There are signs that the quality of the Scottish independence debate is at last improving.  The ‘NO’ campaign’s relentless negativity is now being commented on and it is also being asked questions concerning what happens if Scotland votes ‘NO’.  The ‘YES’ campaign also seems to be finding its feet and the Scottish Government has published a number of detailed policy papers.  It is though it’s “White Paper” that is eagerly anticipated.    

Further evidence for this improvement comes from the Law Society of Scotland.  The Law Society published its paper titled: “Scotland’s Constitutional Future Views, opinions and questions” this week.  The paper can be found here.  This is an excellent contribution to the debate and asks questions of both sides.

In particular I liked its comments surrounding Scotland’s membership of the European Union.  It is quite obvious to anyone but the most one-eyed commentator that it is going to be very difficult to get more clarity on this issue without the cooperation of the UK Government.  It seems, and for purely political reasons, that the UK Government does not want clarity on this issue.

The following quote from the paper is also telling: “Scotland, as part of the United Kingdom, complies with the European Union treaties and the EU acquis ((all the EU laws, treaties, declarations and resolutions, international agreements and the decisions of the European Court of Justice, i.e. Europe as it is). Whether by way of accession or amendment to the treaties following negotiation, Scotland should be able to qualify, in legal terms, for EU membership in its own right.”  I was also pleased to see that Sir David Edward’s (a former judge of the European Court of Justice and one of the foremost European lawyers in Scotland) common sense analysis of this issue being quoted.

As someone who spent a great deal of time researching and writing about the options for the devolving of substantial tax and fiscal powers to the Scottish Parliament, I was also very pleased to see the ‘NO’ campaign being asked some basic questions such as “which powers” and “when” if Scotland votes ‘NO’.

Now to Wales.  It seems that the UK Government is going to consult again on whether control of SDLT is to be devolved to the Welsh Parliament.  The following story on this from the BBC website shows the increasing frustration at the UK Government’s continued delaying tactics.  The reality is that Westminster only devolves power as a matter of last resort.  All the usual tactics are being used here and in particular the need for yet another consultation.  The latest consultation can be found here and the report from the BBC news website can be found here.

Let’s now take a minute and compare and contrast the next few stories.

An independent Scotland would offer tax incentives to film and TV productions according to Scotland’s Culture Secretary Fiona Hyslop.  More on this can be found here.

The Scottish Government has condemned a High Court decision that ruled applying a cap on housing benefits for disabled people lawful.  Firstly it would be helpful if the news reports explained or clearly stated that this was the “High Court” of England & Wales.  That said, Scottish Housing Minister Margaret Burgess has demanded, and it seems has had some success, that Scotland gets a fair share of the £35m funding pot set aside for those hardest hit. 

Interestingly she also said:  “The bedroom tax will hit the poorest hardest and it is wrong that it applies to people in crisis such as those in temporary accommodation and some supported accommodation.”  “Scotland is disproportionately disadvantaged because much of Scotland’s temporary accommodation is affected by the bedroom tax, unlike in England. The majority of our temporary accommodation is local authority owned, which is not the case in England.”  That begs the question:  Would a Scottish court have come to a different decision?  More on this can be found here.

The UK Government has outlined plans to give tax breaks to companies involved in the UK’s nascent shale gas industry.  It has proposed cutting the tax on some of the income generated from producing shale gas – found in underground shale rock formations – from 62% to just 30%.  This proposal has been criticised by environmentalists, with Friends of the Earth calling them a “disgrace”.  Just how generous are these tax breaks? Gas production is typically taxed at 62% although in some parts of the North Sea long standing operations are taxed at up to 81%.  More on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

Sometimes you have to wonder if Scotland exists.  Will the so-called “Mansion Tax” apply to Scotland?  No.  Do almost all the news stories refer to “Britain”?  Of course they do.  See for example this one from the Independent which can be found here.

11 of the 22 high-value settlements reached by HMRC last year were considered inadequate by the Tax Assurance Commissioner’s office, according to its first annual report. The office was created in February 2012 in response to criticisms of HMRC’s handling of big-money tax disputes.  More on this from Pinsent Masons can be found here.

Now to matters slightly further afield. 

Jersey fights back?  A report commissioned by Jersey Finance has found that Jersey helps the UK generate £2.3bn in tax revenues each year and supports 180,000 UK jobs by channelling foreign investment into the UK. It estimates that losses to the UK Treasury through legal tax avoidance via Jersey are well under £480m a year, while annual evasion costs are less than £150m.  More on this can be found here.

