Freelance journalist
Share this content

Supreme court rejects Eclipse film appeal

14th Apr 2016
Freelance journalist
Share this content
ictock_Jag_cz

Britain’s Supreme Court has rejected a multimillion pound legal appeal case brought by Eclipse Film partners against HMRC over a film scheme.

Although Eclipse film partners (No35) claimed to trade in film rights, this verdict upholds the Court of Appeal’s ruling in 2015  that it was a tax avoidance scheme. David Gauke, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, called today’s ruling an “important victory for HMRC”, which HMRC says has protected £635m in tax.

HMRC said that the scheme operated by acquiring the rights to Disney films (Enchanted and Underdog) and then sub-leasing them back to a different Disney entity for a guaranteed income stream.

Almost 300 investors, including Sir Alex Ferguson and Sven-Göran Eriksson, poured money into the scheme. If it had worked, members could have enjoyed an average of more than £400,000 in tax relief on a personal investment of £173,000.

Film schemes aimed at avoiding tax are an example of unintended consequences of changes to the tax system. In 2005 the Labour Government announced tax breaks for low- and large-budget British films. Under the legislation, introduced in 2006, tax relief would fund 20% of production costs for British films with budgets up to £20m.

But after claims that the schemes were being abused to avoid tax, many of the large ones have been challenged by HMRC and its investors charged with cheating the Revenue.

In January a former KPMG partner was among people charged with offences linked to a film tax scheme.

Jolyon Maugham, a barrister involved in film scheme appeals, told the FT before the verdict. “There is a lot of political pressure on the government and the Revenue to extend the net of criminality to tax avoiders and it is helping to make HMRC much punchier about alleging fraud.”

Commenting after the Supreme court’s ruling, Jennie Granger, Director General of Enforcement and Compliance, HM Revenue and Customs, said: “I’m delighted that the Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal in dismissing this case going any further. This is a fantastic victory for HMRC. It has significant ramifications for the 31 other Eclipse schemes and beyond.

“It just proves that tax avoidance doesn’t pay and highlights the danger that people face in getting involved in these schemes, which can see investors in a worse position than if they had not entered the avoidance scheme in the first place.”

Replies (3)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Justin Bryant
14th Apr 2016 17:56

What

A surprise (not).

Thanks (1)
avatar
By AnnAccountant
15th Apr 2016 20:07

Substance over form

Clearly the spirit behind the scheme was to encourage taking risks re making films.  Not to provide a free tax break.

The people (firms and clients) who go about these kind of schemes ruin it for genuine users.

At least the Landscape of Lies case was funny.  And they did (sort of) make a film!

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By moneymanager
18th Apr 2016 14:02

There's nothing like a bit of evasion

I have no truck with tax evasion and avoidance which used to be known as "planning" has only become a bete noir since politicians wilfully conflated the two but this isn't even that, it's deceit. Decit, that is, on the part of the HMRC. When Brown introduced the underpinning legislation the response from the film industry was a massive yawn. It was only following the "packaging" if you will into these schemes that the UK film production industry received the fillip that Brown intended and subsequently basked in and which has tanked following it's withdrawal. Certainly not all but the majority of such schemes gained NO tax enduring relief at all (unlike say VCT/EIS income tax relief) but solely a deferall of the tax due which would be fully repaid over the term of the arrangement (15-20 years if memory serves me). In fact, with the additional rate of tax many investors would have obtained initial relief at 40% and are now paying back at 45% plus the negative effects attaching thereto. It get's worse. HMRC having sought to dissalow the relief what is the investor now supposed to do with the income stream? Well, report it of course and it will be taxed. Fair enough but with no offset for the friggin loan repayment that generated it in the first place! That's not tax payer stumped, that's 1925 style bodyline bowling at it's worst.

Thanks (0)