George is reported in this morning Times as having started to build an international consesus on mutli-national tax avoidance. Something Labour weren't interested in doing in 17 years.

May I suggest that the international approach starts by removing tax deductions for:

Royalties paid to entities outside the border of each country;
Likewise for interest to lenders based outside a country;
Likewise management charges, etc.

Don't get too excited, as was pointed out yesterday by our eminent journalist admin, the soundbite that was reported yesterday did not reflect in the content of the press release, in other words it had a great title but nothing of substance to back it up.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that it was a diversion tactic from some other, worse news.

Thing is though, those three suggested removals can all be valid expenses to a business and therefore valid for tax deductions. How much should be the question, not if or if not.

But, the issue is that multi-nationals are not paying adequate tax in certain jurisdictions in which they operate (and no way proprtionate to the revenues they earn in those jurisdictions). These are some of the main devices they use to avoid paying their "fair share" along with flow-through companies in tax havens.

So you think the solution is to make all multi-nationals pay more than their fair share?

Paying their 'fair share' – ie what companies that do pay tax pay – would be a start.

I'm not aware of anyone saying it wouldn't be.

I can't wait until someone asks Osborne whether he's checked the legality of any Anglo-German bilateral tax treaty under EU competition laws.

Given the actual issue he's attempting to address, wouldn't it have made sense to first look to strike an agreement with the likes of Ireland or Leichtenstein?

I just thought I'd make sure.

Well, it may we just a matter of detail, but I think the Starbucks spokesman said they were sure paying nothing in the last two or three years was their fair share.

So yes, Starbucks are not saying they shouldn't pay their fair share. Presumably as long as that share is nil.

I think we've also had people on this forum conflating the tax that employees pay with what companies pay, so as to claim that they are actually paying lashings of tax already.

So, what should their "fair share" be?

Tax law needs to catch up with the financial implications multinational business. Until it does, relying on what's effectively an honesty box, or barring perfectly fair tax avoidances isn't the answer.