Content provided in partnership with
Time for a national debate on corporate taxes. Amazingly, the
Independent, The (London), Apr 30, 2008 by JEREMY WARNER
OUTLOOK
Tricky stuff, corporate taxation. As Labour has discovered, in the good times it's a rich source of revenue the burden of which can be steadily raised without apparent damage to electoral prospects or economic prosperity. Yet impose too much of it and business votes with its feet and moves elsewhere. Where would the Government's chances of re-election be if too much business tax ends up poleaxing the wider economy?
Unnerved by the spectacle of two major companies in a fortnight moving offshore, and a third - Sir Martin Sorrell's WPP - threatening to do the same, the Chancellor Alistair Darling announced a new business-government forum yesterday to examine what a modern corporate tax regime should look like and discuss ways in which the tax system can provide multinationals with the long-term certainty and competitiveness they need.
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
It's easy to see why many business leaders are sceptical. Oh, yes, let's have another review, so as to maintain the pretence that the Government treats the concerns of business seriously while at the same time getting on with the main task of taxing companies more heavily.
Looked at less cynically, the Treasury does appear to be genuinely interested in having a debate about what form of corporate tax system would best suit both the needs of companies and government.
Nobody with a clean sheet would invent the present mess of a corporate tax system. Even seasoned accountants struggle to understand its complexities. Every time Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs sees a potential leakage, it tries to plug it, piling yet more legislation on the existing mind-boggling layers of it.
Corporation tax is a form of double taxation, in that it is levied on the fruits of labour and capital that have already been taxed once. In an ideal world, it would be better not to have it at all. Certainly, it would remove tax as an issue of corporate competitiveness.
Yet realistically, we have to accept that it is here to stay. At roughly 10 per cent of total government revenue, corporation tax is not something that could painlessly be replaced. Add in other business taxes, and the proportion is higher still.
The bumper profits announ-ced yesterday by BP and Shell on the back of soaring energy prices might seem obscene to some, yet to the Government they are manna from heaven. As one lucrative source of tax revenue - the City - dries up, the oil companies show every sign of filling the gap.
Companies and labour are today highly mobile. As a consequence, there is a natural tendency to try to earn profits in jurisdictions where they are likely to be least taxed. How to protect tax revenues from this leakage is a growing problem for governments.
For some multinationals, proposals announced in a discussion document last year in the latest attempt to address the perceived mobility of the tax base were the final straw. The already announced decision of Shire and UBM to re-domicile in Ireland is bound to make others at least consider doing likewise.
Business leaders accuse the Revenue of failing to understand the reality of the global corporation and of attempting to tax profits which are already being taxed elsewhere. The Treasury, by contrast, suspects companies of deliberately organising their affairs so as to escape UK tax on profits earned from intellectual property and the like.
The debate doesn't have to be so confrontational. The Government's concern is to maximise returns from corporation tax. Industry's concern is to maintain a competitive tax regime. The two things are far from incompatible. As Ireland has already realised, a competitive tax regime is in the long run also likely to be a high yielding one.
How to explain HBOS's rights issue
We all know why Royal Bank of Scotland is having a rights issue - its capital cushion is now so threadbare that it barely exists. Yet why is HBOS also calling on shareholders for more money? On the face of it, the capital ratio is already robust enough. Certainly, it is better than that of Barclays, which has said it sees no need for a rights issue.
The 2.9bn writedown announced by HBOS yesterday on American mortgage-backed securities obviously impairs the balance sheet a bit, but as HBOS points out, this is only a "fair value adjustment" to reflect current market prices. The securities in question are not sub-prime mortgage assets. They may, for the time being, be impossible to sell, but on maturity, HBOS should eventually get all its money back.
True enough, HBOS has a relatively gloomy view of the economic outlook, with growth this year expected to fall to between 1.25 and 1.5 per cent and mid-single digit falls in house prices for the next two years predicted. Yet in HBOS's estimation, it would require a much more serious economic deterioration than this to prompt a dangerous erosion in capital. Even at a level of default as high as that of the early 1990s, HBOS still looks robust enough to come through without need for more capital.
