Bank boss waives bonus

The chief executive of Barclays bank, Antony Jenkins, is to waive his bonus for last year

He said it would be wrong for him to receive a bonus, given what had been a "difficult" year for Barclays.

It is thought Mr Jenkins was in line to receive about £1m of a potential maximum entitlement of £2.75m.

Mr Jenkins took over as chief executive last August, just as Barclays was being rocked over mis-selling scandals and other issues.

He said in a statement: "To avoid further unnecessary public debate on this matter, I wish to make clear that I concluded early this week that I do not wish to be considered for a bonus award for 2012 and I have communicated that decision to the board.

"The year just past was clearly a very difficult one for Barclays and its stakeholders, with multiple issues of our own making besetting the bank.

"I think it only right that I bear an appropriate degree of accountability for those matters and I have concluded that it would be wrong for me to receive a bonus for 2012 given those circumstances."

Mr Jenkins' total potential pay package, including pension, basic salary, and incentives, was £8.6m.

Banks are currently reviewing the size of bonuses for senior staff, and there were reports this week that Royal Bank of Scotland will set aside £250m for payments. Last year, RBS's chief executive, Stephen Hester, waived his bonus.
Sign up, or resign
Barclays hit trouble last June, when it was fined £290m by British and US regulators for attempted manipulation of Libor and Euribor interbank rates between 2005 and 2009.

The scandal sparked the resignations of three Barclays senior board members, including ex-chief executive Bob Diamond. He was replaced by Mr Jenkins, who was formerly head of retail and business banking.

Barclays has also set aside £2bn to compensate customers for the mis-selling of payment protection insurance.

On Friday, Barclays faced new claims that UK financial regulators were investigating the bank over money received from Qatar.

The Financial Times alleged that Barclays lent Qatar money to invest in the bank in 2008. Barclays was not immediately available for comment.

Last month, Mr Jenkins ordered all Barclays staff to sign up to a new ethical code of conduct or quit.

Women Boards

Business Secretary Vince Cable has called on the chairman and CEOs of the last seven FTSE 100 firms with all-male boards, urging them to increase the number of women in the boardroom.

The Business Secretary penned a letter asked the remaining companies Antofagasta, Croda, Glencore, Xstrata, Kazakhmys, Melrose and Vedanta, to explain what steps they have taken to up their female board representation and how they plan to make engender greater boardrooms diversity.

Cable said:

‘Over the last two and a half years we have seen real progress in the number of talented women reaching the boards of our top companies. During that time the number of all-male boards has fallen from 21 to the last seven remaining today, with the welcome news from mining giant Randgold being the latest step. My vision by 2015 is that Britain will not have a single FTSE 100 board without a significant female presence.’

‘Businesses should be making sure they have the right people around their top table. This is not about equality, this is about good governance and good business. The international evidence supports this: diverse boards are better boards benefiting from fresh perspectives, opinions and new ideas which ultimately serve the company's long term interests.’

‘I do recognise that for some businesses, like those in the mining and extractives industry in particular, there are unique challenges in diversifying their boards with the right experience. The frequent travel and project based work in remote areas of the world have all been cited as barriers to appointing more women in the past. However, successful modern companies learn to adapt and survive and doing nothing is not an option anymore. We've seen examples again today that this can be done and I am determined to see further action.’

Mining giant, Randgold Resources recently announced that Jeanine Mabunda Lioko has joined its board as a non-executive director.

In line with the efforts to increase boardroom diversity, last week Vince Cable announced that three of the five appointments to the Business Bank Advisory Group will be female.

In addition, he also announced that Dale Murray was the latest female non-executive appointment to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ Departmental Board. Seven of the 21 attending the Departmental Board, and four of the nine attending the Executive Board, are female.

The number of all-male FTSE 100 boards has fallen from 21 in 2010.

In early January, Cynthia Carroll announced that she will step down from her role as Anglo American’s chief executive after six years at the helm.

Her exit left just two female bosses in the FTSE 100.

Carrol argued against the 'tokenism' of female CEO’s stressing the need for companies to 'develop' women so that they are 'capable of delivering and doing the job effectively'.

