This is the text of my speech to this morning’s Scotland Bill conference.

Good morning.

I recently resigned as a trustee of Reform Scotland.  Pressure of work and joining the board of the Borders Chamber of Commerce were the main reasons.  I did though also want a break from this debate.

That though has allowed me to take a step back.  What I have noticed is how quickly the debate is now moving.  The term “devo max” is suddenly everywhere.  The debate is not now confined to Scotland.  It has taken a while but London is now taking a real interest.  Then there is Eurozone crisis and the debate over how much fiscal union is needed where you have monetary union.  The analogy between the UK’s relationship with the EU and Scotland’s relationship with the UK is an obvious one.

Back to the small matter of the Scotland Bill.  My interest starts with the fact that I am a lawyer.  I want to know about the legislation.  I want to know how and by whom the tax will be collected.  Is someone asking for a right to vary a tax or to have complete control of a tax.  What about the underlying and connected legislation.  These questions should remind us how complicated devolving powers can be.

I will cover four points today.

1. The Scotland Bill is Calman minus;
2. learning from experience and is “HMRC fit for purpose”;
3. institutions as a missing element of the debate; and finally
4. there was a better option.

The Scotland Bill is Calman minus.

People forget that the interim Calman report recommended almost no fiscal or tax powers.   The final report contained a small number including the controversial income tax proposal.  The Scotland Bill is meant to be based on the Calman report but what happened to air passenger duty and aggregates levy?

Air passenger duty was not included as it seems to be under constant review; however, the UK Government has indicated that parts of air passenger duty may be devolved to Northern Ireland.

Aggregates levy was not included because of an action raised in the European Courts by a trade body.

We have been told that these minor taxes might be included at a future date.  There is no reason for a delay.  The Scottish element of these taxes should simply be carved out of the relevant UK legislation.  Then leave it up to the Scottish Parliament to decide what to do next.

In addition Calman recommended that 50% of income tax on savings and distributions was to have been assigned to the Scottish Parliament.   Why 50%?  As with the income tax proposal no-one can give any justification for that figure.  This power has been dropped from the Scotland Bill completely.

Then there is the debate over adding additional tax powers to the Scotland Bill.

The previous Scotland Bill committee said that some powers over corporation tax should be included if Northern Ireland is granted any such powers.  Up until recently it looked as if Northern Ireland would soon be getting this power.

The Scottish Government have also produced papers on adding corporation tax, alcohol duty and control over the Crown Estate to the Scotland Bill.

I think it is fair to say that none of these suggested additions have been taken up enthusiastically by the Scottish Secretary.

Some powers might actually be re-reserved such as parts of insolvency and charity law.  The Scottish Parliament is at fault on insolvency by not updating the law.

Instead of arguing about re-reserving part of our charity law why was it not agreed that when OSCR registers a charity it automatically becomes entitled to the various charity tax reliefs.  Presently you also have to make an application to HMRC.  There is a lot of talk about tax simplification.  This was an obvious opportunity missed.

So which tax powers are we left with?

Two minor taxes, SDLT and landfill tax, and an income tax proposal that some commentators think is unworkable.   I will leave it to the accountants and economists to argue back and forth on that one.  That said, as a lawyer I would not start this process with income tax unless you devolve the tax in its entirety.  Only VAT is more complicated.    The longer I have been involved in this debate the less inclined I am to argue for a tax to be shared between parliaments.

The other problem is an eggs and baskets one.   Income tax is just one economic lever albeit a major one.  We have seen what has happened to income tax receipts during the current economic crisis.

Also a right to vary a tax is not much of a power on its own.  What about the underlying law that allows you to create reliefs or vary the tax base. What about connected legislation that affects the tax legislation.  For example for income tax: the tax residency rules or employment legislation.

To change tack for a minute.  What do I like about the Scotland Bill?  The borrowing powers provisions have been improved.   The way the two minor taxes are being devolved makes sense.  They are being carved out of the UK legislation and the Scottish Government are to draft a new Scottish act.  One word of warning on the drafting.  Who is drafting this legislation? What experience do they have in drafting tax law?

I also like the fact that the Scottish Parliament will be able to create new taxes albeit with Treasury approval.

Moving quickly on.  I always think it is a good idea to see how things have been done in the recent past.  What can we learn?  Given the importance of HMRC to this process I also want to discuss whether HMRC is presently fit for purpose.

I will start with HMRC.   I do have quite a bit of sympathy for them just now.  Can you imagine them being told: “I know we are cutting job numbers and your budget.  I know we are already asking you to do a number of new things but can you also deal with the Scotland Bill.”  You can see why HMRC do not treat this matter with much if any enthusiasm.

Is HMRC fit for purpose?  The House of Commons Treasury select committee thinks not.   A further £1.6bn is to be cut from its budget over the next four years.  10,000 more job losses.  Offices are to close.  This is in addition to the cut of approximately 30% in staff numbers and budget since 2004.  I will not even attempt today to answer the question of whether the UK tax system is fit for purpose.

It is though not just staff numbers and budget.   The centralisation of the administration of various taxes is causing problems for us in Scotland.  Two examples.  Birmingham for SDLT.  Nottingham for inheritance tax.

Why is this important?  UK tax law applies English & Welsh legal principles.  Property law and succession law are governed by Scots law.  These can conflict.  In addition, as these taxes are now primarily dealt with in England the amount of Scottish expertise has declined.   One example.  The guidance for SDLT in Scotland had to be written by a sub-committee of the Law Society of Scotland’s tax committee.

Then there is the news that as part of the HMRC cutbacks the Edinburgh Stamp Office is under threat of closure again.  The Trusts and Estates office in Edinburgh is being run down.   I have not heard one Scottish politician ask questions about this.

Now three examples of why I am not confident that this will be done be well.

Remember also that these examples are from a time when HMRC was better staffed and resourced.  Also it is not just HMRC that needs to do better.  The Scottish Government also needs to raise its game.

It has been well documented as to how much of a shambles the introduction of SDLT in Scotland was.   I was at meetings where HMRC openly said they did not realise that Scotland’s property law was different to English property law.  They also made it clear that they did not have time to change the legislation.  “Don’t worry we will have plenty of time to sort things out later”, they said.  The only reason that SDLT worked in Scotland was due to the goodwill and pragmatism of the Scottish legal community.

Then there was the proposal for a UK wide planning-gain supplement.  This was also pre-recession and the debate was all about how much should developers contribute.   I remember my first meeting with HMRC and Treasury officials about this.  The meeting started well with me saying: “I hope you make a better job of this than you did with SDLT”.

Again the level of knowledge of Scots law and which powers the Scottish Parliament had was not great.  My main argument against a UK planning-gain supplement was a simple one.  This was a matter for the Scottish Parliament as planning and housing are devolved matters.   A point so obvious that they said it had never occurred to them.  Maybe, maybe not!

This debate went on for many months but finally the proposal in Scotland was dropped.

My third example is I suspect the one you are most familiar with.  The Scottish Government’s local income tax proposal.  I remember being asked about this 2007 SNP manifesto commitment.  I made three points:

1. Why do you think HMRC will cooperate and work to your deadlines?
2. What about Council Tax Benefit?  I pointed out that the Treasury have withheld attendance allowance funding since the Scottish Parliament introduced free personal and nursing care.
3. This proposal relied on the yet unused tax varying powers.  Is 3p in the pound adequate I asked? Is there even a list of Scottish taxpayers?

I was not surprised when the Scottish Government dropped, possibly temporarily, this proposal.

Ironically this proposal will be soon be possible as under the Scotland Bill the tax varying powers are increased and Council Tax benefit powers are likely to be devolved in 2013.   Whether HMRC would cooperate is of course another matter entirely.

