Tax evaders in Govt. contracts ban.

[Osem]

Companies involved in failed tax avoidance schemes will be banned from bidding for government contracts, under new rules published on Thursday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21456883

Sounds like a good idea to me, a step in the right direction anyway.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Osem

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21456883

Sounds like a good idea to me, a step in the right direction anyway.

About time

[deadite66]

I have my doubts it will be enforced in the long term.

[danielf]

DAMN!!!

[mertle]

Has to be the best move yes it should been done alot sooner.

Would this include current contracts being terminated. Also include local authorities. Can we include those in financial sector and accountants. Can we include MP's too staff too.

http://atosvictimsgroup.co.uk/2012/0...ead-of-ethics/

Saying this if they do follow it strictly I hope they do it not just words. I would not shocked no bids was done as there no business available to bid..

I think its widespread sadly think some who have current contracts maybe doing it. Just take Atos who has tax havens.

Atos eats up tax revenue by ensuring that the firms it takes over lobby for and win government contracts – all the while setting up subsidiaries in tax havens, as Ethical Consumer magazine has revealed.

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/atos-tick-box-tyranny/

how many trust in nhs got offshore hidouts.

If we going to stop those from bidding then we should remove the existing ones too. If we want clean it up then it has to be from everywhere which involves government or public interests.

Originally Posted by Osem

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21456883

Sounds like a good idea to me, a step in the right direction anyway.

Back dated by 10 yrs as well so it may mean some of the dodgy government contractors may have to give up their lucrative contracts ,G4S springs to mind ,ATOS possibly ,might be worth a check

[mertle]

Originally Posted by martyh

Back dated by 10 yrs as well so it may mean some of the dodgy government contractors may have to give up their lucrative contracts ,G4S springs to mind ,ATOS possibly ,might be worth a check

What would legal implecation be to current deals though. If it costs lots money in terminations would think government wont do it. g4s nothing around the news anywhere but did find atos check my link.

Originally Posted by mertle

Would this include current contracts being terminated. Also include local authorities. Can we include those in financial sector and accountants. Can we include MP's too staff too.

.

Tell you what lets just include everyone ,make sure we catch 'em all .

This applies to companies bidding for contracts not those that already have them .For example if ATOS are found to have a failed tax avoidance scheme in the last 10 years they will not be allowed to bid for further contracts ,the one they are currently in will be allowed to finish though

I think this is a good idea, but not sure about it being retroactive.

Originally Posted by Hugh

I think this is a good idea, but not sure about it being retroactive.

That will be the only stumbling block imo ,bringing morals into tax affairs is dubious anyway ,it should be a simple matter of law but since it looks like morals will play a key part in future efforts to cut tax avoidance then a retroactive application is the way to go i think

[danielf]

I don't think the retro-active thing is good, as you can't punish companies for past conduct that was allowed at the time. Aside from that, this can only be a good thing, provided it is enforced, and provided these 'wide-ranging tax avoidance rules' actually materialise.

It would also be good to see a general closing of the loopholes, but this looks like a start at least.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by martyh

Tell you what lets just include everyone ,make sure we catch 'em all .

This applies to companies bidding for contracts not those that already have them .For example if ATOS are found to have a failed tax avoidance scheme in the last 10 years they will not be allowed to bid for further contracts ,the one they are currently in will be allowed to finish though

Which might make mockery of the idea. Do we know if any there contracts due. The other what happen if they done system in way could not be possibly done without major overhaul of the system.

More think the more see it unworkable unless we can micro audit bidding companies accounts. Then we may not find shadow accounting. So crux question would be how do we know they not tax evading. If they company well known for its dealings then block. Say a company win the contract 11 years things surface the company do things to avoid its tax.

Can we then sling them out. What happens those left clearly biting too much wont really be suitable to run the contract.

Personally still think its good idea in principle do think current contract holders should be warned if they known. Would ideally love them terminated but think breach contract lawyers would have field day.

Originally Posted by mertle

Which might make mockery of the idea. Do we know if any there contracts due. The other what happen if they done system in way could not be possibly done without major overhaul of the system.

More think the more see it unworkable unless we can micro audit bidding companies accounts. Then we may not find shadow accounting. So crux question would be how do we know they not tax evading. If they company well known for its dealings then block. Say a company win the contract 11 years things surface the company do things to avoid its tax.

Can we then sling them out. What happens those left clearly biting too much wont really be suitable to run the contract.

Personally still think its good idea in principle do think current contract holders should be warned if they known. Would ideally love them terminated but think breach contract lawyers would have field day.

It's not difficult at all ,simply checking tax records will reveal if a scheme has been refused, or trying to use more than one at a time because the rules are that only one scheme on a return

I think it is to stop companies undertaking proposed schemes which may be challenged - I think it is good as a deterrent, but retro-activity concerns me for the reasons danielf mentioned.

In December 2010 the Government asked Graham Aaronson QC to lead a study that would consider whether General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) could deter and counter tax avoidance, whilst providing certainty, retaining a tax regime that is attractive to businesses, and minimising costs for businesses and HMRC.

The report by Graham Aaronson QC was published on 21 November 2011. The Government accepts the recommendation of the Aaronson report that a General Anti-Abuse Rule targeted at artificial and abusive tax avoidance schemes would improve the UK’s ability to tackle tax avoidance. The Government intends to bring forward legislation to this end in Finance Bill 2013

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_avoidance_gaar.htm

It would appear that efforts are well under way

this is worth a read as well

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...loopholes.html