The Guardian has apologised to Tesco over its reporting of the supermarket's tax affairs.
The paper published a series of articles on Saturday making clear that it no longer believed Tesco's Cayman island structures allowed it to avoid up to £1bn in corporation tax.
'The original Guardian articles did not correctly explain the effect of Tesco's tax schemes. It was wrong to state that they were designed to avoid corporation tax. It would have been correct to refer to avoiding SDLT [Stamp Duty Land Tax].
'As a result, the figure of "up to £1bn" - calculated as the amount which could have been saved on the disposal of £5bn of property - is wrong. The loss to the exchequer is likely to be nearer the region of £90m-£100m,' the paper said.
In a separate editorial it apologised for that: 'We are happy to withdraw both assertions and apologise.'
But iit also robustly defended its journalism, and insisted there are important issues over Tesco's tax avoidance that still require answers.
'We remain ready to defend our journalism - in court, if necessary. We believe these matters should be subject to debate and scrutiny, and we invite further informed analysis from any readers with experience in accountancy or tax law,' the paper said.
The Guardian reported Tesco saying in a statement: 'Given that the Guardian has not yet filed a defence to the legal proceedings issued against its parent company and editor, we believe that it is completely inappropriate for Tesco to be asked by the Guardian to comment further on matters which may have a bearing on the case.
'Tesco has already made clear in its public statements and in the legal documents served on the Guardian Media Group that savings have been made on stamp duty and stamp duty land tax.'
The statement added: 'We continue to hope that the Guardian will publish an apology and correction for its false statements.'
Further Reading:
Guardian Editorial: Tax and Transparency
Guardian piece: Tesco and Tax: a complex web of companies, trusts and partnerships
Guardian piece: The 16 weeks of questions and answers that led to a libel writ
Comments