Pawson deceased v HMRC 2012 UKFTT 51 (TC)

The First-tier tax Tribunal has ruled that a property used as a holiday cottage qualifies for inheritance tax business property relief (BPR).

This case has generated a lot of interest as HMRC has delayed a number of similar cases pending the outcome of this one.  It will be interesting to see if HMRC decide to appeal this decision.

For those interested in how the legal teams interacted prior to the hearing I refer you to paragraphs 3 to 9 of the decision.  Fascinating.

HMRC questioned:

(1)  whether the property in question qualified to be treated as “relevant business property” and (2) was it used in the operation of a business for “gain”.  Section 105 IHTA 1984.

HMRC also argued that:

Even if the use to which the property had been put amounted to the operation of a business in principle, and for gain, it was to be excluded from the term “relevant business property” by reason of section 105(3) IHTA 1984 on the basis that the business consisted wholly or mainly of “holding investments”.

The main findings of the Tribunal were:

1.  The exploitation of the property in question as a holiday cottage amounted to the operation of business.

2.  The business was conducted with a view to gain even though it was not always profitable.

3.  An intelligent businessman would not regard the ownership of a holiday letting property as an investment due to the need to constantly find new occupants and to provide servcies unconnected with and over above those needed for the bare upkeep of the property.

The full judgement is available here.

Let’s start with the Scottish Budget.

The Scottish Government’s Budget was passed by the Scottish Parliament yesterday with the support of the Liberal Democrats.  The Budget outlines the Scottish Government’s £30 billion spending plan for the next financial year.

The amendment that stood out concerned the public health levy also known as the  “Tesco tax”.  The change will mean that instead of collecting £30m, £40m and £40m over the next three years it will bring in £5m less in each of these three years.  The Scottish Government claims that only 240 retail premises, around 0.1% of all business premises in Scotland, would pay more.  It will be interesting to see the reaction to this amendment.

Now to the news that over one million taxpayers face a penalty of £100 for failing to submit their self-assessment tax returns on time.  The figure of 1.1 million is the lowest since online filing first started and compares with 1.4 million last year and 1.6 million the year before.  These taxpayers will have to pay the £100 fine unless they have a reasonable excuse.  Valid reasons include serious illness, a bereavement, or a loss of documents because of theft, fire or flood.  After three months, additional fines of £10 a day start to accrue and could eventually amount to a maximum of £1,600.  More on this can be found in an article from the BBC news website which can be found here.

Two non football tax avoidance stories this week.  HMRC announced that its next planned crackdown will target construction workers.  Traders who carry out roofing, joinery bricklaying, window fitting and carpentry will be targeted.  The clampdown  follows other campaigns with doctors, dentists and tutors in the spotlight.  Interested but not surprised to see HMRC making it clear that they will use web searches to target those dodging tax.

The second story was extremely embarrassing for the UK Government and in particular Danny Alexander the Chief Secretary to HM Treasury.  This story concerned an arrangement reported to have allowed the Student Loans Company’s chief executive, Ed Lister, to avoid thousands of pounds in income tax and national insurance.  HMRC had authorised the SLC to make gross payments to Lester’s personal services company.

How could anyone at HMRC or HM Treasury think this was a good idea or could be justified? Am I surprised? No.  It seems that there is a section in these any other government organisations who just don’t get it.  The UK Government’s handling of the Network Rail bonuses is just another example of this attitude and I suspect, sadly, won’t be the last.  Thanks due to the BBC’s Newsnight programme for bringing the SLC issue to a wider audience.

BBC Newsnight journalist Richard Watson summed this issue up very well:  “In the current climate of national austerity and financial hardship, it’s hard to imagine a more politically charged story.  One of the most senior public servants in the land, paid by the taxpayer, granted special concessions to be paid gross through his private service company based at his home address.”

Now to an example of the carrot and stick approach to taxation and behavioural change.  I blogged about this issue last week.   The Scotsman reported this week that Scots who do not insulate their homes should be forced to pay higher council tax or face increased stamp duty land tax on their property.  Not sure about the stamp duty land tax point as it is the purchaser who pays that tax.  Nonetheless Alex McLeod, chairman of the Association for the Conservation of Energy told the Scotsman:  “… sticks as well as carrots are needed to encourage people to conserve energy in their homes.”

Interestingly the idea was attacked by a diverse range of bodies.  The TaxPayers Alliance branded the idea as “outrageous” and Friends of the Earth Scotland said that the Scottish Government should pay for everyone to have free insulation.  The article from the Scotsman can be found here.

Now to Westminster.  The jostling for position prior to the UK Budget in March continues.  This week it was Nick Clegg saying that Conservative plans to give married couples a tax break must take second place behind a proposed tax cut for low earners.  The UK Deputy Prime Minister, it has also been reported, wants his party’s plans to increase the threshold for income tax to £10,000 to take precedence over any move to recognise marriage in the tax system.

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has criticised HM  Treasury for the way it monitors government spending.  It seems that almost £11bn in unpaid tax has been written off without HM Treasury knowledge.   A report on the first set of “Whole of Government Accounts” by the Committee said that HM Treasury’s ability to identify financial risks needed to improve.  An article from the BBC News website on this can be found here.

Now to a worrying trend.  An increasing number of businesses are struggling to pay their tax bills after new figures show a growing number are using credit cards to make their payments.  During 2005/06 businesses made just over 6,000 credit card payments to HMRC for PAYE, corporation and personal tax bills.  This had increased to 365,000 for 2009/10.  The credit card payments in 2005/06 totalled more than £2m.  In 2009/10 it had increased to just under £486m.  Thanks to the Ashworth Law firm which conducted a Freedom of Information request to collate the data.

Now to Englandshire and a matter I have covered before.  Eighteen local authorities in England have rejected an offer of UK Government money that would allow them to freeze council tax.  You may remember Eric Pickles,  the UK Government’s Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, recent comment that councils in England had a “moral duty” to freeze the council tax.  Clearly some councils in England beg to differ on this point.  I was going to say “let battle commence” but battle clearly has commenced.

So to Europe and an old favourite.  The Ernst & Young Item Club has calculated that the UK would be liable to pay 75 per cent of the revenues from the European Commission’s Financial Transactions Tax because of the size and scale of Britain’s financial services sector relative to the rest of Europe.  Even if the UK opts out it seems that the UK’s financial sector would still have to contribute about 60 per cent of total revenues if a “reverse charge mechanism” was applied.  Something for our politicians to think about.  They might also want to consider abolishing charging stamp duty and SDRT on shares transactions if a deal was done on FTT.  I suspect there is plenty of mileage left in this particular debate.

An interesting week for football north and south of the border.  The more interesting sport stories of the week also seemed to involve tax.  This should not come as a surprise given the amount of money that exists at the top end of this particular sport.  In simple terms it was ever thus.

Have a good weekend.

Let’s start with my favourite Chicago politician and the small matter of the next US Presidential election.

I was interested to read this week that President Obama is considering a form of “minimum taxation”.   The plan seems to be if you make more than $1 million a year you should not pay less than 30 per cent in taxes.  In addition if you earn more than $1 million a year you will not be allowed to claim any tax relief or deductions.  On corporate taxation no American company will be allowed to avoid paying its “fair” share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas.  Again multinational companies will be liable for a basic minimum tax.  I wonder if we will see our politicians thinking along similar lines in the near future.  I suspect that we will.

Now to the independence and fiscal powers debate.  Two major developments this week. Firstly sources close to the Prime Minister are reported to have said: “that a substantial increase in financial powers for Holyrood is not an option if Scotland wants to remain within the United Kingdom.”  If the UK Conservative party sticks with this line in the sand then how will those who support “devo max” or “devo plus” vote in 2014?  Will the Liberal Democrats and the main UK opposition party continue to support this policy?

Only time will tell as far as these questions are concerned.  One thing is though certain and that is the UK Government will face opposition on this point.  This week groups from the voluntary sector, churches, trade unions and the business community have formed a coalition to explore the possibility of a “middle-ground” option which is short of independence.  This group is termed “civic Scotland” and has the support of two think tanks Reform Scotland and the Centre for Public Policy.  For completeness sake I should mention that I am a former trustee of Reform Scotland and that I was one of the authors of Reform Scotland’s fiscal power papers.  I am though not involved with this group.

I was surprised that more was not made of the new statistics produced by HMRC this week.  UK tax receipts up to January 2012 show that total tax revenues in the 2010-11 fiscal year very nearly recovered to their pre-recession 2007-08 level and are set to be substantially higher in the current 2011-12 tax year.

Now to something we in Scotland are going to have to consider as tax powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament.  It is easy to suggest a new tax.  Recent examples include a “bed tax” for Edinburgh.  Another possible new tax is the so called “bag tax”.  It was reported this week that Northern Ireland is to introduce such a tax from April.  Wales introduced a similar tax last year and the Republic of Ireland has had such a tax since 2002.  The Scottish Government is presently consulting on this issue.

As I said it is easy to suggest a new tax.  It is harder to explain what that tax is meant to achieve.  That should always be the starting point.  Are we looking to increase tax revenue or change behaviour or possibly a bit of both?  When environmental taxes such as aggregates levy and landfill tax were introduced the politicians struggled to answer this question.

I would also expect an explanation as to how the tax will be collected, the cost of collection and who carries that cost.  Any claim as to potential revenue also needs to be looked at closely and also put into context.  Most taxation revenue comes from just a handful of taxes.  Many of the UK’s minor taxes produce a relatively small amount of revenue.

Any new tax should also have a review date.  This ensures that any claims as to revenue or the cost of administration can be checked within a relatively short period of time.

Now to an update in the Scotsman on Edinburgh airport’s so called “kiss and fly” tax.  A total of 15p of every £1 generated by the charge for dropping off passengers beside the airport terminal is being channelled into its environmental fund.  The article can be found here.

Now to business rates and an excellent piece in the Scotsman newspaper.  The Scotsman reports that an unprecedented number of firms in Edinburgh have demanded reduced business rates as they struggle with a weak global economy and local difficulties such as tram works.  The article can be found here.

Now to Europe.  I was not surprised that President Sarkozy has decided to introduce a French financial transaction tax in August.  Will he still be in power then is of course another question.  The plan is to unilaterally impose a 0.1% tax on financial transactions.  The UK Prime Minister’s reaction was as expected.  Of greater interest is whether other European countries follow Sarkozy’s lead.

I have been following the Harry Redknapp trial with interest.  It is alleged that he received undeclared payments via a Monaco bank account from his former boss at Portsmouth Football Club.  Reports such as this one from the BBC News website, found here, make fascinating reading.

It seems that the Chief Executive of the Student Loan Company has his salary of £182,000 salary paid via a company and without tax being deducted.  The article claims that both HMRC and HM Treasury were aware of this arrangement which allows Ed Lester to pay corporation tax of 21% rather than up to 50% income tax on his earnings.  You have to wonder if the people who approved this arrangement have any sense of what is happening in the real world just now.  This is an excellent piece of journalism from the Guardian and the article can be found here.

Finally to more serious matters.  Good luck to new Scottish captain Ross Ford this weekend.  No pressure!

Have a good weekend.

Where shall I start?

I think I will start with the small matter of Scotland’s constitutional future.  The news coverage this week shows that this is no longer a strictly Scottish debate.  I personally have found it fascinating watching and listening to UK political commentators trying to get up to speed as quickly as possible.  It won’t be long before they realise that a yes vote will mean tax competition, a Scottish Exchequer, the end to the Barnett formula and less Liberal MPs (there is a bigger loss in percentage terms of MPs to the Liberals than Labour).  I am sure I will come back to this topic regularly throughout 2012.

Not to the sudden upsurge in interest on tax avoidance and the likelihood of the UK Government introducing a general anti-avoidance rule (“GAAR”).  Recent statements by both the PM and Deputy PM strongly suggest that such a provision will be approved this year. The Deputy PM has said: “there should be a general rule that you can’t play the system” and that a “simpler, more open, fairer tax system in which everyone pays their fair share should be created.”  The UK Government’s own report on GAAR came out in favour of a narrowly focused GAAR.  It seems after many years of lurking in the shadows GAAR’s time has come.  I for one welcome this as it is a step on the road to a simpler tax system.

Now back to an old favourite from 2011.  The PM has insisted that the 50p tax rate on higher earners is “temporary” and has hinted that the issue will be reviewed in the run-up to the UK Budget.  The news coverage on this issue suggests that the PM is coming under pressure from business leaders and backbench Conservative MPs.  The question is who will the PM listen to?  There is an equally strong lobby arguing for its retention.  This includes his coalition partner.  I expect to see a report within the next few weeks pointing out how little revenue the higher rate produces.  That though is only part of the debate.  The bigger picture cannot be ignored and I am sure the PM is well aware of this.

Now to a Scottish Government tax proposal.  This proposal was dubbed the “Tesco tax”.  The Scottish Government prefer to refer to this as a “public health levy”.  The supermarkets’ campaign against this proposal started in earnest this week.  The supermarkets claim that the new levy on all major stores selling alcohol and cigarettes will reduce their profits by 10%.  This debate, for debate read battle, has just begun.  An article from the Scotsman on this can be found here.

I like to remind people from time that on one side there is taxation and on the other there is public spending.  The National Audit Office produced another eye watering figure this week.  They said that more than £31 billion of taxpayers’ money has been wasted across government departments in the past two years.  They analysed more than 70 reports and found both annual overspending and waste from delayed and abandoned projects in areas ranging from welfare and capital projects to farm payments.

Now to HMRC and two positive stories.  Following a concerted campaign from numerous business and other professional bodies HMRC is reconsidering its Business Records Check project under which small businesses can be fined £3,000 for not keeping full records during the current tax year even if it later turns out that their tax affairs are in order.  While the review is under way HMRC will not penalise taxpayers and agents for poor record-keeping “except in extreme cases.”  This announcement is to be welcomed.

HMRC is also piloting a new method of resolving its disputes with small business. The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure will use ‘independent’ HMRC facilitators to resolve certain kinds of dispute during a compliance check but before a decision or assessment has been made.  More information can be found here.  Again a positive move by HMRC.

Europe is rarely out of the news for long.  I was interested to read that President Sarkozy is insisting that France must press ahead with a tax on financial transactions to force the issue in Europe.  It seems that the French will introduce legislation next month even without knowing if other countries will follow.  Expect to see this raised at the next European summit.

Finally to football and HMRC’s continuing interest in the so called “beautiful game”.  HMRC has sent a questionnaire to all of the UK’s leading football clubs asking about remuneration and perks for players and their families.  Can you imagine what might be disclosed?

Have a good weekend.

Happy New Year to you all.

I think I will start with something I have blogged on a few times before.  This week’s storm has caused a huge amount of damage in Scotland and in other parts of the UK.  This is going to mean a lot of extra work for our building industry.  That will mean increased revenue for the UK Government primarily through VAT receipts.  That gives us the perfect opportunity to justify a reduction in VAT on residential property repairs and improvements.  As I have noted before this already happens in the Isle of Man.

I was interested to hear what Nick Clegg was saying on Radio 4 earlier today.   In essence he said: “… the public is angered that large companies and a wealthy elite get out of paying their fair share of tax.”   It seems that the UK Government has at last realised that the public must feel that, and to borrow a well worn phrase, “we are all in this together”.  This was in fact the main point of my last blog of 2011 which can be found here.

I am also sure it is not a coincidence that the Prime Minister in his New Year message and again today vowed to tackle excessive “City” pay and to promise a new clampdown on tax avoidance.  David Cameron said: “While a few at the top get rewards that seem to have nothing to do with the risks they take or the effort they put in, many others are stuck on benefits, without hope or responsibility.”  Reward without risk is a terrible combination.

In addition HMRC have been accused of focusing on small firms while taking a more relaxed approach to the tax liabilities of major companies.  Again this goes back to an issue that I wrote about in my last blog of 2011.   It is claimed that up to 20,000 firms will be inspected from April to assess if they can back up their tax returns with paperwork going back several years.   The article from the Guardian can be found here.

The UK Government has also this week had to defend its policy of tax breaks for hiring new workers after the Labour Party estimated that just 10,000 companies had taken advantage of the incentive since its introduction.  In the 2010 Budget George Osborne said that up to 400,000 small businesses would take up relief on national insurance payments for new employees.  The BBC news report can be found here.

Couples with young children will be hardest hit by changes in the tax and benefit system, with the typical family losing more than £1,200 over five years, a new study has estimated.  The report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies also suggested that the UK Government’s welfare reforms will reduce the financial incentives for mothers to go out to work.   The BBC news report can be found here.

Now to a phrase that I had thought had gone out of fashion: “stealth taxes”.  Labour are claiming that the sharp rise in the cost of council services for elderly and disabled people in England and Wales is in effect a “stealth tax”.  Pot kettle black springs to mind.  The BBC news report can be found here.

I would also like to finish on a winter theme.  Winter fuel allowance became a news topic just before Christmas when it was reported that this payment is also made to British expatriates in Europe’s hottest countries.  These payments have almost doubled in five years to around £14m a year.  That though is not the main issue.  If we are truly in such a poor financial state not only does the payment to those living in sunnier climes need to be looked at but whether we can continue to make such a payment at all.  The cost of this allowance is now approaching £3bn.  At the very least there needs to be a debate on whether it should be means tested.

Have a good weekend.

A year in which we were told the economy would grow and the recovery would begin in earnest.   A year ending with almost everyone predicting hard times ahead.

The past year has been dominated by the economic crisis and the fiscal powers debate.  Let’s start with the economic crisis.

The link between what a government spends and how it funds this spending is an obvious one.  Whatever the government spends it needs to match by taxation or borrowing.  The consensus now is that we have a “debt crisis” rather than a recession.  The main political debate is between those who wish to restrict government spending and those who argue for more government spending to grow the economy.

I agree that spending must be reduced.  There is little doubt that the UK has been living beyond its means.  Even when the UK Government manages to balance its books the national UK debt needs to be serviced and at some point paid off.  The scale of the task is such that even under coalition government plans it is going to be at least another five years before the books are balanced.

If there is to be additional spending on say infrastructure then public spending in another should be reduced.  Growth is important but so is reducing the debt mountain.  The trick is to somehow do both.  Is there a simple answer to this conundrum?  Of course there isn’t.

There is though a related issue that needs to be addressed.  We are often told “we are all in this together”.   The problem with that statement is we keep hearing about sections of society that seem to be treated differently.  Bankers and their bonuses is close to becoming a cliché but what of those in senior positions in the public sector.  Can it be right that salary levels, bonuses and the numerous associated benefits of many of those who work in the public sector are so high and wide ranging and far in excess of the majority rest of the workforce?  One example.   Dave Hartnett head of HMRC is to take early retirement next summer with a pension pot of £1.7 million.  I have blogged on Mr Hartnett before.  It seems he may even get a bonus this year.

That is where the public spending debate is moving.  If public spending needs to be reduced, and let’s be clear it does, then the starting point cannot be reducing those who in the public’s eyes actually do the work.  First things first.  I keep hearing and reading about highly paid public sector managers who earn lots but no one is sure what they do.  My question is a simple one.  Is this actually true?

Then there is HMRC and the claim by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee that there is £25bn in tax owed by large companies.  HMRC has “previous” with this Committee of which I have blogged on before.  The taxation of large companies is complicated but that is a huge sum of money.  Again this makes me wonder if we are all in this together.

