Treasury: consultation would have changed behaviour

Treasury: consultation would have changed behaviour

Government officials give first indication as to why important changes to trusts were not consulted upon

The government did not consult on changes to trusts because it would have had
a ‘behavioural impact’, Treasury officials said today.

Rejecting criticisms from John Whiting of PricewaterhouseCoopers, who told
MPs on Monday that the lack of consultation on the issue had been ‘nothing short
of outrageous’, Mark Neale, the managing director of Budget, tax and welfare at
the Treasury, said: ‘We don’t generally consult on budget measures where there
is potentially a behavioural impact. That would certainly have been the case in
this case.’

The comments are the first to have emerged from government figures as to why
there was no prior discussion of the tax changes, which apply three new tax
charges to accumulation and maintenance trusts in particular. The move has
caused an outcry, particularly amongst tax lawyers.

David Gauke, the Conservative MP for Hertfordshire South West, quizzed
Treasury officials today as to how many trusts would be affected.

Neale reiterated Dawn Primarolo’s claim last week that there were 100,000
discretionary trusts in the UK, of which a small proportion were affected. Of
those, only those over the IHT threshold, currently £275,000, would be affected,
he said.

Neale did not elaborate on what behavioural impacts would have resulted, and
how that would have prejudiced the intention of government policy. The lack of
discussion has angered the profession, especially as the government has been
consulting on the modernisation of trusts for several years.

After the meeting, Gauke questioned the official reason given for a lack of
consultation on the issue, telling Accountancy Age: ‘Almost any tax change could
have a behavioural impact. It makes you wonder what the point of any
consultation is.’

Chancellor Gordon Brown is set to be asked questions on the issue at
tomorrow’s session of the Treasury select committee.

The Law Society yesterday criticised the chancellor’s moves on the trusts,
saying that elderly people and the mentally ill affected by the change would be
unable to make changes to their wills unlike others, and could be ‘prejudiced’.

The association suggested delaying the moves and including ‘safe harbours’.

Related Articles

Supreme Court rules against Pimlico Plumbers in landmark employment case

Legal Supreme Court rules against Pimlico Plumbers in landmark employment case

1m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
Inheritance tax is 'unfit for modern society' and should be abolished, says think tank

Personal Tax Inheritance tax is 'unfit for modern society' and should be abolished, says think tank

2m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
Rent-a-room relief – the survey says…

Personal Tax Rent-a-room relief – the survey says…

4m Helen Thornley, ATT Technical Officer
What should the OTS prioritise in its review of inheritance tax?

Personal Tax What should the OTS prioritise in its review of inheritance tax?

5m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
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 urged to clarify impact of income allowances on Self-Assessments

Personal Tax HMRC urged to clarify impact of income allowances on Self-Assessments

9m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
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