The tax return evidence that 'shocked' George Osborne
The Treasury has released a copy of the illustrative examples which left George Osborne "shocked" about wealthy tax avoidance and led him to introduce his since-abandoned plans to cap tax relief on charitable donations.
In April the chancellor told the Daily Telegraph that he was "shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs... so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax."
He explained that he was talking about people with multi-million pound annual incomes and added: "I'm not allowed to be shown the names of the individuals but I've sat with the most senior people at the Inland Revenue, the people who run some of the high net worth units there. They have given me examples, anonymised examples, and so we are taking action."
Mr Osborne was justifying his controversial plan in the Budget in March to limit all tax reliefs, including for charitable donations, to an annual maximum of £50,000 or 25% of an individual's income, whichever was greater.
Following a freedom of information request from the BBC for a copy of the "anonymised examples" shown to the chancellor, the Treasury has now disclosed one sheet setting out three "illustrative" cases provided to him.
This shows:
- an individual with an annual income of £15m paying nothing at all in income tax, largely due to charitable donations of £10m
- an individual with an income of £10m also paying no income tax, due to a mix of reliefs including £4m given to charity
- an individual with an income of £20m paying an average income tax rate of only 15%, largely due to charitable donations of £8m
It is not completely clear on what basis these cases were derived. The Treasury describes them as "stylised examples based on an analysis of the tax records of those individuals most affected by the change" and "not actual taxpayers' details". HM Revenue and Customs is legally prohibited from revealing the tax details of an identifiable individual.
Of course Mr Osborne may have been given further evidence in meetings of the tax avoidance problem he was seeking to tackle, but this is the only written documentation that the Treasury was able to provide.
The proposed limit provoked outrage from many charities, and two weeks ago the chancellor announced he was dropping plans to cap tax relief for gifts to charity, although he plans to press ahead with the restriction on other tax reliefs next year.
However, what is clear from this disclosure is that it is indeed charitable donations rather than other allowable reliefs which was the focus of the Treasury's concern to extract more tax from some of the country's richest individuals.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~58~RS~)




Dozens die in Iraqi bomb attacks
Foot loose
Afrikaner agony
America's Latino future
Hoops and dreams
Be kind, rewind
HARDtalk
Comment number 92.
Mike Lyle15th June 2012 - 23:32
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Link to this (Comment number 92)
Comment number 91.
alan15th June 2012 - 19:43
Irrespective of the arguments for and against restricting the tax advantages of charitable donations, what I find extraordinary is that Osborne launched his proposals without first discussing it with charities and having a public debate, got it wrong, and now has had to withdraw and reconsider.
If I put forward proposals in such an unconsidered manner I'd be out of a job and rightly so.
Alan
Link to this (Comment number 91)
Comment number 90.
Gort201215th June 2012 - 19:01
@89
Not suggesting we'd get that much extra by fixing loopholes but I was counting all behaviour such as channel islands as part of avoidance.
Some of this behaviour also lowers GDP.
I admit that I made a crude estimate because so little tax information to add to reported profits. The rules might be acceptible but definitely Ken Livingstone type arrangements commonly advised by accountant.
Link to this (Comment number 90)
Comment number 89.
Justin15015th June 2012 - 18:26
Gort: the problem with tax avoidance figures always starts with definitions. Buying CDs via the Channel Islands to save VAT could be classed as tax avoidance and even artificial. Very large businesses are included in HMRC figures, tax gap for those is est at £2.7b (annex I of HMRC report).
37% of FTSE may have paid no tax because of carry forward of 2008/9 losses (all banks for example)
Link to this (Comment number 89)
Comment number 88.
Gort201215th June 2012 - 18:14
Even where accusation were wrong by media the defence is:
Tesco "does not engage in highly aggressive tax avoidance".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/30/7
37% FTSE made a loss?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/8355174/FTSE-100-defends-UK-tax-payments-as-report-shows-37pc-paid-no-corporation-tax-in-2010.html
Not including big business in £40bn stats signific.
Link to this (Comment number 88)
Comments 5 of 92