The taxation of large companies is complicated but does HMRC treat all businesses the same?    Evidence gathered by the law firm McGrigors showed that HMRC is increasingly using legal powers to force the settlement of unpaid tax bills in Scotland.  The use of similar powers in England and Wales fell over the same period.  Does this mean that not all businesses are treated equally?  I don’t know but the question needs to be asked and answered.

What about the richest in our society?  Our governments, both in London and Edinburgh, along with HMRC must do more to defeat the perception that for the wealthy paying tax is a choice.  One example.  The avoidance of Stamp Duty Land Tax on valuable residential properties via offshore companies should be stopped.

Are we all in this together?  It does not seem so.

One last point before I move on to the fiscal powers debate.

The UK Government’s decision to waive VAT on the Military Wives Choir Christmas single is an example of what is wrong with how we decide as to whom and what we tax.  Is this a great cause?  Yes of course.  Are there lots of other equally great causes?  Yes there are.

Now to the fiscal powers debate.  The result of the Scottish General Election has ensured that the fiscal powers debate in Scotland has taken centre stage.  The Scottish Parliament may even refuse legislative consent for the Scotland Bill.   I like to refer to the Scotland Bill as “Calman minus”.  My own opinion is that the Scotland Bill was never meant to be fit for purpose.

The fact that the UK Government will not even agree to devolve air passenger duty or control over the Crown Estate shows how out of touch they are.   The debate has moved on.  My last few tax blogs show how quickly the debate is moving.  Even senior members of the Labour party in Scotland favour “devo max”.  Hopefully in 2012 we will learn more of what “devo max” actually means.

The fiscal powers debate is no longer confined to Scotland.  I must admit I did not see this coming.  The Eurozone crisis and proposals such as a European Financial Transaction Tax has stirred the euro sceptics and that was before the call for greater fiscal union amongst the Eurozone countries.  The analogy between Scotland’s relationship with the UK and the UK’s relationship with the European Union is an obvious one.  The European angle to the fiscal powers debate has the potential to cause problems for those who arguing for major fiscal powers for the Scottish Parliament and those who oppose this.  I suspect I will be blogging on this regularly throughout 2012.

A quick word on Ireland.  How far will countries such as Ireland be willing to go to stay a member of the Eurozone?  Will Ireland give up its treasured low rate of corporation tax?  Does Ireland have a choice?

Lastly what am I hoping for on the tax front in 2012?  Now is not the time to be greedy.  A VAT reduction for home repairs and improvements is much needed.  A tax exemption for the governing body and the competitors of Glasgow 2014 is essential for the success of these games.  Less specifically I would like to see some evidence from the powers that tax us that we are all in this together.

Merry Christmas and best wishes to you and yours for 2012.   See you again in the New Year.

HMRC v Atkinson 2011

The Upper Tax Tribunal has allowed HM Revenue & Customs’ appeal in the case HMRC v Executors of Atkinson.

The decision allows HMRC to refuse agricultural property relief on a farmhouse because the farmer had gone into in a care home just before his death. The executors were unrepresented at the appeal because they could not afford to pay HMRC’s costs if they lost.

The farm was owned by the deceased and let to a farming partnership.  The deceased was a partner in the farming partnership and lived in a bungalow situated on the farm until ill-health meant he had to move into a care home.  The deceased still made occasional visits to the bungalow and his possessions remained in it until his death.

HMRC had refused the Executors’ claim for agricultural property relief because they were of the view that the bungalow was not occupied for the purpose of agriculture for the relevant period required by section 117 of IHTA (“Inheritance Tax Act 1984”).   The First Tier Tribunal allowed the Executors’ appeal.

On the basis of the findings of fact the First Tier Tribunal concluded that, for the purposes of the IHTA, the partnership was in occupation of the bungalow up to the date of Mr Atkinson’s death and that such occupation “was for the purposes of agriculture in the relevant sense because the bungalow was still used to accommodate the diminishing requirements of the senior partner”.

