Institute attacks ad-hoc approach to tax law

Institute attacks ad-hoc approach to tax law

Talk to any tax expert and he'll more than likely make the same complaint about HM Revenue & Customs.

However, in a display of some considerable front, the Chartered Institute of
Taxation has put it in writing – HMRC rules by diktat.

The institute last week issued a paper, entitled Taxed by law, Untaxed by
Concession
, in which it argued that the way tax law is now created is built
on anomolies, complexity and was getting worse.

The review is prompted, it said, ‘by the increasing use of notices and other
statements having the force of law, extra-statutory concessions, statements of
practice, revenue interpretations, frequently asked questions and answers,
guidance notes and other material to deal with ambiguities and anomalies in the
primary and secondary legislation’.

The CIoT wanted to see more legislation being introduced, and less guidance
from HMRC, which operates, it suggested, by diktat.

‘Taxpayers are subject to the fiat of the tax authority, which may be altered
without notice or reason, may be unenforceable, and is probably subject to a
general caveat such as that it may not be applied in cases of tax avoidance,’
the paper said.

UK tax law, the CIoT said, was becoming increasingly complex and consultation
does not always take place on changes. The government does not give enough time
to thinking about how rules will work in practice, and general legislation is
increasingly interpreted through guidance and statutory instruments.

Why is it a problem? ‘Taxpayers crave certainty; if the law contains
anomalies and difficulties, commercial transactions become more difficult to
undertake,’ the report said.

Could the UK adopt a pre-transaction ruling process, where tax plans are
vetted by the authorities before they go ahead? CIoT asked.

‘The UK does not have a rulings culture. Such a procedure might be considered
as a means of clarifying the operation of complex rules in particular
circumstances. But it is unsatisfactory as a means of making law and places
burdens on the tax authorities. It needs to be recog-nised that it is a route
that we may have to follow if tax law increases its uncertainties.’

The position was unsatisfactory, it concluded, and getting worse. It
suggested a new principle. ‘No tax rule change or interpretation that lays down
how the law operates should take place without legislative scrutiny or prior
consultation or, preferably, both.’

Related Articles

Paul Morton, Tax Director, Office of Tax Simplification

Administration Paul Morton, Tax Director, Office of Tax Simplification

6m Emma Smith, Managing Editor
LITRG urges government to consider tax changes in disability work plan

Administration LITRG urges government to consider tax changes in disability work plan

7m Lucy Skoulding, Reporter
HMRC appeal rejected in Tottenham Hotspur case

Administration HMRC appeal rejected in Tottenham Hotspur case

8m Emma Smith, Managing Editor
HMRC issues updated Trusts Registration Service guidance

Administration HMRC issues updated Trusts Registration Service guidance

8m Emma Smith, Managing Editor
New trading allowance: simplicity, but not as we know it

Administration New trading allowance: simplicity, but not as we know it

9m Emma Rawson, ATT Technical Officer
‘Improve rather than lose’ disincorporation relief, tax body urges

Administration ‘Improve rather than lose’ disincorporation relief, tax body urges

10m Austin Clark, Reporter
Are you ready for the Trusts Registration Service?

Administration Are you ready for the Trusts Registration Service?

10m Helen Thornley, ATT Technical Officer
Advisers bullish despite Brexit concerns

Accounting Standards Advisers bullish despite Brexit concerns

2y Fraser Simpson, Reporter