Accountants face tax ‘loophole’ crackdown

The Liberal Democrats have vowed to close “unfair loopholes” in limited partnership firms as part of the party's efforts to tackle the remaining deficit fairly.

Speaking at the party conference in Glasgow this week, chief secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander pledged to continue targeting the “wealthy” in its efforts to raise taxes.

He said the government will start by closing a loophole that allows partners to classify part of their earnings as eligible for corporation tax.

The Treasury believes this is used extensively by the...

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments
stevebritgimp's picture

Generic subject    2 thanks

stevebritgimp | | Permalink

We could have this headline every week.

The reason these problems arise is there is a schizophrenic political approach that they want to reduce taxes on corporates to encourage business, but want to increase taxes on the wealthy out of fairness, not realising these are the same people.

Generic rant about policians...

Crux of the matter....    2 thanks

AndyC555 | | Permalink

"The British Venture Capital Association (BVCA) has since attacked Alexander for describing well established tax laws as “loopholes”."         There's an awful lot of this.  A 'loophole' used to be a tax advantage gained in a way unintended and un-envisaged by parliament.  Nowadays for politicians and the media, a loophole is "any tax law, no matter how long established and no matter what its original purpose, that means someone doesn't pay the maximum amount of tax you could possibly imagine on any given income"

More complexity

hiu612 | | Permalink

These wheezes are already coming under scrutiny from HMRC and the government as part of the focus on people exploiting the transfer pricing rules and corresponding deficiency rules to pay CT instead of IT. So now they need anti avoidance for the anti avoidance. And that's assuming that GAAR is as much use as everyone expects, and doesn't find the setup wanting. Is anyone else finding it is becoming increasingly complex to arrange some very simple transactions because so many of the 'loophole closures' are drafted so wide reachingly?

More complexity

hiu612 | | Permalink

These wheezes are already coming under scrutiny from HMRC and the government as part of the focus on people exploiting the transfer pricing rules and corresponding deficiency rules to pay CT instead of IT. So now they need anti avoidance for the anti avoidance. And that's assuming that GAAR is as much use as everyone expects, and doesn't find the setup wanting. Is anyone else finding it is becoming increasingly complex to arrange some very simple transactions because so many of the 'loophole closures' are drafted so wide reachingly?

Then Danny boy

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Then Danny boy should go back to school if this is the best he can come up with to save the UK economy.

Presumably he could not get his head round, umbrella companies, and contrived avoidance schemes, etc etc etc etc etc.

Not surprised though, the parliamentary accounts committee are having trouble understanding how basic vat works and believe that applying the transfer pricing rules is some sort of avoidance scheme. Some of the MP's on the panel must have trouble tying their shoelaces in the morning it's that bad.

£100,000,000 pocket money rule using.

£25,000,000,000 abusive avoidance

£85,000,000,000 Criminal Evasion (yes plumbers and the like)

Cost of government PRICELESS!

 

 

Agreed    1 thanks

AndyC555 | | Permalink

"the parliamentary accounts committee....believe that applying the transfer pricing rules is some sort of avoidance scheme."       Agreed. I'm waiting for the PAC to claim that companies are sneakily using the 23% rate of corporation tax to avoid paying 50% tax on their profits.