PLANS by Goldman Sachs executives to delay the delivery of bonuses until after April – when the top rate of tax falls – have drawn angry reactions from MPs.
The US investment bank was criticised by Westminster when it emerged bonuses could be delayed until after 6 April, when the top rate drops 50p to 45p. In all, ten banks were considering the move, but most have concluded it would be damaging, according to the Financial Times.
John Mann, a Labour member of the Treasury Select Committee, described the plans as an “opportunistic money grab”, while Labour backbencher Chris Williamson said they are an inevitable consequence of the coalition’s “inequitable” tax policies.
“The fact this represents a PR disaster for the likes of Goldman Sachs doesn’t seem to bother them,” he said. “No doubt these bankers feel their tax windfall will insulate them from public opprobrium.”
Goldman took similar steps in the US when it paid out bonuses to its ten top executives on New Year’s Eve, hours before Congress voted to raise taxes on America’s wealthiest as the ‘fiscal cliff’ deadline approached.
The investment bank paid out $65m (£39.9m) in restricted stock, narrowly avoiding the higher rate for those earning more than $400,000 per year. Such awards are usually made to the bank’s executives in January, but the awards were disclosed in filings made public on New Year’s Eve.
Public Accounts Committee chair Margaret Hodge said the latest move showed wealthy bankers “just don’t give a toss about their collective responsibility”, adding they are “the first to complain” if snow is not swept from the roads or if trains are delayed.
“They have a civic duty to pay their fair share,” she said.
Take part in this week’s Accountancy Age debate on tax avoidance by clicking here.
HMRC has outlined a change in VAT policy to the treatment of dwellings that have been formed from either the construction of new buildings, or from the conversion of non-residential buildings
Let us hope that valuable asset protection vehicles are not made prohibitively burdensome or abolished in the desire to “simplify” IHT
The government is pressing ahead with changes to the way it taxes individuals with a foreign domicile
I will feel slightly awkward when I write to the client who is about to receive a large invoice from the PAYE expert, offering him the fee protection going forward