Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Is tax the casualty when the big deals are struck?

Outlook

James Moore
Tuesday 19 January 2016 21:34 EST
Comments
(Getty)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Action Aid is taking Shell to task over its record in Nigeria. A while back a consortium including the Anglo-Dutch oil giant signed a deal with the exceedingly nasty military government that used to run the country.

According to a report by the charity the deal – which also involved Total and Italy’s Eni – included tax breaks worth more than twice the country’s annual health budget.

Tax breaks are not necessarily a bad thing where they are used to encourage beneficial behaviours on the part of corporate entities, such as investing in training or the setting up of businesses in deprived areas.

But, as the recent run of cases before the European courts have shown, they’re much less welcome when they’re used to artificially lower the tax bills of multinationals to the detriment of neighbouring countries.

If Action Aid is right, and the Nigerian arrangement served merely to deprive that country of much needed revenues to the detriment of millions of people living in dire poverty, then it was a few shades worse than even the Double Irish or the Dutch Sandwich (see above).

The consortium argues that they’ve added to the socioeconomic well-being of the country. Perhaps that’s true. All the same, when it’s finished sorting out the artificial tricks and dodges used by multinationals in the developed world, the OECD might care to turn its attention to the developing world and whether the tax breaks offered stack up when set against the alleged socioeconomic returns.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in