Finance Bill: Bad Ideas 'R' US. By Simon Sweetman
"So we have more legislation that is just a nuisance and which apparently serves no useful purpose: legislation that was not consulted on or discussed..."
The Finance Bill includes proposals (Schedule 15) which have already been through Parliament and which would write the principles of Sharkey v Wernher into tax statute.
Continued...
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.
Or if you are already registered, login here
Related links
Why Sharkey was enacted
In my view, the decision to codify the rule was a clear example of disingenuity from the Government. In Parliament, they asserted that the professional bodies had asked them to clarify the law in this department. (I know that the CIOT and the ICAEW made no such request and ICAS had previously made similar comments objecting to the idea.)
In truth, I suspect that it is simply a ruse to restrict taxpayers from arguing that the Sharkey v Wernher rule no longer applies (or in fact was never good law). I know that Simon has previously written suggesting that the rule ought to be abandoned. I have gone further and suggested that it could be challenged.
Accountants have subsequently written to me to advise me that they had used my article to resist HMRC challenges based upon the Sharkey decision and they were able to obtain attractive settlements as a result.
I guess that HMRC would now rather not be exposed in the Courts and feel that the only way to guarantee success is to change the statute.
In my view, they have all but conceded defeat in respect of appropriations of stock pre-12 March 2008. Or, to use Simon's words, the status quo has been maintained only if you willingly adopt HMRC's interpretation of the law. Remember, sometimes, HMRC's interpretations can be found to be wrong (cue: Arctic Systems ...)