header-logo header-logo

22 April 2016
Issue: 7695 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The politics of Panama

In the wake of the Panama Papers leak, HMRC has launched a consultation on proposals to make companies criminally liable for failing to prevent tax evasion.

The consultation, Tackling tax evasion, concerns draft legislation published in December. The legislation would make it an offence for a company to fail to take adequate measures to prevent their agents from committing or helping to commit tax evasion in the UK or overseas. The consultation ends on 10 July.

Andrew Smith, partner at Corker Binning, says: “To be clear, the draft law is not a means by which the government could seek the prosecution of those implicated in the Panama Papers.

“The law would, for example, have no application whatsoever to the type of offshore investment scheme which David Cameron’s father managed. The law does not expand the definition of tax evasion under UK law, nor does it criminalise what some regard as immoral tax avoidance. However, the timing of the consultation is no doubt calculated to deflect the current waves of criticism concerning the government’s broader approach to combating tax fraud. Businesses can take limited comfort from the fact that the consultation emphasises that they need only act proportionately to the risks arising in their sectors, so as to develop compliance procedures which are reasonable rather than all-encompassing.”

Meanwhile, writing in this week’s NLJ, expert tax counsel Peter Vaines has denounced the calls for politicians to disclose their tax returns as an “absurd” response to the Panama Papers disclosure: “It is interesting that the focus has not been on those who have been hiding the proceeds of crime or corruption but on people who have put their funds in Panama and have paid all proper taxes which are due...The concern should be with bringing to account those who have broken the law rather than focusing on those people who have not.”

Issue: 7695 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll