Well, yes, obviously

They raise a number of concerns. In particular, that whilst steps to block companies from the supply chain if they do not have identifiable beneficial ownership are welcome, they then note that:

the clauses on toughening up the exclusion of businesses displaying poor tax conduct are weak in the extreme. Nothing at all on tax avoiders.

Tax avoidance is, by definition, legal. Why should someone be barred from supplying government if they are, by definition, obeying the law?

10 thoughts on “Well, yes, obviously”

  1. He wants the Fair Tax Mark to be a condition of public procurement. No corruption or conflicts of interest there then.

  2. Beneficial ownership is actually a struggle at many levels. We lend money secured on commercial real estate. The beneficial ownership is something we care about to avoid politically exposed persons etc. There are huge issues with finding out who exactly owns the third shell company up.

  3. @Sam Jones,

    Thanks for reminding me of the FTM, just had a look to see how they were doing. A few utilities on there now, but their tag line is “over 50” companies registered, up from 44 two years ago and looks like a number of names have given up and dropped off the list.

    A good time to remind everyone that nearly 7 years from launch, their business plan was to sign up 300 companies in the first 3 years. The accounts shows it employs 3 people, gets in £250K but half of that is from grants, not revenue from accrediting or renewing the mark.

    This thing is a flop, as a business and as a campaign.

  4. “We lend money secured on commercial real estate.”

    Deeded owner matters. Should borrower default, beneficial ownership is of little interest.

    “The beneficial ownership is something we care about to avoid politically exposed persons etc.”

    What does than mean? Examples?

    “There are huge issues with finding out who exactly owns the third shell company up.”

    Why? What does it matter? Examples?

  5. The beneficial ownership is something we care about to avoid politically exposed persons etc.

    I read that as “We want to be sure that if we foreclose it will actually happen and our money won’t disappear in a puff of cronyism” Answers to the other questions follow logically.

  6. @gamecock. Matt is right. It’s not about security. That bit is relatively easy. It’s about sending money up through a series of companies to someone who has links to mass murderers or someother not-so-nice person. If there is an equity release with a planned dividend it gets to be a real concern. It always amazes me how many people who own small shops are connected to politicians in their countries of origin.

Leave a Reply

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