Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Retrospection undermining certainty in the tax system

by
12th Feb 2010
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The increasing use of retrospective action in the tax system could undermine the fundamental principle of certainty, warned the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) this week.

The institute raised concerns following an announcement by the Treasury's financial secretary Stephen Timms this week week, amending the tax rules relating to manufactured dividends which will be applied to the period dating from 1 October 2007.

“The use of retrospective legislation always concerns us greatly; we think it damages the key principle of certainty in the tax system that is so important to its reputation and is inherently unfair", said John Whiting, tax policy director at CIOT.

“We can understand that at times the government wants to take action to ‘confirm the general understanding of the tax system’ in the light of questions raised. However, this needs to be used with great caution: it must not dislodge the principle that the taxpayer is taxed on the wording of the legislation in place at the time of their actions. We are taxed on what legislation says, not what HMRC thinks it says. Of course the taxpayer would have to sustain their interpretation in the courts”, he added.

The CIOT said recent case law had shone a spotlight on the issue by considering section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 – a provision that closed an apparent loophole in the law but with retrospective effect that went back 20 years.

“We need a clear statement as to when retrospection will be used and its boundaries – and Parliament needs to consider such boundaries with care,” insisted Whiting.

 

Tags:

Replies (3)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By cymraeg_draig
12th Feb 2010 22:51

Human Rights Act - Article 7 No punishment without law
 

"1 No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. "

 

Although not "criminal" it could be argued that the same principals should apply.

It needs someone so badly affected that it becomes economically viable to challenge the legality in the european courts.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
15th Feb 2010 16:25

Like there has ever been any "certainty"!

What a waste of everyone's time, more costs to the taxpayer, as yet another company has to take its case to the European Court.

Deterrent factor? Zero, you just take your activities outside the UK.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
16th Feb 2010 13:41

European Court

There is already a case on its way to the European Court.

Thanks (0)