Accountancy Age report this morning that:
HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS has begun its search for a permanent General Anti-Abuse Rule advisory panel, following the recent appointment of its head, Patrick Mears, the former partner and head of tax at law firm Allen & Overy.
In an advert posted online, the taxman states the eight roles available are voluntary, with the necessary expenses covered. Initial appointments will be for three years, although it is believed there is some flexibility.
Like the interim panel, the permanent panel will be drawn from a broad base of sectors, and will have extensive tax knowledge. The panel will convene six times a year, and it is expected appointments will be made shortly after the interview process is completed in the week beginning 17 June.
And therein lies the problem.
You must be willing to meet six times a year, review detailed case information, write reports and have extensive tax knowledge, and all for free.
This inevitably means the 'drawn from a broad base of sectors' is a joke. These are jobs for big business, City lawyers and the Big 4. If ever there was a case of putting foxes in charge of th chicken coop this is it.
Welcome to the surreal world of tax avoiders deciding whether their abuse is reasonable, or not.
And for the record, I will not be applying as I could not afford to do this and am barred, having been a member of the interim panel.
In the meantime the case for a real general anti-tax avoidance principle of the sort I have proposed becomes more compelling by the day.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard,
That is quite brilliant! By inviting you to join the interim panel they have made completely sure that you can’t make a nuisance of yourself when they actually decide what constitutes abuse.
But there must be a way of getting one or more credible candidates, for instance by funding a tax law research project where the fellow would have time for the work? I hope you are working on this behind the scenes.
I see no way of getting an alternative on
Sorry
This is probably the time for campaigners and honest politicians to shout from the roof top rather than wait until it is too late. The Advisory Panel is designed to effectively exercise a judicial function thereby relegating the courts to the sidelines even more when it comes to tax avoidance. You would think it will comprise retired judges but not in Britain. What an absolute scandal! So we will have an HMRC dominated by big business and a GAAR Advisory Panel of big business deciding on what is legal or illegal when it comes to tax abuse. Where are Parliament and more importantly the Juduciary in this arrangement? And we wonder why UKIP are doing so well when the three major parties are completely hopeless in defending the public interest.
It’s also a really good case study of the institutionalisation of bias, Richard. It demonstrates how a policy process that starts out as relatively neutral/balanced (leaving aside whether the GAAR is the best instrument for the purpose or not) – in this case in which you and other representatives of various interests participated – then becomes distorted and eventually captured in the implemenation phase.
What is so very depressing about this example, and many, many others nowadays, is that it used to be the case that senior public servants were willing and able to question such blatant distortions in the formulation and implementation of public policy. But not now. Even if they are aware or concerned about such cases of the institutionalisation of bias – and many aren’t having signed up to the neo-liberal project for the corporate capture of the state – they dare not say so.
Unfortunately this is yet another in a long line of ever more serious examples of the ugly face of the corporate public sphere.
It will be fascinating to see how many schemes actually fall foul of the rule. It probably would have been ‘not many’ anyway, but with a advisory board consisting of the people who design the schemes in the first place, the chance of it closing down abusive schemes in significant numbers has dropped even further.
Do you think there’s a chance though that once the rules in place it can be easily ‘tightened’ by (more empathic) future governments?
Labour is already saying it will review the rule in 2 years
A top criminologist on a panel like this on wouldn’t go amiss.
So are you saying that there should not be a panel at all, or that you are happy with the idea of a panel but its duties should be less onerous?
In any event, the panel has no actual power – HMRC and the courts can ignore it if they want.
There should be no panel
And I will tell you the panel has an absolute power of veto in practice
No case will proceed without its unanimous consent, ever
A very calculating and cynical move by our Big 4 corrupted Treasury. They hope that tax avoidance will return to obscurity away from the gaze of the Public. Then like the Banks it will be business as usual!
As I have said before the whole process is amateurish. Having had a small glimpse as to how tax policy is formulated it showed me beyond my wildest suspicions just how non professional the whole approach is. I hope I am wrong but don’t hold out your hopes for Labour if past experience is anything to go by.From experience the last Labour Government was worse the the Coalition. At the ICAEW Institute we now have lots of consultations on marginal tax matters, then something big is worked out on the back of a fag packet and there is no consultation or there is some but with absurd time limits to respond.
I tend to agree
I loved the line above “what about a top criminologist”.
I honestly think that if you got a few people from outside “the tax industry” they would be flabbergasted that what seems to everyman like fraud is accepted by the professions as “normal tax planning”.
Stephen
“At the ICAEW Institute we now have lots of consultations on marginal tax matters, then something big is worked out on the back of a fag packet and there is no consultation or there is some but with absurd time limits to respond.”
If you aren’t Big4 they don’t really want your opinions do they ? Just your subscriptions.