The French Government is to extend the capital gains tax exemption for second homes to properties owned for 22 years, rather than the current 30 year requirement. The 30-year rule was introduced by the previous Sarkozy government in February 2012 to replace the previous qualifying ownership period of only 15 years, but it accelerated the slump in France’s residential property market.  More on this from the Telegraph can be found here.  A good example of the schizophrenic relationship that exists between certain parts of the UK and France.

Early data collected by Swiss banks from their UK clients under the UK-Swiss tax regularisation agreement suggest that it may reveal far less untaxed income than the UK Government has claimed.  More on this from STEP can be found here.

An Irish parliamentary committee has voted down calls for multinational companies to be grilled in Dublin about their tax affairs, in the wake of a string of controversies at firms such as Google and Apple which use the Irish tax regime. Some of Apple’s largest Irish subsidiaries were found not to be tax resident anywhere, prompting Carl Levin, chair of the US Senate subcommittee on investigations, to call Ireland a tax haven.  More on this from the Guardian can be found here.

The Australian Tax Office will next year conduct 680 reviews and 115 audits of people suspected of using ‘secrecy jurisdictions’ to avoid paying tax.  This is in addition to 1,500 income tax reviews and audits of wealthy individual taxpayers.  More on this can be found here.

The US Internal Revenue Service has begun a drive against multinational companies whose permanent establishment strategies result in some profits not being taxed in any country, so-called “stateless income”.  More on this from Reuters can be found here.

The Spanish government is threatening to open tax investigations into the 6,000 Gibraltar residents who own property in Spain.  This is seemingly in retaliation for the Gibraltar Government’s attempts to exclude Spanish fishing vessels from its waters.  Spain is also considering imposing a €50 tax on vehicles entering or leaving Gibraltar; restricting the use of Spanish airspace to planes bound for Gibraltar; and taxing the many Gibraltar-based Internet gambling companies.  More on this from the BBC website can be found here.

Let’s start with the independence debate.  Michael Moore has confirmed that the UK Government will not be bringing forward a proposal for further devolution.  I wonder if that will change if the opinion polls change.  This at least gives us a clear choice.  The choice being between “Calman minus” combined with the extremely unlikely scenario of Westminster devolving serious tax and fiscal powers after a ‘NO’ vote, and control over all tax and fiscal powers by 2016.

I think the ‘NO’ campaign has made a mistake here.  How those whose preferred choice is ‘devo plus’ or ‘devo max’ vote holds the key to which side wins in 2014.  Are they more likely to vote ‘NO’ as a result of Michael Moore’s statement?  The ‘NO’ campaign has not had a good start to the year.  The independence will cost £1 gaffe, support for the Scottish Government’s timetable for the transition to independence, the ridiculing of the claim that Scotland would need to ratify 8,500 treaties and then there was the loss of the UKs ‘AAA’ rating.  A serious proposal for further tax and fiscal powers would at least been a positive move by the ‘NO’ campaign and a change from the continuing negativity.

Now to a man who it seems can do anything.  Olympics gold medals, not a problem.  Forcing the HM Treasury into a u-turn, not a problem.  The UK Government has after all decided to grant a tax amnesty to non-resident athletes attending the London Grand Prix event this July. Olympic champion sprinter Usain Bolt announced that he would not attend unless his global earnings from sponsorship and endorsements were exempted, but until now HM Treasury had resisted the demand.  More on this from the STEP Journal can be found here.

A report by the House of Commons’ influential Public Accounts Committee says that promoters of so-called boutique tax avoidance schemes are “running rings around HMRC in a game of cat and mouse that HMRC is losing”.  It suggests that HMRC should publicly name those who sell ‘abusive’ schemes to as many clients as possible before HMRC shuts the scheme down.  This is estimated to cost the HM Treasury £5bn a year.  The Committee claimed that HMRC only knows about 46% of tax avoidance schemes, and that promoters who run the schemes find it unacceptably easy to put forward a “reasonable excuse” for not disclosing the scheme in order to escape a fine.  More on this from Accountancy Age can be found here and the Guardian here.

The UK government is to disqualify companies and individuals from bidding for public contracts if they have taken part in failed tax avoidance schemes.  This applies from 1 April 2013. Bidders will have to notify procurement departments if any tax return in the past 10 years has been found incorrect as a result of an HMRC challenge, or has contravened the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Scheme rules.  More on this from HM Treasury can be found here.

A mansion tax is back in the news.  Although as it is a local taxation proposal it is not just a matter for the UK Parliament.  Local taxation is controlled by the Scottish Parliament.  A point missed by most reports.  The Liberal Democrats proposal would see either a 1% levy on homes worth over £2m or the introduction of new council tax bands for expensive homes.  More on the Liberal Democrat proposal from the Guardian can be found here.  The Labour Party has also announced plans to introduce a mansion tax on all homes worth more than £2m in order to fund the reintroduction of the 10p tax rate abolished in 2007.  More on the Labour proposal from the BBC News website can be found here.

An ongoing programme of jobs cuts helped play a major part in HMRC exceeding their cost-savings target for 2011/12, according to a report by the National Audit Office.  The report can be found here.  The figures give an indication of the scale of the cuts suffered by HMRC.  Spending slashed by £269m over the 12 months to 31 March 2012.  This was 19% more than the anticipated £249m.  A reduction of £140m was made by axing 2,400 full-time equivalent members of staff. The department plans to have lowered its running costs by £950m between the UK Government’s 2010 sending review and the end of the 2014/15 tax year.  It expects to see the loss of 10,000 full-time equivalent employees and 300,000 square metres of estate.

Press reports indicate that the inheritance tax nil rate band is to be frozen for several more years beyond the already announced date of April 2015, as part of the UK Government’s plans for funding elderly care in England.  More on this from the Herald can be found here and the BBC news website here.  Another example of the problem that can arise under devolution when the tax power remains at Westminster, inheritance tax, and control over an associated area such as social care is devolved.

Now to the least surprising story of the month.  The Confederation of British Industry has warned that the new Financial Transaction Tax announced by the European Commission may have a detrimental effect on UK jobs and growth.  Matthew Fell, the CBI Director for Competitive Markets, said: “it is particularly worrying that the increased scope of the tax will now cover businesses’ risk management activities, as well as hitting financial services in non-participating member states, like the UK, because of extra-territoriality”.  More on this story from the Telegraph can be found here.

Now to Europe and how the EU is demanding action against tax-planning.  The European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has published a report proposing that member states revoke the banking licences of financial institutions that help their customers evade taxes.  More on this can be found here.

The heavy tax increases imposed by the Greek Government last year have actually caused a sharp fall in tax receipts. January’s tax revenues in Greece fell to €4.05bn, 16% down on the January 2012 figures, due to a collapse in consumption and a corresponding decrease in indirect tax payments.  More on this can be found here.

An interesting opinion piece can be found in the New York Times challenging the ‘Myth of the Rich Who Flee From Taxes’.  It was prompted by US Masters golf champion Phil Mickelson’s recent threat to decamp from California because the state’s top rate of income tax is increasing from 10.3 to 13.3%.  I agree with the conclusion reached.  It really is a myth although it does not stop those arguing against serious tax and fiscal powers for the Scottish Parliament from using it. The piece from the New York Times can be found here.

And lastly, well done to the Scottish teams who beat Ireland at the weekend.

Let’s start with the independence debate.  I would normally refer to this as the “fiscal powers” debate but there seems little point as that ship appears to have sailed.  Some things are becoming clearer.  There is not going to be a second question.  The likelihood of serious additional fiscal powers being devolved to the Scottish Parliament if Scotland votes ‘No’ also now seems increasingly unlikely.

It is not difficult to imagine the appetite for even listening to arguments for additional fiscal powers at Westminster in that event.  That is where the Devo Plus campaign has got it wrong.  And I say this as one of the authors of the Reform Scotland Fiscal Powers papers on which their proposal is based.  Devo Plus are arguing for a ‘No’ vote and also that there should not be a second question.  Do they really think Westminster will seriously consider devolving further powers to the Scottish Parliament if Scotland votes ‘No’?  An article by Jeremy Purvis who leads the Devo Plus campaign can be found here.  On a personal note it is disappointing to see that Reform Scotland have now taken a stance on Scotland’s constitutional question by its support for Devo Plus.

The fact that only the Liberal Democrats are going to have a further devolution proposal by the time the referendum takes place reinforces this argument.

So if there is not to be a second question, what do those who have supported devo max previously do?  The impact and importance of Jim McColl’s announcement in favour of independence should not be under estimated.  A BBC news website report on this can be found here.

Now to taxing the wealthy.  Just now politicians seem to talk of little else.  Let’s ignore for now what actually constitutes wealth.

Let’s start with an article by George Kerevan on the Scotsman.  Kerevan argues against taxing the wealthy, believing that it is arbitrary, complicated to administer, and does not raise enough money relative to the trouble it takes to collect it.   His article can be found here.

Nick Clegg wants to ensure that the rich “pay their fair share”.  He has vowed to block further welfare cuts until a mansion tax is agreed with his Tory coalition partners. Vince Cable has also spoken out against tax havens and non-domiciles.  Then there is Danny Alexander.  He has promised tax investigations for all those who own assets worth more than £1 million.  The cynic in me says: I have heard a lot of this before and not just on tax reform.  What about the banks.  Has anything of substance actually been done?

Then there is the evolving love in between Ed Balls and Nick Clegg.  Ed Balls told the Independent newspaper that a future Labour UK Government could impose an annual levy on expensive properties, unlike Nick Clegg though, he favours a permanent rather than temporary wealth tax.  The article in the Independent can be found here.  This does seem more like mischief making than serious policy making given how long the last UK Labour Government were in power.

One reason for my cynicism is a claim made by the SNP this week.  The claim is that there are fewer, not more, tax inspectors.  I have blogged before on how HMRC’s budget has been reduced and of the large number of HMRC redundancies.  If we are serious about tackling tax evasion then you need a properly resourced tax collection agency.  Transparency would not go a miss either.  How about publishing tax returns?  The SNP press release on this can be found here.

So what can be done?  HMRC’s High Net Worth Unit has brought in £500 million in extra tax from the UK’s 5,000 wealthiest people since it launched three years ago. The amount collected is well over the original target of £100 million a year.  A press release from HMRC on this can be found here.  And of course this was achieved in a time where HMRC’s budget has been cut.

Finally on this issue, an excellent article by Iain MacWhirter in the Herald.  MacWhirter points to the relative insignificance of the cost of the so called “free services” as compared with the salaries and pensions of the higher-earning public sector workers.  The article in the Herald can be found here.

These services are of course not “free”.  They are paid for by taxation.  Taxation is simply a series of political choices.

The introduction of a 15% rate of stamp duty land tax on corporate buyers in this year’s UK Budget, it is claimed, has had a dramatic impact on the high-value London property market.  The article from the online STEP journal can be found here here.  I must admit to struggling to see why this is a bad thing.

About 60% of all taxpayers’ complaints against HMRC are upheld on appeal, according to figures from Pinsent Masons. Some 58,110 complaints were made last year, of which more than 33,000 were accepted either by an internal HMRC review or by the Adjudicator’s Office.  A report on this can be found here.

Barclays Bank is to cut back on its UK tax planning unit, after a dispute with the tax authorities over ‘aggressive’ schemes tarnished its public image.  A report on this can be found here.

Now to matters slightly further afield.

Firstly to America and the never ending saga of Mitt Romney’s tax affairs.  Romney has at last published his 2011 tax return.  It turns out Romney and his wife paid $1.936 million in taxes on gross income of $13.7 million.  That is a tax rate of 14.1%.  The article from the online STEP journal can be found here.  I suspect that this is not the end of this matter.

Francois Hollande has revealed details of his 75% top rate of income tax for France’s wealthiest citizens.  Newspaper reports suggest there are likely to be concessions for married couples, performers and sports stars.  Meanwhile the richest man in France, Bernard Arnault, has applied for Belgian nationality to escape the tax.  An article on this from the Guardian can be found here.  Again, I suspect that this is an issue that is going to run and run.

A Spanish newspaper has reported that the country is about to double capital gains tax on short term gains to 52%.  This gives a sense of the level of problems now faced by Spain.  An article on this can be found here.

Have a good weekend.

Let’s start with “GERS”.  No not the blue half of Glasgow but the: “Government and Expenditure Revenue Scotland 2010-11”, or GERS for short.

