header-logo header-logo

09 June 2021
Categories: Legal News , Tax , Profession
printer mail-detail

LNB news: Clamping down on promoters of tax avoidance: Law Society response

The Law Society has responded to HMRC’s consultation on a range of new measures to disrupt the business models relied on by promoters of tax avoidance

Lexis®Library update: HMRC consulted until 1 June 2021 on the following four proposals to further strengthen HMRC’s powers in relation to tax avoidance promoters:

• a new power for HMRC to seek a court order to secure a promoter’s assets to pay tax avoidance regime penalties, where the promoter has moved or hidden those assets in order to avoid paying penalties

• additional penalties for UK entities who are involved with an offshore promoter

• winding-up orders targeting companies involved in promoting or enabling tax avoidance and the power to disqualify directors at the earliest point possible

• powers for HMRC to publish information about avoidance schemes that it is inquiring into and to correct false statements, to help taxpayers avoid or exit such schemes

The Law Society supports the government’s aims to tackle promoters of mass-marketed avoidance schemes, but:

• any measures should be ‘appropriately targeted at the mischief they seek to prevent’

• threshold conditions for the application of the proposals should be strengthened to ensure they do not catch legitimate tax advisers or restrict the ability of taxpayers to obtain bespoke advice on their tax affairs

• the strengthened sanctions should apply only where any reasonable adviser would consider the arrangements abusive and where the GAAR would apply, or where there are material breaches of the POTAS rules

• HMRC’s exercise of powers under any new provisions should be effectively supervised

HMRC’s consultation ‘Clamping down on promoters of tax avoidance’ also included a useful list of the principal anti-avoidance legislation (Annex A) together with an overview of promoter and enabler penalties including the changes in Finance Bill 2021 (Annex B).

Source: Clamping down on promoters of tax avoidance – Law Society response

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 8 June 2021 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/

 

Categories: Legal News , Tax , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll