Labels and Tags

Accountability (69) Adequate documentation (6) ADR in procurement (3) Allocation of risks (5) Best interest of government (11) Best practices (19) Best value (15) Bidder prejudice (11) Blanket purchase agreement (1) Bridge contract (2) Bundling (6) Cancellation and rejection (2) Centralized procurement structure (12) Changes during bid process (13) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (29) Competitive position (2) Compliance (33) Conflict of interest (31) Contract administration (25) Contract disputes (1) Contract extension or modification (8) Contract terms (2) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (2) Contractor responsibility (19) Conviction (3) Cooperative purchasing (3) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (34) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (9) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (35) Effective procurement management (3) Effective specifications (36) Emergency procurement (14) eProcurement (5) Equitable tolling (2) Evaluation of submissions (22) Fair and equitable treatment (14) Fair and reasonable value (23) Fiscal effect of procurement (14) Frivolous protest (1) Good governance (8) Governmental functions (26) Guam (14) Guam procurement law (12) Improper influence (11) Incumbency (12) Integrity of system (29) Interested party (7) Jurisdiction (1) Justification (1) Life-cycle cost (1) Limits of government contracting (5) Lore vs Law (4) market research (7) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (32) Mistakes (4) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (11) No harm no foul? (8) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (33) Past performance (12) Planning policy (33) Politics of procurement (48) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (93) Principles of procurement (24) Private vs public contract (15) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (78) Procurement ethics (19) Procurement fraud (27) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (16) Procurement procedures (30) Procurement reform (63) Procurement theory (11) Procurement workforce (2) Procurment philosophy (6) Professionalism (17) Protest - formality (2) Protest - timing (12) Protests - general (37) Purposes and policies of procurement (10) Recusal (1) Remedies (16) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (4) Responsiveness (13) Restrictive specifications (5) Review procedures (12) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (59) Sole source (47) Sovereign immunity (2) Staffing (7) Standard commercial products (2) Standards of review (2) Standing (6) Stays and injunctions (6) Structure of procurement (1) Substantiation (9) Surety (1) Suspension (6) The procurement record (1) The role of price (10) The subject matter of procurement (22) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (32) Transparency (60) Uniformity (6) Unsolicited proposals (2)

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Pay (your taxes) To Play

From the UK: Bidders for Government contracts must self certify that they have not been involved in tax avoidance, says Treasury
From 1 April 2013 companies bidding for Government above-threshold contracts worth more than £2 million will be obliged to self certify that they have not been involved in certain types of tax avoidance, according to a Treasury press notice.

During the selection stage of the procurement process, bidders will be asked to self certify their tax compliance "via a simple question" as to whether they have had any 'occasions of non-compliance' within a defined period - proposed to be any time in the last ten years.
Non-compliance will occur if a tax return is found to be incorrect as a consequence of HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) successfully taking action under the new General Anti Abuse Rule (GAAR), under any targeted anti-avoidance rule (TAAR), or under the “Halifax abuse” principle. The Halifax principle applies in relation to VAT and potentially some cross-EU border direct tax planning.

There will also be non compliance if any tax return is found to be incorrect because a scheme which the supplier was involved in, and which was, or should have been, notified under the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Scheme (DOTAS) rules, has proved to have failed or the supplier’s tax affairs have given rise to a conviction for tax related offences or to a penalty for civil fraud or evasion.

HMRC is "successful" in this context when a tax return is amended, whether following the outcome of litigation or simply by agreement between HMRC and the taxpayer.

Foreign suppliers and suppliers with tax obligations in foreign jurisdictions will be required to certify that there has not been an ‘occasion of non compliance’ in relation to the equivalent foreign tax rules.
As usual, read more at the article link above.

For another review of this subject matter by attorneys Heather Gething, Neil Warriner, Adrian Brown and Michael Hunt from the UK law firm Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, see 
Government procurement rules: tax compliance is a factor to be considered: With effect from 1 April 2013, Her Majesty's Government will use the procurement process to secure compliance with UK and foreign tax obligations.

No comments: