Where to start.  Given it is now just over a year to the referendum that seems a suitable place to start.

There is increasing discussion, mostly criticism, concerning the failure of the ‘NO’ campaign to come up with a credible proposal for substantial additional powers for the Scottish Parliament. That said, the likelihood of a joint proposal from the ‘NO’ side is extremely unlikely.  Some want powers removed from Scotland in the event of a ‘NO’ vote.  Some do not want any more powers devolved to Scotland and insist that in any case that is a decision for the whole of the UK.   Even those who argue for greater powers for the Scottish Parliament are only arguing for three or four relatively minor tax powers.  Two of my earlier bogs on this issue outline the proposals in more detail and also how these extremely modest proposals would not take effect for at least a decade.  These blogs: “Tax powers so far refused by Westminster” can be found here and “Likely timescale for additional Scottish tax and fiscal powers” can be found here. Substantial welfare powers are of course not even being considered by the Unionist parties.    

A good example of how few powers are being considered can be found in this interview of Michael Moore.  The article on this can be found here.  It is worth noting that this is the view of the Liberal Democrats supposedly the strongest advocate of increasing the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Another factor of this debate that as yet is not being widely commented upon are the anomalies that can arise under devolution.  Take for example inheritance tax.  Inheritance tax is controlled by Westminster but succession law and social care are controlled by Holyrood. Does that make any sense?  Of course not.  With this in mind please see the following article from the Scotsman which can be found here.

Now to specifically Scottish tax matters.

A “Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill” will establish a new authority for the collection of devolved taxes from 2015.  The First Minister described this as a “historic step”, but also just a “first-step” – since Scotland would still only collect 15% of all taxation revenue and the Parliament would remain a “spending chamber rather than a revenue raising chamber”.  More on this can be found here.  This is an important landmark in the creation of a Scottish tax system.

No-one I suspect was surprised at this announcement.  “Scottish and Welsh red meat levy bodies are unlikely to recoup levy money lost when animals are slaughtered in England, UK farm minister David Heath has said.”  More on this can be found here.  This type of argument, in short Westminster knows best, has of course been made many times before.  Some matters where this argument has been used include: fossil fuel levy, attendance allowance, VAT and the new Scottish police and fire services, energy transmission charges, mobile phone coverage, delivery charges and local income tax.  The UK Government’s attitude to relatively minor issues such as the so called “meat levy” simply adds to the doubt that the UK Government will act in a positive way to calls for further powers to be devolved in the event of a ‘NO’ vote.

The Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee has welcomed proposed new legislation which will see Scotland take responsibility from the UK Government for landfill tax.  The Committee also welcomed proposals to impose landfill tax on unauthorised disposals to landfill following the identification of illegal sites and to increase the credit limit on contributions to the Landfill Communities Fund, which provides funding for community or environmental projects in areas affected by landfill sites.  More on this can be found here.

Now to the “bedroom tax” or to give it it’s Sunday name, “spare room subsidy”.

Social housing residents affected by the UK Government’s “bedroom tax” may be able to appeal depending on the size of their spare room, after a tribunal ruled the size of a room has to be taken into account when imposing the controversial policy.

The UK Government has played down the implications of the ruling.  A spokeswoman for the Department of Work and Pensions said: “It is simply not affordable to pay housing benefit for people to have spare rooms, and our reforms in the social sector mean families receive help for the number of bedrooms they need, and these are exactly the same rules as in the private sector.” Meanwhile, a United Nations special investigator has described the bedroom tax as a “shocking” policy which could constitute a violation of the human right to adequate housing.

More on this from the Scotsman can be found here and the Guardian here.  This policy, it is argued, shows the widening gap on welfare matters between Holyrood and Westminster.

Now to the tax avoidance debate. Let’s start with some irony.  An adviser to HMRC has had to resign as a result of an investigation by the BBC.  The irony is the BBC’s own attitude to severance payments and tax avoidance schemes involving its own staff.  More on this can be found here.

Further evidence as to how we are definitely not “all in this together”.  Top civil servants are having some tax paid using public money, a newspaper investigation has revealed.  More on this can be found here.

And finally on tax avoidance. “It is not possible to construe a director’s duty to promote the success of the company as constituting a positive duty to avoid tax.”  The legal advice quoted may well turn out to be one of most important contributions to the tax avoidance debate.  More on this can be found here.

Now to matters further afield.

In response to a question asked in the Spanish parliament, the Spanish Government was obliged to disclose the amount of unpaid tax owed by professional football clubs in the country’s top two divisions. The sum was a staggering €663,876,441 (about £575m).  More on this can be found here.

