Blogging about

The Bottom Line

Evan Davis gets to the heart of the big finance stories at The Bottom Line.

Creativity is central to the human condition and gives rise to innovation and entrepreneurship in a range of domains and activities. Human beings are also deeply territorial – constantly creating and deconstructing homelands in a Phoenix-like dance through time. In Anthony Powell’s masterly opus on what it is to be English, A Dance to the Music of Time, the participants tread and re-tread over the same spaces as they attempt to make sense of their existence. In the Star Trek world of ‘boldly going’ it was claimed that space was the final frontier, but in its geographical and temporal senses, space is the first frontier we attempt to account for and create around, however unwittingly. In our dance to the current mood music, creative accounting and how we manage, operate and occupy our work spaces are pertinent. The frontiers of what is efficacious in the two areas appear to be cyclical and not particularly structural. Enron became synonymous with everything that is destructive about accounting, and the de-humanising environment of call centres with the zeitgeist of work organisation.

The Enron sign.
Picture © STANANDLOU, used under Creative Commons licence.

Accounting is a framework for evaluating resource allocation and management in organisations. It is not objective reality, whose methodologies and methods lead to optimal and efficient outcomes. This would only be the case if we lived in a world of efficient markets in which all prices equated to values. This world would correspond to the Arrow-Debreu Theorem, named after the two Nobel prize-winning economists, in which all market exchanges are matched by underlying contingent commodities within a general equilibrium framework. Differences in time and place, and thus transaction costs, are not a consideration within this framework, so the accounting profession is stuck between the Charybdis of efficiently measuring values of organisational assets and the Scylla of differences in the time and place in the transactions of these values through market exchange.

Some siren voices may claim that the profession deserves everything it gets given scandals like Enron and the recent financial crisis, as well as the tax avoidance schemes which reached their zenith in the UK in the 1970s. However, accounting isn’t the agency of these outcomes, it’s the result of unintended consequences and perverse outcomes of the structure of regulation and regulatory changes. The ingenuity of ways in which regulations can be bypassed and turned into market opportunities is manifold and legion, but you cannot regulate away creativity and innovation, unless one starts to distinguish between good and bad parts of this human condition. So, what is the distinction between good and bad creative accounting? The length of a piece of string or when the ‘perps’ get caught? As for tax avoidance schemes, well we could ‘eat the rich’, and then send the accountants and other ‘creatives’ like management consultants and advertising agencies to another galaxy on the pretext of the earth exploding, but then financial products would be created on the transactions in human flesh and ‘marked to market’ at, say, Smithfield, the meat market in London. Getting rid of one form of accounting and its creative variants would then just generate others. The creative frontiers for accounting are set by the statute and international standards. These frontiers are really thresholds, the negotiation of which can lead to deviant behaviour – which is perhaps also one of the properties of the human condition.

The question of organisational deviancy is one that arises from why firms appear to spend so much time, energy and resources in managing property. The fundamental reason is that land is both a fixed and variable form of capital and gives rise to a set of uses and values, and most of our net worth is tied to property. At the philosophical level, John Locke developed the genesis of the idea of property rights as the foundation of the modern liberty. In the hands of the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, these rights are the basis of sustainable economic development. So property matters.

There is also the issue of power and prestige concerning property. The management of a mutual society may look down in pride on their provincial locale as they survey it from the heights of their new building. No self-respecting bank in 1980s London was complete without occupying a building with an atrium and an internal galleria. The question of architecture has external and internal dimensions. Externally, the need for signature architecture with a Gehry, Foster or Pei designed building seems central to corporate image. Internally the complex socio-psychological relationships of workers to their spaces cuts across the human resource management, finance and estate management functions. For the latter, maximising personnel in minimum space is rational, but the ebb and flow of movement and work patterns means that open plan or Dilbert-like booths are not optimal solutions. The way in which workers seek to humanise their work spaces suggest that the deep territoriality in all of us isn’t restricted to the home, but the challenge is to manage the challenge that status being often linked to a spatial hierarchy. Many firms claim that employees are their most valuable asset, but if they don’t creatively account for and put their spatial resources where their mouth is, this claim will not stand scrutiny. If you want to stifle workers’ creativity and innovation in solving business problems, then housing them as automatons in a single open space will suffice and no amount of virtual working will change this. There are creative solutions, but these are not cheap as the frontiers between private and public spaces in the workplace are constantly crossed and re-crossed.

At the banal level, accounting for the creative frontiers of managing financial and work space resources is a question of races and riders. The bottom or winning line, however, will only reached when it is recognised that these organisational imperatives are part of complex systems in which creative spaces develop and thrive.

Find out more

Does business have a problem with ethics?

Ethics Bites on Business Ethics

OU courses

Study accountancy and finance with The Open University

About the author

Leslie Budd is Reader in social enterprise at The Open University Business School. He is an economist and has written extensively on the relationship between regional and urban economics, and international financial markets.

Subscribe to Leslie Budd's posts

 

Red tape (or, to use a more modern term, "compliance").

OK, the language is already problematic.

"Best" is hopefully intended to mean "most effective", where effective is defined in deliberately broad terms to satisfy all stakeholders.

Red Tape is itself a pejorative term, suggestive of bureaucratic inefficiency and unnecessary overheads. And 'LightTouch' vs 'Firm Grip' is a response to the Red Tape school of thinking, referring not to the effectiveness of the regulation, but to the onerousness or otherwise of the mechanisms. All in all there's a lot wrapped up in the question.

It might seem pretty non-contentious to suggest that we all want effective light-touch regulation, but any form of regulation is a compromise and means that the result is likely to be found sub-optimal by one or other group ofstakeholders.

If the group that is unhappy is the regulated entity, the unspoken fear is that they will pick up their ball and go and play somewhere else; the only remedy available to the regulator is concerted international action (and, for all the noises about dealing with tax havens, don't hold your breath).

Thus, in the absence of inclusively co-ordinated international action what can we do?

How about demanding higher ethical standards from business? Another no-brainer, surely nobody would argue against it?.

Taking a lead from the professions, can we not demand a licence to operate, revocable if the requisite standards are in anyway unmet; Unethical behaviour would result in sanctions.

The actual regulation could thus be light-touch, it's just the sanctions that could be onerous (and thus the compliance' overhead' could actually be quite modest).

"if the regime is less than attractive, then tax avoiders will merely relocate Head Office to somewhere more favourable"

Maybe the 'eyebrow of the governor of the Bank of England' would have been more effective than the FSA in avoiding the current economic woes?

Access to market is something of a shibboleth. Tax avoidance is inevitably constrained by the above-mentioned fear: "if the regime is less than attractive, then the putative culprit will merely relocate Head Office to somewhere more favourable" argument.

So where the business has its HQ registered, production facilities located or CEO domiciled is increasingly not the key question. Where it attempts to sell its products & services is a territory less easily vacated and maybe we should insist on certain standards before granting access?

Protectionism, I hear you say. Maybe, but the very concept of a Free Trade Area has historically been about eliminating barriers within a zone whilst at the same time maintaining barriers around it. Most have a history of asserting certain conditions for anyone given access to the contained market - a percentage of local content, or whatever. Untrammeled globalism could be argued to be the elimination of not just the inner barriers but also the outer barriers. The question is whether this necessarily takes the 'conditions' with it.

Or am I just being hopelessly naïve?

Find out more

Get to grips with business questions - explore The Open University Business School

About the author

David Mayle spent many happy years in high-tech new product development before becoming a management academic at the Open University Business School. He chairs an MBA elective in Creative Management and currently heads the Centre for Innovation, Knowledge and Enterprise.

Subscribe to David Mayle's posts

 

Blogging about

Money Programme

Get the facts behind the big business and finance stories from around the world – and down your street, in The Money Programme.

HM Revenue and Customs (the new name for the Inland Revenue) has been levying income tax for more than 200 years and knows a thing or two about it!

It’s more or less true that tax avoidance is for the rich. It costs money to arrange your affairs to reduce taxation, so tax avoidance is only interesting in regimes where income tax is steeply progressive and you earn enough to be paying tax at the highest rates. This is one reason for the popularity of so-called flat tax rates in Central Europe – high earners have little incentive to avoid tax when it’s not progressive.

If your income comes from employment, there is very little scope for avoidance. HM Revenue has it pretty well pinned down. Even if your employer might be prepared to go along with a complex scheme, they might find themselves having to pay your tax themselves, and this discourages them!

However, some avoidance is available because the government encourages it. One of the simplest ways of reducing the tax burden is through paying extra into a pension scheme. You reduce your tax (within limits), but also lose access to the money paid into the pension scheme until you retire, so you need enough income for this not to be a problem. Another way is to invest in small businesses: government has promoted schemes to encourage this in the past.

Assuming you have income other than from a single full time employment (which rules out most people), you could look for more complex schemes, but then the next obstacle is knowledge. You have to find out about schemes, and this means paying fees to tax advisers, and being confident that they know what they’re talking about.

The nature of tax avoidance is such that an adviser may come up with a complex scheme but you cannot be certain that it is fireproof until it has been tested in court – which is not an experience you would enjoy. How do you know what adviser to talk to? KPMG, one of the world’s biggest networks of accountants, paid $500m in 2005 after selling illegal tax shelters.

As you move up the scale of complexity, avoidance schemes take advantage of the issues of territoriality and legal personality. Although there are bi-lateral tax agreements between many countries, taxation is essentially limited to activities in a particular territory, and subject to national statutes. If you have international transactions, you can try to organise things so that you do not fall into any tax net. This is a particularly interesting issue in electronic trading on the internet: whose territory does the transaction fall in?

"National tax authorities have an armoury of weapons"

However, you need to have either investment capital or income which comes from outside the UK, or you need to be resident in a tax haven such as Jersey. And of course, national tax authorities have an armoury of weapons to try to limit your opportunities. Equally the European Union has started to introduce tax cooperation arrangements between member states that provide for exchanges of information, and for tax to be deducted from investment income at source.

Taxation falls on individuals, but legal personality extends to companies: if you form a company and that company receives income, the company becomes a taxable person separate from you. Personal service companies were very popular in the UK, until HM Revenue started taking an interest. The company receives fees from selling the services of an individual, that individual then receives a salary from the company. The company can retain a proportion of the income and might use it to supply facilities and goods to the individual. The company will also pay a lower rate of corporate income tax than the marginal rate of 50% (40% tax and 10% national insurance) that the individual would pay on extra earnings.

"Can you be certain the Revenue is not going to come knocking on your door?"

There are generally some limited opportunities for tax avoidance (legal diminution of tax as opposed to evasion which is simply illegal) even in a mature tax system like that of the UK. However, even the simplest forms require you to have money available that you do not need right now. The more complex forms mean that you will have to pay potentially substantial fees to advisers, so up to a certain level of income the tax saving will be less than the professional expenses. Finally there is always the question of knowledge and uncertainty. Finding out about schemes could have a high initial cost, and then can you be certain the Revenue is not going to come knocking on your door years later?

Further reading

• Tax shelters – nobody likes paying tax – but how far would you go to avoid it?

About the author

Professor Peter Walton is a member of the Accounting & Finance Unit at the Open University Business School. His research interests are in comparative international accounting and financial reporting in an international context.

Subscribe to Peter Walton's posts