responsible tax: ne...brexit brings opportunities for a different type of public dialogue on tax...
TRANSCRIPT
ResponsibleTax: New rules forBrexit Britain?
New rules for brexit Britain?
T H E
R E S P O N S I B L E
T A X L A B
Forwards
About the Responsible Tax Lab
The Responsible Tax Lab is an ambitious programme
led by Common Vision (CoVi) focusing on how
businesses and civil society can work together
to design and encourage a responsible tax
system. Through the Lab we convene people
and organisations who want to be proactive and
aspirational in developing and providing the practical
ideas, tools and resources that would make our
future tax system fit-for-purpose.
Contents
Forewords 2
Executive summary 6
Introduction 15
Why we need to talk about tax policy 24
The foundations of a responsible tax system:
Purpose, principles and process
42
Tax policy in Brexit Britain: Rules of engagement 50
Acknowledgements 63
N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?1
ForewordKate Bell, Head of Economic Affairs, TUC
The TUC has long argued that a more strategic approach
to the economy is necessary to addressing the challenges
we face if we want to see decent jobs and living standards
for everyone.
The current political climate means that there are
new questions at hand about how we achieve greater
productivity, balanced growth, and jobs with fair
conditions and decent wages. As a country, we need to
have a clear sense of the tools at government’s disposal to
help build a better economy.
Tax is one of these tools, and clearly has a role to play in
planning for the UK’s long-term economic future. There’s
no shortage of debate about the level of business taxation
that best balances the need to support the social and
physical infrastructure that businesses rely on, with the
right incentives for businesses to invest – and the TUC has
been vocal in warning against a global race-to-the-bottom
on corporation tax. However, the other tax mechanisms
used by government, such as reliefs and allowances, are
not subject to the public discussion and scrutiny that is
applied to other government policies.
This needs to change if we are to think about the
important questions of tomorrow – including achieving
the goals set out in the government’s Industrial Strategy,
and how the tax system could or should be used to
achieve these. Of course, these are questions we should
be asking anyway, but the debate around Brexit provides
new impetus. This is why the TUC have been pleased to
support Common Vision’s Responsible Tax Lab to explore
the principles that need to underscore a tax system that
works for the long term, and would best enable a post-
Brexit economy that delivers better living standards across
the country.
f o R w A R d s N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?32
ForewordGrace stevens, Chief Tax officer, Legal and General
How can we design a responsible tax system in post-Brexit
Britain? An interesting question and at the moment one
which elicits more questions than answers.
We live in interesting times and the future shape of our
world is likely to look very different from today. Our
tax system will need to change to deliver in that new
world. We need to think long term and ask ourselves:
What are we trying to achieve? What is the role of
the tax system? What and who should be taxed? How
should we tax people, companies, robots, data, capital,
digital, innovation, portfolio careers, or even space
travel appropriately? How does this fit with our broader
objectives for UK plc, investment in infrastructure, and
delivery of public services? As the nature of work,
national demographics, and international borders change,
how do we make tax policy so that corporate and personal
taxation is equitable and effective?
These are questions that already pose challenges to
traditional tax frameworks. We have an opportunity right
now to think this through and ask ourselves what shape
we want the future to be, but to get it right we need to
think long term and holistically about the best way to get
there. That might mean pressing pause on piecemeal tax
changes, and remembering tax is one part of the puzzle
and needs to work with the wider policy environment to
deliver on our ambitions for UK plc.
It is clear tax policy has a role in developing the economy
and society we need. But we need to first agree what we
are trying to achieve through our tax system, to whom we
are responsible and how we can respond to the disruption
and changes of the modern world. Whatever the answers
are, the key components will be a balance of interests, and
transparency. The time is ripe to answer some of these
key questions as we move forward and make the most of
the opportunities we have in a post-Brexit Britain, which
is why we have welcomed the opportunity to support
Common Vision’s Responsible Tax Lab to do so.
f o R w A R d s N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?54
Executivesummary
In the days and months following the 2016 EU
referendum, numerous commentators have set out
their economic vision for Britain outside the European
Union. Some suggest that immediate changes to the
taxation and regulation regimes could attract many
more businesses to locate and invest in the UK. Others
have warned against engaging in a global ‘race to
the bottom’ on business taxation or accused the UK
government of seeking to become a tax haven.
Clearly, a number of possibilities lie in store for the UK’s
tax system outside the EU. The extent to which potential
changes to state aid rules, the four freedoms of the
single market, and other legal and regulatory transitions
affect the UK’s ability to make and effect tax policy
decisions remains to be seen. Not to mention the specific
tax changes which might be enacted on a practical basis to
achieve Britain’s social and economic goals outside the EU.
It would be easy to be overwhelmed by the vast
array of ideas and ‘solutions’ proposed from a range
of perspectives for the tax system. But beyond the
instrumental discussions around how taxes could be used
to meet particular political ends, or technical discussions
around its implications on the UK tax code,
Executive summary
N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?7
Brexit brings opportunities for a different type of public
dialogue on tax policy. This conversation would start by
asking: “What is the tax system for?”
In ‘Brexit Britain’, a climate in which endless change is
possible, it becomes even more important that decisions
are made in a responsible, consistent manner. Then there
is the need for open and transparent public dialogue so
that people understand and can scrutinise these changes,
even if they do not agree with them. This is why a first-
principles discussion of tax policy making is not only
necessary, but ever more urgent. Although tax has been
the subject of public debate for almost a decade when
it comes to corporate behaviour, this concern has not
necessarily led to a more informed understanding of tax
from citizens. Tax policy making – that is, the process
of designing the rules which apply to taxpayers - is
notoriously subject to low levels of parliamentary and
public scrutiny, particularly when compared to other types
of policy making.
Brexit provides the context to look at what can be
done differently to build the foundations of a more
constructive dialogue, so that all citizens can have a
shared understanding of what we are trying to achieve
with our tax system, who is responsible for achieving it
and who ultimately bears the cost. This means taking a
look at the tax policy making process and whether it is
fit for purpose, as set out in Chapter One. Is the way in
which the government designs tax policies and engages
others in the consultation process rigorous enough to
stand the test of time, or does it simply result in short-
term, piecemeal measures? The complexity of the tax
system, with over 1,000 tax relief schemes administered
by HMRC, and 100 tax reliefs added by the coalition
government from 2010-2015, would seem to imply the
latter. Are these policies scrutinised appropriately by
Parliament and others tasked with holding government
to account? And how are the impacts measured and
evaluated in line with the stated objectives?
More fundamentally, are various tax reliefs and
incentives sufficient or effective instruments to ensure
we have a productive and growing economy in Brexit
Britain, or would other measures be more effective?
The way that the current tax policy making process
works, how we judge outcomes and value for money,
and how this is conveyed to the public, doesn’t help
answer this question. Tax is often siloed from the wider
e x e C u T i v e s u m m A R y N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?98
policy environment – risking a situation where the same
behaviour is both incentivised by tax and simultaneously
prevented by other regulations. Chapter Two considers
the shortcomings both with the policy making process
itself around tax, and the way that we discuss it.
Various groups have conducted work into improving the
tax system over the years - the 2011 Mirrlees Review was
widely recognised by policy experts and tax professionals
as providing the most comprehensive analysis of the UK
tax system in over 30 years. Chapter Three reviews this
work and some of the ‘best practice’ on principles and
process that can be applied to the tax system. However,
these discussions have received neither public salience nor
political traction. And yet other tax issues have achieved
public ‘cut through’. We have seen from the debate on
corporate tax avoidance that public interest in business
taxation is not going away, which proves that issues that
were once seen as confined to the realm of technical
experts can quickly form a longstanding part of public
debate. Brexit is an opportunity to extend the public
debate to tax policy making at a time when best practice
policy design, parliamentary scrutiny and evaluating the
impact of tax measures will be all the more important
given the pace of legislative and regulatory change.
Chapter Four sets out a ‘checklist’ for anyone interested
in holding decision makers to account on tax policies.
Political factors and ideology cannot always be removed
from policy making and, therefore, it may be impossible
to agree on the best rate of tax or whether tax should be
used for specific purposes, such as behavioural change.
However, a clear and coherent set of objectives, with
defined desirable outcomes and appropriate measurement
of whether these are being achieved – the ‘what’, the
‘why’, the ‘how’ and the ‘on whom’ - can transcend the
differing rationale for taxes. We encourage anyone
interested in holding decision makers to account on tax
policies, to ask the following questions:
e x e C u T i v e s u m m A R y N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?1110
✔ What are the objectives which specific tax policies seek
to achieve?
✔ Why are incentives and reliefs proposed as a way to
achieve the government’s goals and ambitions, and to
what extent are they more appropriate or effective than
other expenditure such as industrial grants?
✔ How would specific tax measures be implemented and
over what period of time?
✔ Where would the incidence fall - who would
ultimately bear the burden and reap the benefits?
✔ How would the effectiveness of the tax policies
be monitored and who would be tasked with
measuring impact?
✔ At what point will a formal post-implementation
review of outcomes take place?
We propose ideas for improving the tax policy making
process and the resulting public debate in the short,
medium and long term.
Certainty
• Recalibrating Britain’s economic policy alongside
Brexit may provide an opportunity to have a coherent ‘theory of change’ which underpins tax policies. We propose that a joint sub-committee led by HM Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) outline an industrial strategy tax roadmap to 2030. There is also a case for a ‘sunset clause’ to be applied to all new tax reliefs outlined in such a roadmap, so that the impact proposed is time-bound and subject to a review within
a three to five-year period for example.
simplicity
• To aid public understanding and therefore legitimacy of the tax system, we propose that the Chancellor commissions a comprehensive review of tax reliefs prior to the UK’s formal exit from the European Union. This could be conducted by the Office of Tax Simplification. In the longer term, this might be extended to a review of the opportunities for tax
simplification more broadly.
scrutiny
• In the short term, we propose that tax policy implementation is subject to additional scrutiny mechanisms via parliamentary select committees,
e x e C u T i v e s u m m A R y N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?12 1312
rather than the main challenger role resting solely with the Treasury Select Committee and, more recently, the Public Accounts Committee. This is particularly important at a time when unprecedented executive power lies with the government.
• More support for parliamentary vehicles such as the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Select Committee, through resources for parliamentary libraries and committee staffers, would enhance their capacity to challenge measures.
Accountability
• In the longer term we advocate a review of government structure and apportionment of responsibilities when it comes to tax policy making. With increased national competencies on tax, it may be more effective for tax measures to be assessed and implemented as a joint effort between the Treasury and other government departments, similar to other policy instruments.
• Civil society has a role to play in extending efforts to scrutinise the tax system. We encourage civil society and business groups alike to embrace their scrutiny role within the policy making process.
Introduction
1
Introduction
e x e C u T i v e s u m m A R y14
Tax is widely recognised as an important tool in the
‘toolbox’ which government can use to achieve their
economic and social goals. But tax is also something that
is exploited for political ends, used to attract certain
voting demographics or curry favour with some at the
expense of others in society, and often subject to much
lower levels of public scrutiny than other government
decisions. This makes discussions about specific tax
policies fairly divisive, while simultaneously based on
low levels of public understanding.
As far as tax and Brexit is concerned, the debate so
far amongst the ‘experts’ - including policymakers,
economists, tax professionals, politicians and campaigners
– would seem to encompass:
‘instrumental’ projections
Not a day goes by without new ideas and controversies
surfacing in the media, and from across the political
spectrum, about what the effects of Brexit on the British
economy will be. These predictions are accompanied
with ideas for (depending on perspective) how we could
encourage or safeguard against certain economic
scenarios. From international economic competitiveness
or the UK’s industrial strategy, to safeguarding funding for
the welfare state, these discussions hinge on normative
ideas for what society or the economy should look like,
and how tax measures can help achieve this.
‘Reactive’ discussions
Often, discussions on tax in the context of Brexit refer to
ideas or measures which the UK government has always
had the power to change or implement regardless of EU
membership. However, from the rate of corporation tax
to the way that we tax land in this country, these ideas
are viewed by their proponents as a greater concern or
priority because of Brexit.
‘Technical’ questions
The process of leaving the EU may see certain powers and
decisions ‘repatriated’ from Brussels - from the potential
removal of current EU state aid rules affecting the scope
and scale of tax reliefs applied to businesses, to flexibility
in how VAT is applied to goods and services in the event of
the UK leaving the single market. This provokes practical
discussions around how the UK may respond in terms of
rules and regulations, resources, and the implementation
of these changes.
i N T R o d u C T i o N N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?1716
But this is also time for deeper questions. Before seeking
to implement changes to the tax system that are based
on political and economic aspirations, we need a much
broader debate on what we want to achieve as a society,
and whether the tax system should be used to meet
those objectives.
Rather than examine the merits or otherwise of
individual tax policies, this paper looks at the policy
making process around tax, and the principles which
should accompany it. We review the conditions and
criteria for the responsible design, consultation,
scrutiny, implementation and evaluation of tax policies.
Similar questions have been asked over the years by
a range of organisations and individuals – from Adam
Smith’s canons of taxation, as outlined in 1776, to
more recent work both in the UK and internationally.
Yet, while these inquiries have been well received by
professional or technical communities, they have not
always achieved public engagement or political traction.
These discussions are ever more important now – not
only because Brexit will have profound constitutional and
economic implications for the UK, but also because the
population needs reassurance that our decision makers
are accountable to the long-term public interest.
i N T R o d u C T i o N1918
What sort of policy making would allow people to engage in the process even if they don’t agree with the outcome?
How do we ensure that powers repatriated from Brussels to the UK are subject to public scrutiny?
What are the factors that contribute to a stable and competitive economy and a resilient nation?
Taking back control: An electorate that seeks to hold public officials to account.
Reuniting the country: A population that many perceive to be divided in terms of social priorities and global outlook.
Finding our place in the world: A nation in the process of unlinking its political and economic arrangements from those of the European Union.
Important questions for Brexit Britain
i N T R o d u C T i o N N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?2120
Brexit may also provide a generational opportunity
to apply more rigorous, ‘systems thinking’ to the tax
system, ironing out some of the inconsistencies and
contradictions between individual tax measures that
have resulted from years of incremental and piecemeal
changes implemented by successive governments.
This could result in a simpler and fairer tax system,
assist a competitive business climate and help attract
investment. On the other hand, the complexity
associated with leaving the EU may mean that there is
limited capacity amongst politicians and civil servants
for anything more than ‘getting on with Brexit’. On this
matter, opinion continues to vary.
MethodologyThis paper summarises discussions that took place
during three working group meetings held in 2017, and
wider ongoing consultation with a range of stakeholders
including businesses, trade unions, investors, academics,
NGOs and civil servants. We have also drawn on
national and international academic literature and
government reviews.
This work did not set out to examine specific policies, such
as higher or lower tax rates or specific incentives. Rather,
its purpose was to outline a set of conditions or criteria
which can be applied to scrutinise the legitimacy and
effectiveness of policy making on tax. The questions we
posed, therefore, were:
• What specific challenges and opportunities are there to improve the tax policy making process in the context of Brexit and the government’s industrial strategy?
• What principles and objectives underpin tax policy making, and how are policymakers held accountable to these?
• What determines when a tax, tax rate or tax relief is the appropriate mechanism for pursuing an economic objective, or when other government policies and levers are used?
• How could tax policy decisions be measured, disclosed and communicated effectively to increase public scrutiny and understanding, and wider trust in tax authorities and government?
i N T R o d u C T i o N N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?2322
Why we needto talk abouttax policy
2 Is tax an effective tool to ensure we have productive
and growing businesses in Brexit Britain, or would other
measures and types of spending be more effective? The
way that the tax policy making process currently works,
and how it is conveyed to the public, doesn’t help answer
this question.
It Is tax an effective tool to ensure we have productive
and growing businesses in Brexit Britain, or would other
measures and types of spending be more effective? The
way that the tax policy making process currently works,
and how it is conveyed to the public, doesn’t help answer
this question.
It is widely accepted that it is the role of government to
make important tax choices about the types and rates
of tax to impose – or not to impose – on individual and
corporate citizens. In democracies, the electorate will be
asked to vote based on party manifestos, which set out
economic goals and how these will be achieved through,
among other things, taxation.
Therefore, some would argue that leaving discussions
and decisions on tax to government is enough to ensure a
responsible and effective tax system. Yet this is obviously
Why we need to talk about tax policy
N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?25
not the case when it comes to other democratic functions
of government – or indeed in other types of policy making,
where we expect an outline of purpose, intent, and an
approach to measuring and evaluating the policy in line
with these.
There are shortcomings both with the policy making
process itself around tax, and the way that we discuss it.
Problems with the public debateIn public debate and the media, we hear a lot about
individual, specific tax policies, but far less about the policy
making process itself. Over the last decade tax has become
a firm feature in the headlines, and media soundbites
form the basis of many people’s understanding of tax,
given that the fundamental principles and mechanisms of
the tax system are not taught as a mandatory part of the
curriculum in schools.
However, coverage generally relates either to calls for
varying rates of taxation by different interest groups,
the behaviour of ‘wily corporations’ taking advantage
of loopholes, or ‘rabbit out of the hat’ style policy 1 Common Vision (2015), Re-building a social compact on responsible tax http://covi.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2015/07/Re-building-a-social-compact-on-responsible-tax_CoVi_publication-23July2015-FINAL.pdf
announcements by politicians on Budget day or in the run
up to a general election. This coverage often deliberately
aims to evoke an emotional response or public outrage
rather than encourage informed discussion. There is often
inadequate fact checking in reporting on tax, although this
may also be indicative of the lack of independent analysis
and scrutiny provided by third parties.
As described in Common Vision’s 2015 report,1 tax is
a social compact between all people and organisations
in society, yet when we discuss it, we immediately defer
to the inaccessible, technocratic jargon of experts, or
‘demotic’ outrage – there seems to be no middle ground.
These are just some of the nuances that get lost in the
mainstream media debate:
”The Government controls the tax system by changing the rates of tax”
Tax rates - whether something is taxed at 5%, 10% or
25%, for example - is just one type of tax measure that
can be implemented by government. The government
also makes decisions about the tax base – the entities or
financial streams which fall subject to tax or not (do we
w h y w e N e e d T o T A L k A B o u T T A x p o L i C y N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?2726
2 Resolution Foundation (2018) UK’s £155bn tax relief bill costs more than health, transport, justice, home and foreign office budgets combined http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/press-releases/uks-155bn-tax-relief-bill-costs-
more-than-health-transport-justice-home-and-foreign-office-budgets-combined/ [accessed February 2018]
tax workers below a certain income, for example, or levy
a specific tax on robots?) Another type of policy is a tax
subsidy, credit or relief, designed to encourage particular
types of behaviour. Yet tax reliefs are often subject to
much less public scrutiny than other expenditures from
the public purse. The Resolution Foundation estimates
that spending on tax reliefs amounted to £155bn in
the 2017/18 financial year – more than the budgets of
the health, transport, justice, home and foreign office
departments combined.2 With an estimated 1,140
tax reliefs administered by HMRC, there has been a
considerable amount of debate during recent years as to
how much tax reliefs cost and whether they are justified.
Although HMRC, the National Audit Office (NAO) and the
Office of Tax Simplification have all conducted work into
the costs and effectiveness of tax reliefs, this is still far
less than scrutiny of public spending.
”higher rates of taxation mean more money for public spending”
Often the general assumption amongst the public is that
higher tax rates means more money is raised for public
services such as the NHS. This is true in many cases, but
not all. For example, higher tax rates on individuals and
businesses alike may be offset by tax credits or tax reliefs,
meaning their ‘net burden’ is the same or lower. There
is a longstanding debate about the relationship between
tax rates and revenues raised from any given tax, with a
balance between the incentive that low tax rates could
offer for businesses to locate in a given place, and the
impact of these lower tax rates on overall revenues.
“higher taxes on businesses are paid by their wealthy shareholders”
There is more to business taxation than corporation tax,
although you wouldn’t necessarily know it from the media
coverage. Employment taxes, trading taxes and transaction
taxes all make significant contributions to the public purse
too. Many people understandably assume that business
taxation falls on the wealthy shareholders of a business,
which may be true in some cases, but there is often
confusion and disagreement on the ‘economic incidence’
of the tax – that is, who ultimately bears the burden.
Changes to business taxation might mean higher prices
for customers, lower wages for employees, lower returns
w h y w e N e e d T o T A L k A B o u T T A x p o L i C y N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?2928
3 Office of Tax Simplification (2015) Summary of Recommendations https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417798/OTS_List_of_Recommendations.pdf
to shareholders, or reduced returns from pension funds
which have invested in a business – to name just a few
examples. Sometimes where the burden of tax actually falls
in practice may differ from the government’s original intent.
A higher quality debate on tax policy is all the more
timely in Brexit Britain. Leaving the EU not only has
consequences in terms of the tax policy making powers
that could potentially be ‘repatriated’ to the UK from
Brussels, but also has wider implications as the UK
develops a new industrial strategy and shapes economic
goals for the future of ‘Global Britain’.
Problems with the policymaking process A complex system
Taxation is a technical issue so will be naturally complex
to some degree, and globalisation and technological
change (such as the gig economy) also adds to this
complexity. But, as tax law changes at pace and under
different administrations with no ongoing ‘guiding
principles’, this complexity is exacerbated. The UK tax
code is more than 20,000 pages long, with an estimated
1,140 tax relief schemes administered by HMRC.3 These
include R&D tax reliefs for businesses to invest in research
and development, the Seed Enterprise Investment
Scheme (SEIS) which offers tax reliefs to individual
investors who purchase new shares in early-stage startup
businesses, or the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS)
which applies to investment in all SMEs not just startups.
The coalition government of 2010 to 2015, for instance,
added 100 tax reliefs.
There is no framework of guiding principles which
underpin the design of all tax policies. Many tweaks and
changes have been made incrementally over the course of
time, by successive governments with different and even
conflicting goals, and often with a ‘short-termist’ outlook.
Many experts view the resulting complexity of the tax
system as an accident of history.
It has been noted that complexity has implications for
tax avoidance and evasion – rules which are harder to
understand are more difficult to comply with, even for
those with the best of intentions, or enforce when there is
misinterpretation.
w h y w e N e e d T o T A L k A B o u T T A x p o L i C y N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?3130
4 Public Accounts Committee (2015) Effectiveness of tax reliefs, improving tax collection: reports published https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/
news/reports-taxation/
policy rationale: To tax or not to tax?
Many tax experts contest whether to use tax incentives
and reliefs as instruments in meeting economic objectives
or whether there are simpler routes, such as direct
expenditures, to achieve the same thing. They may also
question whether the tax system is equipped to support
particular interventions, and whether the types of rules
required to define the scope of a relief properly in tax law
are unlikely to sit well with encouraging a specific behaviour,
leading to complications in both implementation and
monitoring. There is inadequate information and evidence
on the effectiveness of tax measures and whether they meet
their goals in encouraging investment from other sectors.
For example, the cost of R&D tax relief alone has increased
from £100m in 2001 to £2bn in 2017, “while the actual
amount of business expenditure on R&D has stayed more or
less the same,” according to a report by the Public Accounts
Committee.4
Without a clear narrative of ‘intent’ – i.e. what a government
wants to achieve and why a specific tax measure is the right
vehicle to do this, civil society groups and the public lack
insight and therefore the basis for scrutiny.
policy design
The exclusive role of the Treasury in developing tax
policies may seem illogical given that these are expected
to have economic and social impacts in given fields, such
as health or transport. Specific departments and officials
are often left outside of the decision making process on
taxation, even if this affects their spending remit. For
example, a government grant scheme to promote cultural
access may fall within the remit of the Department for
Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS), whereas the tax
relief for orchestras would be controlled by the Treasury.
This sort of siloed approach does not benefit the system
as a whole. Government departments working together,
rather than compartmentalising policy making roles,
would not only ensure better design, but also trust from
others that government is working in a joined-up way.
Consultation
There is often a lack of preparation and public
consultation prior to tax announcements. This may be
done in the interests of political expediency - a desire by
government to get measures through quickly and simply
with as little obstruction as possible. It may also be
w h y w e N e e d T o T A L k A B o u T T A x p o L i C y N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?3332
5 HM Revenue & Customs (2011) Tax consultation framework https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/89261/tax-consultation-framework.pdf
6 Kate Allen (2016) UK ‘relatively lax’ at scrutinising public spending https://www.ft.com/content/564ddd10-057c-11e6-9b51-0fb5e65703ce?mhq5j=e7 [accessed November 2017]
because of the desire to drive news headlines on Budget
day. Surprise announcements may lead to government
U-turns on certain tax policies if they are decidedly
unpopular with the public.
It is worth recognising that there has been more
consultation in recent years, particularly since
2011 when the coalition government adopted a
policy framework which intended to help clarity and
predictability of the tax system by including consultation
at five stages of setting out policy objectives.5 But while
this consultation method may engage with technical
specialists, other stakeholders may be left behind by a
process which is often seen to be dauntingly long and full
of jargon.
policy scrutiny
Various academics and even the OECD have criticised
the parliamentary process in relation to scrutinising the
government’s spending plans.6 Expertise and practical
capacity are both issues here. The parliamentary
committee usually has between three and six months to
look over the annual Budget proposals before it passes
through the rest of Parliament. Other bills generally
average a year to pass through Parliament. The House
of Lords Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee
is generally considered a better model, as it has more
detailed deliberations and benefits from expert and
technical support.
Scrutiny of tax reliefs, which have become an important
policy instrument, is even more lacking. Tax reliefs
represent policy choices about which groups and activities
government wishes to support yet they are easier and
quicker to enact than spending policies due to lack
of scrutiny and consultation. Over £100bn each year
represents the standalone fiscal costs of business tax
reliefs and incentives – an enormous amount for just one
or two parliamentary committees to scrutinise.
Scrutiny at the post-legislative stage, on the other hand, is
often reactionary and based on ‘failures’ which could have
been anticipated before legislation is passed. MPs express
outrage about ‘loopholes’ which they may well have voted
on in the past themselves. Hindsight may be 20/20, but
there is a need for proactive foresight too.
w h y w e N e e d T o T A L k A B o u T T A x p o L i C y N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?3534
7 National Audit Office (2014) Tax reliefs 8 Public Accounts Committee (2014) Tax reliefs, 3rd report of session 2014-15 https://publications.parliament.uk/
pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpubacc/282/282.pdf
measuring impact
Tax policies, even if their objectives are clearly stated,
are not always subject to a rigorous post-implementation
review to assess their success. When the National Audit
Office undertook a review of tax subsidies in 2014,7
Amyas Morse, NAO head said: “HM Treasury and HMRC
do not keep track of tax reliefs intended to change
behaviour, or adequately report to Parliament or the
public on whether tax reliefs are expensive or work as
expected.” A report by the Public Accounts Committee
in 2014 also criticised HMRC for inadequate control and
reporting of tax reliefs and their cost.8
w h y w e N e e d T o T A L k A B o u T T A x p o L i C y N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?3736
democratic vote
The elected government will
develop ideas on taxation in the
context of other factors such
as whether the country is self-
sufficient (in terms of energy, raw
materials and food) and if not, the
extent to which it needs to attract
external trade and investment.
Population demographics are
also factors in deciding from
whom taxes are being paid and
what proportion of the ‘pot’ this
amounts to.
1 designing policies
Civil servants in HM Treasury,
lead on strategic tax policy
development, whilst HMRC leads on policy maintenance and
implementation.
The Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) is a statutory body whose
role is to identify areas where
complexities in the tax system can
be reduced, and then to publish
their findings for the Chancellor to
consider ahead of the Budget.
The Chancellor will set out plans
via a financial statement on
‘Budget day’ or after the election
of a new government.
Consultation
A five-stage tax consultation
framework was implemented in
2011, which consists of a formal
commitment to consultation
at each stage of setting out
policy objectives and options
to achieve them; determining
the best option and developing
a framework for how it will
be implemented; drafting
legislation; implementing and
monitoring the change; and post-
implementation evaluation of
impact.
2 3
The tax policy making process
w h y w e N e e d T o T A L k A B o u T T A x p o L i C y N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?3938
The tax policy making process (ctd)
scrutinising and approving policies
HMRC predicts the impact of proposed changes
to tax reliefs and publishes these statistics,
which are also scrutinised by the Office for Budget Responsibility. As a non-ministerial
department, HMRC reports to Parliament via
the Treasury Minister who oversees HMRC
spending.
One of the roles of the Treasury Select Committee in Parliament is to look at
proposed legislation as outlined in the
financial statement. The report produced by
this committee is followed by a government
report in response to the Committee’s findings,
often with a contribution from the Office for
Budget Responsibility. Further Budget scrutiny
comes from the House of Lords Economic
Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee which
examines selected aspects of the Bill such as tax
administration, clarification and simplification.
implementing policies and evaluating effectiveness
New tax rules are implemented by HMRC, which
is tasked with monitoring compliance with the
rules and measuring effectiveness of the new
policies.
Retrospective scrutiny of actual spending and
the effectiveness of tax collection is undertaken
mainly by the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament. The National Audit Office, an
independent parliamentary body tasked with
scrutinising and auditing public spending and the
effectiveness of the way government departments
use their resources, assists with this process.
However, examining specific policies, such as tax
reliefs, falls outside of the NAO’s remit.
54
w h y w e N e e d T o T A L k A B o u T T A x p o L i C y N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?4140
The Brexit process may lead to increased interest in
the more complex aspects of the tax system, especially
as tax reliefs, incentives and ‘deals’ are made between
government and business.
But what should we be aiming for when formulating,
implementing and measuring tax policies? This is a
complex question that has been set out over the years by
economists, philosophers, social scientists, geographers
and many others.
A basic understanding of tax policy requires understanding
the purpose of taxation, the principles which underpin a
tax system, and the roles and responsibilities of those who
make decisions on tax in line with those principles.
The purpose of taxTax is fundamental to a civilised society. The tax system,
on the whole, is used for different purposes:
• To collect revenues for the public good – paying for essential public services and making investments in physical and human capital that will benefit all of society;
• To redistribute wealth and address disadvantages between different social groups;
The foundations of a responsible tax system:Purpose, principles and process
3
The foundations of a responsible tax system
N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?43
• To ensure that things that appear to be ‘free’ but which can have broader societal impacts, such as pollution, are correctly priced – what are referred to as externalities.
• To drive changes in behaviour, such as reducing smoking through tobacco taxes or carrier bag waste through the plastic bag tax, or by encouraging certain behaviours through incentives (via tax credits or subsidies) for others to make investments in society or to respond to competing economies.
Some of these purposes of the tax system may be
subject to political or ideological preference. Those on
the left of the political spectrum, for example, may be
more inclined to see the role of the state as redistributive
and therefore the tax system as an important tool to this
end. Those who prescribe to a libertarian, free-market
perspective may disagree with the idea of using taxes to
change behaviour.
It is perhaps inevitable that just as people hold
different views on other issues, they will have different
conceptions of what makes for a responsible and
equitable tax system. It is extremely difficult to take
the politics out of tax policy for the most part, but
articulating the purpose is nevertheless important.
Principles of the tax systemThere has been considerable past work on the principles
of a good tax system, dating back to the ‘canons’ set out
by Adam Smith in his 1776 book, The Wealth of Nations.
These are:
• Equity – that all citizens should be treated equally by the tax system;
• Certainty – that it is clear to the individual taxpayer how much tax they have to pay, to whom and by what time the tax is to be paid;
• Convenience – that the tax is levied in a way which is easy and does not cause undue inconvenience to the taxpayer; and
• Economy – that the administrative costs of collecting tax do not outweigh the revenue collected.
Over the years, other canons have been developed,
including those of:
• Neutrality – that the tax system does not distort economic activity;
• Simplicity – that taxpayers should be able to understand their obligations;
T h e f o u N d A T i o N s o f A R e s p o N s i B L e T A x s y s T e m N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?4544
• Diversity – that the tax burden of different types should not fall unduly on one type of taxpayer;
• Expediency – that the tax can be justified by government and acceptable to the public;
• Elasticity – that taxes can be flexible, increasing or decreasing in response to changes in demand for revenue.
Other work on the principles behind tax policy includes:
• The ICAEW’s Ten tenets for a better tax system (1999), posits that the tax system should be: Statutory, certain, simple, easy to collect and to calculate, properly targeted, constant, subject to proper consultation, regularly reviewed, fair and reasonable, and competitive.9
• Work by the UK Parliament Treasury Select Committee on the Principles of tax policy (2010-11) made a distinction between two ‘basic’ principles – fairness and economic impact. A system that is widely perceived to be unfair can lead to increased levels of avoidance or evasion, even if the exact definition of fairness achieves little consensus. Economic growth is a term which, according to the Committee, should be a crucial objective of the tax system. The Committee
also identified the “procedural principles” of certainty, stability and practicability, relating more to the administration of tax.10
• The Mirrlees Review, and its final report Tax by Design (2011), set out some principles which can perhaps also be summarised as procedural, including transparency, simplicity of collection, ease of measuring impact, minimal duplication of information processing, ensuring as few agents are involved as possible, and that people are dealing with the same organisation, using verifiable sources of information, minimising ‘gaps’ between programmes, and avoiding as much as possible the need for people to apply for special help.11
Whilst principles such as ‘fairness’ may be subjective,
processes and mechanisms that relate to the way that
policy is decided and implemented can be applied
regardless of subjective views on what the tax system
could and should be used for.
9 The ICAEW (1999) Ten tenets for a better tax system http://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/archive/files/technical/tax/tax-policy/ten-tenets-for-a-better-tax-system.ashx
10 UK Parliament Treasury Select Committee (2010-11) Principles of tax policy https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtreasy/753/753.pdf
11 Institute for Fiscal Studies (2011) Tax by design http://www.ifs.org.uk/docs/taxbydesign.pdf
T h e f o u N d A T i o N s o f A R e s p o N s i B L e T A x s y s T e m N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?4746
A responsible processRecent work by the Institute for Government (IfG),
the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the Chartered
Institute of Taxation (CIOT) outlined 10 steps towards
making better tax policy.12 These included a number
of measures relating to how government conveys its
tax policy objectives, such as the recommendations for
one annual ‘fiscal event’ or Budget announcement, that
priorities for tax policy are set out as early as possible in
each new Parliament, and that the Corporate Tax Road
Map model could be applied much more widely to other
taxes.
The report also mentioned the need for consultation on
tax measures to happen earlier and more proactively,
and to enhance Parliament’s ability to scrutinise tax
proposals. It also called for more accessible data to allow
more effective and routine post-legislative reviews of tax
measures.
How do these concepts apply to the current political and
economic context of Brexit Britain? Historic principles
and the concept of a responsible process are both still
12 The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT), Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and Institute for Government (IfG), (2017) Better Budgets: Making tax policy better https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/
Better_Budgets_report_WEB.pdf
highly relevant. But the current pace of political and
legislative change means that flexibility to the current
economic climate must be accompanied by an approach
that stands the test of time. Calling for specific tax
policies, incentives or reliefs based on short-termism
or self-interest, rather than the common good of the
country on the whole, is not in anyone’s interests.
N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?T h e f o u N d A T i o N s o f A R e s p o N s i B L e T A x s y s T e m4948
Tax policy inBrexit Britain:Rules of engagement
4Tax policy in Brexit Britain
The Brexit process may prompt an increased interest in the
more complex aspects of the tax system, especially as tax
reliefs, incentives and ‘deals’ are made between government
and industry sectors within and outside the UK.
But does Brexit actually change anything when it comes to
applying the tenets of taxation that have been discussed
over centuries? The simple answer is ‘no’.
What the Brexit process does provide is two key
opportunities which may be unprecedented, at least
in recent history. The first is a timescale which extends
beyond a five-year Parliament. The negotiation process
and a potential transitional deal with the EU, followed by a
full withdrawal process may take a decade, presenting an
opportunity for a longer-term view of the tax system than
has previously been possible.
The second opportunity is the heightened public interest
that accompanies the most important political and
constitutional juncture of a century. Although tax has
been the subject of public debate for almost a decade
when it comes to corporate behaviour, this concern has
not necessarily led to a more informed understanding of
tax from citizens. Perhaps Brexit can provide the context
N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?51
for a deeper understanding of the tax system and what
can be done differently to create a more constructive
dialogue. There is a risk, however, that the complexities
of taxation will get lost in the wider Brexit debate. Yet
public awareness and interest in tax affairs has been rising
over the last decade because of concerns over fairness,
transparency and accountability of the behaviours of
taxpayers. Brexit may act as a catalyst for this interest to
shift to tax policy.
Finding our place in the worldand increasing our resilience in a global economyIn January 2017, the Prime Minister set out plans for a
new industrial strategy, promising a ‘new, active role’ for
government in the wake of Brexit. It is as difficult to separate
the politics from industrial policy as it is with taxation.
Some people call for positive action, such as dedicated
government stimulus, while others advocate negative action
– deregulation, or for government to ‘get out of the way’, or
remove ‘red tape’ barriers to trade and export, and indeed
taxation itself.
Competitiveness is often seen as the main driver for
policy making in relation to business taxes. However,
the resounding consensus from the businesses that we
have spoken to is that stability, certainty and clarity are
just as important when it comes to a competitive tax
system. Piecemeal policies and incentives used to curry
political favour for short-term wins are far less popular
that politicians would like to believe.
