Profession concerned over accelerated payments

The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) has voiced concern about HMRC’s proposal to extend accelerated payment proposals to existing schemes disclosed under DOTAS.

In a recent response to Finance Bill 2014 draft clauses for consultation, the tax institute said that this is in effect introducing retrospective legislation and that “the proposed legislation tips the balance excessively in HMRC’s favour”

“The fact that there has been disclosure indicates an intention to...

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

Gambling

the_Poacher | | Permalink

This is an additional risk that comes with dabbling in avoidance schemes

Advance payments

Brendan246 | | Permalink

Guilty until proven innocent........

Tribunals restricted to cases HMRC deem applicable to........ will removal of Jury trial be next, except where CPS do not want the member of the public to serve the sentence or pay the fine first?

Be careful what you wish for.

howardwalters | | Permalink

I have no objection to legislation designed to prevent future involvement in avoidance schemes but retrospective changes are just plainly unfair. How on earth is anyone able to make decisions, whether other people agree with them or not, if the government can simply change the rules that applied at the time those decisions were made and then persecute a group of people who were relying on them.

This is pure laziness dressed up as ethics or morals and we should be jumping up and down with rage. But nobody other than those who feel they are affected will do so because presumably, as far as the apparently non affected are concerned, the ends justify the means i.e.  "those tax-avoiders will get what they deserve".

Well it's not the way the law should work in the UK. Everyone should be entitled to certainty in the legislation that exists at the time otherwise who knows where this slippery slope will lead.

Supporters of this legislation - be careful what you wish for!