said that the overall figures provided: “a shockingly familiar story of spiralling costs and poor value for money”.  Will anyone be brought to account?  Will a gong have to be returned or a bonus forfeited?  I suspect not.  A BBC news website piece on this can be found here.

Now to the Budget debate.  For “debate” read “battle between and briefing against your coalition partners.”  There are a number of fronts in this battle.  These include how quickly to increase the personal allowance limit, whether to reduce higher rate pension tax relief, the possible introduction of a “Mansion” tax and whether to retain the 50p top rate of income tax.  Is it worth speculating as to the outcome of these battles?  Not really.  Fun though that would be this is a political game pure and simple.  The “winner” will be the side who at that moment has the most power not necessarily who has the best ideas.  It was ever thus.

The more interesting debate, and this has just really begun, concerns whether and to what extent wealth as opposed to income should be taxed.  That is where the debate is going.  I will come back to this issue after the UK Budget.

One final point on the so called “Mansion tax”.  I do find the lack of commentary on the fact that local taxation is devolved to the Scottish Parliament amusing.  Can you imagine the Scottish Parliament’s reaction to the UK Government interfering with one of the few tax powers it has?  Let’s call that a rhetorical question.  We do know how the UK Government reacts if the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government dares to do something that touches on a reserved matter.  Here are a few examples: free personal and nursing care, local income tax and minimum pricing for alcohol.

As with last week’s blog I will end with the French presidential election and news that Francois Hollande, the Socialist candidate, has announced plans to raise the top rate of income tax to 75 per cent on “indecent” annual incomes above €1 million. The use of the word “indecent” says it all.

Good luck to all our teams in action in Ireland this weekend.