|
 Reuters is the first to measure the loophole, which offers
political parties – and in some cases, individual politicians or
their families – an unintended gift from the taxpayer.
Political donations made by individuals are not tax-deductible in
Britain. If a donor makes money as salary or dividend and then
donates it, they have to pay income tax. But giving from a company
that they control lets the donor avoid paying income tax,
accountants say. The mechanism enables donors to give more than they
otherwise might.
The analysis of Electoral Commission records shows that between June
2005 and December 2014, 100 of the wealthiest political donors in
Britain used the loophole to donate at least 39 million pounds ($59
million) to four of the biggest political parties. That amounts to
about one-tenth of all donations to these parties, although the
actual figure could be much higher since corporate donors don't have
to name their controlling or significant shareholders.
 The analysis comes as politicians campaigning in a May election have
pledged to fight tax avoidance. The Conservative Party says it will
clamp down on "aggressive tax avoidance." Labour's plans include a
review of the British tax authority, the Liberal Democrats say they
will raise billions more in tax, and the United Kingdom Independence
Party (UKIP) says it will target tax dodging by big companies.
Among those to benefit from the donations loophole have been
politicians, including Health Minister Jeremy Hunt, a Conservative,
and Lord Alan Sugar, a Labour donor and host of "The Apprentice," a
television series on entrepreneurship. Both men gave through
companies: Hunt, through a company which names him as a principal
shareholder, Sugar, through a firm he owns outright.
A spokesman for Hunt said: "It's not unusual for companies to make
donations to MPs and all of these donations were properly and
transparently declared to the Electoral Commission." Sugar declined
to comment.
Stephen Winyard, who owns a luxury castle spa in Scotland, said he
used his company to donate 100,000 pounds to the Liberal Democrats
last year. "To fork out 100,000 pounds out of my net income, having
paid the higher rate of tax, would be difficult," he told Reuters.
"It's probably more affordable if it's done through the company."
Donations made through companies are perfectly legal, and some of
those contacted said they were not aware of the savings they had
made. The British tax authority simply does not tax donations made
in this way, six tax accountants said. The tax authority, Her
Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), said it had the legal right to
tax such gifts but would not say why it did not use this right.
Christopher Grove, partner with law firm Withers LLP, said the
benefit was the result of a "grey area" in tax law. "It's a quirk of
the way the system works at the edges, rather than something more
deliberate," he said.
At current tax rates, a wealthy donor who gives to a party through a
firm they own rather than out of their own pocket effectively
reduces the cost of that donation by around a third, said Tim
Davies, head of tax at accountants Mazars.
Alistair Graham, former Chairman of the Committee on Standards in
Public Life, a parliamentary watchdog, said it was never the
intention of parliament to give such tax relief.
"The system should not place wealthy donors with private companies
at an advantage compared with ordinary taxpayers who pay out of
post-tax income," he said. The public "would be deeply shocked" to
learn of the loophole.
"All political parties should agree to close this loophole as soon
as possible," he added.
CONSERVATIVES GAIN MOST
The main beneficiary of company donations was the Conservative
Party, records show. These gifts accounted for 28 million pounds of
those Reuters tracked, or 14 percent of the total donations declared
by the Conservative Party for the period. Small donations do not
need to be disclosed.
UKIP collected a much smaller sum through companies than the
Conservatives - 3 million pounds - though at 36 percent of UKIP's
total declared donations in the period, this accounted for a larger
share of all its funding.
A smaller share of Liberal Democrat and Labour donations came
through private companies.
Labour received 55 percent of the 173 million pounds it declared in
donations from unions. The company-donation loophole effectively
puts Labour at a disadvantage, because unions raise the money they
donate from their members, who have paid income tax on it first.
The Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties said they did
not encourage donors to give in tax-efficient ways, and the
donations complied with electoral laws. A spokesman for the Liberal
Democrats said its policy of capping donations at 10,000 pounds
would minimize the gain to business owners. "(This) is just one of
the quirks of a system that we don't think works," he said. UKIP did
not respond to requests for comment.
One donor, businessman and former peace campaigner Dale Vince, said
minimizing tax on political contributions was perfectly sensible.
"If someone consciously decides to do it one way rather than the
other to save tax, then they're being tax efficient... But I don't
think it makes it wrong necessarily," he said. "The tax code offers
many ways to be tax efficient."
GIVING TO ONESELF
Under rules known as "benefit-in-kind," the tax authority could
demand tax on political donations made by companies.
The rules hold that when a company spends money, the expenditure
should "wholly and exclusively" benefit the business, according to
the tax authority website.
If a purchase does not benefit the business, or if the business
gives a cash gift to someone, HMRC can charge the owner income tax
on the value.
"If the director simply directs the company to spend money on
something which he or she would have otherwise (bought) personally
there is likely to be a taxable benefit," said a spokesman for HMRC.
However, HMRC chooses not to exercise its prerogative on donations
that private companies make to political parties. Accountants say
there is no clear-cut ruling on this point. The HMRC spokesman would
not say if it had ever sought to tax political giving.
[to top of second column] |
A spokeswoman for the finance ministry, which oversees HMRC, said
the application of "benefit-in-kind" rules to political donations
was a policy issue on which it could not comment so close to an
election.
The Reuters analysis focused on companies where one person holds
enough shares to exercise influence. In some cases, firms
significantly or wholly owned by politicians have given tax-free to
political campaigns.
Take Health Minister Hunt. He founded Hotcourses Ltd, a publisher of
websites that offer educational information, in 1990. Filings show
he is a "principal shareholder" of Hotcourses with Chief Executive
Mike Elms.
Between 2003 and 2009, Hotcourses contributed over 160,000 pounds
worth of staff services which it said were for Hunt's political
activities. It also provided 54,000 pounds worth of advertising for
Hunt's local Conservative Party association when he was campaigning
for election in 2005.
If Hunt had paid that money from his own pocket he would have paid
tax on it. Donating it via the company saved that.
Chief Executive Elms told Reuters that the company paid for a
political assistant for Hunt and that Hunt drove the arrangement.
"It wasn't something that I was involved in particularly," Elms
said. "The company had an employee at the time who was effectively a
political assistant... it was from the company," he said.
Hunt declined to comment on how the staff costs and advertising were
accounted for, or why he did not meet them out of his own funds.
A slightly different case is that of businessman John Timpson, who
is the controlling shareholder in an eponymous chain of shoe repair
and key-cutting stores that dot shopping malls across England. Over
the past six years Timpson has donated 478,000 pounds to his son,
Edward, a Conservative member of parliament, via his company,
Timpson Ltd, records show.
John Timpson said he was not trying to reduce his tax bill and said
his company had been "assisting the taxpayer."
"We have paid for administrative (not campaigning) costs that enable
Edward to fulfill his public function as an MP more effectively," he
said in a statement.
A spokesman for the Conservative Party said it was not reasonable to
see a political donation made by a company as a proxy for or
alternative to personal giving by its owner or owners.
http://link.reuters.com/muf64w
THE GIFT OF LORDS
More than a third of the donations identified by Reuters were made
by companies owned or significantly controlled by 11 members of the
House of Lords, parliament's upper house.
Politician-donors include Liberal Democrat nightclub owner James
Palumbo (Lord Palumbo of Southwark), senior Conservative Party
official Andrew Feldman (Lord Feldman of Elstree), and jeweler
Ranbir Suri (Lord Suri, a Conservative, whom newspapers have
nicknamed "the King of Bling.")
Combined, their companies have contributed at least 13.7 million
pounds in the period. That total dwarfs their personal
contributions, which amounted to just 1.2 million pounds.
Palumbo owns a majority stake in The Ministry of Sound through a
trust. The company has given more than 1 million pounds to the
Liberal Democrats. He declined to comment.
Feldman, who owns 95 percent of the shares of Jayroma Ltd, which
gave over 100,000 pounds to the Conservatives, also had no comment.
He told a 2011 parliamentary inquiry into party funding that he
believed donations should be tax-deductible since parties "perform
an incredibly important social function."
Suri is founder and chairman of Oceanic Jewellers Ltd, which has
given 180,000 pounds to the Conservative Party. He and his three
sons own the shares in Oceanic Jewellers, according to corporate
filings. He said tax was not a motive in the donations, but added
that he did not make the decision to donate.
"It's not me, it's the company's choice ... I am not deciding
anything in that company," said Suri, who was made a Lord last year.
Labour also benefits from donations made through companies.
Lord Sugar's Amshold Group made a donation of 400,000 pounds to the
party in 2010. Michael Foster, a former celebrity agent and current
Labour Party candidate in Cornwall, owns a company which donated
385,000 pounds to Labour over the last 18 months. Foster, who has
declared no personal political donations, declined to comment. The
Labour Party said donations from companies to political parties are
entirely legal and a matter for company directors.
Several donors said they were unaware that giving cash through their
companies brought any tax benefit. David Burnside, a former member
of parliament for the Ulster Unionist Party and majority owner of
public relations firm New Century Media Ltd, said he gave to the
Conservative Party from New Century because he thought a
Conservative government would be better for the company, because it
was more pro-business.
Some donors said giving through their companies was simply a habit.
Vince, the former peace campaigner, said he gave 140,000 pounds to
the Green and Labour parties through his wind power producer,
Ecotricity, simply because it was "the vehicle in the world through
which I do the things I feel that need doing.
"It's like my corporate alter-ego," he said.
http://link.reuters.com/guf64w
(Additional reporting by Simon Falush; Edited by Sara Ledwith and
Simon Robinson)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
