PM-Tax Wednesday 11 March 2015 Special edition focusing on issues on the horizon for UK corporates In this Issue Our Comment •Introduction and reflections on the Budget and General Election by James Bullock •Increased HMRC powers by Jason Collins 2 •Where next for BEPS? by Heather Self •Possible restrictions on interest relief by Eloise Walker •State aid investigations into tax rulings by Stuart Walsh •Real estate: the year ahead by John Christian •VAT predictions for the budget? A dangerous game... by Darren Mellor-Clark •Penalties: HMRC’s new tougher stance by Fiona Fernie •Key issues for employee share plans and management incentives by Matthew Findley •Devolved taxes by Karen Davidson •UK oil and gas by Tom Cartwright Our perspective on recent cases Spritebeam Ltd and Prowting Ltd v HMRC; HMRC v Versteegh [2015] UKUT 75 (TCC) Tower Radio Limited and another v HMRC [2015] UKUT 0060 (TCC) 16 Terrace Hill (Berkeley) Ltd v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 0075 (TC) Scots Atlantic Management Ltd (in liquidation) & Another v HMRC [2015] UKUT 0066 (TCC) Events 21 People 22 NEXT @PM_Tax © Pinsent Masons LLP 2015 >continued from previous page PM-Tax | Our Comment Introduction and reflections on the Budget and General Election by James Bullock Welcome to this special edition of PM-Tax focusing on the tax issues that are on the horizon for UK corporates. The last two months have seen perhaps unprecedented focus on tax – even by the standards of the Parliament that is about to end. The Public Accounts Committee hearing on 11 February was undoubtedly the most gruelling ever faced by a Chief Executive of HMRC, whilst revelations (effectively known about for many years) about ‘secret’ Swiss bank accounts and the involvement of banks in setting them up created a fresh wave of media frenzy demanding little short of ‘blood’ from anyone suspected of tax evasion. It was shortly followed by the now almost inevitable announcement of (yet) another proposed criminal offence – this time aimed at corporates and institutions that facilitate tax evasion. However, at the time of writing it is not clear if this will emerge in some form as a proposal for consultation in the Budget on 18 March – or in the Liberal Democrats’ election manifesto. there will have to be another negotiated ‘Coalition Agreement’ which would be likely to result in different priorities and policies for the next five years – and this is likely to require an ‘Emergency Budget’ and a further Finance Bill to be presented in June. A straight Conservative government – ruling with or without a majority – would doubtless want to present its own platform unencumbered by the Liberal Democrats, particularly if it is ruling as a minority government and in such circumstances will be anticipating another General Election potentially within a year. Any form of Labour-led government will lead to radical change for businesses and individuals alike. A straight coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats (which again seems somewhat improbable on the basis of likely electoral numbers) would present a very interesting scenario given how influential the Liberal Democrats (and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in particular) have been on economic policy in the present Parliament. A Labour-led coalition involving the Scottish Nationalists, potentially Plaid Cymru, a ‘token’ Green – or all of the above plus the Liberal Democrats – could present some very interesting scenarios indeed, including a radically different taxation regime for Scotland – and potentially Wales and Northern Ireland as well. We would expect to see the effects of this starting to emerge in what would be a very substantive and significant Emergency Budget in June. It is almost impossible to predict, in such a scenario, how much of what is currently ‘in the pipeline’ would remain. Full marks to the Treasury ministers for creating a certain amount of ‘suspense’ about what might emerge in the Budget. I – for one – wrote it off a long time ago as a ‘non-event’. After all, Parliament will only have just over a week to consider it (and pass the Finance Bill) before it is prorogued on 30 March. The draft Finance Bill legislation was published in December 2014 – but it is not clear how much of this legislation will make it into the pre-election Finance Bill. The Diverted Profits Tax will be the ‘signature’ feature of this first bill which will by the end of this month become the Finance Act 2015. A feature of the Coalition government has been that proposals are first published, then consulted upon, then re-published in more concrete format, sometimes consulted on again – and then finally the draft legislation is published in draft (again for consultation) before being included in the Finance Bill and enacted. So any number of the measures announced over the past eighteen months (including the ‘strict liability’ criminal offence) might emerge at a different stage of their gestation. It will be interesting to see how many genuinely ‘new’ ideas emerge following the Budget at the first stage for consultation. This will be the most unpredictable General Election since February 1974. And even then the only feasible Coalition partner for either of the main parties was the then Liberal Party. (Historians will recall that the Liberal Leader, Jeremy Thorpe declined the invitation of Prime Minister Edward Heath to join a Conservative-led coalition, resulting in Harold Wilson returning for a second term as Prime Minister to head a Labour Minority government). Within eight months there had been a second –slightly more predictable – General Election which resulted in Labour winning an overall majority of three seats. In the context of the time that was seen as an unfeasibly narrow majority. 41 years on I suspect either of the main parties would be ecstatic at such a clear result! And of course we will be back here again, probably in early June. Even in the event that the government that emerges is another coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats (which at the moment seems somewhat unlikely for a number of reasons) CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 2 >continued from previous page PM-Tax | Our Comment Introduction and reflections on the Budget and General Election (continued) Perhaps only one thing is clear. Whatever the government looks like on the morning of Friday, 8 May (or, more likely, what emerges the following week), it will urgently need more money. And first in line to ‘pay up’ will be ‘people engaging in tax avoidance and tax evasion’ (which these days covers a multitude of sins). Whoever wins, one thing is absolutely certain. In terms of the war on compliance and enforcement, to quote President Ronald Reagan – “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!” James Bullock is Head of our Litigation and Compliance Group. He is one of the UK’s leading tax practitioners and has been recognised as such in the leading legal directories for many years. James has over twenty years of experience advising in relation to large and complex disputes with HMRC for large corporates and high net worth individuals, including in particular leading negotiations and handling tax litigation at all levels from the Tax Tribunal to the Supreme Court and Court of Justice of the European Union. E: [email protected] T: +44 (0)20 7054 2726 CONTENTS PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 3 BACK NEXT PM-Tax | Our Comment Increased HMRC powers by Jason Collins Jason Collins comments on recent increases in HMRC powers. HMRC has been a victim of election fever in recent weeks – receiving a lot of largely unfair criticism about how effectively it has pursued tax avoidance and evasion, and is operating under the threat of a formal review if Labour win power. The danger with adding to what are already controversial powers is that taxpayers are less inclined to enter into any kind of dispute with HMRC because they fear becoming embroiled in a system which is stacked against them. Large corporates are perhaps the most sensitive to this. It cannot be good if the UK becomes seen as a country where an assessment to tax made by HMRC is not seen as worth challenging regardless of merit. HMRC should really pause for breath to see how its new powers are working and not be drawn into the electioneering. But many taxpayers’ recent experience will be of an organisation with its tail up and an incredibly aggressive stance. HMRC has issued around £1 billion of accelerated payment notices so far against users of DOTAS-registered schemes, about £185 million of which have been settled to date. New legislation to monitor promoters has come into force and the first pre-conduct notice letters are being sent out to promoters. Jason Collins is our Head of Tax. He is one of the leading tax practitioners in the UK specialising in handling any form of complex dispute with HMRC in all aspects of direct tax and VAT, resolving the dispute through structured negotiation and formal mediation. Where necessary, he also handles litigation before the Tax Tribunal and all the way through to the European Court – with a particular expertise in class actions and Group Litigation Orders. We are also seeing a clear change in strategy by HMRC involving greater direct engagement with users of schemes, rather than the promoters, particularly through their wallet. Direct engagement has made many taxpayers question for the first time what they have been involved in, and HMRC will have seen a change in attitude as many decide they want “out” or to settle. Despite this, HMRC continues to seek new powers, including targeting users of multiple schemes and having a unilateral power to litigate issues without closing down an enquiry. The risk HMRC now runs is that many taxpayers who may have been driven by conscience to settle begin to feel they are being victimised and treated unfairly. We have been surprised by how many people have wanted to join the judicial review we launched against the first payment notices issued by HMRC to Ingenious partners, often saying they are driven to act for fear that the rule of law is being whittled away. E: [email protected] T: +44 (0)20 7054 2727 CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 4 >continued from previous page PM-Tax | Our Comment Where next for BEPS? by Heather Self Heather Self considers where the OECD’s BEPS project has got to and the changes to the UK tax system that are likely to be made as a result. The OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project is proceeding rapidly towards its scheduled conclusion at the end of 2015. So far, the OECD project team have done a remarkable job of keeping matters on track, and are to be particularly congratulated for the quality of their communications (including some excellent web-based updates). However, the closer we get to the deadline, the more there is a risk that some key issues will be rushed in the pressure to reach a “grand bargain” and announce the successful completion of the project. The impending UK General Election adds an extra complication, since much of the drafting of the report due out in October 2015 is likely to take part during the pre-election “purdah” period, when it will be difficult for UK officials to participate fully in discussions. tendency to recharacterise transactions, lead to increases in compliance costs and risks of double taxation. A number of the actions have now progressed to the status of clear recommendations. For example, a detailed paper has been produced on measures to combat the use of hybrid instruments and entities, and the UK has already held a consultation period to inform the design of UK legislation in this area. The policy recommendation is clear (countries should act together to restrict the tax advantages of hybrids) and has broadly been accepted, although the detailed mechanics still need to be worked out. Similarly, the introduction of country-by-country reporting is now a certainty, and the broad format has now been agreed, with data being gathered from 2016 and reports exchanged from 2017. Meanwhile, the UK’s proposals for a Diverted Profits Tax appear to pre-empt some key aspects of the BEPS process. Although the intention is that the new tax will apply only to “abusive” structures, which aim to divert profits from the UK by “avoiding PE status” or entering into arrangements which lack economic substance, the draft legislation can be read more widely and there are fears it will lead to unnecessary compliance burdens. The lack of time for any meaningful Parliamentary debate is also disappointing. The proposals on interest deductibility are at an early stage, but are particularly worrying for UK businesses. The UK system for interest relief is currently relatively generous, but is an important part of the overall competitiveness of the UK corporate tax regime. The OECD appears to be moving towards a single group-wide limit (perhaps based on EBITDA or on asset ratios), and as Eloise Walker comments in the next article this could be particularly damaging for UK infrastructure projects. There is a real fear that the UK could feel obliged to concede some ground in the late stages of the overall negotiations. Finally, the sheer scale and range of the likely changes as a result of the BEPS process means that more disputes are inevitable. The initial proposals from the OECD on dispute resolution were disappointing, but pressure is now building for a more practical approach, which may include a greater use of binding arbitration in tax disputes. The principle that companies should pay tax on their economic profits is a reasonable one, but it would be a backward step if the BEPS project resulted in more companies facing double taxation on their profits. Some issues which are less well-advanced are unlikely to result in major UK change. For example, the UK does not expect to have to make significant changes to its CFC rules as a result of the work on Action 3, which is due to be published in October 2015. However, there are some key areas which are likely to have an impact on businesses, in 2015 and beyond. The main issues are the definition of Permanent Establishment (PE) status (Action 7); the proposals on interest deductibility (Action 4) and the various issues around transfer pricing (Actions 8 to 10). An over-riding area, where progress so far has been limited, is the urgent need for better dispute resolution procedures. Heather Self is a Partner (non-lawyer) with almost 30 years of experience in tax. She has been Group Tax Director at Scottish Power and also worked at HMRC on complex disputes with FTSE 100 companies, and was a specialist adviser to the utilities sector, where she was involved in policy issues on energy generation and renewables. The concerns about PE status are twofold. Firstly, any lowering of the PE threshold will increase compliance burdens. The whole point of the PE definition is that it sets the bar below which local activities are not taxable – so lowering the threshold inevitably increases the number of returns that have to be filed. Second, this is likely to lead to disputes and potential double taxation – which in turn increases costs for business. The transfer pricing concerns are similar: changes of approach, and particularly an increasing E: [email protected] T: +44 (0)161 662 8066 CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 5 >continued from previous page PM-Tax | Our Comment Possible restrictions on interest relief by Eloise Walker Eloise Walker discusses the implications of possible future restrictions on the deductibility of interest. A restriction on the future availability of interest relief is a potentially explosive issue for UK corporates. Indeed, the current OECD proposals could have a disproportionate and detrimental effect on the infrastructure and energy sectors. The availability of debt financing and the tax deductibility of interest are fundamental to the success of infrastructure and energy projects. Equity financing is simply unobtainable for many infrastructure and energy developments and such projects would not proceed without a significant proportion of debt financing. The OECD appears to have ignored the fact that the high-gearing of infrastructure projects is not driven by a BEPS motivation, but rather constitutes a commercial cornerstone of any new infrastructure project. Currently, UK corporates can obtain tax relief for interest payments. Generally, interest paid on debt financing is deductible from a company’s UK corporation tax profits and therefore a company’s liability to UK corporation tax is reduced. This form of tax relief is often invaluable, particularly to those corporates operating in the energy and infrastructure sectors, which are heavily reliant on debt financing when embarking on new projects. However, as mentioned in the previous article by Heather Self, through its base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project, the OECD is currently considering whether to introduce a general interest limitation rule that will restrict the availability of tax relief on interest payments. The public consultation on the discussion draft closed on 6 February 2015. Since then the OECD has published the almost 1000 pages it received in response to the consultation. These include Pinsent Masons’ response which sought to highlight the detrimental effects of a general interest limitation rule that does not contain appropriate exceptions and safeguards to ensure that tax relief for interest remains available in genuine commercial financing structures. In July 2013, the OECD published an action plan, proposing 15 actions designed to combat BEPS at an international level. Action 4 focuses on BEPS using interest and is entitled “Limit Base Erosion via Interest Deductions and Other Financial Payments”. We are currently awaiting a response from the OECD as to how it intends to progress its work on Action 4. It is expected that final recommendations for a rule to prevent BEPS using interest will be published in October 2015. Until this time, the future of tax relief on interest is likely to remain uncertain. On 18 December 2014, a public discussion draft on Action 4 was issued, which outlines “different options for approaches that may be included in a best practice recommendation” to combat BEPS using interest. However, rather than making recommendations for best practice, the OECD appears to be seeking to introduce a general interest limitation rule that would limit an entity’s tax deductible interest expense with reference to the actual position of its worldwide group. Currently, two possible approaches to a group-wide rule are being proposed: an interest allocation rule; or fixed ratios for deductible interest costs. Eloise Walker is a Partner specialising in corporate tax, structured and asset finance and investment funds. Eloise’s focus is on advising corporate and financial institutions on UK and cross-border acquisitions and re-constructions, corporate finance, joint ventures and tax structuring for offshore funds. Her areas of expertise also include structured leasing transactions, where she enjoys finding commercial solutions to the challenges facing the players in today’s market. Using either approach, it is almost inevitable that a group-wide interest limitation rule could prevent a business claiming tax relief in genuine commercial structures where no BEPS risk using interest exists. Consequently, there is currently widespread concern across UK industry about the far-reaching effects of such a rule. E: [email protected] T: +44 (0)20 7490 6169 CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 6 >continued from previous page PM-Tax | Our Comment State aid investigations into tax rulings by Stuart Walsh Stuart Walsh considers the implications for groups with tax rulings in Luxembourg and other EU member states. In 2014 the European Commission (the Commission) began to look in detail at favourable tax rulings received by specific multinationals in various EU member states and also to look generally at tax rulings given by all member states. The Commission is not just looking at rulings. In February it announced it had begun an in-depth investigation into a Belgian tax provision that allows companies to reduce their tax liability on the basis of the ‘excess profits’ that are said to result from being part of a multinational group. The Commission said the scheme could constitute state aid as it appears to only benefit multinational groups, whilst Belgian companies only active in Belgium cannot claim similar benefits. In 2015 we are likely to see the outcome of some of these investigations – which could potentially lead to some eye-watering tax repayment demands. More groups are also likely to see their arrangements falling under the spotlight. In addition the European Parliament has said that it will set up a special committee to look at tax ruling practices in EU member states, going back to 1 January 1991. So far the Commission has launched in-depth investigations into the tax rulings received by Apple in Ireland, Starbucks in the Netherlands and both Fiat Finance and Trade and Amazon in Luxembourg. The revelation in leaked documents (nicknamed the ‘Lux Leaks’ documents) that accountants PwC had advised over 340 multinational companies on rulings in Luxembourg has brought further attention onto Luxembourg. The Lux Leaks documents show some companies paying an effective 1% rate of tax on profits moved from higher tax jurisdictions to Luxembourg. Companies advised by other ‘Big 4’ accounting firms are also known to have benefitted from favourable rulings in Luxembourg. Companies whose effective tax rate in any EU country has been reduced by a ruling, or which have benefited from the Belgian provision, should cast a critical eye over their group structure (both existing and historic, to the extent there remains a risk of repayment) in order to assess their vulnerability to a state aid challenge and to determine what, if any, steps should be taken at this stage to limit any continuing risk. To date, the Commission has largely focussed its gaze on US multinationals, but the issue is relevant to any group that has intellectual property, financing operations or group debt in the EU. The Commission has committed to investigate all 28 EU Member States. Finally, it will not be a defence to a state aid enquiry that rulings reflect a common arrangement (many major groups will inevitably have used a Luxembourg finance ruling as part of their overall structures). The Commission has undertaken to scrutinise the Lux Leaks disclosures meaning that hundreds of companies risk joining Apple, Starbucks, Fiat and Amazon under the microscope of a formal investigation. Although the Commission does not have direct authority over national direct tax systems, it can investigate whether certain advantageous fiscal regimes would constitute ‘unjustifiable state aid’ to companies. Stuart Walsh is head of our tax disputes team. He advises individuals and corporates on resolving disputes with HMRC in all aspects of direct tax and VAT and has extensive experience of working with large FTSE 100 clients. Stuart specialises in managing large scale litigation before the Tax Tribunal through to the higher courts, as well as the Administrative Court and the CJEU. State aid can occur whenever state resources are used to provide assistance that gives organisations an advantage over others. It can distort competition which is harmful to consumers and companies in the EU and is effectively illegal. A tax ruling can be seen to constitute an advantage as it effectively means a tax authority is waiving a right to collect taxes otherwise due. Companies with a ruling that constitutes state aid may have to repay up to 10 years’ worth of tax benefits. E: [email protected] T: +44 (0)20 7054 2797 CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 7 >continued from previous page PM-Tax | Our Comment Real estate: the year ahead by John Christian John Christian considers the real estate tax issues that are on the horizon. The outcome of the General Election should not result in significant change for the property industry. Real estate has not traditionally been a target for tax raising, other than stamp duty land tax (SDLT), and a new government will not wish to reverse the residential SDLT changes announced in the Autumn Statement. A Labour led government has pledged to introduce the ‘mansion tax’ which will not directly affect property investors (other than specialist investors in prime residential letting) though some have predicted it will slow the London residential market. •The capital gains tax (CGT) regime on residential property owned by non-residents will come into effect in April. The consultation process has been helpful in limiting the potential application for institutional property investors and the legislation is largely workable for fund investors, though with some unclear areas at the margins. Residential property excludes purpose built student accommodation – though not conversions – and care homes, but an interesting area will be the private rented sector (PRS) which is increasingly being seen as an institutional investment class but does not enjoy the same exemption. The fund investor provisions will therefore be important for PRS. The wider tax picture is of limited change but with a couple of clouds on the horizon: •SDLT will continue to be a challenging area on more complex transactions. Further cases are likely on historic avoidance structures. The Project Blue Upper Tribunal decision is being appealed and the outcome in relation to the analysis of section 75A Finance Act 2003 (the SDLT anti avoidance provision) will be keenly awaited. The current position leaves some difficulty in the light of the literal interpretation of section 75A adopted in the case and the absence of meaningful guidance in the case on the principles guiding the application of section 75A. •The next stage of the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) Action 4 report on interest deductions is likely to emerge in the Autumn (see Eloise Walker’s article for more details). There has been widespread concern about the potential implications of the current direction of travel towards a ratio based limit on deductions, rather than an arm’s length model. This would have the effect of restricting deductions in relation to property investment structures, and particularly infrastructure investment, and is compounded by the difficulties in applying an EBITDA metric – apparently the current preferred approach – to property investment activities. The BEPS proposals in this area are particularly difficult for a number of countries so this debate has much further to go. John Christian is head of our corporate tax team. He specialises in corporate and business tax, and advises on the tax aspects of UK and international mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures and partnering arrangements, private equity transactions, treasury and funding issues, property taxation, transactions under the Private Finance Initiative and VAT. •The Diverted Profits Tax (DPT) will come into effect from 1 April 2015. Given the political imperatives and the General Election climate, it is unlikely that there will be material changes in the complex and unclear draft legislation with issues being left in the unsatisfactory position of being addressed by HMRC guidance. For the property industry, the application of DPT to offshore structures is uncertain, with structures involving development being most at risk of potentially being caught. (As an aside the recent FTT decision in Terrace Hill (Berkeley) Limited v HMRC, summarised in the cases section in this edition of PM-Tax, is a reminder, if any is needed, of the unclear line between development and investment). There is no grandfathering of DPT transactions so existing structures will need to be reviewed. Legislative change, or at least guidance, that the regime does not apply to property transactions would remove the uncertainty. E: [email protected] T: +44 (0)113 294 5296 CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 8 >continued from previous page PM-Tax | Our Comment VAT predictions for the Budget? A dangerous game... by Darren Mellor Clark Darren Mellor-Clark considers what is on the horizon in relation to VAT. The Chancellor gives his final Budget of the current Parliament on 18th March, ahead of the UK General Election on 7th May. Speculation as to what may be in this Budget, as ever, ranges widely among pundits. From a VAT perspective it is difficult to pin point any particular measure which the Chancellor may wish to bring forward. Indeed, one may question the breadth of his ability to unilaterally effect meaningful change in the VAT arena. The frequent tensions, at a political level, between the EU and the UK are often repeated in the VAT space where UK law and the operation of HMRC is constrained by the legal supremacy of EU legislation and jurisprudence. In a similar vein, the new place of supply rules for digital products offered in a business to consumer (B2C) context came into effect on 1st January 2015. Essentially this has shifted the place of taxation for such services to the location of consumption. The compliance requirements upon businesses to identify the location of their consumers when purchasing the digitised products have proved onerous for many large firms. However, the same obligations for small and micro businesses have simply proved too great, with many choosing simply to stop offering their products to non-UK consumers. Given the often quoted importance of small business to the UK economy it would seem that this issue would be a worthy area of effort for this or any future UK government. A number of key VAT issues are expected to continue to cause concern across businesses and their advisers. However, nowhere is the potential tension more apparent then in the UK implementation of the Skandia judgment. The CJEU ruled that overseas branches of entities which join a VAT group are no longer the same taxable person as their head office or other branches. The judgment picked up on the previous ruling in FCE Bank which had held that ‘transactions’ between head offices and branches occurred within the same legal entity or taxable person and thus are not subject to VAT. However, the judgment did not involve consideration of the position where the branch had joined a VAT group. The implementation of the Skandia judgment was the source of considerable concern for many UK businesses as it, potentially, exposed inbound infrastructure costs such as IT to a VAT charge. HMRC’s implementation of the decision takes note that the UK law regarding VAT groups is different to that in Sweden (the subject of the reference to the CJEU). As such the UK is not required to implement the judgment in its entirety, but it will effectively do so where the inbound charges originate from a location where the VAT group rules mirror those at point in Sweden. This appears to be a sensible, pragmatic middle road but it remains to be seen whether the Commission will be satisfied with this apparent half way house. Businesses operating employee pension schemes will be concerned to ensure that they react appropriately to changes following the CJEU’s judgment in PPG. The judgment increased the ability for employers to recover VAT incurred on key costs such as investment management services. Negotiations between HMRC and industry bodies are on-going as an attempt is made to agree a contractual and commercial framework which will support VAT recovery on a prospective basis. HMRC is allowing a transitional period until 31st December 2015 during which businesses may continue to operate the old arrangements. In a further twist, HMRC must also have an eye to the numerous claims being made for retrospective VAT recovery based upon the PPG principles. The evolution of the digital economy appears to be a perennial cause of headaches for tax administrators and businesses alike. Fundamental questions such as the nature of products sold as digital or traditional media are left unanswered to anybody’s satisfaction. In its 5th March judgment the CJEU confirmed that the reduced rates offered by France and Luxembourg on digital e-books were unlawful. However, it has left taxpayers wondering why reading on traditional print media is zero-rated, whereas reading digital content is taxed. It is perhaps ironic that the judgment was released on World Book Day. Many would argue that the encouragement of reading is a desirable social aim which should not be stifled by taxation. CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 9 >continued from previous page PM-Tax | Our Comment VAT predictions for the Budget? A dangerous game... (continued) On a more UK theme, it has not gone unnoticed that HMRC appears to be conducting dedicated ‘risk assessment’ exercises across the large business sector. One of the key focus points of these exercises appears to be cross-border transactions and recharges within the corporate structure. The teams conducting these are raising many issues, including the application of Skandia. The potential cost to the business of such exercises in terms of resourcing HMRC’s information demands but also any VAT assessments could be extremely significant. Businesses should approach any such exercise with caution and their eyes fully open as to the potential ramifications. In short as we move through 2015 the burden of VAT remains, and will continue to remain, considerable. Anthony Barber’s (in)famous statement in parliament to the effect that “VAT is a simple tax on the provision of goods and services” seems an increasingly distant echo. Darren Mellor-Clark is a Partner (non-lawyer) in our indirect tax advisory practice and advises clients with regard to key business issues especially within the financial services, commodities and telecoms sectors. In particular he has advised extensively on the indirect tax implications arising from regulatory and commercial change within the FS sector, for example: Recovery and Resolution Planning; Independent Commission on Banking; UCITS IV; and the Retail Distribution Review. E: [email protected] T: +44 (0)20 7054 2743 CONTENTS PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 10 BACK NEXT PM-Tax | Our Comment Penalties: HMRC’s new tougher stance by Fiona Fernie Fiona Fernie considers HMRC’s increasingly tough attitude to errors in tax returns. It also has particularly obvious repercussions when it comes to penalties – as demonstrated by the recent consultation document issued by HMRC in relation to a specific penalty for schemes in respect of which the GAAR is deemed to apply. That document, in explaining why HMRC is seeking to introduce such a penalty, states “….there is an arguable case that a taxpayer becoming involved in an abusive scheme demonstrates ‘deliberate’ behaviour in making their return in this basis” [and thus gives rise to a penalty]. “However, each case is judged on its own merits and in practice it may sometimes be difficult to levy a penalty where the avoider obtained professional advice, even where this advice is found to have been incorrect.” The chances of your business being inspected by HMRC have risen considerably. When the coalition government came to power in 2010 it allocated £900 million to target tax evasion and fraud. With a General Election looming once again, evasion, avoidance and indeed any kind of tax planning which is seen to be aggressive is very much in the firing line. New powers introduced in recent years to allow HMRC easier access to information from both taxpayers and third parties, together with increased powers to search premises and tighter penalty regulations, all mean that businesses are under more scrutiny than ever from HMRC. To my mind this demonstrates how completely garbled and illogical the thinking on tax offences has become; there is clearly a need to tackle abusive tax arrangements, but to suggest that taxpayers, whether businesses or individuals, should seek professional tax advice but then not be allowed to rely on it without risking a penalty for ‘deliberate’ behaviour if the advice is later found to be wrong seems to fly in the face of the ‘fairness’ that the government has professed itself to be keen to promote. Since all businesses are now required to file returns online, HMRC is able to use its CONNECT software to analyse returns, compare them to sector averages, and make connections between tax records and information from other sources to identify areas where tax collection is at risk. Whilst it should be possible to expect that if enough care is taken, a business cannot possibly ‘fall foul’ of HMRC, in recent years the political and media pressure on HMRC to collect ever increasing amounts of tax appears to have resulted in the blurring of the definitions of tax mitigation, tax avoidance and tax evasion. Certainly experience is showing that HMRC is increasingly unwilling to believe that any error can be the result of an ‘innocent error’, even where businesses have filed their returns after considerable thought, or indeed where they have decided that no return is necessary, again after careful consideration. It appears that HMRC will still seek to make discovery assessments, and impose a penalty, even in cases where the directors of a business have chosen their course of action having researched their obligations and complied to the best of their ability and judgement. Indeed, even the largest companies, which do