Enter Your E-mail

Mark McLaughlin asks if the Public Accounts Committee has achieved anything constructive in its latest hearings on tax avoidance. 

Much has been said about the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee meeting with heads of tax from the 'Big 4' firms of accountants on 31 January 2013, including an excellent article by Mike Truman ('Tax Prat of the Year') in Taxation on 7 February 2013. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss tax avoidance. The implications was that the Big 4 were an instrumental part of an unacceptable tax avoidance 'industry' in the UK.

I was unable to view the meeting live on Parliament TV, but I was sufficiently intrigued by Mike Truman's comments to view a recording of the proceedings (HOC Public Accounts Committee Tax Avoidance). I realise that a PAC meeting on 31 January 2013 is no longer news. However, please indulge me.

I have never seen a Public Accounts Committee (PAC) meeting before. I have to say that this particular meeting came as something of a shock to me.

In my naivety, I anticipated that the purpose of the PAC meeting would be to gather facts on the nature and extent of tax avoidance in the UK. A discussion on tax avoidance is certainly justified, especially after recent adverse publicity. I also think that there are questions to be asked of the Big 4 on their approach to tax avoidance, particularly over the last 20 years or so. But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. However, this PAC meeting was more reminiscent of a crusade against the tax profession generally, and the Big 4 in particular. Of course, as a member of the tax profession personally, I have an interest to declare at this point. So please go and watch a recording of the meeting, and judge for yourself.

The meeting was chaired by Margaret Hodge. I had no real knowledge of her before watching the meeting, so I can only speak as I find. All I can say is that I was stunned by her general approach, and also her attitude to the Big 4 representatives. I personally think it extremely rude to ask a question, and then interrupt when someone is trying to answer. Margaret Hodge should look back at the recording and ask whether she thinks her behaviour was entirely appropriate for someone in a position of authority and responsibility as Chair of the PAC.

I have never worked for the Big 4, so I have no interest in defending them. My general observation was that the heads of the Big 4 conducted themselves with a great deal of dignity and restraint in the face of constant interruptions and often hostile questioning. Far from discredit the Big 4, the PAC has only succeeded in enhancing their image and profile in my view. All four heads of tax have my personal admiration for the very respectful and professional way in which they approached the meeting. I was particularly impressed by Bill Dodwell of Deloitte for his eloquent attempts to enlighten the PAC, and Kevin Nicholson of PWC for his very considerable composure - I would not have been able to show such commendable restraint.

What has the PAC meeting contributed towards arriving at an approach to tax planning in the UK that everyone can accept, if not always agree with? Probably very little. What the PAC meeting indicated to me is that if the Big 4 had any case to answer, the questions should have been asked by a panel of peers within the same profession. At least it was an entertaining and self-indulgent two-and-a-half hours for outside observers.

Best wishes,

Mark McLaughlin

Managing Editor