AstraZeneca takeover: MPs 'barking up the wrong tree' on Pfizer bid

Expert fears US company would copy tax structure used by Amazon and Starbucks

Mark Leftly,James Hanning
Sunday 18 May 2014 05:45
Comments
Pfizer chief Ian Read, centre, flanked by his colleagues Mikael Dolsten, left, and Rod MacKenzie, right, face the Science and Technology Committee at the House of Commons
Pfizer chief Ian Read, centre, flanked by his colleagues Mikael Dolsten, left, and Rod MacKenzie, right, face the Science and Technology Committee at the House of Commons

Pfizer must be challenged over whether it has secret plans to move AstraZeneca's drug trademarks out of Britain to reduce its tax bill after buying the UK firm, a leading tax expert has urged.

MPs were "barking up the wrong tree" when they grilled the chief executive of the American Viagra maker, Pfizer, last week over its plans to relocate its tax base from the United States to the UK, where corporation tax is much lower.

Ian Read was interrogated by two powerful committees of MPs over the tax implications should Pfizer successfully take over AstraZeneca for £63bn.

However, Mary-Ellen Field, who has been an expert witness for the Australian Tax Office and the Inland Revenue Service (IRS) in the US, said yesterday that MPs should instead have focused on Pfizer's plans for intellectual property rather than the group's tax base.

She fears that Pfizer could move a number of AstraZeneca's trademarks, which include cancer and diabetes drugs, away from the UK to a low- or near-zero-tax jurisdiction such as Luxembourg.

Under this completely legal arrangement, the British company would pay that overseas sister firm royalties for using the trademark. Even though the money goes to another part of the same group, it would be taken out of the British division's taxable profit, resulting in less money reaching the Exchequer.

These are the type of inter-company payments that shielded Amazon from paying hundreds of millions of pounds in tax to European governments. Starbucks also channelled UK profit to the Netherlands, a low-tax territory, which resulted in a public admonishment from MPs last year.

The pharmaceuticals industry has form in what is known as transfer pricing. In 2006, GlaxoSmithKline settled a long-running dispute with the IRS over a tax shield that dated back to 1989.

"It's fair to say MPs were barking up the wrong tree," Ms Field said. "They needed to ask what jurisdiction intellectual property created in the UK would be held in. The MPs were not well-informed about how the pharmaceutical industry works."

Pfizer has pledged to keep 20 per cent of research and development in the UK for five years should a deal be made. The board also wants to take advantage of the UK's new "patent box", which provides tax breaks as rewards for inventing new products.

However, Ms Field said Pfizer should have been pressed on plans for AstraZeneca's existing trademarks. Sources close to Pfizer insisted that the UK's "intellectual property-friendly environment" was key to the deal.

Politicians and scientists are also worried that the deal could result in cuts to Britain's research base.

Chuka Umunna, Labour's business spokesman, who has threatened that a Labour government could block the deal if it is not completed by next year's general election, added: "Leading scientific voices... have raised concerns on the potentially devastating impact this takeover could have on R&D in the UK."

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new 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