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

Tax complexity undermines business growth

by
24th Apr 2013
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

In 2006, the then Labour government introduced “pension simplification”. The idea was to sweep away a myriad of confusing and conflicting legislation which had rendered navigating one’s way through the rules somewhat of a voyage of discovery, explains Andy White.

Even then, we had primary protection and enhanced protection to contend with, but those seemed to be sensible measures designed to benefit the individual so we accepted them.

Then we had the proposals to restrict tax relief for higher rate taxpayers. And then anti-forestalling. Followed by fixed protection. And auto-enrolment. And flexible drawdown.

And auto-enrolment

So at a time when the government should be encouraging people to invest in pensions to mitigate the huge drain on the state caused by increased life expectancy, what is it doing? Overlaying complexity upon complexity making pension provision a most unattractive proposition.

And worst of all, there is a significant danger of employees facing significant tax liabilities simply by becoming inadvertently enrolled in a pension scheme they have no desire to join.

An isolated example? Well consider this.

In the 2011 Budget, the Chancellor announced a new Inheritance Tax (IHT) relief for those leaving at least 10% of their net estate to charity. In those cases, the IHT rate would be reduced from 40% to 36%. That proposal was duly legislated in the 2012 Finance Act.

What started as a simple proposal has translated itself into reams of legislation and frankly, the accountancy fees incurred in calculation the new relief are likely to exceed the value of the relief in many cases.

Is that really going to encourage philanthropy?

Let’s roll forward a year to the 2012 Budget and the now infamous announcement to cap income tax reliefs to the greater of £50,000 or 25% of income. Originally, of course, that proposal included reliefs for charitable giving and the government somehow allowed an impression to be created that they viewed all philanthropists as tax avoiders. 

But apart from the PR disaster, where was the joined-up thinking? Does the government want to encourage charitable giving or not? Look at the IHT proposals and the answer is clearly “yes”. So why limit the income tax relief?

While this is an example that affects individuals, rather than companies, it is illustrative of a theme in government thinking that is counter-productive.

The Chancellor often promotes himself to be the champion of the businessman, reducing corporate tax rates to among the lowest of the developed economies. Every new policy, we are told, is designed to attract businesses to the UK, to provide growth and employment.

Yet what right-minded businessman would want to come to a country that ties its citizens in red tape, and whose government is so paranoid about tax avoidance that every new section of tax law seems to be accompanied by countless schedules of anti-avoidance legislation?

But it’s not just paranoia about avoidance that seems to cause this malaise.

Look at capital allowances.

In 2008, the government introduced the “annual investment allowance”. This was the amount a company could invest in plant and machinery and obtain a full tax write-off. In the five years since it was introduced, the amount has fluctuated somewhat. From the original figure of £50,000 pa, the figure was increased to £100,000, then slashed to £25,000 and now it has been increased by a factor of 10 to £250,000!

This indicates a lack of coherent thinking. After all, the economy has been in desperate need of a stimulus ever since the banking crash of 2008. So the decision to slash the rate from £100,000 to £25,000 was odd at best.

But the rules that govern the calculation of the allowance where the company year-end is not co-terminus with the financial year are a veritable minefield.

And if you get it wrong?

Well the penalties are draconian and getting worse. Late PAYE payments? Incorrect operation of RTI? “Negligent” capital allowance claims? Failure to comply with auto-enrolment? Expect to be heavily penalised for all or any of these.

So welcome to the UK, Mr Foreign Businessman. Come and open a factory here and employ our workers.

Not only will we charge you a premium of almost 14% for the privilege in the form of employer national insurance, but we will wrap you in a cornucopia of red tape and penalise you to the hilt if you make the slightest mistake with our myriad of arcane rules.

Is that really the message we should be giving?

Andy White is a tax partner with accountancy firm Carter Backer Winter.

Tags:

Replies (4)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By zebedeerox
24th Apr 2013 22:27

but tax isn't supposed to be taxing

Cracking article, Andy.

However, I feel the implications to resident UK companies is going to cause the economy more distress than a lack of foreign investment.

I'm not disagreeing with you - the pain will be as palpable to UK business owners as it is so obviously to you for all of the above reasons and more.

Umbrella companies with untouchable employees, information exchanges that reveal where UK business people are dumping their loot, even a call to complain to HMRC is now going to cost those who were getting 0845 numbers for zip if the comments on Rachael's post are accurate.

Happy days ahead?  There is an Arthur in what I'm thinking, but it's got nothing to do with where The Fonz, Richie or Joanie used to hang out in '57 Milwaukee.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By johnjenkins
25th Apr 2013 09:22

Agreed great article.

Years ago I used to back horses - not heavy, but I kept losing. So I devised a scheme whereby I would pick all but 3 horses and my mate would do the other 3 each way. Over 30 years (yes we still do it) we have come out on top.

Now the point of this tale is that it would appear the Chancellor is one of those people that nearly always get it wrong so perhaps he should do the opposite of what he is doing.

Apart from Germany all EU countries are now preparing plan B.

Surely all the EU have to do is write off all debts and start again, at least then it will be controllable.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By raychidell
26th Apr 2013 16:10

Yes, good article

Everyone says it is good to simplify the tax code, but it does not happen. So what are the real barriers?

It seems to me that one of the biggest barriers is the fact that every simplification will involve winners and losers, which will be endlessly dissected in the press and on the internet. Tax is always inherently unfair to an extent, but the perceived unfairness will be put in the spotlight if there is a change that makes A better off but B worse off. A will keep quiet and B will shout from the rooftops. The parliamentary opposition will make political capital on behalf of B. So once it is in place, it is difficult to change it.

That accounts for the reluctance to merge tax and NIC, for example, which would be a huge simplification.

However, that makes the failure to get things right in the first place even more disappointing. Gordon Brown had several ridiculous ideas, including the zero CT rate (despite being warned that businesses would not look a gift horse in the mouth). The recent fiasco over the AIA rates going up and down, with absurdly complex transitional rules, shows that the current chancellor can sadly make decisions that are just as flawed. 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By The Black Knight
29th Apr 2013 12:13

less change is what we need?

It is clear that the idiots at the top do not have a clue what they are doing, do not understand what they have done. Their response to a problem is to create another one to keep us all busy before we fixed the last one.

RTI = an inducement to pay cash wages and by pass the record system (will work the same way as the CIS), they have just made it too complicated for Joe plumbers wife to understand.

= second option is you can choose to be self employed? problem gone.

auto-enrolment another cost to employers ha ha very funny = delay all expansion, pay rises and ensure everyone is self employed. Otherwise rich pickings for a pensions industry who can very often ensure your pension is worth less than you put in.

What we all need is access to the government employees pension scheme, they all get massive pensions for not doing much?

yes there are penalties but unless you tell HMRC yourself you will not get these as you even have to self assess these too.

 

Thanks (1)