Section 117 (b): “… section 116 above does not apply to any agricultural property unless –

(a)    It was occupied by the transferor for the purposes of agriculture throughout the period of two years with the death of the transferor, or

(b)   It was owned by him throughout the period of seven years ending with that date and was throughout that period occupied (by him or another) for the purposes of agriculture.”

Section 116 grants relief for agricultural property.

Note. There is no definition of the word “occupied” nor is any special given to the words “for the purposes of agriculture”.

The question for the Upper Tribunal was whether the First Tier Tribunal made an error of law when they arrived at a decision of fact which no tribunal properly directed could properly have reached.

The Upper Tribunal found that the First Tier Tribunal did make an error in law.

“Were the matter for us, we would have no hesitation in concluding that the partnership ceased to occupy the bungalow for the purposes of agriculture when Mr Atkinson moved to the care home with no reasonable prospect of ever returning home.”

“In our judgment, the [First Tier] Tribunal failed to apply the correct approach and ask the correct questions.  The correct approach is to identify what does and what does not amount to a sufficient connection between the use and occupation of the property in questions (the bungalow in the present case) and the agricultural activities being carried on on the agricultural property (the farm in the present case); and to ask whether the facts give rise to a sufficient connection.”

“If the [First Tier] Tribunal had adopted such an approach it could, in our judgment, have come to only one conclusion, namely that the bungalow was not immediately before Mr Atkinson’s death, occupied for the purposes of agriculture and had not been since, at latest, it had become apparent that he would never be able to return there to live.  In particular neither the occasional attendance of Margaret [his daughter-in-law] and Gary [his grandson] at the bungalow to deal with post or frost, nor the fact that some of Mr Atkinson’s belongings and furniture remained at the bungalow, can be said to constitute occupation for the purposes of agriculture throughout the seven years prior to Mr Atkinson’s death.”

The full report of the Upper Tribunal can be found here.

The debate over a European financial transaction tax is gathering pace.  Let’s start with terminology.  The UK Government like to refer to this as a tax on London.  What they don’t understand, or maybe they do, is that this really annoys the European proposers of this tax.   Many European leaders and commentators blame London and New York for the banking crisis and cannot understand why the UK Government should be so protective of London.  I should add the continual reference to London also annoys me as Edinburgh is also a financial centre.  London is not the UK it is just part of the UK.

The UK Government say any such tax must be imposed world wide and not just confined to Europe.  The proposers point out that you have to start somewhere and if we wait for world wide agreement nothing will happen.  They also imply that this is what the UK Government secretly wants.  Do the European proposers understand the importance of London to the UK Government?  It seems not.  To complicate matters further Ireland has said that it will not introduce this tax if the UK does not.  I wonder what a fiscally autonomous or independent Scotland would do?

This debate cannot be separated from David Cameron’s newly found European scepticism.  I am sure the French will have laughed heartily when they heard David Cameron’s joke about a cheese tax!  I also suspect that commentators will soon catch on to the analogy between the UK Government’s desire for repatriation of powers from the European Union and the Scottish constitutional debate.  The analogy is an obvious one.

We also now know a bit more about the proposed tax:

• The European Commission says the tax would be levied at 0.1% on all transactions between financial institutions when at least one party is based in the EU
• Derivative contracts – bets on movements in currencies and other assets – would be taxed at 0.01%.
• The tax would be expected to raise about £50bn a year and would come into effect in 2014

Glad to see that the UK and Scottish governments have finally reached an agreement on allowing the Scottish Government to access its own fossil fuel levy funds.  This is a tax paid by suppliers of non-renewable energy sources.  The account holds approximately £206m.  Under the agreement, £103m will go towards Scottish renewable energy projects, including wave and tidal schemes.  The remaining £103m will be made available to support the capitalisation of the proposed Green Investment Bank.

