WATCHING Prime Minister's Questions yesterday, there was a strong tax element - discussions about the financial transaction tax, the bank levy and benefits to SMEs.

David Cameron was, fairly enough, asking Ed Miliband what Labour's growth strategy involved. The prime minister launched into a list of this government's actions: the bank levy, the lower bank bonuses, the higher fees on non-doms and the agreements with Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

Hold on a minute, I thought. The Swiss agreement might have its seeds in the Labour government, but it is fair enough for the Conservatives (and lest we forget the LibDems) to claim credit.

But Liechtenstein? The Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility was brought into being in 2009 and signed by a Labour minister - Stephen Timms. This was not an initiative by this government.

Cameron's researchers have made a gaffe here, but it does highlight the success of the LDF. It has brought in the revenue and the next set of figures to be released - the first ones since the announcement of the Swiss deal - will be fascinating. It is likely to be the flood that follows the hitherto satisfying drip of disclosures.

Ownership of the LDF is highly desirable. Probably best for our prime minister not to steal it, however.

AS A tax journalist, it makes me feel uncomfortable defending HMRC. But, like the PAYE reports last week, HMRC does have to put up with an awful lot of misreporting. It's not as though there are not enough genuine criticisms around, after all.

This week, the beleaguered taxman has to face yet more criticisms of the Swiss tax deal, this time from the Tax Justice Network. It identified several loopholes, such as the use of discretionary trusts and insurance wrappers.

These claims might have some merit, but a more detailed analysis is required. But even if the claims are correct, they do not lead to the conclusion - that the deal is bad for the UK.

The deal has to be looked at in two ways: first, that the evaders will not like it, despite reports to the contrary. The most aggressive evaders will find ways around the deal, most likely through moving their money to another jurisdiction or arrange the account in a different way. Neither of which is preferable to doing nothing. Crucially, if they do attempt to avoid the charges, they will not be protected by the provisions - they will still be fair game for the Revenue. They will have gained nothing but the requirement to make their arrangements that little less secure than they were in pre-deal Switzerland.

Second, any money brought in will be extra money for the Exchequer, which is not a bad thing.

The TJN report claims that more money would have been brought in had the UK continued pushing the EU Savings Directive. But it adds: "Although the original directive is full of loopholes and has only collected a small fraction of the originally envisaged sums, it is a long-term work in progress."

So why will the new directive be any different? And why does the TJN not look at bilateral deal from a long-term perspective?

This is part of a worldwide effort to tackle avoidance. Now it's Switzerland, tomorrow it will be Singapore, then Bermuda. This is simply one link in a chain, a link that is generating money on the side. The most determined evaders will run when they are chased, but this is true with whatever mechanism is used to increase transparency. Eventually, human nature dictates that the majority will tire of running.

The TJN, HMRC and 99% of the population are on the same side - we all want the wealthy to pay their fair share. This is the way HMRC think is the best way to collect revenue from Switzerland and to take forward the worldwide fight against evasion: and they have put a convincing case forward.

Ironically, some of the only people who are not on the same side are probably the Zurich tax advisors, who form a large part of the sources quoted in the report...

AFTER NUMEROUS false dawns, the agreement with Switzerland was finally announced yesterday. And, credit where it's due, HMRC permanent secretary Dave Hartnett pulled off an excellent deal. The figures being talked about are around £5bn a year, but that might even be conservative.

Here are the facts: UK taxpayers with accounts in Switzerland will pay 19% or 34% of the value of their account unless they choose to disclose, in which case they will pay their liabilities plus penalties plus interest; the UK can request the details of accounts of 500 people a year who they suspect of tax evasion, whether the individuals consent or not; the UK will receive withholding tax on all future incomes close to the top rates of tax; and Switzerland will pay around £384m for the privilege of this.

Whichever way this is looked at, the UK is the winner in this.

Of course, the pragmatic approach to tax evasion is being criticised in some quarters. It's true that evasion should never be rewarded, but make no mistake - evaders will not be happy with this deal.

Switzerland is entering to these deals to stop itself becoming a financial pariah state. But to expect it to give up its privacy laws would be too much. This is the country's biggest industry and it would almost take a referendum to do so. True, the US is taking a different tack by introducing legislation to force its citizens to disclose overseas taxes, but this is a gamble and is costly.

The provision to name 500 accounts a year, as well as bringing in revenue, will be a strong deterrent for tax evaders. This allows Switzerland to maintain that it has secrecy with the footnote that it is not a fuill cloak for tax fraud.

The Swiss Bankers Association has already welcomed the agreement and the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility has shown the benefits of the full co-operation of the overseas territory.

Talking of Liechtenstein, we can expect to see a rise in the number of people moving their accounts to the country, with the full tax liabilities, interest and 10% penalty it will bring to the UK Exchequer. More importantly, Liechtenstein banks will now begin phase two of the LDF agreement: to force UK citizens to disclose their details to HMRC.
It's been a long time anticipated, but HMRC can rightly be proud of this agreement.