THE OVERSIGHT BODY of global standard setter the IASB is being investigated by HMRC over compliance with employment tax obligations.
In its latest annual accounts, the IFRS Foundation said it included a £460,000 provision to cover an HMRC investigation into the taxation of members of the IASB and secondees from different parts of the world.
In May 2011, HMRC began a review of records for inward bound expatriate staff and general compliance with employment tax and requested further information in six areas. Of these, four were immediately dealt with “to the satisfaction of HMRC” and a further two are subject to further discussion, the IFRS Foundation said.
According to the accounts, produced in June, the Foundation agreed to make a £24,000 payment on account, until the two outstanding matters are resolved.
The first, relates to the taxation of certain members of the IASB who remain resident in the UK, but continue to pay tax in their home jurisdictions.
“HMRC has now completed its review of this matter and agreed with the approach we have taken,” the IFRS Foundation said in a statement.
The second outstanding matter relates to how staff seconded from national standard-setters from around the world should be taxed.
“Such staff remain in the employment of the local standard-setter and it has been the view of the IFRS Foundation that taxation of such secondees is therefore a matter for the national standard-setter,” it said.
“These are complex matters of tax interpretation where the Foundation had taken external professional advice. We continue to work with HMRC regarding the remaining element of their enquiry.”
Three men involved in the elaborate fraud were handed jail sentences for their crimes
CIoT has come out against the government’s latest anti-tax evasion legislation, labelling it as “very problematic for businesses”
Queen's Speech legislation aims to crackdown on financial crime and protect those who have money in some auto enrolment schemes
The ATT has urged HMRC to push its digital project back 12 months in order to avoid ‘risk of embarrassment’ to both itself and the government if it goes wrong