HMRC dodges cuts to beef up avoidance fight

Kashflow logo
Share this content

HMRC emerged as the Chancellor’s pet department in the Autumn Statement. With billions of pounds of cuts promised for central government departments over the next two years, HMRC escaped unscathed. Instead the chancellor confirmed the £77m package to fight tax avoidance announced on Monday.

In the detailed statement, a total of £155m was promised to increase compliance and revenue as well as expanding online service delivery and the reduction of tax credit errors and fraud. The extra amount will be made up of additional funding and reinvestment. The initiatives would contribute an extra £2bn to HMRC’s revenues in 2014-15 and reduce tax credit losses by more than £1bn over the next four years, the statement said.

Confirming that the theme o...

Please Login or Register to read the full article

The full article is available to registered 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, AccountingWEB head of insight

AccountingWEB’s Head of Insight has been with the site since 1999 and likes to spend his time studying accountants’ technology habits. When not nerding out, you can find him exploring obscure indie music and searching for the perfect organic sourdough loaf from his base in Brighton, UK.


Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Chaztax
06th Dec 2012 07:12

…but nothing on Permanent Establishment so far.

Specifically, nothing to amend  s.148(5) FA 2003 which exempts a warehouse from being a P/E.

If this bit of legislation were amended so that, e.g. a warehouse above a certain size were henceforth a P/E, then that would (for example) bring Amazon’s UK warehouses into the scope of UK corporation tax.

Such an amendment to UK domestic law would need to take precedence over tax treaties whilst the latter were being renegotiated, but this is not an unknown concept (e.g. in the US, domestic law sometimes overrides treaties).

On the fact of it, this seems like a relatively simple way of bringing the legislation up to date and raising tax revenue at the same time.  Can any of the International CT experts out there can see a reason why this wouldn't work?

Thanks (1)