ICAEW MEMBERS offering tax schemes that could be interpreted as aggressive could be held as bringing the profession into disrepute, under new guidelines.
The institute's helpsheet, which sets out the hallmarks of avoidance schemes to consider for ICAEW members, warns that contrived tax planning is potentially against its code of ethics, despite earlier concerns from practitioners that they could be held negligent if they fail to draw clients' attention to all available options.
Accountancy Age understands that the ICAEW has never undertaken disciplinary proceedings against a member for being involved in aggressive tax avoidance.
On 23 July, Exchequer secretary David Gauke announced at the Policy Exchange think tank that updated rules for the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS) legislation were under consultation. Under the plans, those providing aggressive avoidance schemes potentially compelled to disclose their clients to the taxman.
A general anti-abuse rule designed to clamp down on aggressive and contrived tax avoidance schemes is also in consultation.
ICAEW chief executive Michael Izza expressed concerns over that proposal, but has previously stated in his blog that tax avoidance is "beyond the bounds of what is reasonable", and as such it is hoped the help sheet will clarify to members where on the spectrum particular schemes may fall.
A list of characteristics of avoidance schemes is provided in the help sheet. They include:
• It sounds too good to be true
• It involves artificial or contrived arrangements
• It seems very complex for what you want to do
• There are guaranteed returns with apparently no risk
• There are secrecy or confidentiality agreements
• Upfront fees are payable or the arrangement is on a no-win-no-fee basis
• The scheme is said to be vetted by a top lawyer or accountant but no details of their opinion are provided
• The scheme is said to be approved by HMRC (it doesn't follow that this is true)
• Taxation of income is delayed or tax deductions accelerated
• Tax benefits are disproportionate to the commercial activity
• Offshore companies or trusts are involved for no sound commercial reason
• The involvement of professional trustees is claimed to guarantee success
• A tax haven or banking secrecy country is involved for no sound commercial reason
• Tax-exempt entities such as pension funds are involved inappropriately
• It contains exit arrangements designed to side-step tax consequences
• It involves money going in a circle back to where it started
• It involves low-risk loans to be paid off by future earnings
• The scheme promoter lends the funding needed
• There's a requirement to take out insurance against the failure of the tax planning to deliver the tax benefits
The DOTAS consultation is due to run until 15 October, while the consultation on the proposals for a general anti-abuse rule closes on 14 September.
I am in full agreement in stopping these aggressive tax schemes. For years the Revenue have made it clear that they do not like this particularly aggressive tax plan. Whenever possible they have attacked it in the courts. Various Governments have said that they will bring in legislation to prevent these serial tax avoiders from robbing the treasury of their income. Without further delay every qualified accountant in the country should stop recommending this terrible scheme that robs the unemployed of benefits, restricts the number of nurses in hospitals, and affects the future education of our children.
I am of course referring to paying dividends instead of salary in SME's. Any accountant who is doing that should be ashamed of themselves and should refuse to give their clients that advice. Oh hang on, that is all of us isn't it?
The government makes the legislation shouldn't they make more of an effort to get it right instead of whinging at us?
Posted by: Tony Metcalf, 02 Aug 2012 | 09:48
"Offshore companies or trusts are involved for no sound commercial reason." The ICAEW is starting down a slippery slope in declaring lawful tax planning (avoidance) is unethical and effectively illegal. I chose just one of the many inconsistencies in their list of characteristics. Many family trusts are offshore but have no commercial reason and their sole purpose is to reduce the tax bill and protect capital. One need hardly mention the Prime Minister amongst many others. Now offering advice that involves setting up an offshore trust is to be deemed unethical! The ICAEW needs to re-think its position before it makes a fool of itself through its political correctness!
Posted by: Finianb Manson, 02 Aug 2012 | 10:09
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.