not undertake ‘aggressive’ planning, may find HMRC seeking penalties after settlement of a complicated technical dispute. Fiona Fernie leads our tax investigations team. She has over 25 years’ experience in assisting clients subject to investigations/enquiries by HMRC with particular focus on COP8 and COP9 (Contractual Disclosure Facility) cases and large complex investigations. She also assists clients who want to make a voluntary disclosure of tax irregularities to HMRC. Fiona also advises in relation to HMRC’s information and inspection powers, time limits for assessment, determining penalty loadings and all other tax administration and enforcement provisions. E: [email protected] T: +44 (0)20 7418 9589 CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 11 PM-Tax | Our Comment Key issues for employee share plans and management incentives by Matthew Findley Matthew Findley looks at the challenges ahead for companies operating share and other incentive plans. enough power after the election. This legislation offers very generous CGT relief on shares acquired by employees on giving up certain employment protections. We understand that there has been a recent surge in requests to HMRC to value shares for employee shareholder purposes. This poses the question of whether companies fear likely withdrawal soon after May, albeit with some transitional protections for shares already acquired. Employee share plans and incentives, in particular tax-advantaged plans, have been affected by two successive years of very substantial legislative change by way of Finance Acts 2013 and 2014. Much of this remains to be implemented in full. For example, HMRC still has to update some important aspects of its key guidance on tax-advantaged plans following sweeping simplification of the governing legislation, and is still debating points of interpretation with practitioners. This leaves some uncertainty when drafting or amending plan rules, which may seem a surprising result of tax ‘simplification’, especially given that these plans are well understood and generally not very diverse. It is also rather disappointing, as the reforms initiated by the Office for Tax Simplification (OTS) in principle were (and remain) welcome. More generally, it is clear that tax avoidance and the targeting of tax breaks will remain politically topical after the election, as the new government emerges from campaigning and tries to get to grips with the fiscal tightening that experts predict. In that climate, the generous and popular extensions of entrepreneurs’ relief, and perhaps also other targeted reliefs for employees’ or executives’ securities, may well be reviewed. In a similar vein, the Labour Party has announced that, if elected, it will enact a one-off revival of its 2009-10 Bank Payroll Tax (which was levied on the employer in respect of bonuses paid), with its proceeds applied to fund guaranteed jobs for the young, long-term unemployed.” HMRC also has to finalise and launch the online annual returns process which all companies with employee share plans or other management equity arrangements will need to use by 6 July 2015. Although HMRC has made a lot of progress in clarifying and developing the data it wants to collect, there seems to have been less progress in making sure that the technology will work and be easy for companies to use. Matthew Findley is our Head of Share Plans & Incentives. Matthew advises companies in relation to the design, implementation and operation of share plans and employee incentive arrangements both in the UK and internationally. His experience extends to both executive plans and all-employee arrangements. Matthew has been quoted in both Houses of Parliament on employee share ownership. He also has considerable experience of the corporate governance and investor relations issues associated with executive incentives and remuneration planning generally. Matthew has been picked as one of Tax Journal’s ‘40 under 40’ pick of the best young professionals working in tax in 2015. One final aspect of the Finance Act 2013 reforms still has to come into force, as significant changes to the tax treatment of internationally mobile employees’ share awards will take effect from 6 April 2015. Again, the implementation of these changes has created uncertainty given the lack of guidance in relation to the new rules but at least the accompanying National Insurance legislation has now been published. With this background, it is perhaps a relief that not much has been said so far about employee share plans by any of the political parties, although of course they are not a natural subject for general election rhetoric. The OTS reforms discussed above, and also the employee ownership amendments proposed by the Nuttall Review, seem to be uncontroversial coalition achievements, and so rather unlikely to be soon revisited by a new government. On the other hand, the politically divisive “employee shareholder” status will be quickly repealed if Labour and/or the Liberal Democrats hold E: [email protected] T: +44 (0)20 7490 6554 CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 12 PM-Tax | Our Comment Devolved taxes by Karen Davidson Karen Davidson considers the tax powers that are being devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. tax resident. Whilst this is not for their employers to determine, businesses with employees in Scotland may have to deal with an increased level of queries from their employees and may in the future consider whether they should offer tax equalisation terms to employees required to relocate between the two jurisdictions. At the very least, employers need to ensure that payroll systems are able to deal with the Scottish rates. Whilst the income tax take will affect the block grant paid to the Scottish government, the wider anti-avoidance provisions which apply to the Scottish devolved taxes will not apply to the Scottish rate of income tax. There is no going back. As Nick Clegg put it “the devolution genie is out of the bottle”. Whilst tax devolution of some description has been on the cards in Scotland since the Scotland Act 2012, it is only since the Scottish Independence Referendum and the subsequent promises made that it has generated such intense debate across the whole of the UK. The result so far is a patchwork quilt of varying degrees of tax devolution which businesses operating in the UK, and particularly those operating in more than one country within the UK, will need to keep abreast of over the coming months. Scotland From April 2015 Scottish Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (LBTT) and Scottish Landfill Tax will replace their UK equivalents in Scotland. Aggregates levy will follow subject to resolution of the current state aid issues. Designed, eye-catchingly at the time, as a progressive tax (rather than the old SDLT ‘slab system’) the rates for LBTT which were originally announced had to be hurriedly amended following George Osborne’s surprise Autumn Statement announcement that SDLT would move to a progressive rate at lower levels. We can expect the design of devolved taxes to continue to have an impact on the structure of their UK equivalents and vice versa over time. Wales Following in the footsteps of the Scottish government, the Wales Act 2014 gives the Welsh government full devolution of SDLT, Landfill Tax and Aggregates Levy from April 2018. The Welsh government are currently consulting on their new Land Transaction Tax and Landfill Disposals Tax and over the next year we should get a sense of whether these Welsh taxes will differ significantly from their UK predecessors or their Scottish equivalents. Some power over income tax may be devolved, subject to a Welsh referendum. The timetable for such a referendum will depend upon funding issues being resolved between the Welsh and UK governments. Northern Ireland Whilst the Calman, Smith and Silk commissions felt that devolution of corporation tax for Scotland and Wales was a step too far, a bill has now been published for the devolution of corporation tax in Northern Ireland for some trades and activities, expected from April 2017. The intention is for the bill to be enacted before the general election. Under the bill, SMEs with at least 75% of staff cost and time and those larger companies with Northern Ireland regional establishments will qualify for the Northern Ireland rate. Certain activities such as property income, non trading activities and financial activities will not qualify. This is a seismic shift in the UK tax system and whilst it may afford opportunity for some, it will come with additional complexity for businesses to grapple with. We are already seeing renewed pressure from those in Scotland who are keen to see devolution of corporation tax there. A new tax authority, Revenue Scotland, will be responsible for the administration of the devolved taxes in Scotland. This authority will have wider anti-avoidance powers than HMRC and it will take some bedding in before taxpayers have a true feel for the new authority’s approach. Guidance has been issued but it is so far sparse on details of the transactions which Revenue Scotland view as acceptable. This will evolve over time. Income tax will not be a devolved tax in Scotland, but the Scottish government will have power to set thresholds and rates from April 2016. In the period up until then, HMRC will be informing those persons