Case from the Court of Appeal for England and Wales concerning a sale of freehold property in the West Midlands. The central issue for the court was whether VAT was payable on the purchase price.

The Purchase Price was defined in the contract as being £130k (no mention was made of VAT in the definition). However, the contract also incorporated the Standard Conditions of Sale[1] (4^th Edition) except where they were in conflict with the express terms of the contract.

Clause 1.4 of the Standard Conditions provides:

“1.4.1   An obligation to pay money includes an obligation to pay any value added tax chargeable in respect of that payment.

1.4.2     All sums made payable by the contract are exclusive of value added tax.”

Contracts were exchanged and the transaction completed in August 2006. CLP, the seller, opted to tax and became liable to pay VAT on the transaction. HMRC raised a notice of assessment in late 2007. In March 2008 CLP’s solicitors wrote to the purchasers’ solicitors indicating that the purchasers were liable to pay the VAT due (£22,750) to CLP. The purchasers failed to pay and CLP raised proceedings against them.

The court noted that the only reasonable interpretation of clause 1.4 was that the purchasers would have liability for any VAT. Also, previous case law provided powerful support for CLP’s argument that the purchase price of £130k was exclusive of VAT and that the purchasers were liable for any VAT due on the transaction.

However, the analysis did not end with the ascertainment of the meaning of clause 1.4; the contract had to be interpreted as a whole in the light of all the circumstances of the parties’ relationship and the relevant facts surrounding the transaction known to them. In that regard the following points were relevant.

It was never suggested that CLP ever communicated to the purchasers that it had exercised the option to tax.

1. The purchasers were individuals and, whilst the property was commercial, there had never been any suggestion that they were aware or had any reason to suppose that the transaction might be subject to a VAT charge.
2. The purchase price for the property had been agreed in principle a considerable time before completion and had been paid over by the purchasers to CLP by, at the latest, 2005. There was never any suggestion that VAT might be payable, still less that the purchasers would be liable for it. To the contrary, a letter from CLP’s solicitors in March 2006 contained an express acknowledgement that CLP had received “all of the sale monies of £130,000 on this matter, subject to contract”.
3. The standard requisitions had asked for details of the exact amount payable on completion and had elicited the response: “Balance of purchase monies”. No hint was given that VAT was or might be payable.
4. The contract provided that the “Purchase price” was £130k. It contained no indication that this price was exclusive of VAT. Indeed it was clear that this and no other sum was due upon completion because the contract included a table in which details of any “Other payments/ allowances” could have been (but were not) included. Moreover, and importantly, the contract provided that where there was any conflict between the express terms of the contract and the Standard Conditions, the express terms of the contract would prevail.

Taking all these matters into consideration the Court took the view that a reasonable person would have understood the parties to have intended that nothing was or could become payable by the purchasers over and above the specified purchase price of £130k.

Notably, in the particular circumstances of the case, the court found that it was not possible to interpret “Purchase price” as the price exclusive of VAT. As such, it considered that a reasonable person would consider that the express terms of the contract were not reconcilable with clause 1.4 of the Standard Conditions. In those circumstances, the court held that the express terms of the contract had to prevail.

The full judgement is available from BAILII here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.

The First-tier tax Tribunal in Edinburgh has ruled ‘snowballs’ should be classed as cakes and therefore be zero-rated for VAT.

This is from the decision:

“A snowball looks like a cake. It is not out of place on a plate full of cakes. A snowball has the mouth feel of a cake. Most people would want to enjoy a beverage of some sort whilst consuming it. It would often be eaten in a similar way to cakes; for example to celebrate a birthday in an office. We are wholly agreed that a snowball is a confection to be savoured but not whilst walking around or, for example, in the street. Most people would prefer to be sitting when eating a snowball and possibly, or preferably, depending on background, age, sex etc with a plate, a napkin or a piece of paper or even just a bare table so that the pieces of coconut which fly off do not create a great deal of mess. Although by no means everyone considers a snowball to be a cake we find that these facts, in particular, mean that a snowball has sufficient characteristics to be characterised as a cake.”

The full decision can be found here.

“Purpose of the Brief

This Brief explains a number of changes relating to the transfer of a business as a going concern (TOGC):

• a change in HM Revenue & Customs’ (HMRC’s) policy on whether the surrender of a property lease can be a VAT-free TOGC
• to clarify the scope of certain aspects of the policy change announced in RC Brief 30/12
• to explain a change in policy concerning TOGCs of new residential and relevant charitable developments.”

“Scotland

For the purposes of this Brief all references to ‘surrender’ of a lease include the renunciation of a lease in Scotland, all references to ‘assignment’ of a lease include the assignation of a lease in Scotland and all references to a ‘reversion’ retained by a transferor include the heritable title retained by the landlord in Scotland.”

The full “Brief” can be found here.

I was asked this week to comment on some of the initial tax related issues that the Scottish Parliament might have to consider if Scotland votes ‘YES’.

The first comment I made was that the Scottish Parliament should pretty much enact the UK tax system on independence.  The Scottish Parliament should then take its time in deciding what to keep and what to change.  That said, there are a number of matters it might have to look at early on.

Let’s start with VAT.  Only if Scotland becomes independent will it have control, or at least as much control as is possible, of VAT.  The Scottish Parliament could reduce the VAT rate on home repairs and renovations to 5%.  Something our building industry has long been arguing for.  The Scottish Parliament could also ensure that Police and Fire & Rescue Scotland can recover their VAT costs.  This is something the UK Treasury has so far resisted.

The Scottish Parliament could look again at what constitutes a charity in Scotland and with that which entities should receive the associated tax and other benefits.  “Private” or “independent” schools for example.  This is an issue that should not just be left to OSCR, the body that regulates charities in Scotland.

Then there is the debate surrounding a European Union “financial transaction tax”.  An independent Scotland will have to consider its position on this.  If a number of European countries decide to go ahead with this then the Scottish Parliament will have to decide if it wants to join them.  One option could be to agree to a FTT and at the same time abolish stamp duty on shares.

Now to environmental taxes.  The Scottish Parliament might want to consider introducing a carbon tax.  The debate in Australia shows how difficult this might be.   Independence does though mean tough decisions.

Then there is local taxation.  I am sure “Land Value Tax” supporters will be pressing their case even more strongly if Scotland votes ‘YES’.

Now to administration.  Lots of opportunities here for simplifying things. There is no need for Scotland to have a separate Companies House, Stamp Office and Registers of Scotland.  “One stop shops” for the services provided by these bodies is a minimum of what we could do.  We could even create “tax and benefits” centres throughout the country that are based in our local authority buildings.

Then there is “tax avoidance” and “tax evasion”.  The Scottish Parliament could consider publishing at least a summary of each tax return or legislate for published beneficial ownership registers.

Just a few thoughts.

Where to start?  I think I will start with the Scottish Futures Trust.  I remember well the negative reaction to the SFT when it was first proposed.  The coverage the SFT has received this week shows how much things have changed.  The fact that the long term costs of PFI are now widely known also shows how good an idea the SFT was.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

This raises another issue.  Notwithstanding the fiscal powers debate it is clear Scotland is increasingly doing things its own way.  On areas such as health or education the differences are well documented.  Now Scotland is to have its own food standards agency and a new governing body for the Scottish canals.  This is not because of Calman or the Scotland Act but because of the actions of the UK Government.  Add to this the Revenue Scotland announcement and you see the direction in which things are moving.

Now to a subject I have written about before, the Crown Estate.  It is now difficult to find someone against devolving control over the Crown Estate in Scotland to the Scottish Parliament other than the present UK Government.  If the UK Government is not even willing to cede control over this body to the Scottish Parliament then it is easy to accuse them of not seriously engaging in the fiscal powers debate.  A report on the latest ploy by the UK Government to not devolve control of the Crown Estate to the Scottish Parliament can be found here.

Now to the UK Government’s so called “Heritage tax”.  “The Heritage Alliance is disappointed that the UK Government has refused – despite widespread opposition and strong challenges to the rigour of its evidence base – to reconsider its Budget proposal to remove zero rating of VAT on approved alterations to listed buildings.”  No sign yet of a u-turn on this proposal.  More on this can be found here.

The Sunday Times recently reported that Scottish Government advisor Dr Andrew Cameron has advised that a tax break, which would allow wealthy landowners and investors to plant trees in exchange for tax offsets, would help Scotland meet its forest coverage goals. That would of course require further tax powers to be devolved if this was to be just a Scottish tax relief.  Let’s also not forget that the last attempt at something like this was a complete shambles.  Hopefully if this idea is revisited lessons will have been learned.  A story on this issue from 2002 can be found here.

Now to the “shared services” debate.  The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has found that a Whitehall scheme to share resources across departments has cost hundreds of millions of pounds more than it saved.  The scheme ran £500 million over budget, costing £1.4 billion, and of the five departments that took part, only one broke even.  A report on this from the Telegraph can be found here.  Sadly I am not surprised with this report.

Aggregates Levy is one of two other miscellaneous taxes recommended for devolving to the Scottish Parliament under the Calman Commission.  The other being Air Passenger Duty.  The UK Government has so far resisted devolving Aggregates Levy due to a European Court action by the British Aggregates Association.  An update on this from HMRC can be found here.  The UK Government are fast running out of excuses for not devolving Aggregates Levy.

I was not surprised to read that many elderly farmers are working long past retirement age because they fear losing agricultural property relief (APR).  APR is likely to reduce their liability to inheritance tax.  Their worries have been prompted by HMRC’s tactics of challenging APR on farmhouses at every opportunity.  A report on this from the STEP journal can be found here.

Now to matters slightly further afield.

The European Commission’s Brussels IV proposal to simplify the settlement of international successions has received the final backing of the European Union’s Council of Justice Ministers.  The regulation will come into force in 2015 and will apply directly in all member states, other than Denmark and the opting-out members UK and Ireland.  Hopefully this is something that the UK and Ireland will consider again in the near future.  A report on this from the European Commission can be found here.

Now to France.  As expected, France’s new Socialist government has announced a series of increases in personal and business taxation.  They include new wealth taxes and a tax on foreign owners of holiday homes.  A similar idea was floated last year by the Sarkozy administration but it was dropped when the French Government was advised that such a tax would not survive a challenge under European Union anti-discrimination legislation. Hollande may believe he can avoid this by calling the levy a “social charge” rather than a tax.  A report on this from the STEP journal can be found here.

The New York Times has published an article describing just how easy it is to set up a Delaware shell company without disclosing its beneficial ownership.  This is something that the US Government has regularly pilloried many other countries for.  Apparently Delaware has more corporate entities than people.  The article from the New York Times can be found here.

A Berkshire man has been convicted of evading £430,000 inheritance tax on a Swiss bank account he held jointly with his mother.  HMRC obtained Michael Shanly’s account details from the French authorities, who had bought them from a former employee of HSBC Geneva, who had stolen them from the bank.  This is a good example of the increasing co-operation between European countries and the increasing effectiveness of HMRC.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

Australia has introduced its highly controversial carbon tax, after years of bitter political wrangling.  The law forces about 300 of the worst-polluting firms to pay a A$23 (£15; $24) levy for every tonne of greenhouse gases they produce.  The Australian Government says the tax is needed to meet climate-change obligations of Australia – the highest emitter per-head in the developed world.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.  The environmental taxation debate in the UK, in contrast, has slipped down the political agenda over the last few years.

I think I will end with Cyprus.  The Cyprus government will not agree to cut its 10% corporation tax rate in order to secure a European rescue of its banking sector and public finances.  Cyprus may though have to agree to a further VAT increase as part of these negotiations.  Cyprus is taking a similar stance to the one taken by Ireland over the last couple of years.  A report on this can be found here.

Have a good weekend.

Time for another “tax land”.

Where to start?  Jersey seems as good a place as any.  Jersey is also considering its constitutional options.  This is not new news.  I was in Jersey a couple of years ago and independence was also being discussed amongst the lawyers I was meeting.  Jersey is in a different position to Scotland as it is for all intents and purposes already fiscally autonomous and is a British Crown dependency.  An article on this from the Guardian can be found here.  This is from the Guardian article:

“A barrage of regulatory clampdowns and political attacks on the Channel Islands’ controversial financial industry has prompted one of Jersey’s most senior politicians to call for preparations to be made to break the “thrall of Whitehall” and declare independence from the UK.  Sir Philip Bailhache, the island’s assistant chief minister, said: “I feel that we get a raw deal. I feel it’s not fair.  I think that the duty of Jersey politicians now is to try to explain what the island is doing and not to take things lying down.  The island should be prepared to stand up for itself and should be ready to become independent if it were necessary in Jersey’s interest to do so.”

It seems that the constitutional genie is well and truly out: Scotland, Falkland Islands, Jersey and now it seems on UK membership of the European Union.

Now to the announcement by the Scottish Government of its intention to create its own tax administration and collection agency, to be called Revenue Scotland.  Its main job initially will be to administer the two new Scottish taxes devolved under the Scotland Act.  The fact that it is to work closely with Registers of Scotland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, also makes sense.  These new taxes, a Scottish Stamp Duty Land Tax and a Landfill Tax, will be directly linked to the work done by these organisations.  A press release from the Scottish Government on this can be found here.

As regular readers of this blog will know I have been writing about this issue for many years now.  Whilst I welcome this announcement I still think we need to be more radical.  We need to review all government tax, law and registration services.

I was not surprised to see some negative comments about the Revenue Scotland announcement. However, if Scotland has its own tax system it needs its own tax administration and collection agency.  That applies just as much under the Scotland Act as independence.  That though is not the only reason.

Let’s not forget the fact that UK tax law is based on English legal principles, or how HMRC and HM Treasury dealt with the introduction of Stamp Duty Land Tax in Scotland, or the inheritance tax changes to trusts, or the proposed planning-gain supplement, or the Scottish Government’s local income tax proposal or VAT and the new Scottish police and fire services.  All good reasons for welcoming Revenue Scotland.

The Scottish Government is in no doubt that Revenue Scotland will be able to administer the new Scottish taxes at a lower cost than HMRC.  I agree with that.  I have also noticed that no-one seems to remember one of the more ridiculous claims made when the Calman Commission proposals were being debated.  The Scotland Office claimed that the cost of administering a separate Scottish tax system would be the same as the present UK system.   Complete and utter nonsense.  The Scotland Office paper can be found here.

One last point on Revenue Scotland.  I met with a number of Scottish Government officials just before the 2011 Scottish election on this issue.  It was quite clear that they wanted nothing to do with this idea and only met with me at the insistence of a Scottish Minister.  Thank you Jim Mather.  I wonder if their attitude has changed in any way?  Let’s hope so as this is just the start.

The Scottish Government has also published its consultation on a Land and Buildings Transaction Tax.  This will replace Stamp Duty Land Tax.  The consultation for Scotland’s replacement to Landfill tax will follow later this year.  I use the word “summer” advisedly.  The consultation can be found here.

And there’s more.  The Scottish Government has finally published its consultation in a “plastic bag tax”.  The consultation can be found here and a press release from the Scottish Government here.

Even the UK Government is playing its part.  The UK Government is consulting on whether to allow the Scottish Government the power to issue its own bonds.  The move would potentially allow Scottish Ministers to raise hundreds of millions of pounds.  A provision in the Scotland Act 2012 has already enabled the UK government to amend the way in which Scottish Ministers can borrow from 2015-16.  An article on this from the BBC news website can be found here.  The consultation can be found here.

One last point on fiscal powers.  The UK government is reportedly considering proposals to devolve complete control of income tax if Scotland votes ‘no’ in the independence referendum.  This sums up nicely what is wrong with the UK Government’s approach to this debate.  If the UK Government has a serious proposal to make, make it.  If not be quiet.

Now to tax and morality.  David Cameron branded comedian Jimmy Carr “morally wrong” for seeking to avoid paying his fair share of tax.  Mr Carr is understood to use an aggressive, though legal, tax avoidance scheme which enables members to pay income tax as low as 1%.  This is dangerous territory for David Cameron.  Already the press have published the names of many others who are involved in similar schemes.  If David Cameron seriously wants to tackle this issue he must act against all those who seek to evade tax.  Has he considered the public disclosure of all tax returns or a minimum percentage of tax that must be paid?  I suspect not.

This is not just a UK Government issue.  The Herald discovered that Transport Initiatives Edinburgh used tax loopholes to allow directors to avoid paying income tax rates on £1 million in fees and bonuses. The company, which closed last year due to its handling of the trams project, paid directors and consultants through their firms.  As a result, they were subject to 20% corporation tax rather than 40% income tax.  The article from the Herald can be found here.

The evidence that the “rules” do not apply to everyone is growing.  Whether it is the 3,000 UK civil servants being paid through a company, or the payments made to those who were partially responsible for the trams fiasco in Edinburgh or the celebrities avoiding tax.  I am resisting the urge to say it was ever thus but in times such as this it does seem even more reprehensible.

One last point.  I often am quite critical of HMRC.  I would argue for good reason.  That said, is it really time to cut 10,000 jobs?  An article on this and the proposed strike by HMRC staff can be found on the BBC news website here.

Have a good week.

Not a great week for the UK Government and in particular George Gideon Oliver Osborne.  The problem here for the coalition government is not just the fact that there has been three U-turns in one week, it is the feeling that the March Budget was a bit of a shambles.  I would not go as far as that but it does seem a bit odd to me that so much was made of the so called “pasty” and “caravan” taxes and not that the UK Government did not even consider reducing VAT on repairs and renovations on residential property. 

As suspected the proposed cap on tax relief for charitable donations has been dead in the water for a number of weeks.  All we heard this week was  confirmation of that fact.  One final point on this.  These three U-turns come at a cost of approximately £150m.  Where is that revenue now to come from?   

“Flat rate” taxes were all the rage a few years ago.  Personally I have not been persuaded by the arguments put forward.  That said, as we start to think about how a Scottish tax system might look flat rate taxes should also be considered.  The latest call again came from those generally regarded to be on the political “right”, the TaxPayers’ Alliance and Institute of Directors.  In addition to arguing for a single rate of income tax the usual noises were made for the tax system to be simplified.  No-one is likely to argue against a simpler tax system until specific proposals are made.  For example, recent changes to the amount of personal allowance for those aged over 65.  This change has been termed the “granny tax”.  I did though like the idea of abolishing certain taxes although not necessarily those listed in this report.  It is claimed that the cost of these proposals would be met by prolonging the UK Coalition’s spending cuts by an extra five years.  More on this can be found here.  The report also claims that these changes would increase gross domestic product by 8.4% over 15 years.

Again on tax rates.  According to City A.M. the UK has continued to raise taxes while most other European Union countries tax rates have fallen.  The European Union average top rate of income tax decreased from 44.8 to 38.1% between 2000 and 2012.  In this same period, the UK’s average rose from 40 to 50% although the top rate is to fall from April 2013.  Unless of course we see another U-Turn.  The UK has though followed the European Union wide trend for raising VAT.  The average rate has risen from 19.2 to 21%, with the UK’s up from 17.5 to 20%.  The report from City A.M. can be found here.

Some stories do not surprise you in any way.  This is one of them.  Taxpayers are spending more than £1 million every month on the rent and upkeep of empty fire service control rooms that have never been used.  Details revealed under Freedom of Information legislation show that only one of the nine Fire Control centres is operational, despite the fact that taxpayers will continue to pay for their upkeep for up to 20 years.  This was reported in the Times on 24 May. 

Then there are stories that do surprise you but shouldn’t.  This is one of them and is also a story I have covered recently.  3,000 civil servants are employed by private firms in order to keep their tax bills down.  By remaining off the UK Government’s payroll, thousands of officials are avoiding paying national insurance contributions and are able minimise their overall tax contributions.  The report from HM Treasury can be found here.    

Good news that could have been even better news.  HMRC collected an extra £4.32bn during the last five years.  This is 11 times greater than the investment made for collecting this extra revenue.  However, a House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report claims that another £1.1bn could have been collected without job losses at HMRC.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and in particular its managing director Christine Lagarde, is rarely out of the news these days.  Lagarde has said said that the UK economy had underperformed and unemployment remained much too high.  The IMF urged the UK Government to consider cutting interest rates and a further round of quantitative easing.  Ms Lagarde also said that UK ministers should prepare a plan for a worse economic environment which could include a cut in VAT.  However, the IMF also said that the UK Government should not divert from its aim of deficit reduction.  A report from the BBC news website can be found here.    

How to win friends and influence people.  Political parties in Greece have criticised Christine Lagarde for suggesting that Greeks were avoiding paying taxes.  Socialist leader Evangelos Venizelos accused Ms Lagarde of “insulting the Greek people”.  A report, again from the BBC news website, on this can be found here. 

There may be trouble ahead.  The UK Supreme Court has ruled that HM Treasury breached European Union law by retrospectively blocking tax refund claims.  The amount involved could be as much as £5bn.  Not surprisingly, HMRC has said that it is “considering the implications of this complex judgement carefully.”   A report on this from City A.M. can be found here. 
 
Now to what some might consider an overreaction.  Some US politicians are so irked at the idea that Americans are renouncing their citizenship to avoid tax, that they are introducing a new Senate bill to tax them forever.  A report on this from ABC news can be found here.  In addition, Congress is close to approving a law under which the Internal Revenue Service will be able to revoke the passports of Americans who owe substantial unpaid taxes.  An article from the Wall Street Journal on the passport claim can be found here. 

I think I will finish with fiscal powers.  HMRC is under no obligation to implement any tax proposal made by the Scottish Government under the Scotland Act.  HMRC can effectively veto any proposal if it differs too greatly from the UK system.  A report on this from the Herald can be found here.  I find it worrying that anyone is at all surprised about this.  I would be even more worried if I thought that anyone actually believes that HMRC and HM Treasury are happy to see tax powers being devolved.  I suspect that there are very few people in HMRC and HM Treasury who are happy to see the beginning of the end for a unified UK tax system.  An earlier blog on this point can be found here.     

Also on fiscal powers.  I still think it is unlikely that the so called “second question” will be asked as part of the independence referendum.  What will those who are arguing for “devo plus” and/or “devo max” do?  Will they vote for independence or the status quo and the hope of something more in the future?  This is an issue I will come back to after my well deserved holiday.  

Have a good weekend.

Given it is local election time I think the level of funding for council tax benefit is an appropriate place to start.  The Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have decided to provide £40m to make up a shortfall of council tax benefit funding.  An article on this from the Scotsman can be found here.  The figure that stands out is the 558,000 people in Scotland who receive this benefit.

The Confederation of British Industry has denied that big companies are benefiting from “sweetheart deals” with the taxman.  HMRC has faced criticism over alleged secret deals with the likes of Vodafone and Goldman Sachs over unpaid tax.  The CBI briefing note is well worth reading and can be found here.

The campaign trying to make the UK Chancellor think again over the latest increase in air passenger duty continues.  The latest claim from this group of aviation and business organizations can be found here in an article on the Herald.  Part of this claim is that overseas tourists have been put off coming to the UK during the Olympics because of punitive air taxes.   The group says bookings from Australia and New Zealand are down by 25% compared to the same period in 2011.

The furore surrounding the UK Chancellor’s tax relief cap and how it might impact on charities continues.  I liked this opinion piece found on the website of the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations.  The piece can be found here.  Although I see the need for tax caps and/or investment limits in certain circumstances, for example under the Enterprise Investment Scheme or Venture Capital Trust relief, I would be surprised if this policy in its present form survives the summer.

It seems that mortgage lending rose sharply in March as buyers rushed to complete sales.  The stamp duty land tax exemption for first-time buyers who bought homes valued at between £125,000 and £250,000 came to an end after two years on 24 March.  The UK Government do not think that this relief has been effective in increasing first-time buyer numbers.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.  I continue to be surprised that our politicians fail to campaign for a change to the 1% and 3% stamp duty land tax rates and bands.

A study by the Taxpayers’ Alliance has revealed that 3,000 council employees across the UK were paid six-figure sums in 2010-11, a rise of 13 per cent on the previous year.  The highest paid was in Glasgow where Ian Drummond, formerly executive director of special projects who has since left the post, received a £450,628 package.  Reports like this confirm the view held by some in the private sector that our local authorities completely lost the plot over senior salaries.  An article on this from the Scotsman can be found here.

Scotland appears to be moving towards charging shoppers around 5p every time they use a plastic bag.  This if often referred to as a “plastic bag tax”.  Scottish ministers have again indicated that it will consult on the matter in the near future.  Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland already have such a charge.  It does seem that the Scottish Government is dragging its feet on this.  A plastic bag tax was thrown out by MSPs during the last parliament when Liberal Democrat Mike Pringle tried to push through a 10p levy.  An article on this from the Daily Express can be found here.

A tax fraudster, who fled the UK four years ago after telling a judge in a note that he was unprepared to go to jail and found the idea frightening and upsetting, has been extradited from France and is beginning a six year prison term.  Mark McGovern had pled guilty to laundering £278,340.87 of criminal proceeds in April 2008, following a wider HMRC investigation into VAT fraud.  More on this can be found here.  I would have thought that most people would find the thought of being locked up frightening and/or upsetting.  Not surprisingly that is not a good enough reason to avoid being sent to prison.

New figures from the Office for National Statistics have shown that the UK Government has met its borrowing target for the year, despite borrowing more than expected in March.  An article on this from the BBC news website can be found here.  Worryingly these figures also show that most of the cuts to public spending have yet to be made.

Now to the USA and the announcement of a dramatic increase in citizenship renunciations.  According to Internal Revenue Service figures, at least 1,800 Americans renounced their USA citizenship in 2011, an all-time record at eight times the 2008 number.  The main reasons given are the USA’s worldwide taxation system, the Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts rules and  the Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act regime.  An article on this from the Daily Mail online can be found here.  The USA is one of a handful of countries to tax its citizens on income earned while abroad.

Then there were two.  Francois Hollande defeated Nicolas Sarkozy in the first round of France’s presidential elections.  The tax and fiscal policies of the final two candidates, in particular Hollande’s, have received a great deal of international press coverage.  An example of this coverage, from Bloomberg’s Paris correspondent, can be found here. 

Now to a Budget statement from 1940.  “New British budget announced: higher income tax, increased duty on alcohol, tobacco & matches, to raise an unprecedented £2bn for war costs.”  Thanks to @RealTimeWWII.  Notwithstanding duty on matches interesting to see how little has changed.

Finally I was very sad to hear of the death of Stephen Maxwell.  I got to know Stephen very well over the last few years and he is a great loss to those arguing for greater fiscal powers and the wider independence movement.  A real gentleman at all times.

Have a great weekend.

Where to start?

The fall out surrounding the UK Chancellor’s Budget statement continues.  The House of Commons Treasury Select Committee has said that the Chancellor’s plans to scrap the 50p tax rate don’t add up.  In addition it criticized the numerous Budget leaks.  An article on this from the Daily Mail online can be found here.

I am surprised that more has not been made of the change to the 40p income tax band.  One of the arguments put forward for reducing the top rate of income tax was the effect it was having on entrepreneurship.  I cannot see how massively increasing the number of people liable to pay income tax at the 40p rate compliments that argument.

