Andrew Goodall, forrmer news editor at Tax Journal
How did you end up in tax?
I joined the Inland Revenue in 1975, because it was thought to offer security, and the job sounded interesting because it was dealing with money and people.
Who in tax do you most admire?
There are many people who work, mostly behind the scenes, to help improve the system. In the international corporate tax debate, I think we need to hear from more people like Martin Hearson, who are willing to listen to all sides of the argument and offer a measured analysis, because there is clearly a problem but no simple solution.
What do you think is the main challenge facing the tax profession?
Inevitably, many tax advisers who have never been involved in aggressive avoidance will have been tarred with the same brush as the extreme scheme merchants. In the last 12 months, the leading professional bodies have been keen to distance themselves from the type of abusive schemes that the GAAR is designed to catch but, with a few exceptions, tax professionals were too quiet on this issue for too long.
On taxation of multinationals, tax professionals are now making a better job of explaining the issues. The recent evidence sessions held by the House of Lords economic affairs committee have helped, although they have not received widespread coverage in the mainstream media.
Is there a recent development in tax that concerns you?
If I can call the last two or three decades recent, it’s the fact that tax havens with constitutional links to the UK have been allowed to flourish, eroding the tax base of developed and developing countries.
If you believe what Cameron and Osborne are now saying about leading the way to reform, you have to ask what has taken UK governments so long. On base erosion and profit shifting, the OECD has a very difficult task, but something has to be done to level the playing field in business tax.
On the other hand, I think some campaigners and journalists continue to misunderstand some fairly straightforward corporation tax principles, such as long established deductions for capital expenditure and business losses brought forward from earlier years. Public opinion cannot disallow capital allowances.
Where do you stand on the GAAR?
The general anti-abuse rule looks good, and it is long overdue. I had some doubts about the double reasonableness test. But the GAAR should help to restore the tax profession’s reputation, particularly if it has the desired deterrent effect.
If you set out to undermine the intention of parliament, you are prepared for someone else to make up the shortfall. I fail to see how, as some people still seem to argue, there is no moral dimension to managing your tax affairs.
What do you think about the way tax law is made in the UK?
It is better than it was, thanks largely to the tax law rewrite project. Length does not necessarily mean complexity, as the Office for Tax Simplification has pointed out, and simplification would not necessarily reduce avoidance. We now seem to have a good deal of useful technical consultation. Government departments should always speak to experts before tabling legislation – except in the case of some anti-avoidance measures – in the tax field as well as elsewhere.
Andrew Goodall is now a freelance tax journalist and can be contacted by email: acgoodall@me.com
Andrew Goodall, forrmer news editor at Tax Journal
How did you end up in tax?
I joined the Inland Revenue in 1975, because it was thought to offer security, and the job sounded interesting because it was dealing with money and people.
Who in tax do you most admire?
There are many people who work, mostly behind the scenes, to help improve the system. In the international corporate tax debate, I think we need to hear from more people like Martin Hearson, who are willing to listen to all sides of the argument and offer a measured analysis, because there is clearly a problem but no simple solution.
What do you think is the main challenge facing the tax profession?
Inevitably, many tax advisers who have never been involved in aggressive avoidance will have been tarred with the same brush as the extreme scheme merchants. In the last 12 months, the leading professional bodies have been keen to distance themselves from the type of abusive schemes that the GAAR is designed to catch but, with a few exceptions, tax professionals were too quiet on this issue for too long.
On taxation of multinationals, tax professionals are now making a better job of explaining the issues. The recent evidence sessions held by the House of Lords economic affairs committee have helped, although they have not received widespread coverage in the mainstream media.
Is there a recent development in tax that concerns you?
If I can call the last two or three decades recent, it’s the fact that tax havens with constitutional links to the UK have been allowed to flourish, eroding the tax base of developed and developing countries.
If you believe what Cameron and Osborne are now saying about leading the way to reform, you have to ask what has taken UK governments so long. On base erosion and profit shifting, the OECD has a very difficult task, but something has to be done to level the playing field in business tax.
On the other hand, I think some campaigners and journalists continue to misunderstand some fairly straightforward corporation tax principles, such as long established deductions for capital expenditure and business losses brought forward from earlier years. Public opinion cannot disallow capital allowances.
Where do you stand on the GAAR?
The general anti-abuse rule looks good, and it is long overdue. I had some doubts about the double reasonableness test. But the GAAR should help to restore the tax profession’s reputation, particularly if it has the desired deterrent effect.
If you set out to undermine the intention of parliament, you are prepared for someone else to make up the shortfall. I fail to see how, as some people still seem to argue, there is no moral dimension to managing your tax affairs.
What do you think about the way tax law is made in the UK?
It is better than it was, thanks largely to the tax law rewrite project. Length does not necessarily mean complexity, as the Office for Tax Simplification has pointed out, and simplification would not necessarily reduce avoidance. We now seem to have a good deal of useful technical consultation. Government departments should always speak to experts before tabling legislation – except in the case of some anti-avoidance measures – in the tax field as well as elsewhere.
Andrew Goodall is now a freelance tax journalist and can be contacted by email: acgoodall@me.com
