HMRC and Starbucks, Amazon and Google (amongst others)

It seems to me that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has allowed companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Google to value inter-group transactions with complete freedom. This feels like public sector complacency, evidence of a cosy relationship where nobody on the collections side felt motivated or able to do much to change the status quo.  George Osborne's announcement of a boost to HMRC's legal teams and computer systems may shake things up.

In the case of Starbucks, their logo and their recipes have been valued as intellectual property bought from the parent group, even though the recipes have very probably been designed in the UK to match UK tastes. Who knows where their logo was designed? Their coffee beans have been reported as bought from a company in the Netherlands and roasted by a company in Switzerland. Has HMRC ensured that the valuations in all of these transactions are valid, or is it possible that Starbucks is unchallenged and can charge its UK operation well over the odds because there's no element of arms-length dealing? And how much cheaper could a cup of coffee be if the raw materials were bought at UK market prices?

Personally, I would find it hard to give up Amazon, if only due to Kindle. It needs to be supplied with new material on a frequent basis, and Amazon is the only source. According to The Times (£) today, which quotes the Public Accounts Committee, the company paid £151 million in 2011 alone for intellectual property, e.g. its brand name. That was enough to reduce its stated profit in the UK to £74 million - in other words, reduce it by over two thirds.  Smells bad for Amazon. 

Google seems to have been paying royalties to its operation in Bermuda. Presumably because Bermuda is the source of its search engine expertise? Again, this smells.

HMRC should examine all intra-group payments for Intellectual Property to make sure they're fairly valued. They should challenge retrospectively and with sanctions where valuations are not fair. And when they've had a good look at these, they should compare the price of coffee beans in open markets and in intra-group markets. And make some examples pour encourager les autres.

Charity tax debacle - update

The Spectator has a lot more information than my simple opinion piece, blogged yesterday, in its Coffee House blog: How Mitt Romney inspired the British charity tax debacle. Fascinating insight, and certainly confirming that the Departmental ministers for Business and for Culture, Media and Sport were cut out of the policy-making loop.
The Times gave five cases where HM Treasury say that charitable donations are abused. These all look pretty tenuous and could be handled under existing rules if the Charities Commission and HMRC do their jobs properly. To summarise the abuses and the charities' response:

	Treasury case	Charity response
1	Shares donated to charity found to be worth less than claimed	Relief is based on fair market value
2	Business gives money and claims relief. Money is then lent back.	Government has already cracked down on 'tainted donations'
3	Relief claimed for donation to a dubious charity that doesn't do much charitable work	This is for the Charities Commission to police
4	Tax relief claimed for donation to a dubious foreign charity	It's not allowed to claim relief on donations to charities outside the EU
5	Tax relief given on donation to UK charity which passes the cash to a dubious charity abroad	UK charity has to satisfy HMRC that the foreign charity would qualify

In a final dagger thrust to the Government's credibility, it also vented rumours that Oliver Letwin is to be asked to sort out the political mess. For heaven's sake!

Charities tax breaks - impact analysis?

The UK government has decided to limit the tax breaks that are available for charity donations because there are some cases where people use their donations to reduce their effective tax rates to very low levels. The feeling seems to be that money donated to charities is unjustifiably lost tax. The policy appears to have been introduced without proper planning or impact analysis. Other Government departments seemed not to have been consulted.

David Gauke MP, the Treasury Minister responsible for defending the policy on BBC2 Newsnight programme tonight (12th April) mentioned charities that don't distribute much money to real causes, but refused to name them. Apparently some charities lend money back to companies controlled by their 'donor'. To me this is a sign that the Charities Commission isn't doing its job properly, not a reason to cut off significant flows of major donations to key charities that support (to pick a few from many) health, social causes, sports, and the arts.

Whether he was completely out of his depth, or just defending the indefensible, is hard to say. But to me, without names and evidence, this just looked like bullshit being raked together to defend a poorly thought-through policy announcement.