header-logo header-logo

Anger over tax U-turn

31 January 2008
Issue: 7306 / Categories: Legal News , Company , Constitutional law , Commercial
printer mail-detail

The chancellor’s U-turn on capital gains tax (CGT) has evoked mixed reactions from lawyers and account­ants, with many complaining that it will complicate the system.

The chancellor’s U-turn on capital gains tax (CGT) has evoked mixed reactions from lawyers and account­ants, with many complaining that it will complicate the system.

Originally Alistair Darling planned to introduce a flat rate of 18% CGT, but was forced to modify the plans after a backlash from business. The chancellor has now announced an Entrepreneurs’ Relief, which introduces a 10% threshold for the first £1m worth of capital gains over a lifetime.

Other changes to the CGT regime include the abolition of both taper relief, which can result in a 10% tax rate, and indexation relief, which avoids tax on inflationary gains. For non-UK domiciled but tax resident individuals, there is a loss of all the CGT advantages on

their offshore assets and trusts.

Lisa Parisi, tax partner at Pinsent Masons, says: “The new Entrepre­neurs’ Relief has been announced as a concession to help ensure that 90% of business sales next year will remain within the 10% tax rate. However, this hides the fact that the new rules will result in a number of inequities and will leave out entirely many of the taxpayers that are fundamental to the success of the UK economy.”

She says that in many cases investment by management share­holders in private equity deals will be in less than 5% of the share capital and they will therefore miss out entirely on this new relief. “The new regime will also penalise long-term entrepreneurs who have held their businesses for many years.

By abolishing [taper and indexa­tion] relief some long-term business owners will find themselves paying tax at a higher rate than they were promised on gains that don’t outstrip inflation,” she adds.

David Kilshaw, head of private client advisory at KPMG in the UK, comments: “The chancellor promised a simplified CGT system, with one tax rate. This announce­ment has killed that hope. The new relief will add complexity, which will add to red tape and costs for business.”

Issue: 7306 / Categories: Legal News , Company , Constitutional law , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll