TaxCorporate TaxA capital dispute

A capital dispute

The blogosphere has enthusiastically embraced the funny distinction the Treasury made last week about controlled foreign companies. Embraced in that it has caused a few good and provocative debates.

For those of you who haven’t read about it, the government basically said that offshore CFCs’ profits should be taxed in the UK where the profits were derived from ‘capital’, and not from ‘labour’.

I made the point, which I stand by, that that distinction is old-fashioned. I suggested it was Marxist, which I might retract, but only on the basis that I might be doing Marx a disservice by attributing to Marxism such a crude distinction.

The idea that profits from capital are not economic activity, whereas profits from labour are, seems silly at best and at worst wholly contradictory to the New Labour project, which is all about being more relaxed about what capitalists get up to. It’s funny to see Gordon Brown’s Treasury show such distaste for ‘the profits of capital’.

Dennis Howlett thinks that there is an Old Labour/New Labour distinction here that may help us to understand the future direction of the tax avoidance debate. I think he’s on to something there, certainly if you consider Stephen Byers’ views on tax, which imply a far more relaxed attitude to rich people not paying tax, if not commenting specifically on tax avoidance. (The extent to which he represents New Labour is of course open to debate.)

Richard Murphy takes the view that the Treasury is right, on the basis that all these offshore Treasury functions are a try-on. He quotes recent research showing that such functions have an average of zero employees, for instance (one quibble I have with this is that the research refers to a ‘median,’ a type of average which is, of course, critically different from the general perception of an average…).

I have no way of assessing whether or not any or all treasury functions are try-ons, and Richard may well be right. The examples he cites, if they are accurate descriptions of how people do business, certainly give rise to criticism.

My point would be that the Treasury is unlikely to be able to make those fine distinctions as to what is a try-on and what isn’t by using this labour/capital split.

It will be challenged at every stage, because it is not a particularly intelligent or finely tuned point. And the Treasury will get no closer to achieving its aim of stamping out abuse.

Related Articles

HMRC hiring spree welcome but won't solve 'customer' service issues alone

Corporate Tax HMRC hiring spree welcome but won't solve 'customer' service issues alone

2y Calum Fuller, Reporter
Tory tax plans ease business’s worries, but personal tax path unclear

Corporate Tax Tory tax plans ease business’s worries, but personal tax path unclear

3y Calum Fuller, Reporter
Ridiculous timeframe given to read and debate the Finance Bill

Corporate Tax Ridiculous timeframe given to read and debate the Finance Bill

3y Calum Fuller, Reporter
HMRC must apply common sense to pay-up first plans

Corporate Tax HMRC must apply common sense to pay-up first plans

3y Calum Fuller, Reporter
Scrapping IR35 all very well – but what else?

Corporate Tax Scrapping IR35 all very well – but what else?

4y Calum Fuller, Reporter
Election concerns likely to colour the Budget

Corporate Tax Election concerns likely to colour the Budget

4y Calum Fuller, Reporter
LLPs guidance delay sign concerns may be heeded

Corporate Tax LLPs guidance delay sign concerns may be heeded

4y Calum Fuller, Reporter
ICAEW takes important educational step in tax debate

Corporate Tax ICAEW takes important educational step in tax debate

4y Calum Fuller, Reporter