Senate Inquiry into Corporate Tax Avoidance continues to sit in 2018

"Exxon’s primary Australian company is directly owned by a shell company in the Netherlands and the Dutch company is owned by another subsidiary in the Bahamas." [Tax Justice Network submission to Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into Corporate Tax Avoidance]

ExxonMobil Australia Pty Ltd operates under the brands ExxonMobil Australia, Esso and Mobil. It declared no taxable income in 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 despite having generated a total income during these years of 24.7 billion within this country.  [Based on Australian Taxation Office Report of Entity Tax Information data]

The Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into Corporate Tax Avoidance commenced on 2 October 2014 and continues to sit until 30 May 2018.

The Inquiry’s 154 submissions to date make for interesting reading and can be accessed here (1 to 127 ) and here (128 to 154).

Effect of proposed company tax cuts according to Australian Prime Minister Malcom Bligh Turnbull - "All boats will rise"

As households across the country began the count down to the holiday season, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull smugly informed an ABC interviewer that as a result of a proposed cut in the company tax rate* everyone’s income will increase – “All boats will rise”.

This is another way of referring to that now legendary faux economic theory popular with right-wing politicians – the Trickle Down Effect.

This assertion is tested in an Australian Treasury working paper ANALYSIS OF THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF A COMPANY TAX CUT (May 2016) which modelled a tax cut reducing company tax from 30 per cent to 25 per cent – presumably implemented over the 10 years to 2026-27 proposed by government.

Yes, this working paper estimates that for “a static representative household” “calibrated to match the expenditure, income patterns, and taxes faced by aggregate Australian households” real wages will rise if all other factors in the economy remain unchanged.

So it seems that Turnbull's claim is genuine - or is it?

What Turnbull fails to say is that this “real” wage rise will probably be a paltry est. 1.0-1.1% in total, will take at least 20 years to achieve and will only come about if the average individual also works longer hours.

Based on ABS May 2017 All Employees Average Weekly Total Earnings and an optimistically estimated average annual wages growth of 1.9 per cent; at the end of those 20 years an average worker will have received a total wage increase of est. $851 to $929. Spread out over those 20 years that works out to between 81-89 cents a week extra in his/her pay packet as a direct result of the Turnbull Government’s company tax cut.

Because in real life these company tax cuts are staged and, each stage would have a lag time, no-one is going to see 81-89 cents in their pay packets anytime soon. Indeed a great many people will probably never see this meagre increase at all as the real wages of many low-skilled workers haven't increased alongside higher-skilled workers for the last seven years and there is no indication as to if or when this trend will end.

Over this same twenty-year time period any increase in company income as a result of a 5 per cent cut in the company tax rate would result in millions to one billion plus being added to the bottom lines of a significant number of medium to large corporations. With such savings being just as likely to be diverted into bonuses paid to senior management or paid as dividends to shareholders as they are to being reinvested in a business.

Once more proving that tax cuts for industry, business and those individuals wealthy enough to incorporate their landholdings/investments, have what is essentially a neutral outcome for rest of the population.

Company tax cuts will hardly stir the water beneath those metaphorical boats belonging to ordinary workers.

Therefore this classic illustrative meme still stands under the Turnbull Coalition Government:

Image from Perry Street Palace

Something to remember when it comes time to vote in the next federal election.

* A company tax rate very few companies actually pay. A tax rate that an estimated 36% of more than 2,000 of the biggest corporations doing business in Australia ignore entirely given they unilaterally decided that under current taxation law and for accounting purposes they should pay no tax at all.

Senate Estimates delivers a wicket to Australian Labor Party

News Corp joins Turnbull Government in bashing welfare recipients yet again

A report released by the Federal Government's Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW] on 19 October 2017 states that welfare spending in 2016 reached 9.5 per cent of Australia's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) having been increasing on average by 0.09 per cent or est. $4 billion annually over the last ten financial years.

Some of this increase is inevitably due to population growth over the same period - between 2006 and 2016 the national population grew by 3.18 million people to reach a population total of 24.20 million.

However, the media suitably primed began to discuss welfare costs principally in terms of cash transfers to Centrelink clients.

But does such discussion take in the whole picture of welfare costs in this country? 

According to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) there are a large number of concessions, offsets and rebates available to working and retired individuals, active businesses, family trusts and superannuation funds.

These can reduce the annual tax payable by an individual, business, trust or fund – sometimes as low as zero dollars.

Along with universal education and health services, Centrelink and Veterans’ Affairs pensions, benefits, and concessions; these ATO concessions, offsets and rebates are a form of government welfare.

So when the Murdoch media trumpet statistics like “Last year, more than 733,000 people received unemployment benefits, costing $10 billion” with est. 68 per cent of recipients moving off this payment within a year - remember that Australian Government tariff, budgetary assistance and tax concessions to primary, mining, manufacturing and services industries totalled $15.1 billion in 2015-16 and, based on past performance, an estimated 33 per cent of all businesses would probably have paid zero tax in that year.

Put simply, Australian Government welfare directed at industry cost taxpayers est. $41.3 million per day in 2015-16.

And when these same News Corp megaphones go on to state that “more than 100,000 jobseekers who were on the dole for at least five years had cost taxpayers $15 billion over the past decade” – readers might like to recall that the Australian Government spent in the vicinity of est. $96 billion on industry assistance in the six years commencing 2010-11 and ending 2015-16.

[Australian Government, Productivity Commission Annual Report Series, Trade & Assistance Review 2015-16]

If a similar level of government assistance were to continue for another four financial years then government welfare received by industry would reach est. $156 billion over ten years.

That's over ten times the quoted amount in welfare payments outlaid on the long term unemployed in a decade.

However, when the likes of Liberal Minister for Human Services Alan Tudge, Liberal Minister for Social Services Christian Porter, Liberal Senator Eric Abetz or One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson talk about the cost of government welfare programs they rather strangely neglect to look at the full range of federal government financial assistance across all sectors of the economy – preferring instead to target vulnerable groups of people with little ability to fight back against their distorted, punitive and highly politicised world views.

File this one under 'Who's guarding the guards?'

The politicians forming Australian state and federal governments assure us they are upright, ethical people with histories as pure as the driven snow. They tell us their advisors are trustworthy beyond doubt and their senior public service appointees & finance/security consultants ditto. While their big business mates like Gina, Twiggy and Co are genuinely true blue and philanthropic.

Yet, as step by step these same politicians lead us towards authoritarian governance and Big Brother mass surveillance, their feet of clay can’t help but show.

North Coast Voices readers may remember that SMEC Holdings Limited (now SMEC and Surbana Jurong) has been a favourite of Malcolm Turnbull's since he was the Minister for the Environment and Water Resouces in the Howard Government ministry.

This company provided an error-ridden desktop study for Turnbull supporting damming and diverting water from NSW North Coast river systems, with a preference for visiting this environmental vandalism on the Clarence River system.

It is now allegedly a corrupt multinational corpration.

The Age, 4 October 2017:

An arm of the company tasked with advising the Turnbull government on its signature infrastructure project, Snowy Hydro 2.0, has been banned by the World Bank for alleged bribery and corruption, prompting further calls for a federal anti-corruption watchdog……

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull poses for a photo during his announcement of Snowy Hydro 2.0 in March.

Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

Engineering company SMEC had five of its subsidiaries banned by the World Bank last week after an investigation into "inappropriate payments" linked to projects in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. 

SMEC was chosen to undertake the $29 million feasibility study back in May and the work is due to be finished by the end of the year. The firm was selected by the state and federal government-owned Snowy Hydro corporation, which runs the current power plant.

Last year, Fairfax Media revealed the details of some of the allegations around improper payments involving SMEC, including allegedly corrupt dealings between the firm and Sri Lankan president Maithripala Sirisena when he was a cabinet minister in 2009.

Those dealings and others are still under investigation by the federal police.

This is one wealthy individual audited by the Australian Taxation Office - venture capitalist and independent consultant to business & government for over twelve years, Anthony ‘Tony’ Castagna.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 7 October 2017:

Anthony Castagna's company helps protect the cyber secrets and detect financial crimes within the world's most powerful institutions, including the Serious Fraud Office in Britain, US Homeland Security, the Australian defence force, ASIC, even the Office of the President of the US.

Now the Sydney-based co-founder and chairman of Nuix, majority owned by Macquarie Bank, faces a potential 20-year jail term after being charged with tax evasion and dealing with the proceeds of crime.

Dr Castagna, 70, has been the target of two of Nuix's major clients: the Australian Federal police and the Australian Tax Office through Project Wickenby, their long-running tax probe.

The charges relate to payments from Macquarie Bank which were allegedly channelled into offshore companies controlled by his cousin Robert Agius, who was sentenced to a non-parole period of 6 years and 8 months' jail in 2012 for operating unrelated tax avoidance schemes via his Vanuatu-based accountancy firm.

In addition to Dr Castagna's criminal charges, the ATO is pursuing him for unpaid taxes and penalties in excess of $10 million.

For decades, the tech guru has been a rainmaker for Macquarie Bank. The bank has ploughed millions of dollars into his cyber security and forensic services company Nuix. A totally owned Macquarie Group subsidiary owns more than 70 per cent of Nuix and over the last year Macquarie advisors have been talking up a billion-dollar float of Nuix on the Australian stock exchange....

Dr Castagna, who denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending the charges....

Facebook Inc continues to test the world's patience when it comes to privacy issues and US patience in relation to taxation matters

Worldwide Facebook Inc is estimated to have 2.01 billion monthly active users, with est. 1.7 billion of these users living outside of the USA and Canada.

Australian users comprised 17 million of these account holders in August 2017 - 12 million logging in daily.

In pursuit of profit this social media company is a ruthless data miner – collecting and collating information about every available aspect of the lives of all holders of Facebook accounts.

A fact that makes this company’s users a target of US federal government mass surveillance.

Given that Facebook Inc created a holding company Facebook Ireland Ltd in the low-taxing Republic of Ireland and it is this company which appears to legally possess the data of those est.1.7 billion users, it now finds itself before European Union courts.

Privacy activist @maxschrems, 3 October 2017:

Facebook operates its international business outside of the United States and Canada via a separate company in Ireland called “Facebook Ireland Ltd”. 85.9% of all worldwide Facebook users (everyone except USA and Canada) are managed in Dublin (Link), which is understood to be part of Facebook’s tax avoidance scheme.

Facebook currently sends all user data to its parent company, “Facebook Inc.” in the United States for processing. European law (Articles 25 and 26 of Directive 95/46/EC) requires that data can only be transferred outside of the EU if the personal data is “adequately protected”. This is in conflict with US mass surveillance laws, which “Facebook Inc.” in the USA is subject to.

Max Schrems: “In simple terms, US law requires Facebook to help the NSA with mass surveillance and EU law prohibits just that. As Facebook is subject to both jurisdictions, they got themselves in a legal dilemma that they cannot possibly solve in the long run.”

The Data Protection Commissioner in Ireland is investigating a complaint made by Max Schrems, an Austrian student with a Facebook account. This complaint relates to the transfer of his data by Facebook Ireland to Facebook Inc. in the United States for processing - an act which is alleged to violate European fundamental rights under Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Data Protection Commissioner had been previously taken to the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to refusal to investigate a complaint made by Mr Schrems regarding the fact that Facebook Ireland Ltd (‘Facebook Ireland’) transfers the personal data of its users to the United States of America and keeps it on servers located in that country. 

The subsequent investigation by the Data Protection Commissioner has given rise to a High Court case in Ireland (3 October 2017 judgement). The Court has now referred the issue of the validity of the European Commission’s Standard Contractual Clause decisions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.

History of the Case according to Max Schrems:

The case is based on a complaint, filed by Mr Schrems against Facebook in 2013:

* The case is based on a complaint [PDF] brought by Mr Schrems against Facebook Ireland Ltd. before the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (“DPC”) in 2013 (4 years ago).

* The DPC first refused to investigate the complaint, calling it “frivolous”, but Mr Schrems subsequently succeeded before the CJEU, which overturned the “Safe Harbor” (a EU-US data sharing system) in 2015 [case C-362/14] and ruled that the DPC must investigate the complaint.

* After the invalidation of “Safe Harbor”, Facebook used another legal tool to transfer data outside of the EU, called “Standard Contractual Clauses” (SCCs) [Facebook’s SCCs - PDF].

* SCCs are a contract between Facebook Ireland and Facebook USA, where Facebook USA pledges to follow EU privacy principles [official EU Info Page].

* The case subsequently continued with an updated complaint [PDF] in 2015. The Irish DPC joined Mr Schrems view that the SCCs cannot overcome fundamental problems under US surveillance laws, and specifically agreed that there is no proper legal redress in the United States in such cases. Other issues raised in Mr Schrems complaint have not been investigated yet.

* The DPC refused to use its power to suspend data flows of Facebook as asked by Mr Schrems.

* Instead of only prohibiting Facebook’s EU-US data transfers under Article 4 of the SCCs, the DPC took the unusual move of issuing proceedings against Facebook Ireland Ltd. and Mr Schrems before the Irish High Court. In the procedure the DPC aims to invalidate the SCCs entirely by referring the case to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in Luxembourg.

*The case was heard for five Weeks in February 2017. The United States Government was joined as an “amicus” to the case, along two industry lobby groups and the US privacy non-profit “EPIC”.

Facebook Inc’s "Double Irish" tax avoidance scheme and other matters also saw it before a US court in 2016, having refused to comply with a number of IRS tax summons. The court case continues to date.

The IRS 2008-2010 audit of Facbook Inc resulted in an assessment of the intangible assets transferred in those years having a value of US $13.8 billion, increasing Facebook's 2010 income by US $84.9 million and causing an income tax deficiency for the parent company.

Excerpt from United States Securities And Exchange Commission filing by Facebook Inc for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016:

We are subject to taxation in the United States and various other state and foreign jurisdictions. The material jurisdictions in which we are subject to potential examination include the United States and Ireland. We are under examination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for our 2008 through 2013 tax years. Our 2014 and subsequent years remain open to examination by the IRS. Our 2011 and subsequent years remain open to examination in Ireland. We do not anticipate a significant impact to our gross unrecognized tax benefits within the next 12 months related to these years. On July 27, 2016, we received a Statutory Notice of Deficiency (Notice) from the IRS relating to transfer pricing with our foreign subsidiaries in conjunction with the examination of the 2010 tax year. While the Notice applies only to the 2010 tax year, the IRS states that it will also apply its position for tax years subsequent to 2010, which, if the IRS prevails in its position, could result in an additional federal tax liability of an estimated aggregate amount of approximately $3.0 - $5.0 billion, plus interest and any penalties asserted. We do not agree with the position of the IRS and will file a petition in the United States Tax Court challenging the Notice. If the IRS prevails in the assessment of additional tax due based on its position, the assessed tax, interest and penalties, if any, could have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. [my yellow bolding]

I wonder if Liberal and Nationals MPs and senators remember that Adani's corporate structure in Australia is allegedly also geared towards siphoning money into tax havens?

The Guardian, 16 August 2017:

A global mining giant seeking public funds to develop one of the world’s largest coal mines in Australia has been accused of fraudulently siphoning hundreds of millions of dollars of borrowed money into overseas tax havens.

Indian conglomerate the Adani Group is expecting a legal decision in the “near future” in connection with allegations it inflated invoices for an electricity project in India to shift huge sums of money into offshore bank accounts.

Details of the alleged 15bn rupee (US$235m) fraud are contained in an Indian customs intelligence notice obtained by the Guardian, excerpts of which are published for the first time here.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) file, compiled in 2014, maps out a complex money trail from India through South Korea and Dubai, and eventually to an offshore company in Mauritius allegedly controlled by Vinod Shantilal Adani, the older brother of the billionaire Adani Group chief executive, Gautam Adani.

Vinod Adani is the director of four companies proposing to build a railway line and expand a coal port attached to Queensland’s vast Carmichael mine project.

The proposed mine, which would be Australia’s largest, has been the source of years of intense controversy, legal challenges and protests over its possible environmental impact.

Expanding the coal port to accommodate the mine will require dredging an estimated 1.1m cubic metres of spoil near the Great Barrier Reef marine park. Coal from the mine will also produce annual emissions equivalent to those of Malaysia or Austria according to one study.

One of the few remaining hurdles for the Adani Group is to raise finance to build the mine as well as a railway line to transport coal from the site to a port at Abbot Point on the Queensland coast.

To finance the railway Adani hopes to persuade the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (Naif), an Australian government-backed investment fund, to loan the Adani Group or a related entity about US$700m (A$900m) in public money.

Adani family’s Australian corporate structure…..

ABC News, 14 March 2017:

Up to $3 billion from Adani's planned Carmichael coal mine will be shifted to a subsidiary owned in the Cayman Islands if the controversial project goes ahead, an analysis of company filings shows.

An "overarching royalty deed" gives a shell company rights to receive a $2-a-tonne payment, rising yearly by the inflation rate, beyond the first 400,000 tonnes mined in each production year for two decades.

The company with this entitlement is ultimately owned by Atulya Resources Limited, a secretive entity registered in the Cayman Islands, and controlled by the Adani family.

"In plain English, the upshot for the Adani family is [that] if the mine goes ahead, they receive a $2-a-tonne payment, so up to $3 billion, via a Cayman Islands company, a company owned in a tax haven," says Adam Walters, principal researcher and Energy Resource Insights.

With a production capacity of 60 million tonnes or more a year, that amounts to about $120 million per annum in payments, increasing each year in line with the CPI, potentially flowing offshore.

"I would describe it as a structure that means that the Adani family enriches themselves if the mine goes ahead but that other shareholders are impoverished," associate professor Thomas Clarke, director of the Centre for Corporate Governance at UTS told the ABC.

"The worry is that this may be just the beginning.

"That the Adani family have the ability to shift cash and assets around at will and in the future they may well do so at the cost of shareholders and the Queensland economy."

He said the billions flowing to the Adani private company would come at the expense of minority shareholders in the company listed on the Bombay stock exchange which ultimately owns the Carmichael mine.

How Adani acquired the right to this multi-billion-dollar revenue stream is a tale in itself.

In 2010, Adani Mining Pty Ltd bought the coal tenement that is set to become the Carmichael mine from the now defunct Linc Energy.

Part of the sale involved Adani Mining giving Linc Energy an "overriding royalty deed" which entitled it to receive $2-a-tonne for all coal mined beyond the first 400,000 tonnes in any production year.

Linc Energy informed investors at the time could be worth "over $120 million per annum" and up to $3 billion over the course of the royalty right.

But in August 2014, in dire financial straits, Linc Energy agreed to sell the royalty deed back to Adani at a fire sale price: just $150 million.

The obvious course would have been to extinguish the royalty deed, because it represented a multi-billion-dollar liability for the mine which is ultimately owned by Adani Enterprises Ltd, the Bombay-stock exchange listed company.

Instead, the royalty deed "was assigned by Linc Energy Limited to Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd as trustee for Carmichael Rail Network Trust," notes in financial reports of Adani Mining Pty Ltd say.

Carmichael Rail Network is one of a group of companies behind the proposed North Galilee Basin rail line, which Adani is currently seeking a subsidised loan of up to $1 billion from the Federal Government's Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to build.

"What this means is that one of the companies currently seeking up to $1 billion in public subsidy is going to profit to the tune of up to $3 billion if the mine goes ahead," Mr Walters said.

Adani Mining Pty Ltd, the proponent of the Carmichael mine and the holder of its environmental approvals, appears to have lent Carmichael Rail the funds to buy the royalty deed.

BACKGROUND

The Guardian, 21 August 2015:

We know that Abbott loves coal and thinks that it is “good for humanity”. Is that why he is prepared to back a financially risky project?

Is it the “10,000” jobs that government ministers say will come from the project (remembering that Adani’s own consultant has said that those numbers were vastly overblown and that Carmichael would result in less less than 1500 jobs).

Could it be the prospect of cash from coal royalties? Maybe.

Does the substantial media coverage from the mine just give the Abbott Government another opportunity to tell the public that all environmentalists are economic saboteurs who want to take away people’s jobs and come in the dead of night to steal your babies? Possibly.

But could there be another causal factor that has contributed to the way Australian politicians have forcefully backed Adani for so many years?

Could that other factor be the close relationships that the company has managed to forge at the highest levels with Australia’s political leaders?

Whenever an Australian leader sets foot in India, it seems that a meeting with Gautam Adani is never more than a figurative (and sometimes literal) flight in a private jet away.

There’s evidence of this going back at least as far as October 2010 and its there in the records of trade missions tabled before parliaments.

Let’s peruse together.

In October 2010, Queensland’s then Premier Anna Bligh travelled to India on a trade mission to promote the state’s bid to host the Commonwealth Games and “strengthen Queensland’s position as an ally and destination for future trade and investment in the eyes of the Indian market and nation leaders”.

A report tabled to the Queensland Parliament shows that Bligh’s first official meeting with Indian figures was with Adani, where the company’s owner Gautam Adani and his international development executive Harsh Mishra got to quiz the Premier about policies relating to rail lines, underground coal gasification and support for mining in the Galilee Basin.

Bligh also “agreed to attend the opening” of Adani’s offices in Brisbane later that month and extended an invitation for Adani to meet with its co-ordinator general when they were next in Brisbane.

After Campbell Newman won power for the Liberal National Party in Queensland, he led a trade mission to India too.

While there, Newman joined former Labor Resources Minister Martin Ferguson and a 76-strong business delegation for a tour of an Adani port and a power plant, reportedly getting there on a private jet.

The report on the trade mission, tabled to Parliament, shows that Mr Adani then hosted a lavish reception at his home for the entire delegation.

Judging by one freelance photographer’s images, the event was quite an affair with much handshaking all-round.

The event was part of “OzFest” – Australia’s “largest cultural festival” for which Adani was a “platinum sponsor”

In 2013, the Queensland Government was again in India for a trade mission led by then Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney and, again, the Adani company was on hand.

Seeney’s delegation travelled with Adani executive Harsh Mishra to visit an Adani-owned port and power station before Seeney had a private lunch with the company.

Later that same day, Seeney met with Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi (now the Indian Prime Minister) and… Gautum Adani.

Mr Adani then hosted a private dinner with Seeney “which included Adani Group senior executives and members of Mr Adani’s family”.

But it’s not only Queensland politicians who have sought out Adani company bosses while on missions to India.

Former New South Wales Premier Barry O’Farrell met with Gautam Adani during a trade visit to India in December 2013.

Current NSW Premier Mike Baird also went on a trade mission to India earlier this year. You can probably guess by now the name of one Indian billionaire he met with.

Gautam Adani is also a co-chair of the Australia-India CEO Forum – an initiative of the Australian High Commission.

Trade minister Andrew Robb attended the last meeting in New Delhi. I don’t know if they had dinner (but if I was a betting man….)

This isn't the first time Coalition MPs have lied about costings

“FEDERAL Opposition Leader Bill Shorten's populist "tax grabs" would cost Australians an eye-watering $150 billion over 10 years, the Federal Government will reveal today……Independent modelling by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) and Treasury shows that under a Shorten government small business, mum and dad investors, older Australians and higher-income earners would be slapped with higher taxes.” [The Northern Star, 14 August 2017]

The Parliamentary Budget Office exposes the lie………

PBO Media Release

This is not the first time a Coalition MP has uttered political lies about costings. Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb became rather famous for it.

ABC News, 11 October 2010:

The Federal Government says the Coalition did not tell the truth before the last election when it claimed to have had its costings audited.

The Opposition did not submit its costings to Treasury before the election, but said they had been audited by a big accountancy firm.

Fairfax newspapers quote letters between the Liberal Party and the accountants saying the work would not constitute an audit in accordance with Australian standards.

And conservative politicians wonder why the general public perceives such a yawning credibility gap.

The NSW Northern Rivers have been asking for a fair go for decades

                          

To be filed under The more thing change the more things stay the same……….

Saturday, 7 March 1931

Trove, retrieved 13 August 2017

Why doesn't the Turnbull Government do more to address domestic tax avoidance?

So why is it that the Turnbull Coalition Government, home to more than one millionaire, continues to allow a set of taxation rules which favour those with both wealth and high incomes over those with only average to low incomes and little to no wealth?

@unionsaustralia

According to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) – now underfunded, undermanned and demoralised – there is an issue with trusts being used for tax avoidance:

We focus on differences between distributable income of a trust and its net [taxable] income which provides opportunities for those receiving the economic benefit of trust distributions to avoid paying tax on them.

In other words; discretionary trusts are used by high-income earners to distribute investment income to beneficiaries on lower marginal tax rates, in the process reducing the overall amount of tax paid and current rules allow income to be diverted to other family members, such as stay-at-home mothers or fathers, or to dependents over the age of 18, such as children at university, college or Tafe.

Australian Finance Minister and Liberal Senator for Western Australia Mathias Cormann characterises proposals to alter taxation rates on trusts to minimise their use as tax avoidance vehicles as a “tax grab”. Well he would wouldn’t he, with so many political mates to defend.

As for collecting existing tax liabilities……

The ability to enforce payment obligations and pursue avoidance schemes has diminished since 2014 when first the Abbott Coalition Government and then later the Turnbull Coalition Government cut ATO staffing numbers.

The Community and Public Sector Union clearly told the Treasurer in 2017 that:

While the public is supportive of tackling corporate tax avoidance to raise revenue for public services, there are limits to what the ATO is able to do due to significant under resourcing. Despite a growing population and increased expectations from the community, ATO ongoing staffing levels have declined. Between 2013-14 and 2015-16, Average Staffing Levels at the ATO fell by over 4,000 or by nearly a quarter. The audit team, responsible for enforcing the tax compliance of individuals and multinational companies, was hit particularly hard by these job cuts. While there was an increase in the 2016-17 Budget, it has not reversed the significant cuts experienced over the last few years.

Given the need for more, not less revenue, these previous cuts seem illogical. According to information provided to Senate Estimates by senior ATO staff, the return on investment over the last decade would be between 1:1 and 6:1, or simply put every dollar invested in ATO staff generates between $1 and $6 in revenue.[1] Some had previously estimated that the cuts could lead to a loss of nearly $1 billion in revenue.[2]

This disconnect between public expectations that tax avoidance should be tackled and what the ATO can actually do must be addressed by the Government. It should commit to an increase in base funding and staffing for the ATO if it is serious about tackling corporate tax avoidance and increasing revenue.

It seems that while the Turnbull Government talks about an ideal egalitarian society where inequality no longer exists, behind the scenes it is nobbling one of the mechanism’s available to government to ensure that there is a level playing field for all those with only earned incomes as well as those with earned incomes plus accumulated wealth.                                      

So when Turnbull & Co announced in May this year that it intends introducing a strong Diverted Profits Tax and establishing a Tax Avoidance Taskforce in the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) one has to wonder if current staffing levels allow full investigation of multinationals operating in Australia or whether the taskforce (which has in fact existed since 2016) will be adequately resourced to look into multinational tax avoidance and the black economy as mooted.

One also has to wonder why in the face of widespread use of negative gearing of investment properties and capital gains tax arrangements to avoid paying an appropriate tax rate, the Turnbull Government also fails to reform the taxation system in these areas.

Oh, I forgot……………

A total of 331 of these 541 properties were reportedly owned by the 123 Coalition MP and Senators¹ sitting in the federal parliament in 2015.

NOTE

1. Table 1: 45th Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia party representation

Source: Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), ‘2016 Federal Election Tally Room’

Top 100 fossil fuel companies produce nearly 1 trillion tonnes of global greenhouse gas emissions

The Carbon Majors Database: CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017 - 100 fossil fuel producers and nearly 1 trillion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions [pdf]

All 100 fossil fuel companies in this study collectively accounted for “72% of global industrial GHG emissions”.

Coincidentally the fossil fuel and mining sectors are some of the most heavily government-subsidised sectors globally - as well as featuring prominantly in lists of multinational corporations paying little or no tax in the countries in which they operate.

Top 50 fossil fuel companies accounting for half of total global industrial GHG Emissions in 2015

Saudi Arabian Oil (Aramco)

Gazprom

National Iranian Oil

Coal India

Shenhua Group

Rosneft OAO

China National Petroleum Corp CNPC

ADNOC

ExxonMobil Corp

Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex)

Royal Dutch Shell PLC

Sonatrach SPA

Kuwait Petroleum Corp

BP PLC

Qatar Petroleum Corp

Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA)

Peabody Energy Corp

Iraq National Oil Co

Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras)

Chevron Corp

Datong Coal Mine

Lukoil OAO

China National Coal

Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas)

Nigerian National Petroleum Corp

Shanxi Coking Coal Group Co Ltd

BHP Billiton Ltd

Shandong Energy

Total SA

Glencore PLC

Shaanxi Coal Chemical Industry Group Co Ltd

Poland Coal

Yankuang

Statoil ASA

Arch Coal Inc

Eni SPA

ConocoPhillips

SUEK

Kazakhstan Coal

TurkmenGaz Sasol Ltd

Anglo American

Henan Coal Chem.

Jizhong Energy

Surgutneftegas OAO

Shanxi Jincheng

Sinopec

Kailuan

Bumi

CNOOC

Shanxi Lu’an

Here are 15 of the remaining 50 highest polluting fossil fuel companies

Russia (Coal)

Abu Dhabi National Oil Co

Rio Tinto

Alpha Natural Resources Inc

PT Pertamina

National Oil Corporation of Libya

Consol Energy Inc

Ukraine Coal

RWE AG

Oil & Natural Gas Corp Ltd

Repsol SA

Anadarko Petroleum Corp

Egyptian General Petroleum Corp

Petroleum Development Oman LLC

Czech Republic Coal

When Labor senators play petty politics and women literally pay the price

On 19 June 2017 The Greens Senator Larissa Waters moved an amendment to the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017.

This amendment sought to remove the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from sanitary products used by the vast majority of Australian women and girls during their reproductive years.

The Australian Parliament Senate Hansard recorded the fate of this proposed amendment of 19 June 2017 at Page 17:

The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Leyonhjelm): The question is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8153 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:52): I move amendment (1) on sheet 8156:

(1) Page 27 (after line 16), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Exemptions

A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 1 At the end of Subdivision 38-B

Add:

38-65 Sanitary products

A supply of *sanitary products is GST-free.

2 Section 195-1

Insert: sanitary products means tampons, sanitary pads, panty liners and similar items.

3 Application

The amendments made to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 by this Schedule apply in relation to supplies made on or after 1 July 2017

…………..

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8156 as moved by Senator Waters be agreed to. The committee divided. [12:07] (The Chair—Senator Lines)

Ayes ......................15

Noes ......................33

Majority...................18

AYES

Di Natale, R

Gichuhi, LM

Griff, S

Hanson-Young, SC

Hinch, D

Kakoschke-Moore, S

Leyonhjelm, DE

Ludlam, S

McKim, NJ

Rhiannon, L

Rice, J

Siewert, R (teller)

Waters, LJ

Whish-Wilson, PS

Xenophon, N

NOES

Bernardi, C

Burston, B

Bushby, DC

Chisholm, A

Cormann, M

Dodson, P

Duniam, J

Farrell, D

Fawcett, DJ

Fierravanti-Wells, C

Gallagher, KR

Georgiou, P

Hanson, P

Hume, J

Ketter, CR

Kitching, K

Lines, S

McAllister, J (teller)

McCarthy, M

McGrath, J

McKenzie, B

Moore, CM

Nash, F

Payne, MA

Pratt, LC

Reynolds, L

Roberts, M

Ryan, SM

Sinodinos, A

Smith, D

Sterle, G

Watt, M

Williams, JR

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Noticeably absent for this particular vote were all 26 Labor senators.

The House of Representatives passed the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017 (with the four other Senate amendments agreed to) on 21 June 2017.

Females of all ages who still have their menses will continue to pay GST on the sanitary items necessary for their general health and wellbeing.

I'll remember to 'thank' those missing Labor senators at the ballot box, along with those senators who voted Senator Waters' amendment down.

In my case that means not voting for NSW senators Sam Dastyari, Jenny McAllistar, Deborah O'Neill and Doug Cameron (all Labor), along with Brian Burston (One Nation), Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, Fiona Nash, Marise Payne  and Arthur Sinodinos (Liberal) & John Williams (Nationals).