What is to be made of the UK Revenue's announcement that a tax amnesty is to be offered?
I blogged this issue yesterday, not knowing that the amnesty was to be announced during the day. And I have to say I'm pleased that the conditions I laid down look like they will be met, bar that the application of the amnesty is more widespread than I would have hoped. I do however have little doubt that it's human rights legislation that has required the amnesty to apply to all sources of income: on refection I realise it would have been prejudicial to apply it to one source alone. This therefore is a massive opportunity for the 'shadow' economy to come clean in the UK.
So what to add? I welcome the fact that the Revenue say that whilst they will accept disclosure in most cases as being complete, and that 10% penalties plus tax and interest will usually be the limit of liability. As a practitioner I know this to be useful. But I'm also delighted that they reserve the right to do otherwise, and name circumstances where this will not apply (page 10 here). It's absolutely right, for example, that those who have already settled cases in the past with the Revenue on the basis of full disclosure having been made should now be subject to very high penalty if it has transpired that this was not the case.
But perhaps the biggest things to note are these:
1) The Revenue look like they're managing this well: a clear web site and publications are available. The procedures are obvious. This is good news;
2) It looks like the publicity will be good: that's welcome, but I'd still strongly recommend every accountant to write to all their clients to mention this issue, now (I will be);
3) I sincerely hope accountants have the capacity to handle this work: the deadlines for notification are fairly tight (although I'm not complaining);
4) I hope the Revenue move after the amnesty to make clear that tax compliance has to be the basis for disclsoure in the future: the spirit as well as the letter of the law has to be followed. The amnesty is, in other words, over once this period comes to an end;
5) I hope practitioners get that message;
6) As I said yesterday, this is now the time to focus attention on the biggest culprits in this. Of course those who have these accounts and who knew they should declare the tax are at fault, but the big culprits are the banks who ran these accounts. They must have suspected many were used for tax evasion: I think they had to suspect that and should have reported it locally in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in every case where information exchange was not allowed under the EU Savings Directive, but none have done so as far as I can tell. Candidly, I think this a shocking neglect of duty on their part and questions have to be asked as to what they were doing in this case.
7) The same questions have to be asked of the credit card providers (usually banks) who in many cases facilitate remittance of these funds back to the UK.
As someone has said from the IoM on this site in the last 24 hours:
[A]s far as I am aware the vast majority of professionals both on- and offshore do do their jobs properly and take the greatest care to ensure that all relevant laws and regulations in their jurisdictions are complied with.
That is not good enough. You have also to be sure you're not facilitating crime elsewhere to ensure that you're not either assisting money laundering or tax evasion. What is clear is that this culture does not exist in the Isle of Man. This is precisely the problem the US Senate identified with the Isle of Man. Strict observance of local law allows a person to turn a blind eye to the reality of what is happening. I suggest that this is commonplace.
UK taxpayers need to get their act together now. Offshore, and its banks, need to do even more.
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:
Let’s not forget about ‘real’ crime, such as drug trafficking.
It is commonplace now for prosecutors to adduce evidence in criminal trials to the effect that the accused has apparent income or wealth which cannot be explained by his legitimate income.
Very often the accused will respond by asserting that he had a legitimate business (trading in second-hand cars, for example) which has never been declared for tax purposes – and which explains his income and assets.
There have been some recent cases in the Court of Appeal concerning whether the takings of a legitimate, but undeclared, business can amount to ‘criminal property’. Generally speaking such takings are not ‘criminal property’.
Quite properly the HMR&C tax ‘amnesty’ will not extend to cases in which serious criminal conduct is supected.
What a gift it would be to the ‘real’ criminals to allow them to ‘come clean’ to tax evasion and pay a 10% penalty!
This doesn’t sound to me like an amnesty. The word “amnesty” doesn’t appear in the HMRC announcements, and as has been rightly pointed out no one gets off scot free under this arrangement.
Brian
You’re right. This is not as such an amnesty (and nor should it be). But the discount on the penalties is worth having. More important – the fact that there won’t be an investigation in most cases is worth its weight in gold in saved accoutancy fees.
Richard
[…] Sad, but I think it’s true. There has to be an iron fist in the velvet glove or these things just won’t work. Which is, incidentally, why I do hope the Revenue will be prosecuting a selected few on offshore. […]
[…] The UK’s ‘tax amnesty’ is a big issue for a lot of people. I know because the blogs I’ve written on the issue continue to be very well read. I was therefore interested to read an article by a tax practitioner on AccountingWEB about the letter Barclays have finally sent out to their affected customers on the subject, and on the reaction of accountants in general to this issue. In summary his argument is: […]
[…] AccountingWEB has been a having a discussion of tax investigations. This is topical. The UK’s ‘tax amnesty’ will give rise to a fair number, either because the Revenue do not accept voluntary disclosures, or because people who choose not to disclose now will be forced to do so sometime soon. […]
[…] year’s ‘tax amnesty’ in the UK worked: about 45,000 people who had hidden cash in tax havens paid up. Almost 20,000 more […]