header-logo header-logo

04 September 2009 / Peter Vaines
Issue: 7383 / Categories: Features , Tax
printer mail-detail

Taxing matters

Peter Vaines foresees that putting a foot wrong could land taxpayers in trouble

Everyone will remember the amnesty a couple of years ago where people were encouraged to disclose unreported income and accept to a mitigated penalty. Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) did not like it being called an amnesty. It preferred the term “offshore disclosure facility”. Those who failed to disclose under this amnesty were going to be subject to investigations which would be “intrusive and thorough”. Well, nearly. In the Budget, Mr Darling announced that those who did not come clean before will be given another opportunity to do so—I wonder what happened to all the intrusive and thorough stuff. All they now say is that they “will pursue those who do not disclose”.

Details of the new amnesty have now been announced—this one is called the New Disclosure Opportunity. You have to smile. Picture the scene. Man in balaclava goes into bank and says to cashier: “See this gun? I would like to allow you an opportunity ….” Anyway, this new amnesty

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll