Time for some quiet reflection on the budget.
Let's consider the related issues of domicile, private equity and capital gains tax. Alastair Darling had to do something on these issues. Earlier this year we had the farcical situation of some in the private equity industry saying they were paying tax at lower rates than their cleaners. There were three reasons:
1) The income of the partners in many private equity firms is taxed as capital gains under an agreement between the Treasury and the British Venture Capital Association - an agreement that does not even have the force of law. But it is income. Nothing else. And to tackle the issue the Chancellor had to say that was how it would be taxed as income in future. But he did not. He's left this abuse in place.
2) Capital gains on business assets could be at rates as low as 10% before today - just one quarter of the top rate of income tax. You can see how this massively advantaged partners in private equity firms, and massively increased the value of their earnings. That's all they paid on most of their income, even if they were domiciled in the UK. But there was good reason for the 10% rate. It was low to reflect the fact that many real entrepreneurs, as opposed to the financial manipulators of private equity, work for many years to create the value they realise on sale of their small businesses. The low rate reflected that fact. But the Chancellor is now going to penalise them with an 18% tax rate on all capital gains (which will, incidentally be far too low when applied to non-business assets - leading to all sorts of abuse including the provision of massive incentive for any income to be recategorised as gains - something accountants were immensely good at many years ago before the income tax and capital gains tax rates were aligned for non business assets held in the short term). This will discourage small business and massively encourage financial speculation, which adds no benefit to this country at all. And it will leave private equity partners still paying tax at less than half the rate they should be paying under income tax rules.
3) The domicile rule has been exploited by many in the private equity business. This is easy. First of all, and contrary to the image they would like to present of adding value to the UK economy, most private equity activity is actually registered offshore. That means that anyone who is non-domiciled and an owner of a 'carried interest' or investment in such a fund will immediately have an offshore asset as a result. So any capital gain they make on it will be outside the UK. That means the remittance rule applies immediately, at a mere cost of £30,000 a year. So any capital gains tax they pay on this will remain entirely voluntary, dependent entirely upon whether they decide to remit funds to the UK or not. So those private equity partners who are non-domiciled (and the Observer thinks that's 80% of them) will just laugh at the increase in capital gains tax that the Chancellor has announced to tackle abuse in this sector - they won't be paying it anyway.
So, how has Alastair Darling faired? Appallingly. Far from tackling abuse he has encouraged it by:
a) Confirming that tax dodging by the private equity sector is still OK;
b) Confirming that the domicile rule survives, even though I have shown that it is illegal under the UK's Race Relations Act;
c) Has confirmed that it is OK for the very wealthy to, as Lord Gill said to "not so much [be] taxed by law as untaxed by agreement." I have suggested this is illegal, and think this true and seriously hope it is challenged by EU member states.
d) Has harmed the UK small business sector to spite, but has not harmed the private equity sector. The result will be untold cost to real enterprise in this country by increasing the capital gains small businesses pay;
e) Has created untold opportunities for tax abuse by more than halving the rate of capital gains tax, which will not doubt be a cause for widespread tax celebration up and down the land amongst the UK's tax fiddling accountants;
f) Has shown himself politically inept by closing a five year review on domicile by simply copying a Tory conference announcement from a week ago: no other interpretation is possible;
g) Has let the private equity industry carry on unhindered in harming the UK economy and the job security and prospects of those who work in it;
h) Has failed to raise £4.3 billion to tackle child poverty - which he could have done, meaning he's effectively giving a continuing subsidy of over £3 billion to the very rich at cost to the poorest children in this country;
i) Has ignored calls from the CBI, FT and others to end tax abuse.
How many points does he get for that? Precisely none.
This is a disastrous showing from a man who needs to tackle tax abuse if the numbers are going to stack over the next few years. And it does not reflect too well on his boss, come to that.
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:
>>So, how has Alastair Darling faired? Appallingly
The Guardian stated this evening that non-domiciliaries would be subject to a charge after 7 years and tax after 10. This begs the question of whether HMRC will backdate the counting of years to the point an individual came here or if they will count the years from the time the tax law changes. If the former is to be the case then many non-domiciliaries may find themselves subject to complete UK tax as soon as the tax law changes or not long thereafter.
As usual the devil will hide in the detail and I doubt we’ve been given the full story beyond the reactive spin in the media.
What is the change to the CGT rate / structure likely to do to encourage people to get into buy-to-let? Seems to me like it will encourage them as they will pay less tax on short term gains, whereas before they had to wait years for taper relief to kick in.
Tom
Buy to let is encouraged by this move. The effective tax rate falls from about 24% in many casesm, and then after time, to 18% without wait required.
It seems that Darling wants to encourage everything to do with speculation and nothing to do with wealth creation in the UK.
That’s very sad
Richard
If house prices come down, as many think they will, buy-to-let speculators will only have losses to deal with. This should enough to put them off until house prices pick up again (several years) giving the Chancellor time to alter the CGT regime again.
A Marshall: Anyone who bought recently may be dealing with losses, but given the 20-30% rise in house prices in the last 2 years, most who would be considering selling up will still have capital gains to declare.
Those who have held onto flats for the last 10 years or so and are looking to sell up at the peak now have a good incentive to get their act together before April next year (10% CGT instead of 18%).
‘This begs the question of whether HMRC will backdate the counting of years to the point an individual came here’. As if…..
I didn’t realise that the 75% 2 year taper relief was available to people who bought and rented flats? I would guess that they will actually pay 4%, 8% and 16% in the three bands assuming the full 10 year taper relief is available to them. If no taper relief is available then they would be better off waiting for the change on 6th April 2008 as they will still be liable to pay 10%, 20% and 40% till then. Let’s hop house prices don’t fall before facilitating a selling frenzy to take profits when they can!
A Marshall
You’re right – 24% is the current likely best rate for a higher rate taxpayer ona buy to let
Richard
My mistake. I guess this is why the Evening Standard had the headline SECOND HOMES TAX BONANZA on their billboards this evening.
Whoops. 24% is currently the likely charge for a higher rate with full taper relief. (40% max. relief on gain).
I’ve discovered that the average chargeable capital gain is
£13,000. A lot of the gains used to calculate it will have been tapered back. Now that taper and indexation relief are going I would imagine this average to rise and maybe the overall take could rise now that private equity will have to pay 18%. How much will be lost to higher rate tax payers has not been quantified.
http://www.fool.co.uk/Your-Money/guides/Capital-Gains-Tax-Shares-Securities.aspx