it believes to be Scottish taxpayers. There will be some, and it has been suggested most likely the higher earners, who are mobile and can ensure that they are taxed in the most beneficial jurisdiction. Others may not be clear on whether they are Scottish CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 13 >continued from previous page PM-Tax | Our Comment Devolved taxes (continued) What next? Who knows where devolution of tax will end up? – some English cities have been calling for further control over business rates and devolution of SDLT – which Danny Alexander said (at last month’s ‘Core Cities Summit’) should be considered. The political uncertainty surrounding the general election makes it difficult to predict what will happen next. One thing is certain: those hoping for a simpler UK tax system will be sorely disappointed. Karen Davidson is a Legal Director in our tax team based in our Glasgow office. Karen specialises in corporate and business tax as well as advising in relation to employee share incentive arrangements. Her experience includes advising on the tax aspects of corporate mergers, acquisition disposals, joint venture arrangements and reorganisations. In addition she advises on the design, establishment and operation of share incentive arrangements and the implications of corporate transactions on such arrangements. E: [email protected] T: +44 (0)141 567 8535 See the Events section for details of the discussion on Taxation in Scotland on 25 March that we are co-hosting, with guest speaker Deputy First Minister, John Swinney MSP. Karen Davidson will also be speaking at this event together with Pinsent Masons partner Heather Self. CONTENTS PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 14 BACK NEXT PM-Tax | Our Comment UK oil and gas by Tom Cartwright 2015 is set to be a vital year in the UK taxation of upstream oil and gas. The key questions are what measures will we see and when. Industry is also continuing to lobby for a much greater reduction in the headline rate of supplementary charge, to no more than 20%. Again, the prospects for such a headline-grabbing initiative prior to the election may be slim, although this must be balanced against a picture of widespread job losses in the North Sea. Budget 2014 launched a fiscal review consultation on the upstream oil and gas regime long before the collapse in the oil price made this even more urgent and a question of survival for some participants. The Treasury released its initial proposals in ‘Driving Investment: a plan to reform the oil and gas fiscal regime’ the day after the Autumn Statement on 4 December 2014. This followed the announcement in the Autumn Statement of a 2% reduction in supplementary charge, which effectively reduced the corporation tax rate for oil and gas exploration and production from 62% to 60%. The two other big targets for the fiscal review for the rest of 2015 will be the introduction of measures to incentivise the very low levels of exploration activity and the prolongation of the expected life of existing infrastructure. High up the agenda for industry would be a measure to match the payable tax credit Norway gives to early stage exploration companies who are not yet in a tax paying position. It is also hoped that the tax regime for third party tariffs could be removed from the upstream tax regime, thereby encouraging much needed investment in existing infrastructure to ensure it is not decommissioned earlier than necessary. The main concrete measure adopted by the fiscal review so far is the planned introduction of an ‘investment allowance’ and a further specific consultation on this measure concluded on 23 February. The purpose of the allowance is to encourage further investment in the North Sea by removing a proportion of profits from the supplementary charge based on an agreed proportion of ‘qualifying expenditure’. The details of what will constitute qualifying expenditure (in particular what types of non-capital expenditure) and the level of this agreed proportion are yet to be determined. Tom Cartwright is a Partner focusing on all areas of corporate tax, including the tax aspects of corporate acquisitions and reconstructions, involving the financing and structuring of UK and cross-border buy-outs, mergers and acquisitions. He has considerable expertise in tax structuring for debt restructuring and corporate recovery for distressed businesses. Tom has advised extensively in the energy sector for oil and gas companies. He is a member of the UK Oil Industry Tax Committee. The allowance is expected to be available to set against all the supplementary charge payable by a participant, not just the supplementary charge payable in respect of the licence interest to which the expenditure generating the allowance relates. Industry will be keen to see some ability to surrender excess allowance to other group members. The other big question is the effective date for the new allowance and when it will be passed in legislation. Hopes to see it in the pre-election Finance Act may prove to be ambitious unless there is universal cross-party acceptance of the details. E: [email protected] T: +44 (0)20 7054 2630 CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 15 >continued from previous page PM-Tax PM-Tax | Our| Our Comment Cases Cases Spritebeam Ltd and Prowting Ltd v HMRC; HMRC v Versteegh [2015] UKUT 75 (TCC) Scheme where lender directed that instead of paying interest the borrower should issue preference shares to another group company did not result in a tax charge for the lender but recipient of the shares was taxed on the value of the shares received. This case involved a scheme where a lender (the Lender) lent money to a borrower (the Borrower) for the commercial purposes of the Borrower, but directed that instead of paying interest, the Borrower should issue preference shares to another group company (the Share Recipient). The plan was that the Borrower would get a deduction for interest, but neither party would be taxable on the receipt of the interest. HMRC argued that the Lender or the Share Recipient should be subject to tax on the interest. Both HMRC and the Share Recipient appealed to the UT on elements of the FTT’s decision. HMRC appealed the FTT’s finding that the Lender was not taxable on the value of the shares under s. 786(5) whilst the Share Recipient appealed the FTT’s ruling that the value of the Shares was income in its hands and therefore, taxable under Schedule D Case VI. With regard to the question of whether the Shares were the income of the Lender under s. 786(5), the UT upheld the decision of the FTT that s.786 could not apply to the issue of Shares by the Borrower to the Share Recipient and therefore, a tax charge did not arise to the Lender under Schedule D Case VI. However, the UT differed from the FTT in the grounds for its decision, holding that the scope of s.786 was wide enough to apply, but was over-ridden by the exclusive scope of the loan relationship rules in s.80(5) FA 1996. As HMRC had not challenged the accounting treatment in the Lender, the only amounts which could be taxed were the amounts which “fairly represented” its profits under GAAP, and this did not include the value of the shares. HMRC said that the Lender should be taxable on the value of the shares issued to the Share Recipient under s. 786(5) ICTA 1988. S. 786 applies to transactions “effected with reference to the lending of money or the giving of credit, or the varying of the terms on which money is lent or credit is given”. S. 786(5) provides for a tax charge under Schedule D Case VI if under a transaction “a person assigns, surrenders or otherwise agrees to waive or forgo income arising from any property (without a sale or transfer of the property)”. HMRC argued that as a lender would usually be entitled to interest, in directing that the interest be paid to the Share Recipient, the Lender was forgoing income and therefore a tax charge under s. 786(5) arose. HMRC also argued that if the Lender was not taxable, then the value of the shares should form part of the profits of the Share Recipient under Schedule D Case VI. On the issue of whether the Share Recipient was taxable on the value of the shares issued under Schedule D Case VI, the UT upheld the FTT’s decision that the value of the shares was taxable income in the Share Recipient’s hands. The UT provided an interesting evaluation as to when a receipt will be chargeable to tax. The UT considered that for a receipt to be chargeable to tax there must be four elements: (1) the receipt must have the character of income; (2) it must be the recipient’s income; (3) it must have a source; and (4) there must be a sufficient link between the source and the recipient. The FTT decided that for the purposes of s. 786, the “transaction” was the issue of the shares to the Share Recipient and not the loan itself. The fact that the Lender lent to the Borrower on terms that shares would be issued to the Share Recipient could not therefore be regarded as the “forgoing of income” under any relevant transaction for s. 786 purposes. Therefore, the FTT held that s. 786 could not apply to the issue of shares by the Borrower to the Share Recipient because there is no forgoing of anything by the Lender and consequently a tax charge under Schedule Case VI did not arise for the Lender. However, the FTT held that the Share Recipient was taxable under Schedule D Case VI on the value of the shares issued. CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 16 >continued from previous page PM-Tax | Cases Spritebeam Ltd and Prowting Ltd v HMRC; HMRC v Versteegh (continued) With regard to the receipt being the recipient’s income, the UT held that the shares constituted income in the hands of the Share Recipient and determined that the recipient does not need to have an enforceable legal right to receive a payment before it can form part of his income; rather there needed to be an obligation on the payer to make the payment. On this basis it was irrelevant that the Share Recipient was not a party to the loan agreement which provided for the Borrower to issue the shares to the Share Recipient instead of paying interest. The UT held that there was a sufficient link between the source of the income and the recipient. It determined that the source of the income was the loan agreement and that there was a sufficient link between the Share Recipient and the loan agreement because the Share Recipient was named as a beneficiary of the shares and the Borrower had a legal obligation to issue the shares to the Share Recipient. Comment This case provides an interesting analysis of Schedule D Case VI, where a tax charge arises to a company on the receipt of an issue of shares, despite that company not being a party to the agreement that created the obligation for the shares to be issued in the first place. Additionally, the UT’s judgment includes an interesting analysis of the characteristics of a receipt that are necessary for a tax charge to arise. In relation to the Lender, the confirmation that the loan relationship rules generally provide an exclusive code is welcome. Read the decision CONTENTS PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 17 BACK NEXT >continued from previous page PM-Tax | Our Cases Cases (continued) Tower Radio Limited and another v HMRC [2015] UKUT 0060 (TCC) Bonus scheme involving shares in an SPV survives Ramsay challenge. A scheme used by a number of companies was designed to save income tax and national insurance contributions (NICs) on bonuses to employees. It involved employees being given shares in specially-formed subsidiaries (SPVs). Tower and Total used the scheme and were designated as lead cases. Newey J and Judge Colin Bishopp said the Mayes case confirmed that the fact that a transaction was undertaken with a view to tax avoidance did not necessarily mean that the Ramsay principle applied. The UT dismissed the cases HMRC had relied on such as PA Holdings and Aberdeeen Asset Management saying that whilst they illustrated the application of the Ramsay principle and dealt with the meaning of the word payment, they did not provide substantial guidance on whether the individuals received ‘shares’ or ‘money’ within the meaning of section 420 of ITEPA. It found the Court of Appeal decisions in UBS and Deutsche Bank cases more persuasive as they also involved schemes where employees received shares in an SPV and were considering section 420. Tower subscribed a million “A” shares of £1 each in a new SPV and acquired the single “B” share. The A shares were transferred to Tower’s managing director. Holders of A shares were required to transfer them for 95% of their market value if they ceased to be an employee or director. It was envisaged that the director would retain the shares for at least two years and that the company would invest the money it held. However, following concerns about possible changes to the CGT regime, the SPV was liquidated a few months later. The scheme was operated in a similar way by Total in relation to two of its directors except the SPV was liquidated the day after the shares were acquired by the directors. In relation to Tower the UT said the director received shares as there was no doubt that in company law terms shares were acquired and the words “shares in any body corporate” are less susceptible to a non-technical reading than, words such as payment used in the cases on which HMRC relied. The UT said that section 420 defined ‘securities’ in a very broad way and was intended to extend to some ‘artificial’ schemes. It also said that the four month period for which the shares were held could not be regarded as a negligible period The scheme was designed to exploit the fact that no tax is payable when an employment-related security that is a restricted security is acquired and the “chargeable events” in the legislation that trigger tax liabilities do not include the liquidation of the company in which the securities are held. An anti avoidance provision has since been added to the legislation. In the UBS case, Rimer LJ contemplated that an employee could be treated as acquiring money rather than shares if the shares were required to be redeemed immediately for a pre-ordained cash sum. The UT pointed out that this was not the case with the Tower scheme. The issue was whether in the light of the Ramsay principle, the relevant employees should be regarded as having acquired “money” rather than “shares in any body corporate” for the purposes of section 420 of ITEPA. The FTT found in HMRC’s favour that the employees were to be regarded as having acquired money and the companies appealed. In relation to the Total scheme the UT said that the case for dismissing the transactions as “money in, money out” arrangements was stronger because the SPV was liquidated immediately and it never intended to make investments. However, on balance, the UT decided that the Total directors had received shares and not cash. The UT said “However unattractive the result may be, it seems to us that the appeals before us must be allowed.” Comment This case follows the Court of Appeal decision in UBS and Deutsche Bank – which both considered the application of the Ramsay principle to schemes relying on the complex code in Part 7 of ITEPA. These cases are due to be heard by the Supreme Court this year and it will be interesting to get that Court’s perspective on the line that has been taken by the Court of Appeal in those cases but also in Mayes. Pinsent Masons acted for the taxpayers in Mayes and is acting for UBS in its appeal. Read the decision CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 18 >continued from previous page PM-Tax | Our Cases Cases (continued) Terrace Hill (Berkeley) Ltd v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 0075 (TC) Property development held as investment rather than trading stock. Terrace Hill was a joint venture company created to develop an office property in Mayfair. Terrace Hill claimed that the property was held as an investment and that it could eliminate the tax liability through a capital loss scheme. HMRC admitted that the scheme worked, but argued that the property was held as trading stock so that the capital loss scheme did not relieve the tax liability. The FTT decided also that it was a credible strategy for the development to be held as an investment from the outset. It said that it continued to be held as an investment, regardless of the usual practice of holding such property developments as trading stock, until the rental income and purchase offer resulted in a change of circumstance. Terrace Hill’s claim was therefore allowed and the property was held to be an investment. The capital loss scheme (which could not otherwise be challenged by HMRC) was therefore successful. The FTT said that its starting point was that property developers would normally hold property developments as trading stock. However, the FTT decided that on the facts this was not the case for this particular development, although Judge Nowlan said the decision was “finely balanced”. The FTT found Terrace Hill’s chairman to be a highly credible witness with accounting knowledge and so was swayed by his evidence that he had always considered the property to be an investment property. In addition, the FTT noted the chairman’s contemporaneous records which favourably supported the proposition that he had always thought the property to be an investment. The property had also been treated as a capital asset throughout for accounting and capital allowance purposes. Comment This case shows that although the initial presumption is that a developer is holding property as trading stock, this can be overcome where contemporaneous evidence supports the arguments that it is held as an investment. However, the fact that the Judge admitted the decision was finely ballanced illustrates the unclear line between trading and investment treatment. Read the decision The FTT accepted Terrace Hill’s explanation for selling the development when it did as a result of the rental income being much lower than had been previously forecasted and the company receiving a very favourable offer from a purchaser. CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 19 >continued from previous page PM-Tax | Our Cases Cases (continued) Scots Atlantic Management Ltd (in liquidation) & Another v HMRC [2015] UKUT 0066 (TCC) Upper Tribunal fails scheme attempting to create an employer tax deduction. Where benefits are provided to employees wholly and exclusively for the purpose of a trade, the employer can claim a tax deduction for the cost of providing the benefit. However, under Schedule 24, Finance Act 2003 that deduction can only be claimed if the employee pays tax within nine months after the end of the tax year in which