Then there is the charity furore and the apparent contradictions in the arguments put forward by the UK Government in support of this policy.  The fact that some UK Government Ministers fought extremely hard to reduce the top rate of income tax is well documented.  Now the UK Government is criticising the fact that rich people don’t pay a high enough rate of income tax.  In addition, the UK Government has made it clear they wish to increase charitable giving.  Only a year ago, in the 2011 Budget, the UK Chancellor announced proposals to support giving, such as a lower rate of inheritance tax for those leaving 10% of their estate to charity.  The UK Government started by saying that the policy is needed by alleging that high earners are using donations to dubious charities to reduce their income tax bill to almost zero.  Now it is talking about fairness.  Will this policy even survive the summer?  An article from the STEP online journal on this issue can be found here.

HM Treasury has released figures showing the extent of tax avoidance by the UK’s so called “super rich”.  Robert Peston has written an excellent article on this.  His comment on the contrasting approach taken by George Osborne and his Labour predecessors is particularly noteworthy.  If the report does tell us one thing, it is how complicated a picture this is.  One fact does though stand out.  73% of those earning over £250,000 were paying an average tax rate above 40% in 2010/11. Robert Peston’s article from the BBC news website can be found here.

Good to see the Church of Scotland entering the earnings and taxation debate.  A Kirk commission has issued a report on the “greed and inequality” of the bonus culture and tax avoidance.  An article from this from the Herald can be found here.

Now to what is expected of HMRC in the next year.  HMRC’s remit for 2012/13 is:

• improving tax collection
• delivering cost reductions
• improving services for individual and business customers
• Real Time Information
• tax policy and the policy partnership

The context to this is fewer staff and a smaller budget.  More on this can be found here.

The Scottish Parliament this week endorsed a legislative consent motion which effectively allows the UK Government to pass the Scotland Bill, also known as “Calman minus”, at Westminster next week.  Have I anything else to say on this?  No.  The term “Calman minus” says it all.  An article from the Scotsman on this can be found here.

The Guardian reported recently that Amazon’s tax affairs are being investigated in the US, China, Germany, France, Japan and Luxembourg.  HMRC have refused to confirm whether it is also investigating Amazon.  Amazon is the largest retailer in the UK.  The Guardian also reports that Amazon paid no UK corporation tax last year.  This is primarily because the US parent in 2006 transferred ownership of the main Amazon.co.uk business to a Luxembourg company.  It is not just the UK Government that is being asked questions about this company.  The Scottish Government is also being asked questions relating to a £10m grant.  Of course if the relevant tax powers were devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the left hand might have more of a chance of knowing what the right hand is up to.  Articles from the Scotsman and the Guardian on this matter can be found here and here.

Another week and another VAT issue.  The Church of England fears church renovation projects could be scrapped because of planned changes to VAT set out in the UK Budget.  From October this year HM Treasury will charge VAT at 20% on approved alterations to listed buildings.  Presently this is exempt from VAT.  The Church of England thinks the change will cost it £20m a year.  HM Treasury says funding will be available to ensure church renovations are not cancelled.  A report from the BBC news website on this can be found here.  The BBC report notes that a “source close to Chancellor George Osborne is reported as saying that this proposal was about ensuring a millionaire wanting to build a swimming pool in the garden of their listed mansion had to pay VAT on it.”

HMRC is improving and streamlining its processes for customers who need to deal with them following a bereavement.  HMRC is creating dedicated teams who will be responsible for dealing with PAYE and Self Assessment for bereaved customers.  The main form which customers use to finalise the tax affairs of the person who has died, R27, has been redesigned following feedback from customers and tax specialists to make it easier to complete.  More on this can be found here.

A “fat tax” is back on the agenda.  The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has called for stronger measures to reduce obesity in the UK.  The first phase of the Academy’s campaign will try to find out what works.  It will review evidence for diets, exercise, taxation, minimum pricing and changing advertising and food labeling.  The Academy has also blamed the UK Government’s previous strategies and irresponsible marketing for aiding to obesity issues.  An article on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

There are suggestions that the German Government’s recent renegotiation of its withholding tax agreement with Switzerland may tempt the UK Government to try and do the same with its own Swiss agreement.  The UK Government has though already changed it once already.  An article on this from the Guardian can be found here.

Let’s finish with the “Buffett Rule” as it sounds like it might be about food and I am feeling peckish.  Sadly, the Buffett rule is not about food but instead a tax plan that would apply a minimum tax of 30% to individuals making more than a million dollars a year.  An editorial in the Wall Street Journal calculates that the Buffett Rule, which is supported by President Obama, would lose $80bn a year from USA federal tax revenues.  The US Senate has in fact this week voted to block the Buffett Rule.  The article from the Wall Street Journal can be found here and a BBC website news report on the Senate vote can be found here.

Have a good weekend and good luck to all the teams competing at Scottish Rugby’s Cup Final day at Murrayfield on Saturday.

The main story of the week has to be the fact that the UK Chancellor, yes the UK Chancellor, said:  “I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs – and to be fair it’s within the tax laws – so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax.  And I don’t think that’s right.”

Words almost fail me.  Then again maybe I should be glad that George Osborne has finally realised what was clearly obvious to everyone else.  HMRC provided the UK Chancellor with anonymised copies of the confidential tax returns submitted to them by some of the UK’s wealthiest people.  These returns showed that the 20 biggest tax avoiders had legally reduced their income tax bills by a total of £145m in a year.  According to the report, the very rich have managed to reduce their income tax rate to an average of 10%; less than half the amount paid by the average Briton.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.  Helpfully the BBC news website has also outlined the most common tax avoidance schemes.  This can be found here.

I am not sure that the Prime Minister’s announcement that he will publish details of his taxes is going to help the UK Government out of the hole they are digging for themselves.  As the UK Chancellor noted, these people are acting within the law.  Take for example the proposed cap on income tax reliefs.  The cap will apply only to those reliefs that are currently unlimited, which will therefore exclude pension contributions and EIS investments, among others.  The proposals will cap tax relief to 25% of income or £50,000 whichever is greater.  It is expected the draft legislation will be published for consultation later this year.

HM Treasury has now published more information on this proposal.  The report, which confirms charitable gift relief will be included in the cap, can be found here.  The report notes that current unlimited relief policy allows individuals to pay no income tax at all, which is not permitted in, for example, the US tax system.

Is that the end of the matter?  Of course not.  The Scotsman reports that Sir Tom Hunter has criticised George Osborne’s plans to cap tax relief on charitable donations as “ill-thought-out and punitive”.  The Scotsman article can be found here.  It is quite clear that charities fear their funding is under threat.  This sums up nicely the problem facing George Osborne.  He wants to crack down on aggressive tax avoidance but that is easier said than done.  Almost any proposal to change the tax system results in a campaign to prevent or amend the proposal.

Now to another controversial issue, retrospective changes to tax law.  HM Treasury has published the process it will follow when making unexpected changes to tax law.  The statement gives an undertaking that retrospective measures will be “wholly exceptional”.  The statement from HM Treasury can be found here.  A recent of example of a retrospective change to tax legislation involved Barclays bank.  A BBC news website report on the Barclays bank matter can be found here.  If the UK Chancellor is serious about tackling aggressive anti-avoidance then I am sure we will see many more examples of retrospective changes to our tax law.

Finance Secretary, John Swinney, has announced incentives and actions to stimulate investment, in four enterprise sectors, for green energy, manufacturing and life science.  These incentives include business rate discounts worth up to £275,000 per business or enhanced capital allowances, new streamlined planning protocols across all sites, skills and training support and an international marketing campaign to promote the sites.  A press release from the Scottish Government on this can be found here.

Now to VAT and two issues I have blogged about before.  A great deal has been written about pasties and VAT since the UK Budget statement.  What though of another VAT anomaly.  Why is VAT levied on the renovation of old buildings but not on the sale of new houses?  Does this encourage energy saving?  Does this encourage the building of new homes?  Why not at least introduce a lower rate of VAT on residential renovations and repairs, as happens in the Isle of Man.  Sadly more questions than answers or signs of any change of policy.  A link to my earlier blog on this issue can be found here.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats have urged the Scottish Government to drop their plans for a single police force over concerns that the force will potentially face an annual £22m VAT bill. The eight existing forces are currently exempt from the tax due to their ties to local authorities.  A link to an earlier blog that covers this issue can be found here.  My earlier blog also includes my expectations as to how HM Treasury will view this matter.  Although I can understand the Scottish Liberal Democrats opposition to the single force policy, do they really think that the VAT should be levied?  If not, will they lobby their UK counterparts who, after all, are in charge of HM Treasury on this matter?  I suspect not.  The Liberal Democrats press release can be found here.

To Wales and the news that Welsh supermarkets have seen a massive drop in the use of plastic bags when they charge for them.  A 5p bag levy was introduced across Wales last year.  A report on this from the Daily Mail online can be found here.  Good to see the Daily Mail outlining the situation in the other parts of the UK.

The Spanish Government has announced a general tax amnesty offering taxpayers the chance to disclose irregularities in their past affairs without being prosecuted or penalised. The cost is a one-off payment of 10% of all undeclared assets and rights.  This follows similar measures in Greece and Italy.  More information on the Spanish amnesty can be found here.

Have a good weekend.