The number of Americans renouncing their US citizenship has jumped by a factor of six in 2013, according to official figures. The reason is generally accepted as the difficulties caused to expatriates by the soon-to-be-active “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act”, in conjunction with the USA’s extra-territorial taxation system.  More on this can be found here.

I was asked this week to comment on some of the initial tax related issues that the Scottish Parliament might have to consider if Scotland votes ‘YES’.

The first comment I made was that the Scottish Parliament should pretty much enact the UK tax system on independence.  The Scottish Parliament should then take its time in deciding what to keep and what to change.  That said, there are a number of matters it might have to look at early on.

Let’s start with VAT.  Only if Scotland becomes independent will it have control, or at least as much control as is possible, of VAT.  The Scottish Parliament could reduce the VAT rate on home repairs and renovations to 5%.  Something our building industry has long been arguing for.  The Scottish Parliament could also ensure that Police and Fire & Rescue Scotland can recover their VAT costs.  This is something the UK Treasury has so far resisted.

The Scottish Parliament could look again at what constitutes a charity in Scotland and with that which entities should receive the associated tax and other benefits.  “Private” or “independent” schools for example.  This is an issue that should not just be left to OSCR, the body that regulates charities in Scotland.

Then there is the debate surrounding a European Union “financial transaction tax”.  An independent Scotland will have to consider its position on this.  If a number of European countries decide to go ahead with this then the Scottish Parliament will have to decide if it wants to join them.  One option could be to agree to a FTT and at the same time abolish stamp duty on shares.

Now to environmental taxes.  The Scottish Parliament might want to consider introducing a carbon tax.  The debate in Australia shows how difficult this might be.   Independence does though mean tough decisions.

Then there is local taxation.  I am sure “Land Value Tax” supporters will be pressing their case even more strongly if Scotland votes ‘YES’.

Now to administration.  Lots of opportunities here for simplifying things. There is no need for Scotland to have a separate Companies House, Stamp Office and Registers of Scotland.  “One stop shops” for the services provided by these bodies is a minimum of what we could do.  We could even create “tax and benefits” centres throughout the country that are based in our local authority buildings.

Then there is “tax avoidance” and “tax evasion”.  The Scottish Parliament could consider publishing at least a summary of each tax return or legislate for published beneficial ownership registers.

Just a few thoughts.

Let’s start with the incredible revelation that large multi-national companies put a great deal of effort into paying as little tax as possible.  The debate surrounding this issue is long overdue.  I am also glad to say that there has been some great commentary on this issue.

Examples include:  Ian Bell’s: “It’s not an accident Westminster’s financial system allows tax avoidance … it’s designed that way”.  His article from the Herald can be found here.

Joyce McMillan outlines the wider debate and criticises the focus at Westminster on benefit fraud rather than tax avoidance.  Her article from the Scotsman can be found here.

George Kerevan’s article titled: “Taxing questions for complicit governments” from the Scotsman can be found here.  This is from the article: “The current generation of highly profitable internet companies have taken (legitimate) transfer pricing to extraordinary new limits. Google manages to operate almost tax-free in the UK, France and Germany, despite generating more than £35 billion in revenues in all three countries.”

Alsion Rowatt writing in the Herald comments on the increasing evidence of multinational corporations’ tax avoidance and criticises the HMRC for not keeping up with the internet age.  This article can be found here.

And from the Guardian: “The bosses of some of Britain’s largest multinational corporations have urged David Cameron to stop moralising and rein in his rhetoric on tax avoidance.”  The article in full can be found here.

For an example as to how far some companies will go look no further than our utility companies.  More on this from the Telegraph can be found here.

To summarise.  Companies rarely consider “morality” when deciding how much tax to pay.  I use the word “decide” intentionally.  These companies after all have a duty to their shareholders.  The fact is that UK and international taxation law is full of holes and has always been.  The politicians know this.  The politicians have always known this.  In the so called good times this issue was simply ignored.  Is there an easy answer? Of course not.  Do the politicians desperately want to be seen to be doing something? Of course.  Is there a huge amount of hypocrisy around this issue?  Yes.  Do governments want inward investment?  Yes.  Will they offer tax breaks to achieve this?  Yes.  Is the headline rate of tax the only deciding factor for companies?  Of course not.  Is there a growing perception in the UK that the taxation favours certain sectors over others?  I believe so.  Is this debate going to continue?  I hope so.

Now to the fiscal powers debate and two stories on the Scottish Conservatives.  The headlines contain the phrases “under attack” and “under fire” and show how difficult a position Ruth Davidson is in.  It seems she is damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t.  The Scotsman article can be found here and the Herald article here.

The head of one of the UK’s largest quarries has accused tax collectors of “arrogant and high-handed behaviour” ahead of a case this week involving millions of pounds in unpaid aggregates levies.  Aggregates levy was of course one of the taxes recommended for devolving under Calman.  The article from the Scotsman can be found here.

Now to London.  Boris Johnson continues to argue that London should have the same fiscal powers as those available to the devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales.  This is a debate that is going to run and run.  More on this can be found here.

HMRC has begun a campaign to make professional football managers and coaches regularise their tax position. It has forced the English Football Association to provide a list of its 3,300 registered coaches, and has written to them all warning that “we have received extensive data about coaches from sources in the football community”.  Presumably HMRC knows that football is played in Scotland as well.  More on this can be found here.

Now to Europe and another example of the increasing role it is playing in tax matters.  The European Commission will present a legislative proposal to require the EU-wide automatic exchange of all types of information on taxable incomes, including dividends, capital gains, salaries, directors’ fees, pensions, life insurance and rents, rather than just interest as now. It will be implemented by an amendment to the EU Directive on Administrative Cooperation which came into force in January.  More on this can be found here.

Now to the USA.  Criminal investigations by the Internal Revenue Service rose 9% to 5,125 in the last fiscal year.  The number of convictions has risen to 2,634 aided by a 93% conviction rate.   More on this can be found here.  I suspect the trend is similar in the UK.

Again from the USA and a story that will I am sure run and run.  The IRS has admitted that its staff gave special scrutiny to the tax-exempt status of organisations supporting the conservative Tea Party alliance during the 2012 presidential election campaign. The IRS says it was trying to distinguish between political organisations as such, and social welfare organisations that are not allowed to engage in political campaigning as their primary activity.  US President Obama has now sacked the Head of the IRS, Steven Miller and the FBI has launched a criminal investigation into the affair.  Two articles on this from the Wall Street Journal can be found here and here.

And finally to France.  The French Government has dropped plans for corporate governance legislation to cap executive pay. Instead the 2014 Budget will introduce the long-threatened 75% levy on employers who pay salaries over €1m.   More on this from Reuters can be found here.

Have a great weekend.

My final “tax land” of 2012 as I have a looming chapter deadline on the subject of a Scottish tax system.

Where to start?  Let’s start with the UK Chancellor’s “Autumn” statement.

George Osborne admitted that the UK had missed its debt reduction targets putting the UK’s AAA credit rating under threat.  Osborne also announced that the planned rise on fuel duty is to be axed and the personal allowance of income tax payers is to be boosted.  Benefits are to be limited to a 1% rise a year for the next 3 years and economic growth will be lower than predicted until at least 2018.

In response the Institute of Fiscal Studies warned that one million people will find themselves joining the higher 40p income tax rate by 2015.  Far higher than the 400,000 figure quoted by Osborne.  The IFS also said further austerity measures to increase taxes and cut benefits were unavoidable to fix a £27bn black-hole in the UK economy before the next UK General Election.

Figures also showed that poorest 30% of households will suffer the most under the changes announced.  More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.

The AAA rating is of course an issue in the independence referendum.  One of the arguments made by those arguing NO is that an independent Scotland, notwithstanding its oil reserves, would lose its AAA credit rating.  This issue is now a problem for the NO campaign as the UK, in the event of a YES vote, would presumably be desperate to retain Scotland in a monetary union to protect its credit rating.

The YES campaign also received a further boost when it was confirmed that nearly 17 billion barrels of oil are to be recovered from the North Sea over the next 30 years following a £134bn investment by oil and gas companies.  The majority of the new developments will be in Scottish waters while production from gas fields in the southern North Sea begins a dramatic decline. More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.

Now to the tax avoidance debate.

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has warned officials from HMRC that firms that devise complicated tax regimes are “running rings” around them. The Committee Chair, Margaret Hodge MP, said that the public would consider such schemes “completely and utterly immoral”. More on this from the Guardian can be found here.  My recent blog on this and the lack of political will to reform the UK’s tax system can be found here.

Meanwhile the Chief Secretary to the UK Treasury, Danny Alexander, has warned against naming and shaming large firms who do not pay the correct amount of tax, insisting that he is obliged to defend firms’ “taxpayer confidentiality”. More on this from the Mirror can be found here.  This adds to the growing evidence that the UK Government is at best being half-hearted in its attempts to tackle this issue.

Further evidence for this claim can be found when you consider that only 5% of the UK Government’s announced investment into HMRC will be aimed at tackling tax avoidance.  The context to this is of course the large budget reduction and cut in staff numbers already made to HMRC.  More on this from the Times can be found here.

According to an investigation by the Times, offshore companies are exploiting a tax loophole which allows them to buy up some of the UK’s most expensive homes and avoid paying property stamp duty, inheritance tax and capital gains tax.  More on this from the Times can be found here.  The Times has done some excellent work on this issue over the last few months.

Figures from HMRC show that the number of people declaring an annual income of more than £1m fell from 16,000 to 6,000 after the previous 50p top rate was brought in.  More on this from the Telegraph can be found here.  What this statistic purports to show is though open to debate.

Final point on the tax avoidance and tax evasion debate.  The claim that I have made on many occasions that tax for some, namely large companies and the wealthy, is becoming a matter of negotiation – almost voluntary in nature – seems now to be generally accepted.  That is clearly what Starbucks think.

The Scottish Government has unveiled plans to reform stamp duty land tax in Scotland.  The importance of this should not be underestimated.  The Scottish Government must show that it has the competence to deal with tax matters.  The signs so far are positive.  More on this can be found here.

Now to matters slight further afield.

France’s Senate has rejected the Government’s 2013 Budget, which among other measures raised the marginal tax rate on annual income of over €150,000 to 45%, imposed a 75% “solidarity contribution” on income over €1m, and raised capital gains tax rates to match income tax rates.  The Budget will though almost certainly be forced through by the National Assembly.  More on this from Tax-news can be found here.

The Republic of Ireland Government has revealed its 2013 Budget.  It introduces a new annual property tax of 0.18% on properties valued below €1m, payable by owners.  More expensive properties will be taxed at €1,800 plus 0.25% of their value over €1m.  Initially, and until 2016, owners’ valuations will be accepted.  More on this from the Irish Times can be found here.

Finally to the USA.  The US Internal Revenue Service has published guidance on calculating the new 3.8% tax on investment income, imposed to pay for President Obama’s universal health insurance plan.  More on this from the Journal of Accountancy can be found here.

This has been a very interesting year for all those interested in tax and the wider Scottish tax and fiscal powers debate. I suspect that is not going to change in 2013.  Best wishes to you and yours for 2013.

A lot has been written in the past dew weeks about the attitude of a number of international companies to paying UK corporation tax.  This issue is though only one of a number of matters that needs to be addressed.

Is there the political will to reform the UK’s tax system?  I would argue no.  What evidence do I have for this?

1. The reluctance of the UK Government to address the paying of corporation tax by large international companies.

2. There is a lot of talk of tax simplification but the reality is very different.  The new reduced rate of inheritance tax is but one example.

3. If the UK Government was serious about reforming the tax system we would be at least be debating publishing summaries of business tax returns and other ideas to increase transparency.

4. The introduction of morality into this debate does not help matters.  A robust tax system should not need to rely on what is and what is not “moral”.

5.  Fairness is though crucial.  The perception is growing that tax for certain sections of our society is optional.  This needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.   The fact that it is increasingly difficult to tell what is “tax avoidance” and what is “tax evasion” does not help matters.

6.  The fact that the UK Government has allowed so many public sector people to be employed through service companies is nothing short of disgraceful.   This added to the perception of a lack of fairness.

7. The UK Government seemed to immediately say it would not introduce a Financial Transaction Tax because it was a European proposal.  The lack of a proper debate again added to the perception of a lack of fairness.

8. If the UK Government did care about the quality of UK’s tax system why have they made such deep cuts to HMRC’s budget and staff numbers.

This though is not just a UK Government matter.

It was reported a couple of months ago that a number of so-called celebrities were involved in schemes, perfectly legal, to reduce the amount of tax they paid.   The furore, if that is what it was, did not last long.  If the public do not seem to care too much about this issue then the UK Government might conclude it is not that important.

These issues apply just as much to the Scottish Government as further tax and fiscal powers reside in Edinburgh.

Let’s start with an issue that is at last beginning to reach the top of the political agenda, tax avoidance.

The UK National Audit Office has released a report suggesting that HMRC is being “overwhelmed” by the scale of tax avoidance, claiming that the UK is losing out by more than £10bn in lost tax revenue.  The Comptroller and Auditor General, Amyas Morse, stated: “HMRC must push harder to find an effective way to tackle the promoters and users of the most aggressive tax avoidance schemes”.  But according to the NAO, between 2004 and 2011 approximately 2,300 avoidance schemes were disclosed to HMRC.  A report on this can be found on the BBC news website which can be found here.  The NAO report can be found here.

That shows the scale of the problem.

Then there is the sight of a number of Chief Executives from several of the world’s top companies giving evidence to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee on the issue of tax avoidance.  Representatives from Google UK, Starbucks and Amazon were answering questions on tax arrangements for multinational companies.  Their responses show how big business views this issue and interference by politicians.  More on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

Also on this issue.  The Managing Director of John Lewis, Andy Street has said that the failure to resolve the issue would risk driving UK firms out of business.  Street’s comments were aimed at Amazon, which is accused of failing to pay the correct rate of UK corporation tax. He said that UK companies would be “out-invested” and “out-traded” by the US-based internet retail giant.  More on this from the Telegraph can be found here.

There is also some evidence that HMRC is losing this “battle”.  The European Court of Justice has ruled that the UK Government must refund several UK-headquartered multinationals up to £5bn worth of corporation tax.  The companies, led by British American Tobacco, were found to have been treated unfairly by HMRC which retrospectively blocked tax refund claims dating as far back as 1973.  HMRC said it was “very disappointed” at the ruling.  Glad that it was not “happy”.  More on this, again from the Telegraph, can be found here.

Then there is the tax tribunal decision in favour of the former Rangers Football Club.   The decision of the first tier tribunal was not unanimous and HMRC is considering an appeal.  More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.

An example of what HMRC is trying to do also highlights the scale of its task.  HMRC has launched a taskforce to pursue landlords in the south east of England who fail to declare rental income.  It is expected to recover £4m out of the estimated £550m of tax evaded annually by landlords across the UK.  A press release from HMRC on this matter can be found here. 

The statement from UK Business secretary Vince Cable sums up nicely the quandary for politicians.  Cable has called for action against corporate tax avoidance but also stressed the need to encourage investment.  He pointed to anger amongst small and medium sized businesses that multinational corporations are able to avoid tax without consequence.  More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.

I liked this: “High-street shops turn fire on Amazon’s tax avoidance”.  More on this can be found here.

Now to the fiscal powers debate.

Edward Troup, the person responsible for the collection of the Scottish rate of income tax at HMRC, has told MSPs that the Scottish Government would have to pay the costs of any changes to the Scottish rate of income tax.  More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.  This is in fact one of the reasons why I think a tax needs to be devolved in its entirety.

Also on this issue, and some sensible observations by Iain Gray, convener of Holyrood’s Audit Committee.  Gray said that the Scottish Parliament must be able to exercise greater oversight of HMRC when the Scottish Parliament will become responsible for raising half the income tax in Scotland from 2016.   More on this from the Herald can be found here.

The Devo Plus group, which was set up by Reform Scotland, has published its latest paper on further powers that could be devolved to the Scottish Parliament as long as Scotland votes NO.  More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.  The paper  can be found here. Notable that the Conservative representative acknowledged that he was there in a personal capacity and not representing his party.  Ruth Davidson has of course made her opposition to further powers clear.  The problem with this approach is an obvious one.  Can anyone say with a degree of certainty that major powers will be devolved to Scotland if Scotland votes NO.  To see how far apart the opposing sides in the independence debate are have a look at one of my recent blogs.  This blog lists the tax powers that Westminster has already said no to.  My earlier blog can be found here. Even the Liberal Democrats, the party that historically has went the furthest on this issue, now wishes to devolve only a handful of additional tax powers.

Now to some commentary on the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report on the economic possibilities of an independent Scotland.  The excellent piece by Ian Bell in the Herald can be found here.  The argument that Scotland’s oil wealth is a potential problem for Scotland is simply ridiculous.

The Times has reported that sales of homes valued between £2m and £5m in Greater London have fallen by 29% per cent in the third quarter, according to figures from the Land Registry.  I was interested to read that “industry experts” have blamed the fall on changes to stamp duty land tax in the last UK Budget.  London Central Portfolio, a high-end residential property investment fund, said: “The fall in transactions is almost definitely a result of the uncertainty and negative sentiment caused by the tax changes announced in the 2012 Budget”.  It seems that uncertainty can be caused by something other than the debate on Scottish independence. The report in the Times can be found here.

And finally to France.  The French Government has announced new measures against tax avoidance and fraud for companies and individuals. Failure to disclose the origin of offshore assets will attract an automatic 60% tax rate.  The French tax authorities will also demand an explanation of all individual payments exceeding €200,000.  Vive la France.

Let’s start with “Land Reform”.  The First Minister has set up a group of experts to look at this issue.  The First Minister wants the group “to deliver radical change” for both rural and urban areas.  It will be chaired by former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Dr Alison Elliot.  More information on the review can be found here.  One factor that is noticeable by its absence is taxation.  This should also be a review of how we tax our land and property.  If not included this is an opportunity missed.

Who is to blame for the state of the economy?  You would have though bankers might be high up on any list.  However, it seems there is another favoured suspect, tradesmen.  David Gauke, Exchequer Secretary at the UK Treasury, called people who pay tradesmen in cash “morally wrong”.  He has also claimed that the UK Government has missed out on about £2bn on taxes on these “off the books” transactions.

In response the regularly excellent Ian Bell wrote an article titled “Plumbers dodging VAT aren’t to blame for economic mess”.  His article in the Herald article can be found here.  This is one of the best articles I have read recently.

Gauke was also not helped when it transpired that Boris Johnson, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have engaged in the practice of paying tradesmen cash.  Gauke’s full speech can be found here.

The tradesmen issue aside, there were many good things in Gauke’s speech.  This includes a new UK Treasury consultation paper on giving HMRC new powers to force tax firms to disclose clients who are using tax avoidance schemes.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.  More information on this consultation can be found here.  It is though still surprising that the UK Treasury has taken so long to even consider measures such as this.

It is always worth putting figures in context.  A new study for the lobbying group Tax Justice Network claims that wealthy individuals worldwide are holding at least $21 trillion in bank accounts in low-tax jurisdictions.  This dwarfs the £2bn figure mentioned above.  A report on this from the STEP Journal can be found here.

Now to the Scottish Government’s consultation on its proposed Land and Buildings Transaction Tax.  The consultation can be found here.  The Land and Buildings Transaction Tax will replace the current UK Stamp Duty Land Tax from April 2015.  This is important as it is effectively the beginning of a Scottish tax system.  The consultation is also of a standard that we will now expect.   Previous papers on corporation tax and excise duty, although not consultations, were simply not good enough.  Lessons clearly have been learned.  The consultation ends on 30 August 2012.

Now to the North Sea.  George Osborne has pledged £500m in tax breaks for companies developing the Cygnus gas field in the North Sea.  In addition two Chinese firms announced major acquisitions worth over £10bn in North Sea oil firms.  More on these stories can be found on BBC news website here and the Press & Journal here.  It seems that there is a great deal of life left in the North Sea and not just in Scottish waters.

One of the most important art objects ever donated to Scotland’s national collection in lieu of inheritance tax has gone on display. The Hamilton-Rothschild Tazza, a Byzantine sardonyx bowl mounted on a 16th-century gold stand, came from the estate of Edmund de Rothschild, who died in 2009, under the “Acceptance in Lieu scheme”.  A report on this from the STV website can be found here.

Now to an issue I have blogged about before.  An investigation for the Sunday Herald has shown that due to the charitable status of fee-paying schools in Scotland, while local authority schools have to pay full non-domestic rates, because many fee-paying schools are charities they receive an 80 per cent discount on their rates.  The investigation suggests the discount has saved private schools in the six local authority areas investigated £10m over three years. An article on this issue from the Sunday Herald article can be found here.

This issue shows how complicated devolution can be.  Non-domestic rates and charitable status are devolved matters.  Tax relief for charities is a reserved matter even under the provisions of the 2012 Scotland Act. 

Interestingly in the same week Stephen Twigg, Shadow UK Education Secretary, has said that Labour may remove the charitable status of some private schools.  Twigg warned that a UK Labour Government could enact legislation so that private schools not serving the community would lose their charitable status.

The UK Government has finally confirmed that fuel duty, air passenger duty and road tax are not environmental taxes.  This means that they are “revenue raisers” pure and simple.  The UK Treasury now defines an environmental tax as a charge which is explicitly linked to Westminster’s environmental aims, aimed at promoting behaviour change and is structured so that people pay more based on the potential damage caused to the environment.  An article on this from Holyrood can be found here.

I think I will finish with China and its attempt to attract more foreign investment.  China has slashed from 10% to 5% the withholding taxes it levies on profits repatriated by foreign companies, and on dividends paid to foreign shareholders of Chinese-quoted shares. The concessions apply only to companies based in double tax treaty partner countries, excluding the US.  A FT China article on this can be found here.

Have a good weekend.

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.

Where to start?  Tax and morality seems as good a place as any.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien has accused David Cameron of acting immorally by favouring the rich ahead of ordinary citizens affected by the recession.  The cardinal also denounced David Cameron’s opposition to a “Robin Hood tax” on financial institutions.  Those arguing for a European financial transaction tax have gone a bit quiet recently.  The cardinal’s interview has though brought this proposal back into the news.  Whether a tax such as this is introduced is though only part of the debate.  As with most taxation debates the secondary debate involves how the revenue should be spent.  The cardinal would like it spent helping the poor and vulnerable at home and abroad.  Others want an emergency fund for the next banking crisis.  An article from the BBC new website on this can be found here.

Now to the London mayoral debate. Included in Boris Johnson’s manifesto for a second term is a proposal to set up a commission that would explore the possibility of a “Barnett” style formula for London.  Johnson wants to keep more of the tax raised in London to be spent in London.  An article on this from the Guardian can be found here.  This is further evidence of how quickly the fiscal powers debate is moving.

The Scotland Bill has received its Royal Assent.  An article on this from the BBC news website can be found here.  A missed opportunity?  I think so.  That said, even under the Scotland Act (2012) we are going to have a Scottish tax system.  I am of course looking forward to the Scottish Government’s consultations on the tax powers being devolved but why stop there?  It is surely now obvious that we need to start thinking about the type of tax system we want.  That must include a review of all government tax, law and registration services and the creation of a Scottish Exchequer.

Good to see an article in the Herald on something I have written about recently.  Businesses in new Scottish enterprise zones will be able to claim up to 100% business rates relief as part of new incentives to stimulate investment in the economy.  Other measures announced by the Scottish Government include more efficient planning procedures, improved broadband, targeted capital allowances and international marketing.  The article in the Herald can be found here.

Another article from the Herald, this time on an “unprecedented” number of business rates appeals.  The article reports that court cases have been launched by retailers in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Kirkcaldy and elsewhere as firms contest the size of their rate bills.  The article from the Herald can be found here.  The main argument being used is that the current rates were calculated in 2008, before the extent of the downturn became apparent.

For those of you interested in tax statistics, the relevant HMRC page can be found here.  For those of you interested in tax consultations, current HMRC consultations can be found here and current HM Treasury consultations here.  There will be many more consultations added over the next few months as the UK Chancellor in his Budget made reference to approximately 45 consultations.

Approximately 12,000 people who had been told that they no longer needed to fill in self-assessment tax forms have been sent penalty notices in error.  To put this in context, 130,000 people were taken out of the self-assessment process for this tax year.  Some 850,000 people were sent penalty notices for failing to submit their tax returns on time this year.  This is 550,000 fewer than a year ago.  An article on this from the BBC news website can be found here.  As mentioned in this article it is likely that “HMRC’s resources” played a part in this latest error.

Nearly 60,000 more Scottish pensioners than first thought will be hit by the UK Government’s decision to freeze age related personal allowances according to new figures published by HM Treasury.  The figures show the so called “granny tax” will impact 423,000 pensioners in Scotland by 2015-2016.   The article from the Herald can be found here.

David Cameron has backed proposals for an “airline levy” to ease waiting times at London Heathrow Airport border control.  Airlines using London Heathrow would pay higher landing fees to pay for additional UK Border Force staff to help remedy the long queues currently occurring.  You would be forgiven for thinking there was an election in London this week.  The UK Government is not making many friends in the airline industry just now.  The spat over increases in Air Passenger Duty continues.  More information on this can be found in an article on the BBC news website found here.

Now to Europe and the “debt crisis” debate.  Financial Times journalist, Gideon Rachman continues to argue against European countries trying to spend their way out of their debt crisis.  This is a quote from his article:  “There is, of course, scope for argument about the pace of deficit reduction.  But in a highly-taxed, highly-regulated, highly-indebted continent like Europe, more state-funded public works would simply build another road to nowhere”.  The full article can be found in the Financial Times on 1 May.

I will finish on a matter I have blogged on before.  More than 2,000 public sector workers could be avoiding the full rate of income tax through special contracts, UK Government research has found.  An article on this from the BBC news website can be found here and my earlier blog here. This is an incredible figure as it does not include those in the NHS or local government.  Danny Alexander is seemingly “shocked”.  It seems that “shock” is becoming the default reaction for UK Government Ministers.  You may remember George Osborne’s was also recently “shocked” at the extent of tax avoidance.  Tax and morality it was ever thus.

