I simply had to post a comment on this. I’m not well and in a filthy mood, so I’m not sure how coherent it is, but this is my comment:
In relation to your fourth point:
Most of the people I have seen who are criticising Fair Tax Mark from within the accountancy and tax professions I believe want to see the public better informed about taxation. That is my opinion and I can only vouch with certainty for myself.
To declare my interests, I work for a legal information provider. The way I see it, the more interest in taxation, the bigger our market is.
I believe that many of the current problems arise from misunderstandings, a lack of information, over what is intended by the tax system and how it achieves that. I think that people being better informed about taxation will allow us to have a better discussion about what our tax system is designed to do, and what it should do in the future.
I think that it is clear that my criticisms of the Fair Tax Mark are technical in nature. And my main concern is that the Fair Tax Mark is too simplistic. It is simply not possible to guarantee that a business pays ‘fair tax’ on the basis of corporation tax transparency alone. Corporation tax transparency is part of ‘fair tax’, but it not its entirety by a long way.
In fact, I have only seen arguments for a less informed public from proponents of the Fair Tax Mark who have argued that people just want to boil down tax behaviour to a pass or fail.
As such, I think your fourth point is incorrect. Most critics I have heard have made it clear that they have no issue with increased transparency over corporation tax, which is what the Fair Tax Mark method actually measures.
Indeed, most critics appear to be openly in favour of increased transparency and better understanding of taxation.
I can’t see why they wouldn’t publish it. As I tried to explain elsewhere, listening to criticism is very important.