THE TREASURY'S latest initiative in its continued crusade against tax avoidance is already proving to be controversial.
David Gauke's announcement of a consultation on extending the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS) legislation included the proposal that the taxman can request client lists from firms and individuals suspected of providing abusive schemes.
The government's moralising and cultivation of popular distaste for avoidance appears to have stirred up equal and opposing anger among many practitioners.
Naturally, many have already cried taxpayer confidentiality and accused the government of embarking on a ‘name and shame' policy for – as David Ingall of JWPCreers puts it – "doing nothing more than offending the latest media campaign against accumulating wealth".
Fundamentally, they say, if the "shoddy" and ambiguous legislation allows avoidance to become an issue, and if parliament does not approve of how some people obey the law, they should make changes accordingly.
Others, though, are less concerned about the implications of disclosing clients' details. Indeed, as some noted, accountants routinely provide details of their clients in their tax returns to the taxman, while DOTAS requires disclosure within five days of entering a scheme.
Some have been more measured in their reception of the proposals. Patrick Stevens of the CIoT has already said that his institution would generally rather see current rules better enforced than see new ones introduced. But he recognises some "have been playing fast and loose with the disclosure rules" and, as such, thinks it is "understandable" that the government targets those people.
There are some, too, who are hopeful the consultation will provide greater definition on what constitutes egregious tax planning, although Exchequer secretary David Gauke told the Policy Exchange think tank that recognising aggressive abuse is inherently tied up with an extrinsic sense of what is reasonable.
The overriding feeling is one of caution and concern. ICAEW chief executive Michael Izza, who recently courted controversy among advisors over his disdain for the provision of aggressive schemes, holds a significant reservation over the move to disclosing client lists.
In light of the ICAEW's push for legal professional privilege for their advisors' clients in line with tax lawyers, Izza is worried the Treasury's attempt at ‘lifting the lid' would represent a retrograde step in the ICAEW's pursuit of that privilege.
Could the taxman enforce all these changes? It is doubtful. New loopholes woud appear further down the line, suggests MHA Macintyre Hudson tax director Alastair Kendrick.
This, it seems, could be a long, drawn-out consultation for the Treasury and David Gauke. In lifting the lid, advisors believe they will open Pandora's Box, which will not be easily shut.
Having practised as an accountant for 40years I find it amazing that we are criticising legal schemes for tax reduction if the revenue don't like them then change the rules it is very simple but maybe it will make the gov unpopular??? Can't have it all ways just get on with it and stop posturing Cameron you know what to do .
Posted by: Sheridan. Brimacombe, 25 Jul 2012 | 13:46
Totally agree with the above comment, what people dont understand is that these scheme have been legal for many years and no-body have ever questioned iuncluding Government passed and present who will have used them. Whilst many of us may not agree with them if we earned in the threshhold for 50% tax we certainly wouldnt want to give 50% of our income to a system which wastes many millions every year chasing down tax that actually isnt owed through mistakes made on HMRCs systems.
Posted by: Karin WIlson, 26 Jul 2012 | 09:34
Absolutely, if they aren't breaking any tax rules, there is no point creating fuss about avoidance. Its Hmrc's agreements on double taxation treaties which has borne fruit!! They just realized, how much revenue they have lost.
Posted by: Umar, 20 Nov 2012 | 06:10
You may also like
If budgeting is to have any value at all, it needs a radical overhaul. In today's dynamic marketplace, budgeting can no longer serve as a company's only management system; it must integrate with and support dedicated strategy management systems, process improvement systems, and the like. In this paper, Professor Peter Horvath and Dr Ralf Sauter present what's wrong with the current approach to budgeting and how to fix it.
In this white paper CCH provide checklists to help accountants and finance professionals both in practice and in business examine these issues and make plans. Also includes a case study of a large commercial organisation working through the first year of mandatory iXBRL filing.