The latest GERS report was published this week and shows that Scotland contributed 9.6% of UK public sector revenue and received 9.3% of total UK public sector expenditure.  These figures include a per capita share of UK debt interest payments.  Scotland’s population is 8.4% of the UK total.  Scotland’s estimated current budget balance in 2010-11, which is primarily day to day expenditure, was a deficit of £6.4 billion, or 4.4% of GDP.  These figures include a geographical share of North Sea revenues.  The corresponding UK figures were a deficit of £97.8 billion or 6.6% of GDP for the same year.  That includes 100% of North Sea revenues.

As is usually the case with statistics, and probably even more so with those which are used as ammunition in the fiscal powers debate, economists and other commentators will argue back and forth on what these facts and figures tell us.  That is why I agree with Reform Scotland’s call for the Office for Budget Responsibility to provide forecasts for all taxes raised in Scotland and not just those that might be devolved by the Scotland Bill.  Reform Scotland’s press release can be found here.  More on GERS can be found here.

Now to the fiscal powers debate.  This week it was Labour’s turn to announce a “commission that will look at how devolution should change and what further powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.”  This means that none of the main political parties are arguing for the status quo or even just the Scotland Bill.  The Liberal Democrats have already announced their own commission and the Conservatives, or rather the UK Conservatives by way off the Prime Minister, have said that they will consider devolving further powers if Scotland votes no in 2014.

The announcement of yet another commission received quite a lot of media of coverage.  The fact that Labour think a second referendum will be required if Scotland votes “no” in 2014 was less commented upon.  I suspect that this will also be the view of both the Liberals and the Conservatives.  That clearly conflicts with the argument that Scotland needs an early referendum to stop “uncertainty”.  An article on this from the STV news website can be found here.

Aberdeen City Council is expected to apply for more than £90m of tax incremental funding (TIF) following a ‘yes’ vote in the Union Terrace Gardens referendum.  A report on this from the STV news website can be found here.  I have written before on why I support TIF and the type of thinking behind this type of idea.  The one caveat I have concerns the number of these projects. As was found in the United States, if too many projects are approved the ability to fund both old and future projects gets harder.  The Scottish Futures Trust is though well aware of what happened in places such as Illinois, where I worked as an attorney, and first came across TIF.  More on TIF can be found here.

I was not surprised to read that a last minute bid to stop the Scottish Government’s plan to levy a tax on supermarkets and large shops has been defeated.  The “Tesco tax”, as this proposal has been termed, will see retailers which sell alcohol and tobacco pay an extra £95m in business rates over the next three years.  A BBC news website piece on this can be found here.

Sometimes when you read a story about the workings of government, local or national, you just sigh.  This is one such story.  Whitehall departments have been criticised for overspending by £500m on schemes that were actually intended to save money.  The National Audit Office found that UK ministers failed to offer clear management for the setting up of pooled resource centres.  The aim was to stop costs being duplicated.  The ever excellent Labour MP Margaret Hodge, who chairs the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, said that the overall figures provided: “a shockingly familiar story of spiralling costs and poor value for money”.  Will anyone be brought to account?  Will a gong have to be returned or a bonus forfeited?  I suspect not.  A BBC news website piece on this can be found here.

Now to the Budget debate.  For “debate” read “battle between and briefing against your coalition partners.”  There are a number of fronts in this battle.  These include how quickly to increase the personal allowance limit, whether to reduce higher rate pension tax relief, the possible introduction of a “Mansion” tax and whether to retain the 50p top rate of income tax.  Is it worth speculating as to the outcome of these battles?  Not really.  Fun though that would be this is a political game pure and simple.  The “winner” will be the side who at that moment has the most power not necessarily who has the best ideas.  It was ever thus.

The more interesting debate, and this has just really begun, concerns whether and to what extent wealth as opposed to income should be taxed.  That is where the debate is going.  I will come back to this issue after the UK Budget.

One final point on the so called “Mansion tax”.  I do find the lack of commentary on the fact that local taxation is devolved to the Scottish Parliament amusing.  Can you imagine the Scottish Parliament’s reaction to the UK Government interfering with one of the few tax powers it has?  Let’s call that a rhetorical question.  We do know how the UK Government reacts if the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government dares to do something that touches on a reserved matter.  Here are a few examples: free personal and nursing care, local income tax and minimum pricing for alcohol.

As with last week’s blog I will end with the French presidential election and news that Francois Hollande, the Socialist candidate, has announced plans to raise the top rate of income tax to 75 per cent on “indecent” annual incomes above €1 million. The use of the word “indecent” says it all.

Good luck to all our teams in action in Ireland this weekend.