Let’s start with Edinburgh.

It has been a better week for Edinburgh as we are talking about pandas and not trams or statutory repairs.  Even its pro rugby team is winning.  But what about tax?  The City of Edinburgh Council have taken the idea of a “tourist tax” a stage further.

The policy and strategy committee of the Council has agreed in principle to this revenue raising plan.  The committee has asked officials to look into the proposal in more detail.  It is estimated that the Council could raise up to £10m a year by charging between £1 and £2 per room each night.  If formally adopted Edinburgh would be the first place in the UK to levy the charge on visitor accommodation.  The exact nature of how the tax would be raised is as yet unclear.  The officials have also to look at both a compulsory and voluntary version of this idea.

Now to the fiscal powers debate.  I was not surprised to see that the UK Government has ruled out devolving Air Passenger Duty to the Scottish Parliament.  This simply provides further evidence that the Scotland Bill is “Calman minus”.

The attitude of the UK Government is though of more interest.  The UK Government seem quite happy to go against the wishes of many businesses and business organisations in Scotland on APD.  Also by refusing to devolve APD they are failing to implement the extremely modest Calman proposals of which they said they would implement in full.

To put this in context.  Who would have thought even a few months ago that  we would see senior members of the Labour party arguing for “devo max”.  The election of Ruth Davidson to lead the Conservatives in Scotland and the stance of “Scotland Bill and no further” shows, at least in the short term, where they stand.  The Liberal Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the Conservatives and that is why they created yet another Commission on this issue.  Hopefully their recommendations will not end up as “Steel minus”.

What does this mean?  The unity surrounding Calman, the previous UK Labour Government’s proposals and now the Scotland Bill is crumbling.   It may be that the Conservatives are becomming more and more distracted by Europe and just simply do not see, or maybe do not want to see, how fast the fiscal powers debate is moving.

Now to Europe and that other fiscal powers debate.  There is so much happening here it is difficult to keep up.  The call for greater fiscal union as a means of solving the Euro crisis.  The call for a European Financial Transactions Tax.  The call to safeguard the City of London and the European single market.  The call for a referendum on UK membership of the EU.  The call for powers to be repatriated to the UK.

Before the summit Ken Clarke was urging the Prime Minister to concentrate on maintaining financial stability and to forget about the repatriation of powers.   The Prime Minister is sticking to the view that any changes would only impact upon the 17 Euro countries and thus do not necessitate a referendum about the issue in the UK.

It was also not a surprise that the Prime Minister has effectively vetoed an EU wide treaty change saying it was not in the UK’s interests.   The sticking point as expected was how to “protect” the City of London.  Not surprisingly the French and others do not hold the City in such high reagrd.   They again made the point that some of the blame for why we are in this position is becuase of a lack of proper financial services regualtion in the City of London.

I have blogged before on how much pressure Ireland is under regarding its low rate of corporation tax and that was before the latest crisis.  If further powers are to be transferred to Brussels Ireland will have to have another referendum.  Will the Irish vote for closer fiscal union with its Eurozone countries knowing that its prized low rate of corporation tax will have to be conceded?  Then there is the Scottish fiscal powers and independence debate.  Who knows what impact the Euro crisis will have on this debate.

Lastly, I enjoyed the following comment piece from Eversheds.  It seems that the rule where footballers must be paid first in the event of a club going into administration is again under attack.   The comment piece can be found here.

Have a good weekend.

Let’s start with the Autumn Statement or in old money the pre-Budget Report.

There were only a few tax announcements of note.   January’s planned rise in fuel duty has been cancelled.   Not yet heard whether next August’s increase is also to be cancelled.  There have been further calls for the fuel duty escalator to be abandoned.  It will be interesting to see how the Scottish Government responds to the increase in business rates by the UK Government.  Tax competition within the UK; surely not.  There was also a tiny increase in the Bank Levy.

The Autumn Statement was of course dominated by the poor growth and debt figures.  It seems the reality of how we have got to this point and what lies ahead is slowly dawning.  According to figures published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies household incomes will fall by 7.4 per cent between 2009/10 and 2012/13 due to inflation and austerity measures.  This reportedly represents the worst fall in living standards since the three-day week in the 1970s and it would see an average family lose nearly £2,500 over the period.

Has the UK been living beyond its means?  Yes.  Is it going to take a number of years for the debt to work its way through the system?  Yes.  Do we now have a two tier public sector where the top tier earns more and has far greater benefits than the vast majority of those who work in the private sector?  Yes.  Will the UK and Scottish Governments have to deal with public sector wages, bonuses and benefits as well as pensions?  Yes.  Is there a quick fix.  No.

Now to the fiscal powers debate.  Interesting to see “devo max” being mentioned on the BBC’s One Show on St Andrew’s Day.  Did not expect  that.    The quality of the debate also surprised me.  Further evidence that this debate has now reached new pastures.

Interesting news report on the BBC website pages concerning the glacial process of devolving some parts of the corporation tax legislation to Northern Ireland.  It seems that a joint ministerial meeting is to take place before Christmas.  Three key points are to be addressed.  These are cost, how would this be administered and what form would the legislation take.  Not sure who is credited with first saying this but they are right.  “The main difference between evolution and devolution is that devolution takes longer.”  The article can be found here.

Now to Europe.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said: “Europe is working towards setting up a fiscal union in a bid to resolve the eurozone’s debt crisis.”  How quickly this debate is moving.   For example the European Union’s council of finance ministers has endorsed European Commission proposals for tax policy coordination through the so-called “Euro Plus Pact” concluded in March by 23 of the 27 member states. The report calls for avoidance of ‘harmful’ tax practices.

Interesting article on the proposed European Financial Transactions tax and how not everyone from the city of London is opposed to this proposal.   The article from the Scotsman can be found here.

One last point.  If you did not see this week’s Panorama programme on PFI and I would recommend you do so.  A school without light switches!  No transparency.  “Dodgy accounting”.  You could not make this stuff up.  This issue is not going away.  How lucky we are that we are now doing things differently in Scotland.   That said, the huge cost to us in Scotland is still going to be with us for a least a generation.   The programme can be found here.

 Have a good weekend.

Glad to see ICAS contributing to the fiscal powers debate.   This follows on from PWC last week.

I have not yet had a chance to read what they have said in any great detail but have outlined some general thoughts below.

1. How can the power to vary a rate of tax be looked at in isolation?

The comments by ICAS concern devolving the right to vary the rate of corporation tax to the Scottish Parliament.  The background to this is that the Northern Ireland Assembly is likely to be given the right to vary the rate at which corporation tax is charged on companies located in the Province.

What is the point of just devolving the right to vary the rate or rates at which corporation tax is charged without devolving underlying or connection legislation?  What about the rest of the corporation tax legislation?  What about company legislation?  The tax rate is only one issue for companies.  What about tax reliefs?  What about company administration?  If this is a serious debate about giving the Scottish Parliament increased fiscal levers why are these points not being discussed?

Secondly.  If we are serious in the need for increasing the number of economic levers the Scottish Parliament has at its proposal what about stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax?  Taxes do not apply in isolation.  It is rare to only have to consider one tax when advising a business.  As these taxes are being charged on share dealings these should be looked at along with corporation tax.

Also business does not just consider the headline rate of tax when deciding  where to locate.  Many others factors are looked at and not just tax.

My second point about “connected taxes” applies equally to property matters.  In that case stamp duty land tax and capital gains tax.

Also I still find it odd that we are discussing income tax in the context of the Scotland Bill and corporation tax due to what is happening in Northern Ireland.  A more sensible approach would have been to look at areas already devolved to the Scottish Parliament and match up the taxes that apply to these powers.  For example.  Inheritance tax as succession law is already devolved.  Or the environmental taxes as the environment is a devolved responsibility.  Tobacco and alcohol duties as health is devolved or the various car taxes as transport is devolved.   That would give the Scottish Parliament a series number of economic levers and also the chance to learn what to do with them.

2. Institutions.  Scotland is soon to have its own tax system.  That is true even under the Scotland Bill proposals.  The Scottish Parliament although not having control over a complete range of taxes will have control over a number of taxes and have some form of borrowing powers.   The Scottish Government’s Finance Department needs to become an Exchequer, i.e. a body that deals with matters presently the preserve HMRC and HM Treasury.  Why is this issue not being debated?

Again on institutions.  Scotland is a relatively small country.  Much smaller than the rest of the UK.  Do we need our own separate HMRC and HM Treasury?  Why not combine them?  In simple terms HMRC is simply there to administer and collect our taxes.   Does Scotland need its own Companies  House, Registers of Scotland or Stamp Office?  Of course not.  One tax, law and registration body could deal with these and many other functions.   Again why is this issue not being debated?

3.  I was intrigued by the following comment by Elspeth Orcharton, assistant director of tax at ICAS: “Devolving tax powers is contrary to the goal of simplifying tax legislation and stability at a UK level, and you could question whether such a move would make the UK as a whole less competitive on the international stage.”

That sounds as if the starting point for ICAS is what is good for the UK not Scotland.  Also is ICAS saying that no powers should be devolved ever?   I suspect not.

Devolving taxes may actually simplify the present system.  For example when SDLT is devolved there will be no need for the present guidance and forms to explain the differences in Scotland and England due to our different systems of property law.   Also whenever I have discussed the devolving of SDLT one issue has almost certainly been raised.  How can we simplify it.

The last point of the above comment is also also telling.  I, for example, look at this issue from the viewpoint of how can I make Scotland more competitive.  I suspect that many views on devolving fiscal powers may be decided simply by where that person’s starting point is: Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast or London.

I am also not sure what is meant “stability”.   I suspect it may be a reference to tax competition.   If it is then that horse has left the stable.  Once taxes are devolved tax competition will soon become the norm.  I for one do not see that as a bad thing.

The term ” tax simplification” in a UK context does also make me smile.   Why is devolving taxes contrary to the principle of tax simplification?  If we in Scotland do not think we can improve on what we have presently then what is the point in having this debate.

What people forget is that the UK does not have a unitary legal system.  Although the tax system applies English law there is on occasion conflict with connected legislation.  For example the introduction of SDLT in Scotland is generally regarded as being a shambles.  HMRC did not take into account Scottish property law.  The conflict there was tax law based on English legal principles and Scottish property law.

Anyway, just a few thoughts on a quiet Sunday afternoon.

More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.