Now to institutions.

The Scottish Parliament is going to need an Exchequer.  An Exchequer that ideally combines the functions presently undertaken by HMRC and the Treasury.   Even under the limited powers contained in the Scotland Bill the Scottish Government will need an Exchequer not just a finance department.  Hopefully the Scottish Government is already thinking about this.

Does Scotland need a separate Stamp Office, Registers of Scotland, Trusts and Estates Office and Companies House?  Of course not.  Why not create a one stop shop to combine these and other government tax, legal and registration services.   By doing this we could also have sub-offices.  Just as London is not the UK Edinburgh is not Scotland.  Remember some benefit powers are already to be devolved in 2013.  Why not create a tax and benefits office?

As far as institutions go we pretty much have a blank sheet of paper.  Let’s not waste this once in a lifetime opportunity.

A few final points.

It is all very well for me to criticise the Scotland Bill.  Do I have or rather had I a better option?  Yes I think I did.

When I started looking at the fiscal powers question my starting point was to look at which powers were already devolved.  The starting point for the Calman Commission was very different and much has already been written about that.

The imbalance in the powers of the Scottish Parliament is obvious.  The Scottish Parliament is responsible for 60% of government spending in Scotland but only has control over 7% of all tax raised in Scotland.  That is the starting point for the debate on financial accountability.

The Scottish Parliament had very few economic levers.  It only has two local taxes out of over 20 taxes and duties.

The lack of tax and fiscal powers also affects policy making.  For example the recent debate on alcohol minimum pricing.  I am sure the Scottish Government would prefer to use alcohol duty if it had the power to do so.

So what to do?

Instead of spending so much time trying to devolve income tax I would have firstly devolved the taxes and duties that are closely connected with already devolved areas of responsibility.

Some examples.

• Property law is devolved but SDLT and the property parts of capital gains tax are not.
• Succession law is devolved but inheritance tax is not.
• Environmental law is devolved but the environmental taxes are not.
• Health is devolved but alcohol and tobacco duties are not.
• Transport is devolved but transport related taxes are not.

This increases the number of economic levers and would greatly help with joined up policy development.   Almost all of the miscellaneous taxes could be devolved under this option.

I would also give the Scottish Parliament the power to decide which of, and when the miscellaneous taxes and duties are devolved.

The other advantage less commented upon is how this would simplify the taxation system of the rest of the UK as less specific “Scottish” guidance would be required.

The point of how small a percentage of revenue the Scottish Parliament raises is though not resolved.  The Scotland Bill takes us to about a third.  Devolving the majority of the minor taxes takes us to about a quarter.

Only be devolving one or more of the big “5” can this be dealt with.  VAT cannot be devolved.   National Insurance is very closely linked with benefits which is still primarily a UK matter.

That leaves corporation tax, North Sea revenue and income tax.  On balance I would go for corporation tax and North Sea revenue as income tax is so closely linked with national insurance.

On timing I also think that the miscellaneous taxes and duties could be devolved relatively quickly.    The Scottish Parliament could also agree that for a period of up to two years to not change any tax that is devolved.  That would provide a degree of certainty.

Also why does the Scotland Bill not make provision for a tax exemption for our Commonwealth Games and as is already in place for next year’s London Olympics.   Or deal with the fossil fuel levy issue.

Last point.  The Scottish Government should deal directly with the UK Government and in particular HMRC and the Treasury.   The Scotland Office is simply a further complication.

Although this is complicated it is also a great opportunity.  Is the opportunity still there?  I am not sure.  But we would not be Scottish if we did not try to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat right at the last moment.

Thank you.

Let’s start with the proposal for a Financial Transaction Tax.  The Archbishop of Canterbury has now come out in support of this.   Even at this early stage there are a number of obvious questions.  Just the Eurozone countries? All of the European Union?  Wider?  Who will it apply to, buyer or seller or both? Who will collect it?  Who will administer it?  What happens to taxes such as UK stamp duty which is a financial transaction tax.  All financial transactions?  Do you look to where the parties or the assets are located?  What if any reliefs will apply?  Think that is enough for now.

Now to the fiscal powers debate.  First to Labour.  Ed Milliband said this week that “devo max” is not the right option for Scotland.  This places him at odds with other senior members of the Labour party in Scotland.  Labour MP and candidate for the Scottish Labour leadership contest Tom Harris argued that a permanent ‘Calman Commission’ should be set up to ensure devolution was constantly monitored.  Mr Harris also suggested that such a commission should have a remit that would allow powers to be handed back to Westminster.

The Liberals also announced another commission on fiscal powers for Scotland.  This one is to be named “Home Rule”.  A favourite term of the Liberals.  Between 1889 and 1914 four Bills advocating Scottish “Home Rule” were defeated.  In 1913 a Home Rule Bill passed its second reading, however World War I intervened and the idea was dropped.  Menzies Campbell is in charge of the latest commission.  One question that does need  to be asked.  Are the Liberals updating the well regarded Steel Commission or are they starting from scratch?  I also find it interesting that each of those mentioned above is an MP.

Three Scottish local authorities have been given the green light to raise funds for infrastructure projects.  The Scottish Government this week approved the schemes to be developed under the tax incremental financing model.  This allows councils to borrow against the likely business rate gains that will result from an infrastructure project.  The article from the Scotsman can be found here.

Now to air passenger duty.  It seems that this tax is in the news every week.  The Scotsman reported that aviation bosses have launched a scathing attack on a planned increase in air passenger duty.   The heads of 12 airports sent an open letter to UK Chancellor George Osborne warning that the increase next year will further stifle the aviation industry at a time when passenger numbers are flat-lining.  As I have blogged before the three Scottish airports are  supporting a campaign for air passenger duty to be devolved.

Now to the never ending battle between the UK tax authorities and those seeking to avoid paying tax.  In case you don’t realise how serious an issue this is remember the situation Greece is now in.  HMRC have created a new 200 strong team of investigators and specialists who it is said will use new and innovative risk assessment techniques to identify areas where wealthy individuals are avoiding and evading taxes and duties.  One of the first groups being targeted is wealthy individuals who own land and property abroad.

HMRC has published an updated Inheritance Tax Toolkit effective for deaths occurring from 6 April 2010. Updates include emphasising the importance of providing HMRC with a copy of the will and any codicils when submitting the form IHT400.

These toolkits provide guidance on areas of error that HMRC frequently see in returns and set out the steps that you can take to reduce those errors.

The toolkits can be found here.

Two main taxation topics from the SNP conference.  Not supprisingly North sea oil and gas taxation was one.  One reason for this are the recent announcements that over half of the North sea and oil gas reserves remain.  That alone ensures that this issue will play a major part in the independence referendum.  The House of Commons Energy and Climate Change select committee has also this week criticised the UK Government’s recent “£10bn raid on North Sea oil profits”.

The other taxation issue that received a lot of coverage was the independent referendum and the number of options given.  The main question will be a yes or no to independence.  It is though a possible second question that has ignited so much debate.  A possible second question is likely to be a yes or no to greater fiscal and tax powers, but short of independence, for the Scottish Parliament.  How “short” is the tricky part.  There are a lot of options between the Scotland Bill proposals and full fiscal autonomy.

The press have termed this option “devo max”.  As one of the authors of Reform Scotland’s “fiscal power” papers I can confirm that one of the hardest issues is trying to find a suitable title.  Other terms commonly used are: fiscal responsibility, “home rule” and fiscal autonomy.  It will be interesting to see this debate develop.  Lots of questions.  Some of these include:

1. what is “devo max”?

2. who is going to define it?

3. who is going to campaign for it?

4. would the UK Government abide by a vote in favour of “devo max” but not independence?

5. what are the estimated costs and timescales?

Now to Europe and the latest agreement by the Eurozone countries.  One likely outcome of this crisis is that the  Eurozone countries will begin the process to more closely align their tax and fiscal policies.  Most commentators now seem to be saying that if you have a common currency you also need similar tax and fiscal regimes.  How “similar” is going to cause a lot of debate.  The debate has of course already started.  I have blogged previously on how hard the Irish government are fighting to retain its low rate of corporation tax.   It is not difficult to see the similarities with the Scottish independence debate as the  Scottish Government’s prefernce is to retain Sterling in the event of independence.

The debate over whether to retain the 50p rate of income tax was reignited this week when Paul Walsh, chief executive of Diageo, said that: “the 50p rate threatened to cause long term damage to Britain’s competitive edge”.  Paul Walsh’s comments contrast with those of Sir Stuart Rose, the former head of Marks and Spencer’s, who has supported the 50p rate.   George Osborne has of course commissioned a study on the revenues being received from the 50p rate.  That said, the debate is much wider than just the question of how much revenue is being raised.  The debate is just as much about the perceived fairness of the UK’s tax system.  It was ever thus.

Now to the so called “Retail tax levy”.  The Scottish Retail Commission claim that the proposed levy on major supermarkets selling alcohol and cigarettes breaches the Scottish Government’s own business rules by not carrying out an impact study on any such change.  The Scottish Government responded that as the levy only affects 0.1% of retail turnover the cost of a Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment would be disproportionate.  This debate is going to run and run I suspect.

Now to Aberdeen and the news that the first phase of work to improve Aberdeen city centre has begun.  More than two thirds of firms in the area voted in favour of a Business Improvement District earlier this year.  The companies agreed to pay into a fund with the aim of raising more than £3m for work to help attract more visitors.  The first phase of work includes cleaning guttering and building facades to help improve the city centre in the run-up to Christmas.

Have a good weekend.

Firstly to Belarus and Tax Information Exchange Agreements.  It was reported in this month’s STEP Journal that Belarusian human rights campaigner Ales Belyatsky has been arrested.  He was arrested soon after the Polish authorities gave the Belarusian authorities information relating to his bank accounts.   The Belarusian authorities had described him as a suspect in a tax investigation.  The Poles treated this as a routine request and handed over full details of his bank accounts.  He has been charged with tax evasion via a foreign bank account.  Belyatsky says the foreign bank account is used only to collect foreign contributions to his political movement.  The Polish Government has admitted it should not have disclosed Belyatsky’s bank details and has sacked the director and deputy head of its international cooperation department.

HMRC announced this week that approximately six million people are set to receive tax rebates averaging £400.  Another million people will learn they have underpaid their tax by about £600.  It is the second year that tax and National Insurance discrepancies have been identified by a new computer system.  HMRC said that the number of cases would reduce “as the new system beds in”.  Those who will be told they have not paid enough tax are expected to owe between £500 and £600 on average.  In a similar exercise last year, HMRC were criticised for being insensitive over their treatment of underpayers.  Another example of the complexity surrounding the UK tax system.

The Scottish Government announced a consultation on giving local authorities new powers to tax empty homes. The proposals would give local authorities the power to impose an extra levy of up to 100% of the standard charge. It is hoped that this could help raise millions of pounds to build new affordable houses.  The announcement stated that 25,000 properties have been empty for more than six months and are liable to pay council tax.  In Glasgow there are over 1,800 empty homes.  It is also claimed that if every local authority decide to use these powers they could raise up to £30 million per year.  I wrote about the connected issue of how local authorities are using funds gained from reducing the council tax discount in an earlier tax blog.  This blog can be found here.

This is something I have not come across before.  The Intergenerational Foundation called for tax breaks to encourage downsizing and help free up some of the estimated 25 million unused bedrooms in England.  The charity says that older people should be encouraged to move into smaller homes to help tackle England’s housing crisis.  The UK Government did not respond positively to this proposal.

Both sides in the battle over what independent schools have to do to justify their charitable status claimed victory last week.  The Independent Schools Council and the England and Wales Charity Commission are each claiming that the decision of the Upper Tax Tribunal vindicates their position. A similar debate is taking place in Scotland.  The tax issue here is the fact charities have a number of tax advantages including rates relief.

Now to the fiscal powers debate. Interesting to see Malcolm Chisholm MSP openly reject the Calman proposals. His comments mirror views recently expressed by former First Minister Henry McLeish.  Malcolm Chisholm is the first serving Labour MSP to openly reject the Calman proposals. The Scottish Government has renewed its call for control over Air Passenger Duty after the UK Government cut air passenger duty for Northern Ireland.  I also suspect that the Scotland Bill may be mentioned once or twice at the SNP conference which began yesterday.  The announcement that North Sea oil production will continue to at least 2050 ensures that oil and gas tax revenue is back at the top of the political agenda.

I have been asked to speak at Holyrood Magazine’s Scotland Bill conference on 8 November.  More information can be found here.  I can already hear myself saying: “does Scotland need a separate Registers of Scotland, Stamp Office, Companies House and Inheritance Tax office? Then again I have been making that point for 5 years now and no-one seems to be listening.

Have a good weekend.

Firstly to Australia.  Australia’s House of Representatives has narrowly voted in favour of the Clean Energy Bill.  The Bill was passed by 74 votes to 72.   The tax will be introduced on 1 July next year.  The Australian Government plans to tax the carbon pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels including coal and petroleum.   The closeness of the vote and George Osborne’s comments at his party conference show how far the carbon tax debate has still to run.

Rafael Nadal has defended his decision not to compete next year at the traditional pre-Wimbledon warm up at Queens.  It was also recently reported that Usain Bolt is not going to compete in the UK before the London Olympics.   They each claim that if they compete they would be out of pocket due to UK tax rules.  Under UK tax rules foreign sports stars are taxed on a proportion of their entire global income rather than the just the money they earn in the UK.

The UK Government shows no sign of changing these rules although it is worth remembering that a concession was made for the 2010 Champuons League final at Wembley.  The concession, announced in the 2010 budget was a key condition laid down by UEFA for staging the final.  A similar concession is in place for next year’s Olympics.  What though of the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow?

More bad publicity for HMRC.  Dave Hartnett, permanent secretary for tax at HMRC is facing demands to quit after being accused of lying over a deal that spared Goldman Sachs a multimillion pound tax bill for its bankers’ bonuses. The article from the Independent can be found here.

The most interesting fiscal powers announcement this week comes from Wales.   The Secretary of State for Wales, Cheryl Gillian has announced the composition of a commission to assess the way that Wales is funded.  This could result in the Welsh Assembly being granted borrowing and tax raising powers.   The Commission will be led by Paul Silk, a former clerk to the Welsh Assembly.  The fact that I have mentioned Wales gives me the chance to wish them all the best tomorrow.

The announcement that BP is to to go ahead with a £4.5bn project off Shetland re-ignited the debate over the UK Government’s recent decision to raise the supplementary tax on North Sea oil production from 20% to 32%.  Claim and counterclaim over how much oil is left or whose oil this is will no doubt continue in the run up to the independence referendum.  The amount of coverage that this announcement received shows how important the oil industry is to the UK economy and in particular the tax take for the UK Treasury.

And finally, a little bit of good news from Europe.  The European Commission has published a report showing that EU member states’ tax revenues are rising again after a marked fall in 2008 and 2009.

Have a good weekend.

Tax stories from all four home nations and Denmark this week.

I will though start with some facts and figures.  It was reported this week that the average pensioner household paid £5,124 in tax over the past year.  That means the average UK pensioner household pays out 27% of its income to HMRC.  That is a combination of direct and indirect taxes which add up to an annual tax bill of more than £34 billion.   Further evidence of how large a contribution this age group contributes to national and local government finances.

Now to Wales and the Welsh Government’s introduction of a plastic bag tax.   Anyone who wants a plastic container to carry their shopping in will need to pay a 5p levy for the privilege.  They will also need to pay for plastic packaging for fast food items.

Staying with fast food but moving to Denmark.  Denmark has introduced what is believed to be the world’s first “fat tax”.  They have introduced a surcharge on foods that are high in saturated fat.  Butter, milk, cheese, pizza, meat, oil and processed food are now subject to the tax if they contain more than 2.3% saturated fat.  The UK Government are also considering such a tax the Scottish Government are not.  The  Scottish Government plans to work with manufacturers instead.

Now to Edinburgh and the latest local politician to suggest a tax change.   This time it is Colin Keir SNP MSP for Edinburgh Western.  His idea is to cut VAT rates for the tourism and golf services industry and as presently happens in Ireland.

There were this week a number of interesting announcements on additional tax powers for the Scottish Parliament.  The Scottish Government has called for the revenue from alcohol duty to be devolved to Scotland.  That makes sense when you consider that health is already devolved.  What though of tobacco duty?  Also why is the Scottish Government simply asking for this revenue to be assigned to it but not the power to vary duty rates or control over the underlying law?  I suspect that this “request” will receive the same reaction from the UK Government as the call for control of corporation tax and the Crown Estate.

More interesting was the call from a group of newly elected Tory MPs for the Scottish Parliament to have full tax raising powers in a book billed as the way forward for the Conservative Party.

Mixed news for Northern Ireland on fiscal powers this week.  Looks as if it will be given some Air Passenger Duty powers but that the devolving of some restricted powers over corporation tax will be at best delayed.

Few surprises at the Tory conference.   George Osborne confirms the English Council tax freeze and that there will be no temporary tax cuts.  This almost certainly means no change to the 50p rate of income tax or VAT.   The Tories also confirmed their opposition to a European Union financial transactions tax.  Iain Duncan Smith did though go off message when he called for breaks for the poor and married couples.

Interesting article in the Scotland on Sunday on HMRC’s power to inspect the tax records of small businesses.

HMRC has confirmed that it is proceeding with its programme to inspect the tax records of small businesses despite facing a barrage of criticism since a pilot was first announced in March.

The article questions whether HMRC has the power to impose a fine of up to £3,000 if  the tax records of a small business are not up to date.

I agree with the comment by Colin Borland of the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland: “If businesses received guidance rather than fines the checks could be a positive move, but in their current form they were creating alarm among many small business.”

The article can be found here.

A week that saw HMRC step up pressure on Rangers FC, calls for a tax on “junk food” in The Lancet and reports on how Bonn uses a  meter to tax its prostitutes.  I did like the argument put forward against the use of this meter by a prostitutes’ rights activist: “double taxation”.

The Liberal Democrats are making almost all of the running on tax ideas and policy just now.  The debate, for debate read argument, over whether to retain the present top rate of income tax and/or introduce a “mansion tax” continues between the partners in the UK coalition government.  In addition the Liberals are calling for a proper examination of how a “land tax” might work.

Attendees of last night’s annual CBI Scotland dinner heard, in between the odd constitutional reference, its UK President Sir Roger Carr, criticise the UK’s “punitive” tax regime and HM Treasury’s “misguided” levy on North Sea oil production.

Not surprised to hear of HMRC’s role in the “Mortgage Verification Scheme” and that it is to start scaling back its “time to pay policy”.  That is a scheme that allows a businesses additional time to pay its tax bill.

Surprised that those calling for a reduced rate of VAT on home repairs and renovations are not making more use of the fact that the Isle of Man has negotiated such an agreement with HM Treasury.

Not a dull week.