header-logo header-logo

Government tax avoidance sanctions too broad

19 August 2016
Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Government plans to introduce tax avoidance scheme penalties for professional advisers have been roundly criticised by lawyers and accountants.

Under the plans set out in a discussion document published this week “enablers” of tax avoidance could have to pay a fine of up to 100% of the tax the scheme’s user underpaid.

Fiona Fernie, partner and head of tax investigations at Pinsent Masons, says the consultation document lays out a definition of tax avoidance, which is far too broad: “Some aspects of these proposals go too far and could end up capturing traditionally accepted tax planning.”

Fernie says. “The wording of the proposals suggests that measures will cover not only all schemes counter-acted by the General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR) or notifiable under DOTAS but also those which have simply been the subject of a targeted avoidance-related rule or ‘unallowable purpose test’ contained within a specific piece of legislation. This is incredibly wide-ranging and the criteria need to be tightened.

“Restricting the proposals to all schemes notifiable under DOTAS would be a more sensible approach”

TWP Accounting’s managing partner, audit and corporate finance, Philip Munk, says the government should focus on amending existing legislation, rather than opting for an “arguably easy way out” by introducing penalties for professional tax advisers.

Munk says: “Tax avoidance is legal: tax evasion is not. Tax avoidance will therefore always ensure the correct amount of tax is paid in accordance with prevailing legislation.”

Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll