Lovin’ this article, but need more advice on your tax affairs?
Get in touch today.
The announcement of the ‘enablers of defeated tax avoidance’ rules in the Summer created a high degree of consternation in the professional community. The announcement first took the form of a briefing to financial journalists (prompting the maximum gnashing of teeth) before a consultation doc was published much later for the professions.
One had to read between the lines quite heavily in order to come to conclusion as to the scope of the rules namely that they would address the worst excesses of the ‘tax market’ and would be forward facing rather than retrospective. We set out our views in earlier notes published around the time of the release.
Thankfully, our general view of the proposals proved to me about right. Generally, if one accepted that these rules were going to come in (and anyone thinking that they weren’t was overly optimistic bordering on delusional) then the current proposals are probably as good as they were going to get. Some of the troubling issues – such as commencement date and the types of advice that might be within its cross hair have been ironed out and largely in a favourable manner.
Part one of the ‘enablers of defeated tax avoidance rules’ sets out the type of scheme at which the legislation is aimed.
It shows us that the rules are aimed at those who have ‘enabled’ arrangements and those arrangements are ‘abusive tax arrangements.’ If such a scheme suffers a ‘defeat’ then the enabler might find himself with a penalty to pay.
What are tax arrangements? Well, they are arrangements to which the obtaining of a tax advantage is at least one of the main purposes. Therefore, transactions that are entered in to for commercial purposes or to achieve some overarching personal goal where any tax benefit is incidental should not find themselves in the referee’s black book.
If we have tax arrangements then when do they become abusive? The legislation asks us to look at what is going on ‘in the round’. To help(!) us they give us some things to ponder:
It is noted that these are circumstances that one MUST have regard to. It does not seem to me to be an exhaustive list.
Extending the helping hand, the legislation then goes on to states some “examples of something” that might indicate a tax abuse:
However, as stated above, this is not an exhaustive list.
So is there anything that would be in our own corner? Or to avoid mixing metaphors, our own dug out. Well yes. Firstly, where one could reasonably assume that the result mentioned above was anticipated under the provisions then that is fine. As such, a 230% credit for R&D expenditure is fine even though it does not reflect the economic reality. However, there may be one or two investors in BPRA schemes who might be slightly wary of this approach!
Secondly, if an arrangement accorded with HMRC’s established practice at the time then this MIGHT (not MUST) be an example of something that was not abusive.
It is worth stating that the definition of what is an abusive arrangement is the same as set out for the General Anti-Abuse Rule (“GAAR”). It is therefore clear that one is not looking at tax planning nor indeed mere avoidance. One is looking for ‘tax abuse’.
When have abusive tax arrangements been defeated?
Defeat is a game of two halves. Or two conditions anyway. One must meet either of these conditions to be looking defeat squarely in the eye.
Firstly we consider Condition A. This will apply where a tax return was submitted on the basis that a tax advantage arose from the scheme. Additionally, that advantage must have been counteracted by HMRC and that counteraction must be final. In other words, it may no longer be appealed.
Where Condition A is not relevant, one is left to look at whether HMRC has made an assessment to tax and this assessment counteracts a tax advantage it is reasonable to assume the taxpayer expected to obtain from the arrangements and that counteraction is final.
So we know that the equation is broadly TAX ARRANGEMENTS + ABUSE + DEFEATED = PENALTIES.
In the second half we will look at the team sheet, in other words who is the enabler in relation to the ‘enablers of defeated tax avoidance rules’ and who might be on the hook for these penalties. Finally, what might the quantum of any penalties be?
So grab a half time orange and see you for the second half of ‘enablers of defeated tax avoidance’…