The ICAEW Tax Faculty has expressed support for the recently launched Fair Tax Mark (FTM) (see last week’s Tax Journal, page 8), saying it is ‘an initiative we are right behind’. The announcement was posted on the ICAEW’s website and has met with a mixed reaction from members.
The ICAEW Tax Faculty has expressed support for the recently launched Fair Tax Mark (FTM) (see last week’s Tax Journal, page 8), saying it is ‘an initiative we are right behind’. The announcement was posted on the ICAEW’s website and has met with a mixed reaction from members. Whilst some were supportive of the Tax Faculty’s stance, others were highly critical. The Tax Faculty struck a conciliatory tone when responding to comments by saying that it had wanted to ‘encourage further debate’. The faculty added: ‘We believe that the FTM is a positive development but to succeed it needs further work and above all it must be seen as clearly independent in the same way as accounting standards.’
Meanwhile, it has emerged that the criteria for assessing the FTM may be revised. On his blog, FTM founder Richard Murphy responded to concerns raised by tax adviser Andrew Jackson that the present criteria could allow a ‘clearly tax-avoiding company’ to get a Fair Tax Mark. Murphy replied: ‘You’re right: the condition [behind criterion 7, which compares compares the company’s average tax rate over four years with ‘the expected headline rate’] may not be sufficient. We’ve never denied the criteria will change.’
The ICAEW Tax Faculty has expressed support for the recently launched Fair Tax Mark (FTM) (see last week’s Tax Journal, page 8), saying it is ‘an initiative we are right behind’. The announcement was posted on the ICAEW’s website and has met with a mixed reaction from members.
The ICAEW Tax Faculty has expressed support for the recently launched Fair Tax Mark (FTM) (see last week’s Tax Journal, page 8), saying it is ‘an initiative we are right behind’. The announcement was posted on the ICAEW’s website and has met with a mixed reaction from members. Whilst some were supportive of the Tax Faculty’s stance, others were highly critical. The Tax Faculty struck a conciliatory tone when responding to comments by saying that it had wanted to ‘encourage further debate’. The faculty added: ‘We believe that the FTM is a positive development but to succeed it needs further work and above all it must be seen as clearly independent in the same way as accounting standards.’
Meanwhile, it has emerged that the criteria for assessing the FTM may be revised. On his blog, FTM founder Richard Murphy responded to concerns raised by tax adviser Andrew Jackson that the present criteria could allow a ‘clearly tax-avoiding company’ to get a Fair Tax Mark. Murphy replied: ‘You’re right: the condition [behind criterion 7, which compares compares the company’s average tax rate over four years with ‘the expected headline rate’] may not be sufficient. We’ve never denied the criteria will change.’
