My own profession can disgust me. Lawyers take the prize making nauseous though. Take this:
Opportunity for offshore account holders to slash the cost of using HMRC’s new “tax amnesty”
- Qualifying UK taxpayers advised to open a Liechtenstein bank account before making a disclosure
- More generous “tax amnesty” for offshore accounts opened locally rather than through UK branch or agency
- Savings could run to hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of pounds per account holder
UK taxpayers planning to declare assets held in offshore bank accounts under HMRC’s latest “tax amnesty”, which begins on September 1, could slash the cost of making a disclosure by transferring assets into a Liechtenstein bank account first, says McGrigors, the leading commercial law firm and tax investigation specialists.
Phil Berwick, Director of Tax Investigations at McGrigors, comments: “HMRC is offering far more generous terms to UK taxpayers with Liechtenstein bank accounts than it is to those with offshore accounts in other jurisdictions. By opening a bank account in Liechtenstein and transferring funds there qualifying taxpayers will be able to take advantage of these more generous terms and substantially reduce their total liability.”
HMRC’s New Disclosure Opportunity (NDO) and Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility (LDF) will offer reduced penalties to individuals and businesses with undeclared income or gains held in offshore bank accounts or investments if they make a full disclosure.
Under the terms of both the NDO and the LDF taxpayers will be required to pay the tax due on income and gains on their unassessed tax liabilities (including those arising on shore), as well as interest and, in most cases, a fixed 10% penalty.
However, under the NDO, taxpayers will be required to disclose undeclared amounts going back 20 years, whilst under the LDF account holders will be required to come clean just for the last 10 years.
Now I know which firm I’d be giving a very hard time if they brought forward cases from Liechtenstein if I was an HMRC inspector.
Note to McGrigors: HMRC read this blog.
And this sort of abuse is precisely why we need much tougher regulation of those allowed to practice tax law in the UK.
Time to refer, once more to Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs’ and Tax Justice Network’s Code of Conduct.
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:
This is a dumb move on so many levels.
— Dumb for the law firm’s self-positioning in the market, strictly on a business-level decision.
— Dumb for any taxpayer who hires this law firm — they’ve waved a flag at HMRC saying “Look at me! I hired a questionable advisor.”
— Dumb for the integrity of the souls of the people who work at the law firm. Life is too short, etc. (Translation: we all die, and why waste your time being a skank on your one tour through this fabulous planet of ours?)
I say this as someone who runs a law firm, and who is up to his eyeballs in taxpayers coming to Jesus in the United States under the current amnesty which expires on 23-September-2009. We’ve *ahem* made other professional and personal choices about how we conduct our affairs.
If I were at McGrigors I would be embarrassed for myself.
Now. I’m not saying the government is right and taxpayers are wrong. It is a well-known fact (documented somewhere on the internet, hang on a sec while I find the URL) that tax collectors are the Anti-Christ and taxpayers are nice old ladies who drink tea and talk about knitting and bake chocolate chip cookies. 🙂
Your article fails to quote one important piece from McGrigors’ press release.
“According to McGrigors, HMRC has confirmed that taxpayers can open an account in Liechtenstein and qualify for the favourable terms of the LDF, provided that the original offshore account was opened directly with a branch of the bank in that offshore centre, for example in Guernsey, rather than through a UK branch or agency of the bank.”
Having drawn your attention to this missing paragraph I think you will agree that your whole article needs to be taken down. Please email me to confirm that it has been taken down.
Was the ommission of this deliberate or did you not bother to check McGrigors’ website for the full press release?
Nick
I rarely reproduce whole pieces – copyright reasons
Yes I read it
Does it change anything? No. Not one thing. It’s still a horrible form of avoidance. It is legal,as HMRC have said, but I consider it abusive. Do you honestly think avoidance of that sort does not make most people feel sick? If you don’t, get in touch with reality.
Legal is not a definition of moral or acceptable.
Time you realised that.
And the comment is fair – what McGrigors are proposing is wholly unacceptable to me. So it is fair comment to say so.
And we do need a code of conduct to regulate these things
And to cover the actions of PR consultants such as yourself who do not disclose that they are acting on behalf of clients when posting on blogs, which I also think unacceptable
Richard
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2009/09/04/exodus-fears-played-down-as-amnesty-favours-liechtenstein/
I’m a little confused.
Shouldn’t Guernsey OFC be saying “your time is up” to evaders, not “oh it’s ok we won’t lose too much business”?
I want Rupert to explain.
Oops – it appears that your criticism was a little ott considering HMRC confirmed that this treatment was both acceptable and intended, and is now being practised by each firm of tax investigation specialists in this country, including the one in which I work. HMRC agreed these terms to get Liechtenstein to sign up to their side of the bargain. Shame on you for making such a shallow knee-jerk reaction without fulling understanding the facts. I find that nauseating, dumb, unacceptable and embarassing – to name but a few of the sensational adjectives that you and commenters have used on this site.
Susan
Not at all
I have no doubt this consequence was not intended
Abuse created it
And abuse is, of course, your stock in trade – and you’re good at it
But that does not exonerate it
Richard