How interesting from Ritchie

He approves of this statement:

If the good governance of ISO9001 were extended to include, for example, the payment of tax in the country that produced the profits, would this not solve the problem of off shoring and other tax dodges?

Corporate taxes should be paid where profits are made.

He also, on the same page although in a different blog post, approves of this statement:

We can do better. First, Congress should fix the tax code. It can start by passing the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, a broad package of reforms designed to curb abuse of offshore tax havens that was introduced last year. Other changes could rein in abuse of “deferral,” which encourages corporations to accumulate profits offshore indefinitely.

Second, Congress should stop rewarding tax avoidance by barring federal contracts with corporations that use offshore tax havens to dodge U.S. taxes. And it should not pass the repatriation plan being pushed by a high-powered corporate lobbying campaign, which would let companies bring their offshore cash into the United States at a drastically reduced tax rate – essentially a Christmas present to Apple and Google, paid for by you and me.

That is, that corporate taxes should be paid by the domicile of the company, not the country in which the profits were made.


29 thoughts on “How interesting from Ritchie”

  1. The ISO9001 thing is nonsense anyway. You can’t use a product quality assurance standard to judge the financial management of a company.

  2. so we have another addition to the list of things that the Murph-meister knows nothing about – ISO9001.

  3. Yes, his fig-leaf slipped a while ago; it is clear that he just wants more tax to be paid.

    But so that he can pose as the expert he is trying to pretend that this is a technical accounting argument (profits are being declared in the wrong place), rather than a political one (big businesses should pay more tax).

  4. Interestingly the only tax he hasn’t suggested is that Irish passport holders living in Norfolk should pay Irish income tax.

  5. Frances Coppola,

    You can’t use ISO9002 as a product quality assurance standard either. It’s more accurately a bureaucracy standard. Your product can be riddled with bugs but as long as you have a bug tracking procedure, you’ll get accreditation.

    The accreditation companies are, of course, paid by the company seeking accreditation and so have little interest in being too thorough

    Most companies only get it because certain companies insist on it, and I suspect those companies only insist on it because it’s a credential that allows some middle manager to cover his arse.

  6. Interestingly the only tax he hasn’t suggested is that Irish passport holders living in Norfolk should pay Irish income tax.


    Ritchie waves hands in the pattern of the TUC logo …

    Intones, “These are not the tax avoiders you are looking for.”

    Come to the dark side. For we have cookies!

  7. Ok, so if thats the case simply direct your losses through subsidiaries from a loan from the parent company and set off profits against the losses. Base the parent in a tax efficient country. Done, all profits derived from the BVI.

    So easy to get around high street accountants could do it.

  8. Tim Almond.

    Yes, I know. Many moons ago I qualified as an ISO9001 IT auditor. Was less than impressed with it then too. It’s an exercise in box-ticking, really.

  9. diogenes

    To be fair he does say he knows nothing about it and asks from input from people who do. I have commented (and it got through moderation).

  10. The bloke is a fucking imbecile. Take a look at my exchange with him on today’s Guernsey thread on his site.
    He claims to be a leading tax expert but claims that a UK partnership is taxable at partnership level, rather than being transparent with the partners being taxable. That’s absolutely basic stuff.
    I was going to say that he’s lost the plot but I don’t think he ever had it in the first place.
    Ignorant twat.

  11. Frances – to be fair, the ISO standards are about having established, repeatable processes. Which is all well and good when you are talking about areas of life which can be based on rules, and which benefit from repeatability – wrapping cheese, polishing knives etc. They totally fail when it comes to tasks that inv0lve judgment – so you get around that by including weasel phrases such as “situations outisde these norms will be dealt with as appropriate”. Thus the whole area is “schematised” in a standard way.

  12. run-on – there is a grain of good sense – eg train engineers to erect barriers and take a good look at the terrain before erecting a ladder to climb up a telephone pole….but, the certification is meaningless because any standard method statement will incorporate the weaselly words.

  13. You did as well as you could with an idiot like Murphy, Simon.

    “But that is why your minister says you ave a PR problem – and he’s right- and I am proud of my part in creating it”

    “Of course I never said what you claimed”

    Guy’s a grade A psychopath. I believe there’s a section in a certain Act of Parliament that would give him the the treatment he so desperately needs.

  14. Pedantic nonsense I’m afraid Simon.

    You were using your example of a fund based in Guernsey having “tax neutrality” in the same way as a partnership in the UK is “tax neutral.”

    Murphy was merely pointing out that the partnership is transparent for tax purposes. Partners are taxed, but a partnership still has to declare.

    Entirely different to the funds business in Guernsey, where all manner of shenanigans can be used to obfuscate the whats and wherefores.

    Calling Guernsey’s main businesses as tax neutral is a semantic diversion.

    Uk Partnerships are very different to [Guernsey] funds, is what he said, contrary to your stating that they are the same for tax purposes.

    You were frothing far too much to understand. As usual everyone else froths at mention of his name.

    He has been instrumental in highlighting the blight of offshore foulness, along with all the other campaigners.

    So yeah Guernsey’s PR is rubbish, except for abuse facilitators of your ilk. Where you lap it up.

    It’s sad, really. What a waste of intelligence and effort.

  15. Arnald
    Total bollocks – that’s not what he said or meant and how the hell do you know what he meant? Are you two joined at the hip (or worse)?

  16. And now the arrogant, childish little tosser has blocked my future response. What an arse. He just cannot cope with being proved wrong. He definitely has a psychological problem. He should learn one of the most important lessons of running a blog, which is to make sure that you actually know what you are talking about.

  17. erm….Simon
    Because I can read and understand the issues?

    “He should learn one of the most important lessons of running a blog, which is to make sure that you actually know what you are talking about.”



    So my interpretation is wrong, or are you too spitty?

    Guernsey financial vehicles are “tax neutral”. Discuss.

    I await your intelligent response. Based on reality. I know what happens, do you?

  18. Arnald
    You clearly can’t. He denies what he says when the evidence is there.
    Some Guernsey financial vehicles are tax neutral. Funds and certain types of partnerships. There you go.
    Yes I know exactly what happens. That’s my job, not sitting in a housing association office. That’s real coalface stuff isn’t it?
    I’m not interested in debating with you. You aren’t
    the one claiming to be an expert, which in the circumstances is not surprising. I would have been happy to debate with Dickhead Murphy but there’s no point if he’s just going to take his ball home once the going gets tough.

  19. It must be so frustrating for there to be a place where people can destroy and eviscerate your worthless arguments without you having the power to disregard and delete them with delirious abandon, eh Ritch- sorry, “Arnald.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *