TaxCorporate TaxGAAR will “cause confusion and chaos”, say advisers

GAAR will “cause confusion and chaos”, say advisers

Advisers warn that without clear definition of the GAAR's scope, there is likely to be confusion over the kind of arrangements it will catch

GAAR will “cause confusion and chaos”, say advisers

A LACK OF CLEAR DEFINITION within the incoming General Anti-Abuse Rule is likely to cause “considerable uncertainty”, advisers have warned.

The GAAR, designed to catch and prevent contrived tax avoidance schemes, was included in the 2013 Finance Bill and will take effect once it has received Royal assent in July, although many practitioners have been treating it as if it came in on 1 April.

But there are now calls for the rule’s implementation to be put back until it has been made clearer, the Telegraph reports, with many concerned about the legislation’s ambiguity.

Partner at solicitors Pannone, Jane Lee, said: “There is scope within the GAAR legislation for it to be used far more widely than the original government report had previously suggested.

“The drafting of the legislation and the fact that the guidance produced by HMRC is not legally binding means that there is scope for considerable uncertainty as to the type of arrangements which may be targeted by HMRC,” she said.

There have also been concerns raised over the public’s expectations of the new rule, with a widespread misconception that the GAAR will impact on an international level.

Chair of the House of Lords committee on the Finance Bill Lord MacGregor said that simply is not the case.

He said: “There is a misconception that GAAR will mean the likes of Starbucks and Amazon will be slapped with massive tax bills.

“This is wrong and the government needs to explain that to the public. GAAR is narrowly defined and will only impact on the most abusive of tax avoidance.”

He added: “We accept the narrowly focused GAAR as a starting point. We recommend that the scope of the GAAR should be reviewed after five years as part of a wider post-implementation review, which would look, in particular, at how the double reasonableness test had been applied in practice and its deterrent effect.”

Related Articles

Big names, little tax: Airbnb, Facebook, Kellogg’s, eBay

Corporate Tax Big names, little tax: Airbnb, Facebook, Kellogg’s, eBay

2w Alia Shoaib, Reporter
EU divided over radical tax reforms targeting tech giants

Corporate Tax EU divided over radical tax reforms targeting tech giants

3w Alia Shoaib, Reporter
How to educate your clients about tax avoidance

Corporate Tax How to educate your clients about tax avoidance

3w Clear Books | Sponsored
Colin: Tell them about the money, mummy

Business Regulation Colin: Tell them about the money, mummy

11m Taking Stock
Five key tax and business burdens the chancellor must ease in Autumn Statement

Business Regulation Five key tax and business burdens the chancellor must ease in Autumn Statement

11m Kevin Reed, Writer
CGT clampdown nets HMRC £124m – but could lead to increase in use of avoidance schemes

Corporate Tax CGT clampdown nets HMRC £124m – but could lead to increase in use of avoidance schemes

4w Austin Clark, Reporter
‘Google tax’ nets HMRC £281m

Corporate Tax ‘Google tax’ nets HMRC £281m

1m Emma Smith, Managing Editor
Autumn Statement: Investment and tax avoidance highlighted in Hammond's speech

Corporate Tax Autumn Statement: Investment and tax avoidance highlighted in Hammond's speech

11m Kevin Reed, Writer