YESTERDAY'S Public Accounts Committee report into HMRC's big business settlement strategy has been widely regarded as a damning indictment. While this is true, there are very few conclusions to be made and it is clear that this is a few shots in a far longer war between the MPs and HMRC.
There have been headlines of an unpaid £25bn tax bill by big business, with Vodafone underpaying by £4.75bn and Goldman Sachs underpaying by £20m. While understandable, these headlines are not helpful, and the MPs stop short of making such accusations.
The most consistent criticism throughout the report is HMRC's lack of willing to offer more information. Indeed, after reporting the numbers, the report says: "Our understanding of how [the Goldman Sachs] case was settled is inhibited by the imprecise, inconsistent and potentially misleading answers given to us by senior department officials, including the permanent secretary for tax [Dave Hartnett]."
The lack of information means that the conclusions of whether the taxman has been settling for less than it should with big business are not as strong as they could be. With this vacuum, it is not unfair for the MPs to suggest how much could be lost, but they are only suggestions.
Another accusation from the MPs is that HMRC is taking confidentiality too far. The pressure on the department might make senior officials less inclined to go beyond the call of duty to keep details of agreements private.
The forthcoming judicial review by UK Uncut, if it takes place, will clarify how much the taxman is able to disclose about confidential agreements. If HMRC does not think it has much to hide in the way it settles disputes with big business, then it might well want to lose the judicial review.
Otherwise, this dispute between HMRC and the PAC (and this is definitely a dispute) will continue to run. And the drip feed of information through whistleblowers and sterling work from Private Eye will be far harder to counter than if it were released through legislative channels.
The "satisfactory" nature of the settlements in question appears to be principally determined by reference to the amounts set aside by the relevant companies in their published accounts to cover the exposure. It is common practice for quoted companies to take a highly pessimistic view of the outcome of a tax dispute whe setting up book provisions - risk considerations require this. This also has the advantage of allowing P/L tax charge credits in subsequent years after settlement is reached. It is not a reasonable basis for judgements to be made as to whether the final settlements unduly favoured the taxpayer.
Posted by: Andrew Lis, 04 Jan 2012 | 12:44
You may also like
If budgeting is to have any value at all, it needs a radical overhaul. In today's dynamic marketplace, budgeting can no longer serve as a company's only management system; it must integrate with and support dedicated strategy management systems, process improvement systems, and the like. In this paper, Professor Peter Horvath and Dr Ralf Sauter present what's wrong with the current approach to budgeting and how to fix it.
In this white paper CCH provide checklists to help accountants and finance professionals both in practice and in business examine these issues and make plans. Also includes a case study of a large commercial organisation working through the first year of mandatory iXBRL filing.