Report comment

The BRC has repeatedly argued the case against business rates, but the question is, were they right to do so?

There has always been serious doubt in my mind that some key members have actually wanted either no tax, or a scheme that they could more easily avoid or self-mitigate.

From the perspective of the country having a property based tax is a fairer system because whereas when firms successfully legally avoid other taxes, it far more s tough to hide buildings, so they end up having to pay.

Is the non-domestic rate fit for purpose, no, not really, but for reasons that are based on my empirical research rather than any vested interest to avoid paying. The current system of valuation is inefficient, unfair to the point of being iniquitous. It is particularly unfair to all those retailers who are unable to afford membership of the BRC!

My research found that large corporate retailers were far more likely to have the lowest rate of increase in their valuations from one rates list to another, the smallest retailers, the real SMEs were most likely to have the highest. OK these are often more likely to be receipt of discounts, but these are often phased out during the lifetime of the rates lists - with the last list being extended for an extra two years, this was a truly damaging piece of government skullduggery for smaller retailers.

As for the BRC position, I would suggest they spend less time arguing with the government or parliament about abolishing taxes based on the premises that they occupy and concentrate on persuading the corporate landlords to allow the property market to operate freely. The ensuing reductions in passing rentals would have the immediate effect of reducing business rate valuations.

The strange notion that the BRC use as an argument against the NNDR is the unfair advantage that it passes to online retailers - which is so much sophistry. Not only do these merchants pay NNDR based on their huge distribution depots, but many of these self-same complaining retailers are serious players online too!

The reality is that many BRC members helped cause the problems by their unholy rush for prime town centre locations in the 60s, 70s and 80s, until the big box revolution arrived with the demise of so much of the manufacturing industries that once surrounded our towns. Their ever higher bids for prime locations pushed up land values, pushed out non-retailing activities from the town centres, marginalized smaller retailers and the corporate landlords pushed out the private smaller landlords. This analysis does not make for happy retailing for the board-rooms of the 2010s, but an occasional reality check is often useful - this is the history.

Now they are suffering because of the over-abundance of shop-floor space in expensive areas and their own performances are not keeping pace with the changes in their chosen markets. Smaller businesses are merely expected to close and go quietly away, but the BRC seems to have a belief that their poor performance should be underpinned by the tax-paying public and the smaller, less vocal, retail community!