The latest Cranfield School of Management report (March 2012) into female executives showed an increase in the number of female-held directorships after a three-year plateau.

Released a year after the publication of the Davies report – which recommended at least 25% of board roles in FTSE 100 companies by 2015 should be held by women - the findings saw current figures at 15.6%.

Should that trend continue, the report predicts the minimum recommendations set by the Davies report, will be achieved with 26.7% of directors being female by 2015, and 36.9% five years further down the line.

E&Y off the hook

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has decided to drop the investigation against members of the ICAEW and Ernst & Young over the audit of Lehman Brothers International (Europe).

Following the conclusion of the investigation, the FRC’s executive counsel, Gareth Rees QC, has decided that no action should be taken against E&Y or any individuals in connection with their conduct in this matter.

This matter was referred to an expert to consider the case. Following this, executive counsel decided that there was no realistic prospect that a tribunal would make an adverse finding against E&Y in the UK or members within that firm. The FRC has confirmed that the investigation will now be closed and no further action taken.

The scope of the FRC investigation covered the ‘conduct of members and a member firm in relation to the preparation of reports to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in respect of Lehman Brothers International (Europe)’s compliance with the FSA’s client asset rules for the year ended 30 November 2007’.

The focus of the investigation was the audit by E&Y of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) and its compliance with the CASS rules. E&Y audited client money opt out arrangements, client classification and the segregation of client money post MiFID.

In the course of the investigation, the investigation team obtained and reviewed E&Y’s audit files and hard copy documentation. The team also interviewed E&Y audit team staff.

The Accountancy and Actuarial Discipline Board (AADB) started the investigation on 9 September 2010 and decided, pursuant to paragraph 5(8) of the AADB Accountancy Scheme, that the matter should be investigated.

Further details are available from the FRC.

Self assessment terrifies people

Over a fifth of owners of the UK’s smallest businesses feel anxious about completing their Self Assessment (SA) tax returns, according to research carried out by YouGov on behalf of online accounting provider FreeAgent.

In a poll of over 500 owners of companies with five or fewer members of staff, 21% said that they were anxious about completing their tax return, while 5% said they were terrified - with just 35% saying that they felt confident about the process.

The poll also shows that 56% of those surveyed admit that they will either pay a professional bookkeeper or accountant to complete their return for them (52%), or ask a friend or family member for help (4%).

Many often leave submission as late as January, with 46% estimating they’ll complete their returns within the month before the deadline, 16% within the final week.

Ed Molyneux, FreeAgent CEO, said that the survey results showed that SA remains a major cause for concern for many business owners, despite HMRC’s commitment to making the process as easy and hassle-free as possible.

He said: ‘The whole point of Self Assessment is that it should be as simple and stress-free as possible, and it clearly isn’t for many business owners. Self Assessment is supposed to be an easy process that anyone can do, yet more than half say they’ll get an accountant or friend to help them - which suggests that the government may need to consider making changes to ensure the process is easier.

‘As more small business owners turn to online accounting for managing their finances, I believe tax season will become a far less stressful and worrying time - which, in turn, will enable people to focus on running and growing their businesses.’

Two Budgets about to be scrapped?

Another one of Gordon Brown's great ideas that ultimately proved to be a waste of time!

Tax warning to direct sellers

HMRC is warning anyone selling directly to customers and who haven’t paid all the tax they owe, have one month to come forward and pay up.

Under the time-limited opportunity, direct sellers - often called agents, consultants, representatives or distributors - must tell HMRC about the tax due and make arrangements to pay before 28 February 2013.

Direct selling involves selling directly to customers and taking commission on sales without the need for a shop. It can involve demonstrating a product in a customer’s home or selling at a party. Some agents sell door to door, and many use catalogues.

From today, HMRC will be writing to direct sellers to let them know about the Direct Selling campaign. After the 28 February deadline, HMRC will begin contacting direct sellers who did not come forward to take part in the opportunity, if HMRC believes they owe tax.

HMRC is inviting direct sellers to a live Twitter question and answer session, with tax experts who will answer questions about the campaign, on 7 February, between 1pm and 2pm. Follow @HMRCgovuk and tag questions #dsqa in advance or on the day.

Marian Wilson, head of HMRC Campaigns, said: “Anyone involved in direct selling who has not told HMRC about all of their income might not be paying the right amount of tax. The Direct Selling campaign is a chance to bring their tax affairs up to date, on the best terms. Anyone with questions should join our Twitter Q&A on 7 February, where our experts will be available to help.”

Direct sellers are generally considered to be self-employed, and are therefore responsible for telling HMRC about what they earn, and for calculating and paying their own tax. For information on tax for the self-employed direct seller, visit HMRC or watch the YouTube video.

No win no fee

Creditors pursuing unpaid debts in court will be exempt from new rules on no-win, no-fee lawyers, thanks to legislation introduced by the government.

The exemption for insolvency practitioners (IP) means that payouts awarded in successful cases will not be restricted, as would have been the case before the legal amendment.

Liquidators, trustees in bankruptcy and administrators will all be exempt from a clampdown on the controversial no-win, no fee litigation funding and – significantly – with no time restrictions imposed.

The Association of Business Recovery Professionals, R3, welcomed the exemption that is similar to the one made for defamation cases.

Frances Coulson, R3 council member, said: “The exemption allows Insolvency Practitioners to pursue errant directors who have run off with company funds, or in serious cases, committed fraud. This costs the business community and the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds each year. Directors, who act improperly and strip value out of businesses, should not be allowed to benefit at the expense of legitimate business.”

Legislation was introduced to outlaw conditional fee arrangements (popularly known as no-win, no-fee deals), following recommendations made in a government-commissioned report.

Bosses

In his new book Office Politics psychologist Oliver James identies three types of bosses: cold ruthless psychopaths;Machiavellis;vain puffed up narcissists! Which are you???

Glass ceiling myth

Is the glass ceiling" a myth? A recent study by Wealth and Investment Management found that women who own their own business earn nearly 17% more than men in the same position.

Tax return filing

Anyone who has been putting off filing their tax returns, now only has a week to get their house in order so as to avoid receiving a fine, warns HMRC.

Self Assessment tax returns for the year 2011/12 must be sent to HMRC by no later than the 31 January 2013 with £100 late-filing penalties being issued to those failing to do so – even if they don’t have any tax to pay, or it was paid on time.

Additional late-filing penalties after three, six and 12 months will also be handed out for anyone who persists in not sending the required information.

HMRC found that people often felt a real sense of relief, or peace of mind, once they sent in their return – like a weight being lifted from their shoulders.

A new ad campaign is encouraging people who still haven’t sent their return to “do it today, pay what you owe and take a load off your mind”, so they can experience “inner peace”.

Further information is available from HMRC.

Cameron attacks accountants

The UK accountancy profession has been left reeling by Prime Minister David Cameron’s outspoken attack on the industry.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the PM dubbed the profession as being part of a “travelling caravan of lawyers, accountants and financial gurus” engaged in tax avoidance.

Michael Izza, ICAEW’s chief executive, who is attending the event at the upmarket Alpine Swiss resort, said:

‘As a profession we spend a great deal of time working with policy makers to achieve this balance. Which was why I was disappointed to hear the Prime Minister again dismiss accountants, this time as an “army” of avoiders. ‘We don’t recognise that description. Our members do not support illegal tax evasion or the kind of aggressive tax avoidance that we believe to be unethical. In fact, an effective accountancy and finance profession can and does help solve many of the problems the Prime Minister wants to address.’

Izza stressed that accountants play “a key role in making the UK’s tax system work”.

‘Professional accountants everywhere are helping their clients pay the right amount of tax to the right governments at the right time.’

‘It’s true, as the PM says, that countries without this professional capacity struggle to collect the right amount of tax. Which is why ICAEW is working in places like Nigeria to help tackle the problems outlined in the speech this morning.’

Cameron was quick to defend “sensible tax planning” explaining that there “are some things governments want people to do to that reduce tax bills, such as investing in pensions, start-up businesses or charities”.

But he said avoidance was “an issue whose time has come”.

‘After years of abuse, people across the planet are calling for more action and most importantly, there is gathering political will to actually do something about it.’

‘In the UK we’ve already committed hundreds of millions into this effort – but acting alone has its limits.’

‘Clamp down in one country and the travelling caravan of lawyers, accountants and financial gurus just moves on elsewhere.’

‘So we need to act together at the G8.’

‘If there are difficult questions about whether existing standards are tough enough to tackle avoidance, we need to ask them.’

‘If there are options for more multi-lateral deals on automatic information exchange to catch tax evaders, we need to explore them.’

A furious Izza said the PM “would also do well to remember the accountancy profession employs a quarter of a million people in the UK alone, generating more graduate jobs than any other sector.”

In a final defiant riposte, Izza added:

‘My message is simple. Our profession is part of the solution: promoting trust and confidence in business at all levels. It is time the PM stopped castigating this vital economic sector and recognise just what we contribute to growth.’

Francesca Lagerberg, tax partner at Grant Thornton, said:

‘'Once again tax is on the agenda but the key here is international co-operation. To make sensible changes that satisfy the calls for transparency and 'fairness', it needs countries to work together to reach solutions. No single country will want to drive business away by acting unilaterally in law changes. It needs a global approach.’

Doug Sinclair, head of tax investigations at UK200 Group member firm Berg Kaprow Lewis, was equally affronted. He said:

‘Once again, David Cameron has sought to bring a moral dimension to the issue of tax avoidance. Last year it was individuals who were subject to David Cameron’s moral compass, now it is the turn of global companies who would have taken extensive accountancy and legal advice to ensure they stayed within the letter of the law regarding their UK tax obligations.’

GAAR again

Two of the UK’s top tax lawyers told the House of Lords Sub-Committee on the 2013 Finance Bill that plans to introduce a General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR) this year will not be able to eradicate multinational tax planning and avoidance.

But it will help clamp down on “certain individuals who have taken tax planning to such levels that they are playing fast and loose with the rules to the point where it is unacceptable... and abusive”.

That’s the view of Graham Aaronson QC, tax barrister and leader of the GAAR (General Anti-Abuse Rule) study group 2011. He was appearing on Monday alongside Malcolm Gammie QC, tax barrister and member of the IFS Tax Law Review Committee. Both have been instrumental in driving government efforts to reduce tax avoidance.

The duo appeared before the peers on Monday in the first of two committee sessions looking into dealing with tax avoidance and how effective the new GAAR may be in addressing various types of tax avoidance recently highlighted in the media.

Aaronson told the committee:

‘Until we have the same tax system throughout the world, it’s inevitable that multi-nationals will locate their companies where it suits them best.’

‘While GAAR “cannot do anything about this”, he said it may be able to make “some extra checks and balances”.’

‘Multi-nationals will locate ownership of their assets in certain jurisdictions to get favourable advantages on a global basis. It makes taxing multinationals very challenging. Even if every tax system in the world was the same, the problem is that it’s so easy to move activities and profits to different jurisdictions.’

Some tax regimes try to attract investment, he said. He pointed to the example Puerto Rico, where half of all the world’s pharmaceuticals are now manufactured as a direct result of a favourable tax regime set up by the US to specifically drive inward investment from the global pharmaceutical industry to the country.

Meanwhile, Malcolm Gammie QC, told the committee:

‘It’s important to remember that GAAR is just one of the weapons that the Revenue deploys to deal with avoidance of one sort or another. It has been successful in stopping most artificial schemes under the Ramsay rules, for example, people who buy and sell guilt strips in less than 24 hours. With this GAAR, such a scheme will just not get off the ground.’

The second session is scheduled for 23 January at 15.35 It will focus more on tax practitioners and technical experts with Patrick Stevens, president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT), Bill Dodwell, head of tax policy at Deloitte and vice chairman of the CIOT Technical Committee and Richard Murphy, head of Tax Research LLP and a vociferous critic of corporation tax avoidance.

Tax take stable

Britain’s largest companies contributed an almost identical tranche of tax receipts to the Treasury at £77.1bn in 2012, as it did the year before, a survey has revealed.

That’s the finding of the Hundred Group, which represents the finance directors of the UK’s biggest businesses - mainly from boardrooms of the FTSE100 – whose survey showed the figure was only marginally down on last year’s tax take of £77.2bn.

The body, whose members employ 2m people, said taxes had increased by 19% since 2005 when the study began. For every £1 of corporation tax, businesses now bear £2 in other taxes, almost twice as much as in 2005. It said a range of other taxes borne now significantly outweigh corporation tax and have driven the 19% increase in tax payments.

Andrew Bonfield, chairman of the group’s tax committee, said:

‘These latest results show the continued significant contribution of Hundred Group companies to the UK economy, despite the double dip recession.’

‘The changing composition of taxes on businesses reflects the policy of successive governments looking for stable tax revenues and economic growth. We’re in the middle of a well trailed programme for reducing the rate of corporation tax while other business taxes, such as employer’s national insurance contributions and irrecoverable VAT, have risen. These other taxes tend to be easier to collect and less volatile since they’re not dependent on profits.’

The survey was carried out using the PwC Total Tax Contribution (TTC) methodology. This makes a distinction between taxes borne and taxes collected on behalf of the Government.

Taxes borne are the company’s immediate cost and will impact their results, such as business rates, corporation tax, employers' NICs and irrecoverable VAT. Taxes collected are those generated and administered by firms such as income tax under PAYE and NICs from employees, general VAT and excise duties.

Mary Monfries, head of tax policy and regulation at PwC, added:

‘There’s unprecedented interest in the amount of corporation tax businesses pay. The current debate sometimes confuses compliance with the rules with tax policy itself. Government policy has changed and our study shows the picture of tax paid has changed as businesses comply with the rules.’

GAAR Panel

HMRC has delayed the announcement of who will be taking their place on the new General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR) advisory panel.

AccountancyLive understands that a formal announcement - on who the new chairperson for the advisory panel would be - due to be made earlier this month, has been deferred.

HMRC began its search for a chairperson for the advisory panel in November. It had hoped that the new postholder would be in place by 31 January 2013. The appointee was set to advise HMRC on appointing the other panel members.

Currently, an interim group of panel members led by Graham Aaronson QC- who addressed the House of Lords Sub-Committee on the 2013 Finance Bill yesterday - has been overseeing the development of the new guidance, following its publication for public consultation in December.

A source close to the proposed GAAR panel told AccountancyLive that its membership will be comprised of three representatives from business, two corporate solicitors, a brace of personal tax lawyers, a pair of accountants, followed by two individuals with ‘wider taxpayer interests’.

HMRC will not be represented on the advisory panel (including the interim group), but will support both with administrative and secretariat resources.

HMRC’s omission was welcomed by the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) president Patrick Stevens, who said:

‘The majority of panel members need to be those involved, or recently involved, in day to day commercial and tax transactions with no HMRC representatives. We are delighted that the government agree.’

It now looks like any announcement will be further delayed, much like the GAAR itself which will now come into force from royal assent to the Finance Bill 2013 in July, instead of from 1 April 2013, as originally planned.

A number of new amendments were made to the draft legislation to reflect comments received. Key among the changes is the “double reasonableness test”, the wording of which has been clarified to ensure that the GAAR operates as intended.

A full consultation response document was published with the draft legislation and draft guidance in December.

HMRC were unable to confirm when an announcement would be made at the time of publication.

HMRC transfer price probe

HMRC has increased its focus on companies suspected of using transfer pricing to avoid paying UK taxes.

According to a Freedom of Information request from law firm, Pinsent Masons, HMRC is investigating £1bn of tax linked to transfer pricing issues, up by 47% from last year's figure of £680m.

Heather Self, a Pinsent Masons partner, said: ‘There has been a lot of public discussion around companies’ UK tax bills, and these figures show that HMRC has been taking an increased interest in where multinationals with UK operations pay their taxes.

‘With increased pressure from the government to bring in more revenue, and more resources to investigate potential avoidance and evasion, HMRC has been investigating more and more tax payments. This doesn’t necessarily mean there is more avoidance or evasion taking place, but that HMRC is being more thorough with its investigations.

‘HMRC will investigate a company where it thinks it has crossed a line on transfer pricing, and HMRC will demand extra taxes from companies that do have a genuine case to answer.’

Transfer pricing is a practice which multinationals such as Amazon, Starbucks and Google have recently come under fire for, since it allows them to restructure and shift profits into lower-tax jurisdictions, escaping higher penalties in countries from which their profits are effectively derived.

Pinsent Masons dubbed the calls for law changes to prevent ‘abusive’ transfer pricing as a knee-jerk reaction.

Self said: ‘The UK has to accept that it cannot change the law on transfer pricing or the taxation of revenues unilaterally. There is already a tax on turnover in the UK and it’s called VAT. EU law does not allow the UK to create new turnover taxes.

‘Rules on transfer pricing are set by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and while they could do with some reform, that process is actually already under way.’

She warned that the contraction of the commercial lending market will also have boosted HMRC’s transfer pricing investigations

Female Board quota

The UK Government has backed a House of Lords report into the EU’s proposals for women on boards.

The government said the mandatory approach was “the option of last resort”. It published its views following a debate on the Lords’ second report in the House last week.

It said “we particularly welcome the committee’s support for the voluntary business-led approach taken by the UK Government and recognition of the business case for gender diverse boards.”

The government backed the peers’ stance that “the efforts made by businesses and governments at national level, mean that action at EU level is unnecessary, and would not provide additional benefits”.

The committee went on to suggest that “the proposal did not adequately take into account the divergent rates of change, board structures and cultural contexts within each member state”.

But it reiterated its support for the “aim of increasing gender diversity on boards”, suggesting the Commission could “usefully assist national Governments through other means”, such as “issuing a non-binding Recommendation to Member States, and taking further action where individual Member States fail to comply with their obligations to combat discrimination”.

The Government backed the Lords report recommendation that “the best target to use is that 30% of board memberships should be held by women, the “critical mass” level identified as a catalyst for cultural change in the boardroom.

This would “stretch governments and companies to deliver sustainable change, whilst remaining achievable in the present climate”.

The report continued: ‘At a national level, the Government should institute a 30 per cent target to be reached by 2017, whilst striving to achieve a 30% level of representation as early as possible. In Europe, the Commission should adjust its 40% target for 2020 downwards to 30%, whether in binding or voluntary proposals in this area.’

In November, European politicians were forced to embark on a complete U-turn on its plans to force listed companies in the region to hire female executives onto their boards, in an effort to boost the numbers of women in senior management, or face sanctions if they failed to do so.

The government report added: ‘We agree that gender diversity should be promoted through corporate governance rules and we were pleased that the Financial Reporting Council amended the UK Corporate Governance Code for listed companies.

‘The Code now requires companies to report on the board’s policy on boardroom diversity, including gender, on a comply or explain basis, and report on progress against any measurable objectives they have set themselves.

‘This is separate and additional to the Lord Davies recommendations which proposed that companies set targets for the number of women they aim to have on their boards by 2015. EU-wide standards are not appropriate given the different corporate governance rules, economies and labour market conditions across member states.’

It concluded: ‘A real culture change needs to take place at the heart of business if progress is going to be sustainable and long-term. We believe we are beginning to see that culture change take place in the UK.’

Pensions update

On 14 January the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) published their white paper 'Single tier pensions - a simple foundation for savings'. The proposals within this paper will affect Employers and Pensions Providers that administer Contracted-Out Defined Benefit Schemes.

The new single-tier pension will be introduced in April 2017 at the earliest. This reform will affect people who reach State Pension age from the time it is introduced. Current pensioners and those reaching State Pension age prior to introduction of the single-tier pension will not be affected and will continue to receive their State Pension in line with existing rules.

These reforms will provide a foundation to support automatic enrolment launched in October last year, which will see six to nine million people saving more, or saving for the first time, into an occupational pension.

The white paper is available from DWP.

Wegelin set to close in tax scandal

Switzerland’s oldest private bank is set to close down after it admitted helping rich Americans evade tax.

Wegelin, founded in 1741, was slapped with a $57.8m (£36m) fine by US authorities after pleading guilty to charges of conspiracy to aid over 100 US taxpayers hide at least $1.2bn for almost 10 years.

The disgraced institution has become the first foreign bank to plead guilty to tax evasion charges in the US and marks a watershed moment for the highly secretive Swiss banking industry.

In a New York court, a senior Wegelin executive admitted that the bank knew it was wrong, but thought they would not be prosecuted because it was legal in Switzerland, and common practice in Swiss banking.

Otto Bruderer, a managing partner at the 271-year-old bank, told the court: ‘Wegelin was aware that this conduct was wrong."

When the bank was first charged in February last year, it promised to fight the charges and was even declared a fugitive from justice when three of its Swiss-based executives failed to appear in court.

It claimed because it only had no foreign branches it could not be prosecuted by the US, and that it broke no Swiss laws.

In a statement, Wegelin said: ‘Once the matter is finally concluded, Wegelin will cease to operate as a bank.’

Wegelin was quick to break itself up after last year’s indictment by selling off the non-US element of its business.

In 2009, Swiss banking giant UBS agreed to enter into a deferred-prosecution agreement and hand over thousands of client names and pay a $780m fine after pleading guilt to criminal wrongdoing by selling tax-evasion services to Americans.

Assistant US attorney general Kathryn Keneally said the Justice Department would continue "to find those who continue to shirk their tax obligations," in addition to those who aid them and profit from it.

Sally Brown, an international tax associate at Milestone International Tax Partners, said: ‘This is evidence of the death throes of the Swiss banking system. Secrecy has been eroded over the last few years as a consequence of the actions of UBS. In a way, the Swiss banks that have historically been assisting (or, indeed, encouraging) foreign tax avoidance now have to reconsider their approach in line with the growing international trend to curb tax avoidance.

Global warming is over - official!!

global warming ened 16 years ago

So why am I still paying thousands a year in "green taxes"?????

LIBOR rigging

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has imposed its biggest ever fine of £160m on UBS for misconduct relating to the fixing of Libor and Euribor rates.

It said the Swiss bank’s misconduct “was extensive and widespread”. At least 2,000 requests for inappropriate submissions to Libor were documented together with an unquantifiable number of oral requests.

The fine dwarfs the £59m penalty slapped on Barclays by the FSA in June for manipulating Libor – a scandal that led to the resignation of its chief executive Bob Diamond.

The City regulator said manipulation by UBS was also discussed in internal open chat forums and group emails, and was widely known. At least 45 individuals including traders, managers and senior managers were involved in, or aware of, the practice of attempting to influence submissions.

The FSA said the routine and widespread manipulation of submissions was not detected by the bank’s compliance or by group internal audit teams, which undertook five audits of the relevant business area during the relevant period.

Even when the trading and submitting roles were split in Autumn 2009, UBS’s systems and controls did not prevent traders from camouflaging their requests as “market colour”.

Given the widespread and routine nature of the requests to change Libor and Euribor and the nature of the control failures, the FSA found that every Libor and Euribor submission, in currencies and tenors in which UBS traded during the relevant period, was at risk of having been improperly influenced to benefit derivatives trading positions.

Tracey McDermott, FSA director of enforcement and financial crime, said:

‘The findings we have set out in our notice today do not make for pretty reading. The integrity of benchmarks such as Libor and Euribor are of fundamental importance to both UK and international financial markets. UBS traders and managers ignored this.’

‘UBS's misconduct was all the more serious because of the orchestrated attempts to manipulate the Japanese yen Libor submissions of other banks, as well as its own, and the collusion with interdealer brokers and other panel banks in co-ordinated efforts to manipulate the fix.’

The FSA said that between 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2010, the bank’s misconduct included collusion with interdealer brokers in co-ordinated attempts to influence Japanese Yen Libor submissions made by other panel banks.

It also found that corrupt brokerage payments were made to reward brokers for their efforts to manipulate the Libor submissions of panel banks.

Other illicit acts included adopting Libor submissions directives whose primary purpose was to protect the bank’s reputation by avoiding negative media attention about its submissions and speculation about its creditworthiness.

The misconduct occurred in various locations around the world including Japan, Switzerland, the UK and the USA.