they received that benefit. The UT said that the FTT erred in law by concluding that Schedule 24 did not apply. This would have been sufficient to dismiss SAM’s case but, the UT went on to consider the second issue of whether s.74 ICTA applied to also preclude the deduction by SAM of its contributions. S. 74 ICTA states that an employer can only make a deduction for the cost of any benefit given to the employee if that benefit was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of a trade, profession or vocation. Scots Atlantic Management Ltd (SAM) tried to circumvent the Schedule 24 requirement through a tax avoidance scheme. Under the scheme, SAM subscribed for shares in a newly established company at a high premium. The value of those shares was then transferred to a newly established EBT through the grant of options in the new company to the EBT. SAM then sold its shares for the nominal value and the EBT liquidated the new company allowing it to make distributions to the employees in the future. The FTT had held that there was a dual purpose to the payments made by SAM, firstly to provide an employment benefit to the employee, but also to obtain a tax deduction. This had meant that the scheme failed under s. 74. As it was a finding of fact by the FTT, the UT could only interfere with the finding if there was an error of law or a decision which was unreasonably reached. However, the UT found that the FTT’s decision that the purpose of the contribution did have a duality of purpose was well founded. In doing so, the UT made a distinction between the purpose of the scheme (which in contrast had the sole purpose in the UT’s view of providing an employee benefit) and the purpose of the contribution. However, the finding of a dual purpose of the contribution was sufficient for the FTT’s decision to be upheld, meaning that SAM’s appeal on this point also failed. The UT considered whether Schedule 24 applied. It said that the scheme was an employment benefit scheme under that Schedule but the issue was whether a contribution was made, within the Schedule 24 wording, “in respect of” that scheme. SAM had argued that there was no such contribution because the cost to the employer was only when it subscribed for the shares and not at the moment when an option was granted to the employees which amounted to conferring on them the benefit. Comment This case is largely of historic interest, with Schedule 24 of the Finance Act 2003 having been since re-written. The UT rejected this argument. Instead, the UT took the view that looking at the whole of the scheme, there was a payment both “in respect of” and for the employee benefit scheme. In reaching this decision, it found that it was “wholly unrealistic” to consider only the payment for the subscription of shares by SAM, and not the later transferring of that value to the employees through the grant of the options to the EBT. In its view, Schedule 24 had to be viewed in light of the scheme as a whole and not just one step. Read the decision CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 20 PM-Tax | Events Events Taxation in Scotland In conjunction with Terra Firma and Edinburgh Tax Network we are holding a discussion on the theme of ‘taxation in Scotland’ with guest speaker Deputy First Minister, John Swinney MSP. Topics will include: •Tax issues for Scottish businesses – an international perspective •The Scottish GAAR – drawing the line on a clean sheet •In place of discovery assessment Additional speakers at the event will include: •Heather Self, FCA, CTA (Fellow) Tax Partner, Pinsent Masons •Karen Davidson, Tax Director, Pinsent Masons •Derek Francis CTA (Fellow) Advocate & Barrister, Terra Firma Chambers & Temple Tax Chambers Date: Wednesday 25 March 2015 Time: Registration at 5.15pm, Seminar start 5.45pm, Drinks & Canapés from 7.15pm Venue: The Laigh Hall, Parliament House, High Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1RF If you would like to attend please contact Marina Dell. CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 21 PM-Tax | People People Tax Journal’s 40 under 40 We are very pleased that Matthew Findley and Steven Porter have been picked for Tax Journal’s 40 under 40 for 2015. This is Tax Journal’s pick of some of the best young professionals working in tax today. Matthew Findley Matthew is a partner and head of share plans and incentives in the tax team at Pinsent Masons. He advises companies in relation to the design, implementation and operation of share plans and employee incentive arrangements, both in the UK and internationally. Matthew has a genuine following and industry profile: quoted extensively in Hansard and in the national and trade press; sits on the UK Chapter Committee of the Global Equity Organisation and is a regular speaker at industry events. Clients include Imperial Tobacco, and IMI. Key achievements: •Advising an international insurance intermediary group on various tax efficient equity arrangements, having been instructed by the company secretary who he worked with in his former role. •Leads Pinsent Masons’ client fora – held three times a year – at which a continuing theme is the ongoing development of the tax framework surrounding employee share plans. These events have to place tax in a commercial context given that many of the attendees are non-tax professionals. Matthew’s ability to provide this kind of client care is informed by six years’ industry experience in a specialist remuneration consulting firm. Client quotes: “Matthew is highly professional, practical and commercial. He explains and presents things in clear plain language rather than blinding you with “legalese” which many others do.” “He is a great guy to work with – clear and accurate advice.” “His technical knowledge and advice is excellent and he has a very sensible and practical approach when applying his advice in the real commercial world. He is very approachable, has excellent client management skills and always responds in a timely manner.” Matthew Findley Partner T: +44 (0)20 7490 6554 M: +44 (0)7500 102039 E: [email protected] CONTENTS BACK NEXT 7757 PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 22 PM-Tax | People Tax Journal’s 40 under 40 (continued) Steven Porter Steven is a senior associate, known for his expertise in advising, litigating and resolving complex disputes with HMRC on indirect taxes, property taxes and high net worth individuals’ UK residency status. He heads the firm’s highly regarded contentious tax practice in Manchester; he also works as part of the firm’s market-leading national and international tax team. Steven has extensive experience of managing large pieces of litigation from the tax tribunal through to the higher courts including the Court of Justice of the European Union. His clients include corporates (especially large FTSE 100 companies), high net worth individuals and foreign royal families. Key achievements: •Acted in the First-tier Tribunal (tax) case of JIB Group Limited, one of the first of its kind using the Tribunal’s Lead Case Procedure. •Conducted one of the first tax mediations with HMRC outside of the pilot project. •Lead solicitor in the successful First-tier Tribunal decisions of James Glyn concerning the taxpayer’s UK residency status (currently under appeal at the Upper Tribunal); and Avon Cosmetics Ltd, including the continuing reference to the CJEU concerning the UK’s VAT regime affecting direct sellers. Client quotes: “Steven has an exceptional ability to fully understand and advise on the complexities of tax in particular VAT and then be able to explain this to ourselves as the client in a way that makes a complex subject understandable.” “His great skill is being able to marshal all of the litigation but also to manage it in such a way that we are always ahead of the opposition and always being proactive rather than reactive.” Steven Porter Senior Associate T: +44 (0)161 662 8050 M: +44 (0)7702 960016 E: [email protected] Tell us what you think We welcome comments on the newsletter, and suggestions for future content. Please send any comments, queries or suggestions to: [email protected] We tweet regularly on tax developments. Follow us at: @PM_Tax PM-Tax | Wednesday 11 March 2015 CONTENTS BACK This note does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be taken before acting on any of the topics covered. Pinsent Masons LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales (registered number: OC333653) authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the appropriate regulatory body in the other jurisdictions in which it operates. The word ‘partner’, used in relation to the LLP, refers to a member of the LLP or an employee or consultant of the LLP or any affiliated firm of equivalent standing. A list of the members of the LLP, and of those non-members who are designated as partners, is displayed at the LLP’s registered office: 30 Crown Place, London EC2A 4ES, United Kingdom. We use ‘Pinsent Masons’ to refer to Pinsent Masons LLP, its subsidiaries and any affiliates which it or its partners operate as separate businesses for regulatory or other reasons. Reference to ‘Pinsent Masons’ is to Pinsent Masons LLP and/or one or more of those subsidiaries or affiliates as the context requires. © Pinsent Masons LLP 2015. 7757 For a full list of our locations around the globe please visit our website: www.pinsentmasons.com
© Copyright 2024