Disguised remumeration rules tweaked

Kashflow logo
Share this content

Responding to concerns raised during consultation around its crackdown on what it calls “disguised remuneration”, the government has amended draft legislation to soften the impact on employers and individuals who are not deemed to be using arrangements for avoidance purposes.

Following concerns raised that the draft legislation was too widely drawn and that it might catch innocent employee benefit trust (EBT) and employer-financed retirement benefit schemes (EFRBS), the government has adjusted the provisions to protect benefits provided by group companies, share incentive arrangements and genuine deferred remuneration arrangements.

As set out in the Disguised Remuneration information note, the new Part 7A of ITEPA will target trusts and other int...

Please Login or Register to read the full article

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB.co.uk 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.

About John Stokdyk

John Stokdyk is the global editor of AccountingWEB UK and AccountingWEB.com.


Please login or register to join the discussion.

24th Mar 2011 08:41

Whiting wants more simplification for non-dom regime

Responding to the proposals to introduce an extra £50,000 annual charge for non-domiciles who have lived in the UK resident for 12 years or more and want to use the remittance basis, CIOT tax policy director (and Office of Tax Simplification head) John Whiting wanted more radical reform.

“It is up to the Chancellor to judge the appropriate level of the non-dom charge, but what is really needed is a simpler, more certain basis for the levy,” he said in a CIOT press release.

“The exemption for commercial investment is eminently sensible and the promise of a review of the complexities in the remittance rules is welcome. But in many ways we think the remittance rules are so overcomplex as to really need a complete rethink.

“There is a lot to be said for complementing the plan to introduce a statutory residence test with a review of the domicile rules.”

Thanks (0)
24th Mar 2011 09:59

ICAS responds to tax avoidance

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) responds to the Budget announcement regarding tax avoidance.

Elspeth Orcharton, assistant director of tax at ICAS, said: “Improving compliance and helping everyone to pay the right tax at the right time is in everyone’s interest, so we agree with the Government’s aim of tackling unacceptable tax avoidance.
“There will be however additional complexity for individual taxpayers in the tax system from the anti-avoidance provisions introduced on disguised remuneration, which is inconsistent with the drive towards tax simplification.  A longer-term solution may arise in the harmonisation of tax rates across income tax types and capital gains provisions and simplification measures, such as removing tax distinctions between incorporated and unincorporated businesses.
“There will be a review of a General Anti-Avoidance Provision, due to report in the Autumn, to which ICAS will contribute; with the objectives of ensuring that businesses can be supported in their commercial activities and achieve certainty within any such development.”

Thanks (0)
05th Sep 2013 21:11

tax avoidance

A device often used by one man limited companies is to pay minimum salary to director, and pay enormous dividends. This is still allowable, but is it likely that HMRC will crack down on this?

Probably been answered before, but as I prepare accounts purely for small S/E individuals, I am not up to date on current legislation, and one of my clients has been told, by the ubiquitous man in the pub, that he should set up a one man limited company and go down this route.

Thanks (0)