Category Archives: Business

Britain, Business, Economic, Finance, Government, Society

The Revenue must call multinationals to account…

TAX AVOIDANCE

The relationship between the Government’ Revenue Service and how big corporations are being advised on how best to avoid paying tax is often uncomfortably close. Suspicions are such, that no sooner have civil servants finished writing a new addition to the corporate tax laws, is then quickly followed by a recruitment drive by top accountancy firms to provide ideas on how to get round it. Tax avoidance measures are costing the Exchequer billions in unpaid taxes.

The belief that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has too cosy a relationship with the big multinationals has gained new credence when, just last week, a Commons select committee suggested in its report that the tax authority seems to ‘lose its nerve’ when it comes to pursuing the biggest names in business.

The chairman of the House of Commons public accounts committee, Margaret Hodge MP, said:

…In pursuing unpaid tax, HMRC has not clearly demonstrated that it is on the side of the majority of taxpayers who pay their taxes in full.

Noticeably, one of the key findings of the committee’s report was that last year the department collected less tax in real terms than it managed to collect in 2011-12, despite its stated aim of cracking down on tax avoidance. For the average man and woman in the street, who are desperately struggling through the age of austerity, this is an extraordinary state of affairs. With public services being cut at a faster rate than ever before, most people will surely find it astonishing that the corporate world is getting an easier ride than before.

There is, however, an indifferent logic behind the tendency of HMRC to strike deals that seem advantageous to the big firms. Multinational corporations hire very expensive lawyers, who invariably find a way round most of the complex tax rules. At some point, the HMRC calculation seems to be that it would rather cut its losses and do a deal than prolong the agony for an uncertain gain at some indeterminate point in the future.

That is the logic, but it is morally indefensible – especially when the tax authorities show no such leniency when it comes to wringing every last penny from the minnows of British business. Little compunction from HMRC often forces small firms to the wall, even if they are struggling to pay their VAT on time.  These small and medium sized firms (SMEs) put up less of a fight, which is why they are pursued so ruthlessly.

Taxation has to be seen to be fair. For that to be the case, the UK system needs to meet two standards. First, it is imperative we introduce new laws that massively reduce the scope for avoidance. There is a strong argument that the tax code is now too complex, and that this complexity has produced a multiplicity of loopholes that are being exploited. And secondly, HMRC needs to have the resources (and the will) to pursue multinationals as relentlessly as it pursues the country’s smaller firms.

Fairness demands that multinationals know their obligations and are obliged in meeting them.

Standard
Banking, Britain, Business, Economic, Financial Markets, Government, Society

Banking practices of the Royal Bank of Scotland referred to City regulators…

DAMNING REPORTS

The latest accusations being levelled at the Royal Bank of Scotland are as incriminating as any in its recent chequered history.

Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) have long complained that they cannot get the loans they need, despite protestations by the banks to the contrary. A newly released report from Sir Andrew Large, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England, on the bank’s small-business-lending, confirms that much of the criticism levied at the bank in recent times is justified and the taxpayer-rescued institution must explain why it has not been doing all it could to assist Britain’s economic recovery. In normal circumstances, such practices would be worrying enough for the newly installed chief executive of the bank, Ross McEwan.

But these are not normal circumstances; Mr McEwan is also faced with a more troubling contention. According to another published document from Lawrence Tomlinson – deemed a successful businessman and ‘entrepreneur in residence’ at the Department of Business – RBS may have sunk to even greater depths in its condescending and haughty treatment of Britain’s SMEs. Contemptuous, because not only has the bank been transferring perfectly legitimate and profitable companies into its high-risk Global Restructuring Group (GRG), but the West Register (the bank’s property division), has reportedly been acquiring their assets on the cheap after imposing deliberate and exorbitantly high fees on them. Many companies in this high-risk category, deemed perfectly viable, have been unable to pay these fees imposed and as such have found themselves having their assets taken over by the bank at heavily discounted prices.

Both these reports must be put into context. Prior to 2008, RBS had been reckless over a number of years in its dealings, over-extending loans to many small firms that did not justify such levels of confidence. As the bank now struggles to repair its balance sheet, bad debts are continually being written off and lending practices have been tightened.

The findings contained within these reports have left many feeling aghast, not least Mr Tomlinson himself. His inquiries and formal deliberations suggest something altogether more serious. Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, has acted quickly and sent the evidence to City regulators. For his part, Mr McEwan has called in the law firm Clifford Chance to conduct an internal review of the bank’s practices. Such deviant and acute methods would be inexcusable from any bank, but from one that is largely owned and controlled by the state makes matters even worse.

COMMENT & ANALYSIS

The claims made in Lawrence Tomlinson’s report into the way the Global Restructuring Group at the Royal Bank of Scotland has dealt with struggling enterprises are truly dire.

It rightly is a matter that needs to be examined by the regulators the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA).

Forcing struggling firms into insolvency when there may have been a chance of survival is bad enough. Ruthlessly seizing property and assets for its own gain is immoral and much worse.

Yet, should we be surprised? RBS had a hand in almost all the post-crisis scandals, including Libor fixing, interest rate swaps and the sale of payment protection insurance. The bank is also being sued by investors for failing fully to disclose the parlous state of its finances ahead of the £12bn rights issue to shareholders in 2008.

Tomlinson and the Department of Business also have some questions to answer. The in-situ ‘entrepreneur in residence’, for example, is a little mysterious. How was he chosen for this appointment, what is the scope of his role and how much did he tell civil servants and the Secretary of State, Vince Cable, about his own business affairs before he took on this rather curious role?

What also of the poor judgement by Tomlinson not to disclose that NatWest, RBS’s main operating offshoot, had granted him an overdraft and that in the last couple of years he was engaged in a major refinancing operation? Financial analysts will find it extraordinary that this was not considered a relevant factor either by Tomlinson or the Department for Business, and that it was not disclosed in the report. Making a strong case against the predatory behaviour of RBS is one thing, the dealings and judgments of Mr Tomlinson are clearly and significantly related.

The published accounts of Tomlinson’s business LNT Group are, even by the standards of many private empires, on the opaque side. They show a group that is indebted and making losses, with a host of intercompany relationships that are difficult to untangle.

The main product of Tomlinson’s dealings looks to be the design and building of new care homes, something the UK badly needs. But this is a notoriously difficult sector in which to operate – as was seen from the fate of Southern Cross – and management often has to choose between keeping costs under control and maintaining high standards of care.

Before giving Mr Tomlinson a government imprimatur one should trust that Vince Cable and his Department looked carefully at all his dealings before approving the appointment.

Standard
Britain, Business, Energy, Government, Politics, Society

Energy firms and the responsibilities they have…

UK ENERGY FIRMS

The decision by Britain’s biggest energy firms to send junior executives to face a grilling by MPs at this week’s select committee inquiry into soaring utility bills beggars belief.

The distinct absence of energy bosses, who are paid mega-buck salaries, goes to the heart of important issues of power, responsibility and accountability in this country. The nonappearance of chief executives also suggests that energy firms have learned little from recent history about the relationship between large consumer businesses and the customers they profess to serve.

It is not inconceivable to think that the absent bosses had in mind the cross-examinations endured by bank chiefs (including Fred Goodwin of RBS) by MPs in the wake of the government bailout of two of Britain’s major banks. Mr Goodwin – formerly Sir Fred, who has since been stripped of his knighthood – and his colleagues had to make humbling apologies for their actions as MPs held them to account.

If energy bosses had hoped to body-swerve a similar scenario as they are being held to account for inflation-busting price hikes, then they have fundamentally misunderstood their privileged position in British society, and their responsibilities in relation to regulations set out by Parliament.

Energy firms cannot take the view that their business is a private matter between them, their shareholders and their consumers. If that ever was the case – and the apparent powerlessness of the OFGEM regulator has often made it seem so – it is certainly not the case now.

Energy bills and the way they are being calculated now stand at the nexus between industry, politics and austerity. The ‘cost of living’ factor is a key voter concern and has become a major political issue in the run-up to the 2015 General Election. The main topic of political discourse was thrown open ever since Ed Miliband threw down the gauntlet at the Labour party conference, promising a price freeze and cutting electricity and gas bills if he made it into Downing Street. For the Conservatives, former prime minister Sir John Major floated the notion of a windfall tax on the energy firms, should a particularly harsh winter produce bumper profits. In Scotland, the Scottish Nationalist Party produced its own riposte, with a pledge that energy bills would be reduced by 5 per cent in an independent Scotland. The political battle over energy is heating up.

With the cost of living set to continue to be the most pressing political concern, Britain’s energy bosses need to accept they can run, but they cannot hide. They need to engage with this process – by listening, explaining and being open to market reform – or they will end up on the receiving end of both political and public indignation.

Standard