Now to HMRC and its latest staff survey.   The conclusion is that its staff still have little faith in the abilities of their senior managers.   The latest staff survey showed only 13% felt changes were usually for the better; only 15% felt change was well managed; and only 17% had confidence in the decisions of senior managers.  Although these results were better than last year, 20% of staff still wanted to leave immediately or in the next year.  The 38,416 staff who responded represented a 52% response rate.  HMRC commented: “Since our last survey results there have been improvements that give rise to cautious optimism”.  The full story can be found here.

Every taxpayer may be given online access to their tax records.  This idea is part of a UK Government consultation on making the personal tax system easier to use and understand.  Other ideas include supplying pre-filled tax returns to people in the self-assessment system, using information from employers and banks, and sending each taxpayer an annual tax statement in addition to their normal P60 form and PAYE tax code notice.  Good to see a UK Government thinking about things from the point of view from the taxpayer.

Now to a claim from a Scottish accountant that HMRC is disproportionately targeting Scottish businesses.  HMRC said it would launch nine new task forces to investigate specific industry compliance in the 2011/12 year, seven of which are already running.

One for the first task forces to launch, targeting the restaurant trade, has so far launched investigations into 531 UK restaurants with 222 (42 per cent) of those in Scotland.  This compares with just 159 investigations for the whole of London and 150 in the North West of England.  The full story can be found here.

I will end with the Scotland Bill and whether it will become an Act.  What is interesting is how commentators have suddenly woken up to the fact of how much danger the Bill is in.  The Bill could be scuppered by either the Scottish or UK Governments.

One reason for this is the supposed supporters of this Bill seem unable to defend or even explain the contraversial income tax proposal.  As Malcolm Chisholm MSP pointed out last week at Holyrood’s Scotland Bill conference, the proposers of the Bill have failed to explain why the Bill is a positive move for either the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish people.

Have a good weekend.

Let’s start with the highlight of my week.  This would have been the result of last weekend’s Gala v Melrose game but a try in the last few minutes put paid to that.  So instead it has to be speaking at Holyrood’s Scotland Bill conference.  The text of my speech can be found here.

I was very impressed with Malcolm Chisholm MSP and not just becuase he said some nice things about the fiscal power papers I had a part in drafting for Reform Scotland.  He also summed up nicely why is there is so little support for the Scotland Bill including it seemed at this conference.  His argument was a simple one.  Those who should be campaigning for this Bill are not doing so mainly because there is almost nothing positive to say about it.

Next to a worrying story from BBC News.  I am not sure what is more worrying. The fact that MPs had to put a senior official under oath or that civil servants get paid bonuses.

Members of the Commons Public Accounts committee felt they had been unable to get answers from Anthony Inglese, HMRC’s senior lawyer, so they took the highly unusual step of making him swear an oath to tell the truth.  Parliamentary staff said that nobody had been asked to swear an oath by a parliamentary committee for more than a decade.

The session before the committee was part of an inquiry into tax deals negotiated by HMRC with Vodafone and Goldman Sachs.  The full story can be found here.  An earlier story from the Guardian on the background to this can be found here.

Back to the fiscal powers debate.  Not surprised to hear that the UK Government has already ruled out giving the Scottish Parliament even partial control over corporation tax.  Graham Gudgin made the claim while giving evidence to the Scotland Bill committee.  He said he had “reliable information” that the tax power would not be given to Scotland “under any circumstances”.

As I mentioned in my speech earlier this week it seems that the UK Government is just not interested in adding any powers to the Scotland Bill or dealing with some niggly issues such as a tax exemption  for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games.

I see that the Scottish Government are again asking the UK Government to reduce VAT on home repairs and renovations.  I am wondering why they are still not referring to the situation in the Isle of Man.  If anyone from the Scottish Government is reading this you might want to have a look at this.

Now to North Sea revenue and a report by Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce. The 15th Oil and Gas survey said confidence and investment were still being dented by the changes announced in this year’s UK Budget. More than half of oil and gas operators surveyed believe the Budget’s £2bn industry tax hike has harmed North Sea investment.  The supplementary tax on North Sea oil production rose from 20% to 32% to fund a cut in UK government fuel duty.

Have a good weekend.