Therefore, recalibrating Britain’s industrial strategy may
provide an opportunity to have a coherent ‘theory of
change’ which underpins tax policies.
Some experts would challenge whether the use of tax
incentives to further economic objectives is using ‘the
right tool in the toolbox’. Industrial grants, for example,
are an alternative form of government investment
which are time bound and specific, simpler to enact
in legislation and subject to greater scrutiny as well as
something that may also be more effective in achieving
the goals of an industrial strategy. If tax is to be used as
a tool in industrial policy, then it should be used in the
context of clear goals, such as current and future public
service provision and business needs.
T A x p o L i C y i N B R e x i T B R i T A i N N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?5352
13 HM Government (2017) Building our Industrial Strategy: Green Paper https://beisgovuk.citizenspace.com/strategy/industrial-strategy/supporting_documents/buildingourindustrialstrategygreenpaper.pdf [accessed February 2018]
14 CIOT, IFS and IfG (2017) Better Budgets 15 While outside the scope of this paper, comprehensive work on Parliamentary scrutiny of international tax treaties has been
conducted by Dr Martin Hearson of the London School of Economics https://martinhearson.wordpress.com/
We propose that a joint sub-committee, led by HM
Treasury and BEIS, outlines an industrial strategy tax
roadmap to 2030, which relates to the plans to use
“policies on trade, procurement and sectors [as] tools we
can use to drive growth by increasing competition and
encouraging innovation and investment.”13
A roadmap approach to taxation is something which many
tax professionals and policy experts have advocated in
the past.14 The 2010 government’s corporation roadmap
was well received by businesses because it allowed them
to have certainty to plan their strategy over a longer
timeframe than one election cycle, reducing the likelihood
of unforeseen surprises.
When it comes to the UK’s industrial strategy, a roadmap
could help avoid a situation in which piecemeal tax
incentives add complexity to the system and make it
harder to predict the direction of travel, as well as more
difficult to judge their effectiveness. There is also a case
for a ‘sunset clause’ to be applied to all new tax reliefs
outlined in such a roadmap, so that the impact proposed is
time bound and subject to a review within a three to five-
year period, for example.
International collaboration on tax measures is also
key given the globalised economy, as we have seen
with the uncertainty generated by measures from the
Trump administration in the US recently. A further issue
which fell outside the scope of this paper, but which is
no less important, is how the UK will coordinate with
international tax rules once outside of the EU ‘first
movers’ club’. Parliamentary scrutiny of international tax
treaties, for example, is even weaker than it is for primary
legislation.15
Reuniting the country: Engaging citizens in the policy making processFor tax policy to succeed, it must be considered
legitimate by the public. It is vital to have firm principles
in place for what changes to the tax structures in the
UK are based on, and what they aim to achieve. Public
understanding of these principles is as important as the
stability provided to businesses.
Terms such as ‘reducing inequality’, ‘benefiting all in
T A x p o L i C y i N B R e x i T B R i T A i N N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?5554
society’, and even ‘balanced growth’ will no doubt be
interpreted differently depending on different political
viewpoints, in terms of how much taxation is required and
at what level such decisions are taken. This is inevitable.
But in order to ensure everyone buys into the decision-
making process – even if they don’t agree with all the
outcomes – there is a clear need for open consultation
from government on tax policies – perhaps as part of
broader consultations - from development of ideas
through to reviewing effectiveness.
Transparency is important to achieve these ends. Often,
when transparency is discussed in regards to tax policy
making, the initial questions are around how much tax
is paid and by whom – with the conversation inevitably
reverting to the pros and cons of public disclosures
of tax returns, rather the ways in which policies are
implemented and measured. Genuine transparency
means that when a policy measure is announced, there
is transparency of intent, a calculation of who will bear
the burden, or incidence of tax, and a plan for how
results will be measured.
However, even the most well-intended consultation would
be situated within the complexities of the tax system as it
exists. The UK tax code is already more than 20,000 pages
long and contains over 1,000 tax reliefs. If and when
additional competencies are repealed from Brussels, this
will only add even more complexity to the tax system. The
tax system needs to be simpler so that taxpayers are able
to understand their obligations, and citizens can apply
appropriate scrutiny of the tax policy making process.
To these ends, we propose that the Chancellor
commissions a comprehensive review of tax reliefs prior
to the UK’s formal exit from the European Union. This
could be conducted by the Office of Tax Simplification,
although additional resources may be required to do this.
In the longer term, this might be extended to a review of
the opportunities for tax simplification more broadly.
A simple tax system is one of the factors which contribute
towards a ‘competitive’ environment for businesses to locate
and invest. This review could also re-examine the arguments
for and against tax hypothecation where revenues from
specific taxes would be ring-fenced for a specific expenditure
purpose – and publicly communicated in this way as a
mechanism for achieving transparency and accountability.
T A x p o L i C y i N B R e x i T B R i T A i N N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?5756
Taking back controlScrutiny of political decisions is particularly key when
many people are still feeling divided by the referendum
vote. Ensuring tax policy making is not driven purely
by political whims requires analysis of the success of
these decisions. Often Budgets will detail the aims
of a tax policy, but the outcomes are not reviewed
or publicised in the same way. This is why there is
a need for more comprehensive measurement and
articulation of outcomes following implementation (a
‘post-implementation review’). The public would benefit
from more information about the incidence of tax, who
benefits from certain reliefs (such as on a geographical
basis) and whether the tax policy has achieved the
goals set out in the ‘theory of change’ – this could
be presented in an annual report format or by using
more creative or narrative-led methods. Greater
simplicity within the tax system, as described above,
would also assist this to a point.
In the immediate term, more support for parliamentary
vehicles such as the Public Accounts Committee and
the Treasury Select Committee, through resources for
parliamentary libraries and committee staffers, would
enhance their capacity to challenge measures. Recent HMRC
secondments to Parliament may prove a good model for
future expert support.
In the short term, we propose that tax policy
implementation is subject to additional scrutiny
mechanisms via parliamentary select committees,
rather than the main challenger role resting solely with the
Treasury Select Committee and, more recently, the Public
Accounts Committee. When proposing a new tax measure
or relief, government should specify its precise aim, and the
department that holds responsibility for meeting this aim
overall. For example, research and development reliefs are
designed to encourage investment in these areas, as part of
the industrial strategy owned by the Department of Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). This would make it
clear that the BEIS Select Committee should be responsible
for examining the effectiveness of these reliefs in achieving
the specified policy goals.
