FT.com / Entrepreneurship – Tax crackdown defended.
A leading adviser on research and development tax credits has leapt to the defence of HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), claiming its officers are right to crack down on those trying to exploit the system.
Peter Denison-Pender, managing director of Alma Consulting, refuted claims made by accountancy Grant Thornton earlier this month that tax inspectors were being unfairly tough with companies seeking R&D tax credits.
“HMRC is not the bad guy here,” Denison-Pender said. “All they are doing is clamping down on production masquerading as research.”
Good for him.
Bad for GT.
And how good to see someone saying that cheating and then blaming HMRC is unacceptable.
perhaps there are ethics out there, after all, in amongst the self promotion
Tags: HMRC, Tax Evasion, UK
The Senate subcommittee on investigations held their hearing today to highlight the problem of US ...
February 4, 2010
Senate report: 'Dirty money' still entering US The Associated Press, February 3, 2010 Switzerland Freezes ...
February 4, 2010
Why, despite the financial crisis and the sabre-rattling of the G-20 countries, do ...
February 4, 2010
Richard Murphy has pointed out this must-see video which shares one of the ...
July 28, 2009 | 25 Comment(s)
Any worthwhile point of view will always be met with opposition. The stance against ...
August 28, 2009 | 12 Comment(s)
FT.com / Entrepreneurship - Tax crackdown defended. A leading adviser on ...
September 29, 2009 | 7 Comment(s)
I once heard that “Finance is the art of passing money from hand to hand ...
June 25, 2009 | 5 Comment(s)
A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog recapping some of the ways companies ...
August 12, 2009 | 4 Comment(s)
Subscribe to the Task Force Blog RSS feed and get the latest blog posts!
The Task Force on Financial Integrity & Economic Development
1319 18th Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036
Email: info@financialtaskforce.org
Telephone: +1 (202) 293-0740 Fax: +1 (202) 293-1720
Don’t agree with this article and the comments from Richard are on this occasion misguided. Look at every other significant R&D incentive regime – the US, Canada, etc. In all of them the cost of prototypes that are later sold can attract R&D tax relief if they are effectively ‘experimental production’- something that has been established by extensive case law in those regimes over the past 20 years.
No one is talking about claiming R&D tax relief on standard production runs but the position of HMRC is that anything which is ever sold cannot attract the relief.
Micah
But all the people in the FT are saying is the rules should be complied
I am applauding them for doing so
What is wrong with complying with the rules – whether you like them or not?
Richard
Richard,
Of course the rules should be complied with – and no one has an issue with that. The problem here is that the statutory guidance is ambiguous and can be interpreted in different ways. The way in which HMRC are choosing to interpret it is at odds with what is common practise in other R&D regimes around the world, and can be seen as going against the ’spirit’ of the legislation if not the letter.
The article in question labelled those who do not interpret the legislation in the same way as HMRC as ‘trying to exploit the system’ though which just seems like some cheap point-scoring.
Micah
Micah
Of course it could also just be right
Why does the HMRC scheme have to be like everyone else’s? Tax is national.
You have not made your case as yet
Richard
Although tax may be a national issue, R&D is global and the tax system just happens to provide a fairly efficient means for the UK to subsidise the cost of R&D, thereby increasing the amount of R&D performed by UK companies.
A bit of background info first: why is R&D incentivised at all? In economic terms, R&D suffers from what is known as imperfect appropriability. In other words, the Private Rate of Return (PRR) of R&D, which is the benefit that the company performing the R&D gets, is less than the Social Rate of Return (SRR) which is the benefit that accrues to the rest of the economy. Left to their own devices, therefore companies will only perform enough R&D to achieve the PRR rather than the optimal (for the general economy) SRR.
The purpose of the R&D scheme is to close the PRR-SRR gap by incentivising more R&D to be carried out.
If not all R&D is incentivised then the UK will not reap the social benefits of R&D carried out in those areas. This is bad for the UK economy as a whole. And let’s not forget that the definition of R&D is one that is defined by the OECD and provides a global benchmark (see the Frascati Manual)
On a final note, R&D is a business activity the majority of which is carried out in the main by a relatively small number of global multinationals. For the scheme to be successful in the UK, and for companies to utilise it, it needs to provide certainty which currently, although having undergone great improvements since its inception, it does not.
Micah
Please tell me what is certain in your life?
I guess the sun will probably come up tomorrow – but I can’t guarantee it
So why must tax have a property nothing else, and no form of words, can ever deliver?
Richard
Richard,
Certainty is not the main issue – see above – but is still important as if the scheme is intended to incentivise additional amounts of R&D, companies will only make these extra investments if they know they are going to reap the benefits. This was recognised by HMRC when they set up specialist R&D centres http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/randd/special-units.htm and from Gordon Brown when the scheme was set up http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_84_03.htm
“The Government introduced R&D tax credits in recognition of the importance of innovation for driving up the UK’s productivity. They have been welcomed by businesses because they provide a real incentive for additional R&D spending. We now intend to build on the success of R&D tax credits by ensuring that the definition of R&D provides businesses with the clarity and certainty they need.”