Requirement to Correct – 30 September Deadline Looms

sun

The Weather Today – Scorchio!

 

BUT 30 SEPTEMBER DEADLINE LOOMS

 

WINTER IS COMING!

 

Requirement to Correct

 

Many people over the years of the world becoming smaller and more accessible may have acquired assets abroad.  For example, immigrants and emigrants may have UK interests, but also ones in other countries, whether because of family, work or just acquiring (and perhaps disposing of) a holiday home.

 

Sometimes (it may sound odd) it seems, perhaps when lying on the patio of their newly upgraded Spanish villa, the owner may reach for an escapist novel (such as Banker’s Draft by RG Lennon https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bankers-Draft-R-G-Lennon-ebook/dp/B07CW4JC1J) instead of the latest Taxes Acts.

 

The Taxes Acts would of course warn the reader of the forthcoming deadline of 30 September 2018.  This is to disclose any offshore liabilities (including say Capital Gains on the older villa used to help finance the new one) or the rent when you weren’t using it, or the sale of the home inherited from an uncle, or the apartment in Delhi where your Dad used to live and rental values have gone up so much it would be rude not to etc., etc.,

 

The world is small, families are dispersed; so are assets.  Thanks to automatic sharing of financial information across Governments – permitted in most international double tax treaties,  HMRC will receive bucket loads of data automatically.  Modern computers will allow this to be analysed.  No doubt HMRC will leap to conclusions and try to assess ‘evaded tax’.

 

Key points:

 

  1. Crucially, the time limit for assessment is planned to be extended to 12 years (going back from 4 years) which makes retaining records more important.

 

  1. There is to be a new criminal offence for ‘offshore evasion’, which means HMRC do not need to prove there was ‘deliberate intent’. This heightens the need for professional advice, because innocent ignorance is unlikely to amount to a successful defence.

 

  1. There will be new sanctions for ‘offshore evaders’ based on a penalty of up to 10% of the value of the underlying assets.

 

  1. Tougher sanctions come in for those who fail to disclose relevant offshore interests before 30 September 2018

 

IF IN DOUBT TAKE PROFESSIONAL ADVICE

 

Disguised Remuneration Schemes

 

Anyone involved or may have clients involved in what HMRC may consider to be caught in the new ‘disguised remuneration schemes’ should take independent advice soon, to ensure they can meet the deadline for any appropriate disclosure of 30 September 2018.  It is now less than 2 months away.

 

Settlement terms are available for appropriate disclosure made before the deadline.  After that date, HMRC are threatening more severe action.

An Englishman’s Home is his ‘Tax Exempt’ Castle – Private Residence Relief (PRR)

CardiffCastle-Exterior41-med-A0013928-1“Everyone knows” that:-

“A person’s home is exempt from capital gains tax” – SIMPLES!

Well, no actually! In law it may get up to 100% tax relief, but it remains a chargeable disposal.

Imagine:-

1. You own more than one property (including say a holiday home overseas) OR
2. You buy a property to live in, but actually live elsewhere (say in rented accommodation) OR
3. Circumstances change over your period of ownership.

Each of these (quite common) circumstances could give rise to a nasty, unexpected tax liability. We have seen a number of situations where advice has been sought ‘Just Too Late’. This can mean a relatively small outlay “saved” on proper professional advice, results in an expensive (and potentially unnecessary) tax bill – plus, on occasion penalties, for naïve belief in the somewhat misleading phrase, set out above.

Some of the benefits of this suggestion are reflected in the recent case reported below.

Private Residence Relief Claim Rejected

Private Residence Relief (PRR) can be a very beneficial relief where the conditions are met, providing for up to 100% of a gain to be exempted where a property has been a taxpayer’s main residence throughout ownership.

Of course though careers, inheritance, divorce and the general messiness of real life, things do not always quite pan out as simply as “always” living in one house. As a result, claims made perhaps in ignorance and good faith, can lead to disagreements between HMRC and taxpayers over whether, and the extent to which, properties may qualify. This can lead to appeals, so a number of cases end up being dealt with through the courts.

One such recent case was P Lam v HMRC at the First-Tier Tribunal. The case found that a taxpayer’s occupation of the property was not sufficient to meet the conditions. HMRC accepted the taxpayer had spent some time in the property whilst she was renovating it, but they argued that the nature and extent of that occupation was not enough to qualify for relief, which requires a degree of permanence.

What may be useful for taxpayers is that the Tribunal provided a list of things that the taxpayer in this case was not able to provide as evidence. Such factors therefore appear to be key in being able to prove that occupation in a property should be sufficient for the relief. This list included:

• Proof of how many days she lived in the property
• utility bills to establish the time spent there
• moving any furniture into the house
• bringing items that would have made occupation more comfortable
• providing evidence of a change of address

Taking professional advice in advance and keeping good records will certainly make matters easier in the event of an HMRC challenge into a PRR claim. Perhaps an easier route would have been to file a timely election for the relevant property to be deemed the qualifying property.

To quote an old motto, regarding getting matters in order in advance …

“A stitch in time, saves 9”.

Mind the Gap – EMI Share Options from 6 April 2018

Mind-the-GapHMRC have announced via their Employment related securities bulletin (No 27 – April 2018) that due to not having yet received EU State Aid approval for the EMI scheme (the previous approval expired on 6 April 2018) new EMI share options issued after 6 April 2018 will not be treated as tax-approved share option schemes and would therefore be taxed under the far less favourable non-approved regime.

HMRC do reassure taxpayers that options granted up to 5 April 2018 will continue to qualify, so there is no need to panic over existing share options.

However, if you or your clients are in the process of implementing an EMI share scheme, it would be advisable to delay granting options until the approval is granted. Of course, if this is not possible then clients should be made aware of the implications of options falling to be treated as unapproved, or consider other options such as a CSOP.

One of the big differences between approved EMI options and unapproved ones is that any tax paid on exercise is based on the value of shares at grant of the options for EMI schemes, and on the value at exercise for unapproved ones. Therefore any growth in value is sheltered under the EMI scheme.

EMI schemes also provide other valuable features including relaxations of Enterpreneurs’ relief conditions for employees.

Please get in contact with us if you have any concerns or if you require assistance with share option schemes.

Offshore Client Notifications – Are you Affected?

We have written previously on this blog about various HMRC offshore disclosure facilities designed to encourage taxpayers to come forward and declare any unreported foreign income or gains.

HMRC continue to acquire new powers in order to pursue taxpayers and one of the latest requires advisors themselves to write to certain clients on their behalf.

These rules apply to financial institutions like banks but also to so-called “specified relevant persons” (SRPs). Accountants and tax advisors are likely to be an SRP if they provided offshore advice or services over and above simple preparation and delivery of tax returns in the year to 30 September 2016 regarding a client’s personal tax affairs.

If the advisors fall within the rules and are not covered by certain exemptions they will be required to send a standard HMRC headed document to these clients (although writing to all clients is also permitted) with a covering letter that includes certain wording which may not be altered (these are the Offshore Client Notifications).

One of the key things to note is that HMRC’s document directs clients to submit their own online disclosure. You may suspect they are thus attempting to bypass the advisors. We could not possibly comment! If you need to send such letters, we recommend highlighting to the client the dangers of doing so!

The wording SRPs must include in their covering letter is as follows:

“From 2016, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is getting an unprecedented amount of information about people’s overseas accounts, structures, trusts, and investments from more than 100 jurisdictions worldwide, thanks to agreements to increase global tax transparency. This gives HMRC unprecedented levels of information to check that, as in most cases, the right tax has been paid.

If you have already declared all of your past and present income or gains to HMRC, including from overseas, you do not need to worry. But if you are in any doubt, HMRC recommends that you read the factsheet attached to help you decide now what to do next.”

If you are concerned about how these rules might affect your firm, or are an individual with unreported overseas income, please get in contact with us as we would be happy to assist.

Private Residence Relief Denied – A Oliver

The tax law surrounding the sale of residences and Private Residence Relief continues to cause disputes between taxpayers and HMRC.  With the disparity between capital gains tax rates on most assets and the higher rate now applicable to sales of residential property, this is only likely to continue.

In a recent case at the First-Tier Tribunal (A Oliver, TC5521), the taxpayer purchased a flat in January 2007 and then sold it in April 2007.  He claimed he purchased it following a trial separation from his partner (which was recommended by their counselling sessions).  However, the flat had a relatively short time remaining on its lease which made it difficult to sell.  Mr Oliver asked the vendor to begin the process to extend the lease before exchange of contracts; otherwise he would have had to wait two years before he could make the application following completion.

The extension of the lease resulted in a substantial increase to the flat’s value, and HMRC argued that Private Residence Relief (PRR) should not apply, on the basis that he had been ‘engaging in adventure in the nature of a trade’.  The rules state at TCGA 1992, Section 224(3) that PRR should not apply where a property is acquired with “the purposes of realising a gain from the disposal of it”.

Interestingly, the Tribunal agreed that Mr Oliverʼs actions did not amount to a venture in the nature of a trade and that he did not have an intention to sell the flat when he first acquired it.  However, they instead considered whether the taxpayer’s presence in the flat was sufficient for it to qualify as his main residence.  They found that there were inconsistencies in his evidence and ultimately concluded that the quality of occupation lacked any degree of permanence or expectation of continuity.

Mr Oliver’s appeal was therefore dismissed.  Had Mr Oliver made a more convincing witness, and perhaps been able to demonstrate his intent to reside in the property more permanently he may have succeeded.  In cases such as this, taking advice in advance would help to avoid problems arising later.  We would be delighted to hear from you if you or your clients might be caught by these rules.

HMRC Fail in Toothless Attack

HMRC use Eric Morecombe tactics according to judge. “Playing all the notes but not necessarily in the right order”

HMRC use Eric Morecombe tactics according to judge.
“Playing all the notes but not necessarily in the right order”

Readers of our blogs will know we are always interested in cases analysing the extent of HMRC powers and how they should be used. The recent case of Raymond Tooth and the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs demonstrates (again) that HMRC powers are not infinite. It also brings out some highly topical points:

1) In Raymond Tooth the taxpayer filed a tax claim which HMRC later decided to challenge. They had though missed their normal time limit on raising an enquiry, so had to raise a ‘discovery assessment’.

2) The definition of a ‘discovery’ made by HMRC is confirmed to be very wide in scope and may include “a change of opinion or correction of an oversight” by the Inspector of Taxes raising the discovery assessment.

3) The general points in Cotter are good law and emphasise the requirements for good disclosure by taxpayers and a clear explanation of how they have computed their self-assessment.

4) The burden is on HMRC to demonstrate that their extended time limits for assessments under ‘discovery’ may be used only where they are saying that the loss of tax was brought about ‘deliberately’. Deliberately means intentionally or knowingly (Duckitt v Farrand).

5) All praise to John Brookes (Tribunal Judge in this case). He basically eviscerated the HMRC case. He said with regard to the issue of extended time limits,

“In my judgment this [assessment] cannot be right. The deliberate (or indeed careless) conduct necessary to enable the issue of a discovery assessment and extend the time limits for doing so must involve more than the completion of a tax return which, in itself, is a deliberate act. As a person completing a return must do so intentionally or knowingly, and can hardly do so accidentally, HMRC’s argument effectively eliminates any distinction between ‘careless’ and ‘deliberate’…[their] attempt to argue otherwise, saying that if the wrong figures were entered in the right boxes it might be careless but if the right figures were entered in the wrong boxes it would be deliberate, was somewhat reminiscent of, and about as convincing as, Eric Morecambe’s riposte to Andre Previn about “playing all the notes, but not necessarily in the right order.”

6) The case can also be linked to current concerns about ‘Making Tax Digital’ (MTD).

Evidence was presented about the problems created by a computer glitch on how the alleged loss claim should be shown. The computer system adopted was a respectable one, approved by HMRC. However, apparently it would not cope with the proposed claim. The advice given to the taxpayer – to fit in with electronic filing, was thus to use a computer ‘work around’. As most people with appreciate, this is quite a common suggested solution, because computer programming is never perfect. The work around meant the loss claim went in the ‘wrong’ data input box, but the taxpayer described this in the ‘white space’ on the Return and the final answer came to what he believed was the correct net tax liability. Despite this, HMRC when they wished to dispute the loss claim, accused him of ‘deliberately’ causing an underpayment of tax. Whilst HMRC lost in this case, it is easy to imagine the dangers of accidental non-compliance caused by seeking to meet tight computer deadlines for making tax digital. Then it appears from cases such as this that such computer errors may be seen as something more sinister by HMRC. I believe this emphasises the risks of making such a system compulsory, before it is thoroughly field tested and people are familiar with it.

I am pleased to see that most commentary from the profession seems to agree with this line.

There is an interesting contrast in the apparent view of HMRC on a balanced system, in that the proposals suggest taxpayers are to be given a compulsory deadline for compliance every three months, whereas if they get it wrong HMRC should be entitled to a time limit of 20 years to challenge it.

Compliance is a delicate flower, worth preserving. If the proposals are brought in, how many businesses will simply drop off the radar if they get behind for a couple of returns and then fear they have neither the time nor resources to catch up again?

Do people believe the MTD and new penalty proposals are fair? If not please lobby to try to get them amended. If computer filing is going to be so popular, as claimed by HMRC, there should be no need for compulsion. Penalties should be levied on people committing deliberate wrongdoing, not mere bystanders.

Worldwide Disclosure Facility – Last Chance to Disclose?

HMRC have announced the Worldwide Disclosure Facility (WDF) the latest in a long line of disclosure facilities designed to encourage taxpayers to come forward to disclose previously unreported offshore tax liabilities.

Unlike its predecessors, the WDF does not offer any favourable terms, other than the fact that HMRC state that where the disclosure is correct and complete and the taxpayer fully co-operates by supplying any further information they ask for to check the disclosure, they’ll not seek to impose a ‘higher penalty’, except in specific circumstances (e.g. where the taxpayer was already under enquiry) and they will also agree not to publish details of the disclosure. This last ‘benefit’ may appeal to higher profile individuals who may prefer to remain anonymous in their previous failures.

This is a marked difference to previous disclosure facilities that offered much reduced penalties (such as the 10% rate offered by the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility) and guarantees against prosecution.

The WDF is targeted as a ‘last chance’ by HMRC before even more strict penalties come into force, as well as their claims that automatic exchange and data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Common Reporting Standard (CRS) will then be available.

After 30 September 2018, new sanctions will be introduced that reflect HMRC’s “toughening approach”. They state that you will still be able to make a disclosure after that date “but those new terms will not be as good as those currently available”.

Previous experiences suggest that making a disclosure under one of HMRC’s facilities is usually a more streamlined process compared to simply writing to HMRC.

Eaves and Co would be very happy to discuss matters if you are concerned that you or your clients may have an undisclosed offshore liability, suitable for the Worldwide Disclosure Facility. We have extensive experience of making disclosures under previous facilities that HMRC have offered.

Bayliss – HMRC Seek Extra Penalties From Failed Avoidance Scheme

Another week and another case involving a failed tax avoidance scheme.

This time, perhaps more worryingly, HMRC were arguing that the return was submitted fraudulently or negligently by the taxpayer and therefore sought the extra penalties that would be due in such circumstances. This shows a new aspect of the targeting of anti-avoidance schemes and suggests users of schemes could expect the costs of failure to rise higher, whether in penalties or fees for defending them.

Ultimately, the taxpayer won in this case. Of particular interest was the fact that the Tribunal found that relying on the advice of a trusted accountant was helpful in suggesting that he had not acted negligently. It appears the courts confirm that obtaining suitable professional advice is worth paying for in the long run!

Mr Bayliss participated in a scheme marketed by Montpelier Tax Consultants (Montpelier). The scheme involved a Contract for Differences (CFD) and was sold as generating a £539,000 capital loss for Mr Baylis in 2006–07. It was agreed by all the parties that the scheme had failed and additional tax was due, however the taxpayer appealed against penalties raised by HMRC on the basis that ther return was submitted fraudulently or negligently.

The Tribunal determined that in accordance with established case law, in order to prove fraud HMRC had to prove that the appellant did not have an honest belief in the correctness of the return. The Tribunal was persuaded on the basis of the evidence and facts that Mr Bayliss did believe that his tax return was correct and so there was no fraudulent behaviour.

On the question of negligence, the Tribunal felt that the correct test was that set out in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856), that of ‘the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do’. They also considered the test in Anderson (decʼd) [2009], ‘to consider what a reasonable taxpayer, exercising reasonable diligence in the completion and submission of the return, would have done’.

HMRC used a number points to support their argument that Mr Baylis was negligent, including that:

  1. the transaction did not stand up to commercial scrutiny and the appellant failed to check the commercial reality;
  2. the appellant had not kept copies of the documentation, whereas a reasonable person would have done so;
  3. It was a complex financial transaction and the appellant should have obtained proper independent financial advice, but he relied on informal advice.

The Tribunal agreed with HMRC that some of the taxpayer’s behaviour could have been deemed to be careless, but on balance found that HMRC had not done enough to prove that the appellant was negligent in filing an incorrect return.

Interestingly, they felt that relying on his accountant was helpful in this respect, stating “We are persuaded that the appellant relied fully on Mr Mall, a chartered accountant on whom he had relied for a number of years, and on what he believed (based on Mr Mallʼs recommendation) to be Montpelierʼs expertise.”

The tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis that HMRC had not proven that Mr Bayliss acted fraudulently or negligently in submitting an incorrect return.

Beware New Rules on Liquidations – HMRC Refuse to Give Clearance

As you may be aware, new rules are being introduced with effect from April 2016 as part of the Finance Act 2016.  These relate to distributions in a winding-up/liquidation and are designed to target certain company distributions in respect of share capital in a winding-up. Where a distribution from a winding-up is caught, it is chargeable to income tax rather than capital gains tax.

The rules apply where the following conditions are met:

  1. The company being wound up was a close company (or was within the two years prior to winding-up)
  2. The individual held at least a 5% interest in the company (ordinary share capital and voting rights).
  3. The individual continues to carry on the same or a similar trade or activity to that carried on by the wound-up company within the two years following the distribution
  4. It is reasonable to assume, having regard to all of the circumstances that there is a main purpose of obtaining a tax advantage.

Whether or not Conditions C or D are triggered could be a cause for some contention, and so HMRC note that they have received a number of clearance applications relating to these new rules.

In the absence of a statutory clearance procedure under the new legislation, HMRC have clarified that it is not their general practice to offer clearances on recently introduced legislation with a purpose test.  They have instead sent out a standard reply providing some examples of how they think the rules will apply.

Clearly this is a developing area and HMRC’s reaction is somewhat disappointing as taxpayers often require certainty before carrying out commercial transactions which could be caught.  HMRC have stated that further guidance will be published, however in the meantime we advise that care be taken, and seeking professional advice, as always, may save time and costs in the long run.

We would be delighted to assist if you think you may be affected by these rules and have any queries.

Entrepreneurs’ relief – What is an ordinary share?

We have written in previous blogs about the need to take care over Entrepreneurs’ relief (ER) and preference shares (see Entrepreneurs’ Relief – 5% Test and Preference Shares) and a recent case heard by the First-Tier Tribunal has shed more light on how the rules are to be interpreted.

One of the conditions for ER is that the taxpayer must hold at least of 5% of the company’s ordinary share capital and voting rights. For these purposes, ordinary share capital is defined as all share capital excluding fixed rate preference shares.

However, in the recent case of M & E McQuillan v HMRC [2016] TC05074 redeemable non-voting shares which did not carry rights to dividends were found to not constitute ordinary shares for ER purposes.  It was found that shares with no rights to dividends could be considered as having a right to a fixed rate of 0% and therefore could be excluded from the calculation of ordinary share capital.

In this case, this provided the right outcome for the taxpayers as they were selling their ‘ordinary’ shares in the company, of which they had 33% each.  Another couple had made a loan of £30,000 which had been converted into the 30,000 preference shares which were redeemable non-voting share capital with no rights to dividends.

Had the 30,000 extra shares have been treated as ordinary share capital, the taxpayers would not have had the required 5% holding.

The case highlights the importance of checking through all the details before making a sale of shares in your company.  In this case, the taxpayers were successful but others will not be so fortunate.  Eaves and Co have extensive experience advising on share sales and Entrepreneurs’ relief and would be delighted to hear from you if you are considering a sale in the near future.