In the longer term, we would advocate a review
of government structure and apportionment of
responsibilities when it comes to tax policy making.
With increased national competencies on tax, it may
T A x p o L i C y i N B R e x i T B R i T A i N N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?5958
be more effective for tax measures to be assessed and
implemented as a joint effort between the Treasury and
other government departments, in a similar manner to
other policy instruments. For example, BEIS would then
be able to share the assessment of whether a tax relief
or another form of financial support would be the best
way to incentivise investment in clean energy. This would
bring about a fundamental change in the balance of power
between the Treasury and other departments, and bring
tax in line with the policy making process on other issues. It
would also mean building in tax expertise and training within
departmental staff, and for knowledge exchange between
departments, as is the case with government statistical
experts, for example.
But, ultimately, it doesn’t just fall to government and
civil servants to design a responsible tax system, it is the
responsibility of others to advocate for one. Various lobbying
calls for government support of different sectors and interest
groups are perhaps inevitable - but that doesn’t mean it is
not worth reflecting on what the tax system would look like
overall if everyone acted in self-interest.
In the meantime, civil society has a role to play in extending
efforts to scrutinise the tax system. We encourage civil
society and business groups alike to embrace their
scrutiny role within the policy making process. This
requires consistent and collaborative requests for open
plans and answers that are in line with the checklist we
outline above, and could include Freedom of Information
requests about the objectives of specific tax measures, or
the impact of certain reliefs.
Political factors and ideology cannot always be removed
from policy making and, therefore, it may be impossible
to agree on the best rate of tax or whether tax should be
used for certain purposes, such as behavioural change.
However, a clear and coherent set of objectives, with
defined desirable outcomes and appropriate measurement
of whether these are being achieved – the ‘what’, the ‘why’,
the ‘how’ and the ‘on whom” - can transcend the differing
rationale for taxes.
T A x p o L i C y i N B R e x i T B R i T A i N N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?6160
We encourage anyone interested in holding decision makers
to account on tax policies, to ask the following questions:
✔ What are the objectives which specific tax policies seek to
achieve?
✔ Why are incentives and reliefs proposed as a way to
achieve the government’s goals and ambitions, and to
what extent are they more appropriate or effective than
other expenditure such as industrial grants?
✔ How would specific tax measures be implemented and
over what period of time?
✔ Where would the incidence fall - who would ultimately
bear the burden and reap the benefits?
✔ How would the effectiveness of the tax policies be
monitored and who would be tasked with measuring
impact?
✔ At what point will a formal post-implementation review of
outcomes take place?
This would serve as a starting point to achieve a basic
understanding of the mechanisms and principles
which currently, or could in future, sit behind the tax system,
in a way which allows public interest groups to scrutinise
these functions.
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
T A x p o L i C y i N B R e x i T B R i T A i N62
Working group co-Chairskate Bell
Kate Bell has been Head of the Economic and Social
Affairs Department at the TUC since July 2016. The
Department leads the TUC’s work in many key areas of
economic and social policy, including macroeconomic
and fiscal policy, industrial policy, climate change and
energy policy, corporate governance and capital markets,
social security and the welfare state, pensions policy and
employment rights. Before joining the TUC, Kate worked
as Head of Policy and Public Affairs for a local authority,
as Work and Pensions adviser to Ed Miliband during his
period as leader of the Labour Party, and for the charities
Child Poverty Action Group and Gingerbread.
Grace stevens, ACA, CTA
Grace has been the Chief Tax Officer at Legal & General
Group since 2015 having joined the L&G tax team in
2011. She is a member of the CBI Tax Committee, a
member of the IA Tax Strategy Committee, chairs the
advisory panel for the Winmark Tax Directors Network
and has recently joined the CBI Financial Services
Council. Grace has expertise across UK and international
tax specialising in real estate and financial services.
Before joining L&G Grace worked at RSA, Deloitte and
qualified with Arthur Andersen. Grace was the Treasurer
of the charity Women’s Breakout until mid-2017 and
has recently joined the Board of Women In Prison as a
Trustee.
EditorReport by Caroline Macfarland, Director, Common
Vision
This report was compiled and edited by Caroline
Macfarland, based on working group meetings and
consultation. Any errors are the responsibility of the
author.
With thanksWith thanks to those who participated in our working
group meetings: Adam Corlett, Resolution Foundation;
Adam Jackson, Grant Thornton; Adam Pickering,
Charities Aid Foundation; Andrew Carter, Centre
for Cities; Anneliese Dodds MP; Cathy Cross, PCS
Union; Claire Spoors, Oxfam; Heather Buckingham,
Church Urban Fund; Jane Dawson, Quakers in Britain;
A C k N o w L e d G e m e N T s N e w R u L e s f o R B R e x i T B R i T A i N ?6564
Kamaljeet Gill, TUC; Tim Law, Engaged Consulting;
Allison Roche, Unison; Chris Morris, Usdaw; Professor
Kimberley Scharf; Charlie Elphicke MP; Kieran Devlin,
Prudential and Emily Kenway, Fair Tax Mark.
Special thanks to Jonathan Riley, Grant Thornton; Judith
Knott; John Cullinane, Chartered Institute of Taxation;
Phil Hall, AAT; Stephen Herring, Institute of Directors;
George Bull, RSM UK and Martin Hearson, LSE for their
comments and feedback on drafts of this report. Thanks
also to Rachel Taylor, Jon Ward and Katy Owen from
Common Vision.
Sponsored by the TUCThis workstream from the Responsible Tax Lab was
sponsored by the Trades Union Congress (TUC). The
TUC is the voice of Britain at work. It represents nearly
six million working people in 52 unions across the
economy. It campaigns for more and better jobs and
a better working life for everyone, and supports trade
unions to grow and thrive.
About Common vision
Common Vision (CoVi) is an independent, not-for-profit
think tank launched in 2014. We explore issues which
require long-term, intergenerational solutions and
which require solutions to reach beyond conventional
partisan debates or sector-driven interests. We use
creative and crowdsourced methods to promote
civic engagement and policy understanding beyond
a politically active minority, and to build a vision of
society based on the common good.
A C k N o w L e d G e m e N T s66
T H E
R E S P O N S I B L E
T A X L A B
P O W E R E D B Y