Have a good weekend.  “Tax land” will be back in three weeks time.

The main story of the week has to be the fact that the UK Chancellor, yes the UK Chancellor, said:  “I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs – and to be fair it’s within the tax laws – so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax.  And I don’t think that’s right.”

Words almost fail me.  Then again maybe I should be glad that George Osborne has finally realised what was clearly obvious to everyone else.  HMRC provided the UK Chancellor with anonymised copies of the confidential tax returns submitted to them by some of the UK’s wealthiest people.  These returns showed that the 20 biggest tax avoiders had legally reduced their income tax bills by a total of £145m in a year.  According to the report, the very rich have managed to reduce their income tax rate to an average of 10%; less than half the amount paid by the average Briton.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.  Helpfully the BBC news website has also outlined the most common tax avoidance schemes.  This can be found here.

I am not sure that the Prime Minister’s announcement that he will publish details of his taxes is going to help the UK Government out of the hole they are digging for themselves.  As the UK Chancellor noted, these people are acting within the law.  Take for example the proposed cap on income tax reliefs.  The cap will apply only to those reliefs that are currently unlimited, which will therefore exclude pension contributions and EIS investments, among others.  The proposals will cap tax relief to 25% of income or £50,000 whichever is greater.  It is expected the draft legislation will be published for consultation later this year.

HM Treasury has now published more information on this proposal.  The report, which confirms charitable gift relief will be included in the cap, can be found here.  The report notes that current unlimited relief policy allows individuals to pay no income tax at all, which is not permitted in, for example, the US tax system.

Is that the end of the matter?  Of course not.  The Scotsman reports that Sir Tom Hunter has criticised George Osborne’s plans to cap tax relief on charitable donations as “ill-thought-out and punitive”.  The Scotsman article can be found here.  It is quite clear that charities fear their funding is under threat.  This sums up nicely the problem facing George Osborne.  He wants to crack down on aggressive tax avoidance but that is easier said than done.  Almost any proposal to change the tax system results in a campaign to prevent or amend the proposal.

Now to another controversial issue, retrospective changes to tax law.  HM Treasury has published the process it will follow when making unexpected changes to tax law.  The statement gives an undertaking that retrospective measures will be “wholly exceptional”.  The statement from HM Treasury can be found here.  A recent of example of a retrospective change to tax legislation involved Barclays bank.  A BBC news website report on the Barclays bank matter can be found here.  If the UK Chancellor is serious about tackling aggressive anti-avoidance then I am sure we will see many more examples of retrospective changes to our tax law.

Finance Secretary, John Swinney, has announced incentives and actions to stimulate investment, in four enterprise sectors, for green energy, manufacturing and life science.  These incentives include business rate discounts worth up to £275,000 per business or enhanced capital allowances, new streamlined planning protocols across all sites, skills and training support and an international marketing campaign to promote the sites.  A press release from the Scottish Government on this can be found here.

Now to VAT and two issues I have blogged about before.  A great deal has been written about pasties and VAT since the UK Budget statement.  What though of another VAT anomaly.  Why is VAT levied on the renovation of old buildings but not on the sale of new houses?  Does this encourage energy saving?  Does this encourage the building of new homes?  Why not at least introduce a lower rate of VAT on residential renovations and repairs, as happens in the Isle of Man.  Sadly more questions than answers or signs of any change of policy.  A link to my earlier blog on this issue can be found here.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats have urged the Scottish Government to drop their plans for a single police force over concerns that the force will potentially face an annual £22m VAT bill. The eight existing forces are currently exempt from the tax due to their ties to local authorities.  A link to an earlier blog that covers this issue can be found here.  My earlier blog also includes my expectations as to how HM Treasury will view this matter.  Although I can understand the Scottish Liberal Democrats opposition to the single force policy, do they really think that the VAT should be levied?  If not, will they lobby their UK counterparts who, after all, are in charge of HM Treasury on this matter?  I suspect not.  The Liberal Democrats press release can be found here.

To Wales and the news that Welsh supermarkets have seen a massive drop in the use of plastic bags when they charge for them.  A 5p bag levy was introduced across Wales last year.  A report on this from the Daily Mail online can be found here.  Good to see the Daily Mail outlining the situation in the other parts of the UK.

The Spanish Government has announced a general tax amnesty offering taxpayers the chance to disclose irregularities in their past affairs without being prosecuted or penalised. The cost is a one-off payment of 10% of all undeclared assets and rights.  This follows similar measures in Greece and Italy.  More information on the Spanish amnesty can be found here.

Have a good weekend.