header-logo header-logo

The politics of Panama

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

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

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