Where to start?

The fall out surrounding the UK Chancellor’s Budget statement continues.  The House of Commons Treasury Select Committee has said that the Chancellor’s plans to scrap the 50p tax rate don’t add up.  In addition it criticized the numerous Budget leaks.  An article on this from the Daily Mail online can be found here.

I am surprised that more has not been made of the change to the 40p income tax band.  One of the arguments put forward for reducing the top rate of income tax was the effect it was having on entrepreneurship.  I cannot see how massively increasing the number of people liable to pay income tax at the 40p rate compliments that argument.

Then there is the charity furore and the apparent contradictions in the arguments put forward by the UK Government in support of this policy.  The fact that some UK Government Ministers fought extremely hard to reduce the top rate of income tax is well documented.  Now the UK Government is criticising the fact that rich people don’t pay a high enough rate of income tax.  In addition, the UK Government has made it clear they wish to increase charitable giving.  Only a year ago, in the 2011 Budget, the UK Chancellor announced proposals to support giving, such as a lower rate of inheritance tax for those leaving 10% of their estate to charity.  The UK Government started by saying that the policy is needed by alleging that high earners are using donations to dubious charities to reduce their income tax bill to almost zero.  Now it is talking about fairness.  Will this policy even survive the summer?  An article from the STEP online journal on this issue can be found here.

HM Treasury has released figures showing the extent of tax avoidance by the UK’s so called “super rich”.  Robert Peston has written an excellent article on this.  His comment on the contrasting approach taken by George Osborne and his Labour predecessors is particularly noteworthy.  If the report does tell us one thing, it is how complicated a picture this is.  One fact does though stand out.  73% of those earning over £250,000 were paying an average tax rate above 40% in 2010/11. Robert Peston’s article from the BBC news website can be found here.

Good to see the Church of Scotland entering the earnings and taxation debate.  A Kirk commission has issued a report on the “greed and inequality” of the bonus culture and tax avoidance.  An article from this from the Herald can be found here.

Now to what is expected of HMRC in the next year.  HMRC’s remit for 2012/13 is:

• improving tax collection
• delivering cost reductions
• improving services for individual and business customers
• Real Time Information
• tax policy and the policy partnership

The context to this is fewer staff and a smaller budget.  More on this can be found here.

The Scottish Parliament this week endorsed a legislative consent motion which effectively allows the UK Government to pass the Scotland Bill, also known as “Calman minus”, at Westminster next week.  Have I anything else to say on this?  No.  The term “Calman minus” says it all.  An article from the Scotsman on this can be found here.

The Guardian reported recently that Amazon’s tax affairs are being investigated in the US, China, Germany, France, Japan and Luxembourg.  HMRC have refused to confirm whether it is also investigating Amazon.  Amazon is the largest retailer in the UK.  The Guardian also reports that Amazon paid no UK corporation tax last year.  This is primarily because the US parent in 2006 transferred ownership of the main Amazon.co.uk business to a Luxembourg company.  It is not just the UK Government that is being asked questions about this company.  The Scottish Government is also being asked questions relating to a £10m grant.  Of course if the relevant tax powers were devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the left hand might have more of a chance of knowing what the right hand is up to.  Articles from the Scotsman and the Guardian on this matter can be found here and here.

Another week and another VAT issue.  The Church of England fears church renovation projects could be scrapped because of planned changes to VAT set out in the UK Budget.  From October this year HM Treasury will charge VAT at 20% on approved alterations to listed buildings.  Presently this is exempt from VAT.  The Church of England thinks the change will cost it £20m a year.  HM Treasury says funding will be available to ensure church renovations are not cancelled.  A report from the BBC news website on this can be found here.  The BBC report notes that a “source close to Chancellor George Osborne is reported as saying that this proposal was about ensuring a millionaire wanting to build a swimming pool in the garden of their listed mansion had to pay VAT on it.”

HMRC is improving and streamlining its processes for customers who need to deal with them following a bereavement.  HMRC is creating dedicated teams who will be responsible for dealing with PAYE and Self Assessment for bereaved customers.  The main form which customers use to finalise the tax affairs of the person who has died, R27, has been redesigned following feedback from customers and tax specialists to make it easier to complete.  More on this can be found here.

A “fat tax” is back on the agenda.  The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has called for stronger measures to reduce obesity in the UK.  The first phase of the Academy’s campaign will try to find out what works.  It will review evidence for diets, exercise, taxation, minimum pricing and changing advertising and food labeling.  The Academy has also blamed the UK Government’s previous strategies and irresponsible marketing for aiding to obesity issues.  An article on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

There are suggestions that the German Government’s recent renegotiation of its withholding tax agreement with Switzerland may tempt the UK Government to try and do the same with its own Swiss agreement.  The UK Government has though already changed it once already.  An article on this from the Guardian can be found here.

Let’s finish with the “Buffett Rule” as it sounds like it might be about food and I am feeling peckish.  Sadly, the Buffett rule is not about food but instead a tax plan that would apply a minimum tax of 30% to individuals making more than a million dollars a year.  An editorial in the Wall Street Journal calculates that the Buffett Rule, which is supported by President Obama, would lose $80bn a year from USA federal tax revenues.  The US Senate has in fact this week voted to block the Buffett Rule.  The article from the Wall Street Journal can be found here and a BBC website news report on the Senate vote can be found here.

Have a good weekend and good luck to all the teams competing at Scottish Rugby’s Cup Final day at Murrayfield on Saturday.

HMRC has published the final version of its litigation and settlement strategy.  There has been very few changes to the draft guidance published last July.

HMRC’s guidance can be found here.

The main story of the week has to be the fact that the UK Chancellor, yes the UK Chancellor, said:  “I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs – and to be fair it’s within the tax laws – so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax.  And I don’t think that’s right.”

Words almost fail me.  Then again maybe I should be glad that George Osborne has finally realised what was clearly obvious to everyone else.  HMRC provided the UK Chancellor with anonymised copies of the confidential tax returns submitted to them by some of the UK’s wealthiest people.  These returns showed that the 20 biggest tax avoiders had legally reduced their income tax bills by a total of £145m in a year.  According to the report, the very rich have managed to reduce their income tax rate to an average of 10%; less than half the amount paid by the average Briton.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.  Helpfully the BBC news website has also outlined the most common tax avoidance schemes.  This can be found here.

I am not sure that the Prime Minister’s announcement that he will publish details of his taxes is going to help the UK Government out of the hole they are digging for themselves.  As the UK Chancellor noted, these people are acting within the law.  Take for example the proposed cap on income tax reliefs.  The cap will apply only to those reliefs that are currently unlimited, which will therefore exclude pension contributions and EIS investments, among others.  The proposals will cap tax relief to 25% of income or £50,000 whichever is greater.  It is expected the draft legislation will be published for consultation later this year.

HM Treasury has now published more information on this proposal.  The report, which confirms charitable gift relief will be included in the cap, can be found here.  The report notes that current unlimited relief policy allows individuals to pay no income tax at all, which is not permitted in, for example, the US tax system.

Is that the end of the matter?  Of course not.  The Scotsman reports that Sir Tom Hunter has criticised George Osborne’s plans to cap tax relief on charitable donations as “ill-thought-out and punitive”.  The Scotsman article can be found here.  It is quite clear that charities fear their funding is under threat.  This sums up nicely the problem facing George Osborne.  He wants to crack down on aggressive tax avoidance but that is easier said than done.  Almost any proposal to change the tax system results in a campaign to prevent or amend the proposal.

Now to another controversial issue, retrospective changes to tax law.  HM Treasury has published the process it will follow when making unexpected changes to tax law.  The statement gives an undertaking that retrospective measures will be “wholly exceptional”.  The statement from HM Treasury can be found here.  A recent of example of a retrospective change to tax legislation involved Barclays bank.  A BBC news website report on the Barclays bank matter can be found here.  If the UK Chancellor is serious about tackling aggressive anti-avoidance then I am sure we will see many more examples of retrospective changes to our tax law.

Finance Secretary, John Swinney, has announced incentives and actions to stimulate investment, in four enterprise sectors, for green energy, manufacturing and life science.  These incentives include business rate discounts worth up to £275,000 per business or enhanced capital allowances, new streamlined planning protocols across all sites, skills and training support and an international marketing campaign to promote the sites.  A press release from the Scottish Government on this can be found here.

Now to VAT and two issues I have blogged about before.  A great deal has been written about pasties and VAT since the UK Budget statement.  What though of another VAT anomaly.  Why is VAT levied on the renovation of old buildings but not on the sale of new houses?  Does this encourage energy saving?  Does this encourage the building of new homes?  Why not at least introduce a lower rate of VAT on residential renovations and repairs, as happens in the Isle of Man.  Sadly more questions than answers or signs of any change of policy.  A link to my earlier blog on this issue can be found here.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats have urged the Scottish Government to drop their plans for a single police force over concerns that the force will potentially face an annual £22m VAT bill. The eight existing forces are currently exempt from the tax due to their ties to local authorities.  A link to an earlier blog that covers this issue can be found here.  My earlier blog also includes my expectations as to how HM Treasury will view this matter.  Although I can understand the Scottish Liberal Democrats opposition to the single force policy, do they really think that the VAT should be levied?  If not, will they lobby their UK counterparts who, after all, are in charge of HM Treasury on this matter?  I suspect not.  The Liberal Democrats press release can be found here.

To Wales and the news that Welsh supermarkets have seen a massive drop in the use of plastic bags when they charge for them.  A 5p bag levy was introduced across Wales last year.  A report on this from the Daily Mail online can be found here.  Good to see the Daily Mail outlining the situation in the other parts of the UK.

The Spanish Government has announced a general tax amnesty offering taxpayers the chance to disclose irregularities in their past affairs without being prosecuted or penalised. The cost is a one-off payment of 10% of all undeclared assets and rights.  This follows similar measures in Greece and Italy.  More information on the Spanish amnesty can be found here.

Have a good weekend.

This case concerns a matter that had not previously come before the Scottish courts.

The facts of this case were not in dispute and were set out in a joint minute agreed by the parties.   Miss Isabella Gordon granted a Power of Attorney in 1996 in favour of her solicitor.  This included the power to sell any part of her estate.  In 1997 she executed a Will in which she bequeathed her home in Stonehaven to John Turner.  In 2001 Miss Gordon became incapable of managing her own affairs and moved into a nursing home.  Her Attorney sold her home later on that year.   Miss Gordon died in 2008.

The question for Lord Tyre was whether the legacy of the house was “adeemed” or was it “converted”, so that the beneficiary is entitled to a sum equivalent to the proceeds of sale of the house.

“Where the subject matter of a bequest (whether heritable or moveable) has been disposed of by the testator so that it no longer forms part of his or her estate at the date of death, the bequest or legacy is said to have been adeemed and therefore cannot take effect.”

Lord Tyre also made the following point: “In contrast to the doctrine of conversation, the intention of the testator is not regarded as relevant to ademption.”

The crucial point here appeared to be that the parties agreed the following:  “The sale of the house by [the attorney] was a prudent act of administration, having regard to the disadvantage in leaving the house empty with attendant maintenance costs.  It was not a necessary act, not having been an act which [Miss Gordon] as principal, had she been sui juris ["full legal capacity"], would have been constrained to effect, there being sufficient other funds available to meet the costs of [Miss Gordon's] care.”

Lord Tyre held that as the sale of the house by the Attorney was a prudent act of administration rather than a necessary act to fund Miss Gordon’s care, the legacy was not adeemed by the sale.  John Turner was therefore “entitled to receive a cash equivalent to the proceeds of sale of the house.”  In addition he is entitled “to receive a sum representing the fruits of these proceeds during the period since the date of receipt of the sale proceeds.”

One last point on expenses.  Lord Tyre agreed that both parties were entitled to their expenses from the executry estate.

Thanks to Gillian Campbell of Biggart Baillie and Nicola Smith of Cairn Legal for tweeting about this case.

The case report can be found here.

For those of you struggling to sleep at night, may I recommend the latest UK Finance Bill.  According to the accountants Grant Thornton, at 686 pages, it is the longest Finance Bill in UK history.  The Finance Bill can be found here.  I am reluctant to even mention the fact that the UK Government has announced 45 tax consultations in case you stop reading.

I enjoyed Jeremy Peat’s comment piece on the UK Budget.  Jeremy comments on the 50p rate of income tax, the 40% income tax band, the economy and lending.  I particularly liked this comment: “What about incentives? Well, one effect of the Budget is to drag very large numbers of folks into the 40p tax band. Logically, I would have thought the adverse effect on the incentives of this substantially larger group would be expected to be [much] greater than any positive incentive effect from reducing the top rate to 45p for a much smaller group.”  If you are registered with the Herald website you can find all of Jeremy’s article here.

Now to the fiscal powers debate Italian style.  It is claimed that Italy’s prosperous German speaking South Tyrol autonomous province wishes to buy its financial independence.  South Tyrol has a population of around half a million and already has a large amount of autonomy. Up to 90% of tax revenue stays in the region, while the other 10% goes to Rome.  South Tyrol was occupied by Italy at the end of the WWI and annexed in 1919.  After WW2 the Allies decided that the province would remain a part of Italy, but would be granted a large amount of autonomy.  The article that I came across on Twitter can be found here.

“Devo max” for London?  An interesting article from the London Evening Standard can be found here.  I am surprised that Boris Johnson has not made more of an issue of this before now.

Last week I mentioned the report by the David Hume Institute on the debts and liabilities that an independent Scotland may be responsible for.  The report also made reference to the fact that the UK has approximately £821bn of “assets”.  I was glad to see that the “asset” side to the fiscal powers debate continued this week.  An article in the Scotsman on this issue by Jennifer Dempsie can be found here.

It seems that any new charge is automatically labelled a “tax”. My first example is from Dundee and a so called “tax on creativity”.  Members of Dundee’s licensing committee have decided to postpone implementing a controversial act that it is claimed could hinder the city’s arts scene.  The rule would have required exhibitions or public shows put on by the artists, gallery owners, musicians or publishers to be licensed from 1 April, even if they were free.  With the cost of a licence ranging from £124 to £7,500, artists said many free shows and exhibitions would simply not take place. The background to this is the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.  An article from the Courier on this can be found here.

My second example has been termed a “property extension tax” by the Daily Mail.  The Mail reported this week on how planning permission fees for property extensions will increase from £160 to £300 in Scotland.  The Mail compared this with the £150 charge in many English local authorities.

Now to the unsurprising news that charities have banded together to protest at the capping of donor tax relief that was announced by George Osborne in his Budget statement.  Two leading umbrella bodies, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Charities Aid Foundation, have set up a website calling on Osborne to exclude charities from the proposed cap.  More than 200 organisations have already signed up to support the campaign, called “Give It Back George”.  Principals of five Scottish universities are among those signatories to a letter asking the UK Government to abandon this proposal.  The campaign website can be found here.  An article on this from the Scotsman can be found here.

An article in the Herald claims that this week’s 8% rise in Air Passenger Duty (APD) will lead to a 46% growth in HM Treasury’s revenue from APD by 2016.  It does seem that APD makes the news every week.  The reason for that is how APD is at the centre of a number of debates.  The airline industry would like to see it abolished or at least reduced.  Then there is the call for it to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.  The UK Government has already signalled its intention to partially devolve APD to Northern Ireland.  Worth also noting that until recently the environment would be mentioned in the context of APD.  That though now rarely happens.  How quickly things change.  An article from the BBC news website can be found here.  If you are registered with the Herald website an article on APD can be found here.

The Guardian reports that the House of Lords Financial and Economic Affairs Committee has warned against the planned European Union financial transaction tax.  That is not a surprise.  What is interesting about this article is that it covers a possible alternative to the proposed financial transaction tax.  The alternative is the introduction of national stamp duties on share transactions, which the UK already has and which France is set to follow in August.  The Guardian article can be found here.

Now to Ireland and news that almost half of Ireland’s 1.6 million households have refused to register to pay the new €100 annual tax on residential property by the 31 March deadline.  The mass non-compliance was organised through an Internet campaign and backed by protest marches.  The levy, which also applies to foreign owners, is expected to rise sharply next year.  A report on this from the Irish Times can be found here.

Swiss authorities have issued warrants for the arrest of three German tax inspectors.  The three are accused of buying a CD containing bank client data stolen from Credit Suisse in Zurich, which led to the investigation of hundreds of German taxpayers with undeclared Swiss accounts.  The Prime Minister of North-Rhine-Westphalia has come to the defence of the tax inspectors and has said that the tax inspectors were only doing their duty.  Given the escalating war of words between these countries in this issue, I suspect that this matter will run for a while yet.  A report from Spiegel online can be found here.

Good luck to Edinburgh Rugby this weekend and also to those competing at the new look Gala RFC sevens.  I wonder if any politicians will be pictured eating hot pasties or sausage rolls at these events.  Have a good Easter weekend.

The England & Wales Court of Appeal has ruled that a baronet’s failure to adopt the ancestral family name within a certain period of time did not disqualify him from inheriting the family castle.

The background to this case is Corby Castle in north Cumbria.   Sir John Howard-Lawson inherited Corby Castle in 1962 and sold it for £2.5m in 1994.  Corby Castle had been the family seat for around four hundred years.

His own son Philip Howard later demanded around £1.5m from the sale proceeds.  Philip’s argument was that his father had not complied with the archaic terms of a will executed by his great-grandfather Philip John Canning Howard.  In particular he argued that his father did not change his surname to “Howard” and adopt the family coat of arms within the deadline referred to in the will.  A deadline of one year had been included in the will.  Such “name and arms clauses” were traditionally used by the landed classes to keep the family name and arms linked to the estate.

The Court of Appeal held that as his father had at least applied to use the family surname and coat of arms before the deadline, he had complied sufficiently with the will’s terms.   The College of Arms had not granted his father these rights until after the one year deadline.   Interestingly a court had decided in 1961 that Sir John’s father, William, had not met the deadline imposed by Philip John Canning Howard.

Philip Howard lost his case in the England and Wales High Court and now the appeal too.  It is reported that he intends to take this matter to the Supreme Court.

The case report can be found here.

A report from the STEP journal can also be found here.

I will start with where to find one of the most comprehensive and detailed review’s of last week’s UK Budget statement.  The link is to the always impressive Institute of Fiscal Studies and can be found here.  In particular see the “Business tax, stamp duty and anti-avoidance slides”.  Slide 9 on “Forecast revenue from anti-avoidance measures” is particularly revealing.

Now to the fiscal powers debate.  I was disappointed to see that Peter de Vink has been deselected by the Scottish Conservatives.  Peter was hoping to be elected to Midlothian Council in May.  As far as the fiscal powers debate is concerned this shows that there are some on the centre right in Scotland who can see the opportunities that fiscal autonomy or independence could bring.  Peter’s article in the Herald can be found here.

The First Minister has announced the setting up of a “Fiscal Commission Working Group” to establish a fiscal framework for an independent Scotland.  The group will include former World Bank Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Jospeh Stiglitz of Columbia University.  My only slight concern relating to this group is that it comprises four economists, albeit eminent economists.  This group needs to ensure it has an understanding of the underlying law and legal framework that is crucial to creating a new fiscal framework for Scotland.  That includes the creation of a Scottish Exchequer.  I will once again reiterate my call for a review of all government tax, law and registration services in Scotland.  A Scottish Government press release on this can be found here.

I was also interested to read about a report by the David Hume Institute which claimed that an independent Scotland would be liable for around £100bn of debts and liabilities.  In particular I was interested to see one of the first references to the “other side of the balance sheet”.  The report says that the UK has approximately £821bn of “assets”. The £100bn figure comes from deducting £69bn of assets from approximately £152bn to £171bn of debts and liabilities.  A Scotland on Sunday article on this story can be found here.  This particular part of the fiscal powers debate has a long way to go.

In advance of May’s local government elections, Reform Scotland has called for non-domestic rates to be devolved in full to local authorities.  This would mean a variable business rate in different areas of Scotland.  The Reform Scotland paper can be found here.  Non-domestic rates is one of two tax powers presently devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the other being council tax.  Although these taxes are administered by the local authorities control rests with the Scottish Parliament.

The proposal would also mean that local authorities would keep the revenue they collect from business rates.  At the moment this revenue is handed back to the Scottish Government.  The Scottish Government then redistribute it as part of its grant to each local authority.  The Reform Scotland proposal could also be used as a framework for when control over the Crown Estate is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

According to a study carried out by accountancy firm UHY Hacker Young, Edinburgh businesses contribute more to the UK economy per head of population than any other major city in the UK.  The main reason given is that Edinburgh wasn’t hit as hard by the financial crisis as London.  In addition, oil-rich Aberdeen was the only major UK city to see its economy grow during the recession.  This is excellent news for the Scottish economy.  An article from the Scotsman on this can be found here.

Now to corporation tax.  The Financial Times recently reported on how 15 multinational companies are considering locating substantial operations in Britain as a result of UK corporate tax reforms.  What I found most interesting about this report is when tax competition is discussed in a UK context it is a positive thing.  Contrast this with the tone of the debate over devolving control over corporation tax to the Scottish Parliament.

Continuing on the corporation tax theme.  It is not just the headline rate of tax that is important.  The underlying law which deals with, for example, reliefs is just as important.  Further evidence for this is shown by a recent statement by the European Commission.  The European Commission are claiming that the UK is breaking European law by imposing an immediate capital gains tax charge on companies that relocate to another EU member country.  The Commission has requested that the UK abolish this exit tax within two months, or be referred to the European Court of Justice.  I await the reaction to this by the UK Government with interest.  The statement from the European Commission can be found here.

The Unoccupied Properties Bill has been introduced at Holyrood.  At the moment empty and unfurnished residential properties are exempt from council tax for the first six months.  After that period, they qualify for a 10% discount.  Under this Bill local authorities will be given the power to charge up to twice as much council tax on residential properties that are empty and unfurnished.  It is hoped this will act as an incentive for home owners to bring their empty houses back into use.  The Scottish government has also announced a new loan fund which will be specifically targeted at projects bringing properties into use for affordable housing.

The new bill will also controversially reduce the non-domestic business rates discount for some empty commercial properties from 50% to 10%.  The argument put forward is that this will encourage owners to bring boarded-up shops back into use.  A report from the BBC news website on this can be found here.

Now to England.  Over 85% of local authorities have accepted the UK Government’s offer to freeze council tax rates.  This is contrast to the agreement reached between the Scottish Government and all of Scotland’s local authorities.  England’s local authorities were offered a one-off grant worth 2.5% of their budget if they agreed to the freeze.  More on this can be found here.

Let’s end with Wales and the news that the Welsh Government has started to consult on whether Wales should be a separate legal jurisdiction.  The Welsh government will ask the judiciary, lawyers and members of the public whether they want a jurisdiction along the lines of those found in Scotland and Northern Ireland.  An article from the Law Society Gazette on this matter can be found here.

Have a good weekend.

Statement from the Office of the Public Guardian Scotland

“It has come to our attention that there are companies advertising to assist with, in certain circumstances, the claiming back of nursing or care home fees which have been paid from 2004 onwards.

We would like to advise that this applies in England and not Scotland.”

On the same “News” page you will see the welcome progress that is being made regarding the processing times of Powers of Attorney.

More on this can be found here.

As with any Budget statement, it is best to take a few days before passing judgement.  That said, and even before all of the detail has been analysed, there are a number of issues that stand out even just 24 hours after the Chancellor sat down.

The first concerns the debate, for “debate” read “leak everything”, that has surrounded a large number of Budget issues over the last few months.  We have a come a long way from the days when Gordon Brown did not even tell Tony Blair what was going to be in the Budget statement.

The proposed reduction in the top rate of income tax has dominated the political news coverage over the last few months.  The debate over how much it has raised will not end with the Budget statement.  There is no doubt it has led to a great deal of tax avoidance, aggressive tax avoidance.  That was to be expected.

The changes to the personal allowance and tax rate thresholds, has already begun to dominate the news coverage.  The coalition government must be hoping that the news coverage concentrates on the increase in the personal allowance and not the 300,000 more people who will be drawn into the 40% income tax rate from 2013/14.  To put this in context.  In the 1980’s approximately 5% of people were higher rate taxpayers.  Now it is 15%.

The freezing of age related allowances is also likely to cause problems for the coalition government.  Somehow they need to show that this is a good example of tax simplification.

The claim that does stand out is that by reducing the top rate of income tax, combined with other avoidance measures, five times more tax will be raised from the richest.  The Institute of Fiscal Studies noted today that that this is the third worst Budget statement for measures relating to tax avoidance.  This is measured on how much tax the avoidance measures to be introduced are likely to save.

Now to an old Budget favourite, stamp duty and Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT).  The SDLT changes were not unexpected especially for anyone who buys a Sunday newspaper.  The Chancellor announced that the level of stamp duty on residential properties over £2m which were bought via a company would increase to 15% with immediate effect.  In addition, overseas companies that already own UK residential property worth more than £2m will be subject to capital gains tax (CGT) from April 2013.  The CGT point was less expected but nonetheless welcome.  This though should have been dealt with many years ago.  The Chancellor also made it very clear if avoidance of this kind continues, further measures would be introduced without warning which have retrospective effect.

That though is not the main issue with SDLT in Scotland.  In Scotland only around 10 properties a year are sold that are worth over £2m.  The jump from 1% to 3% of SDLT at £250,001 is a much bigger issue.  Hopefully that will be one of the first issues dealt with when this tax is finally under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

One change I was hoping to see, in vain I might add, was a targeted VAT reduction for home repairs and renovations.    

Now to the fiscal powers debate.

The UK and Scottish Governments have agreed a number of changes to the Scotland Bill.  Both Governments will now recommend that their respective Parliaments support the Bill.  A number of minor changes have been agreed.  The Scottish Government has secured changes to the sections of the Bill dealing with borrowing powers and the Supreme Court.  It was also agreed that the measures contained in the Scotland Bill would only be implemented with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament.

The proposed reservations of insolvency procedures and regulation of health professions will also be removed preserving the Scottish Parliament’s existing legislative competence for these areas.  More on this can be found on the Scottish Government’s website which can be found here.  The list of proposed amendments agreed by both the present, and previous, Scottish Parliament Scotland Bill committees is also listed.  These lists show how few changes have been made to this Bill.  A report from the BBC news website on this matter can be found here.

The House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee has said that the Crown Estate’s control of 50% of Scotland’s coast and almost all the seabed should be devolved to Scotland’s local authorities.  The Scottish Affairs Committee said management of the marine environment lacked transparency and public consultation.  It is now difficult to find someone who is opposed to devolving this power.  Does that mean the Scotland Bill will be further amended to include this power?  I suspect not.  More on this can be found on a report on the BBC news website which can be found here.

I was intrigued to see the Secretary State for Scotland, Michael Moore, asking for tax clarity from the Scottish Government and in relation to the independence referendum.  There is a simple answer to this question, and which would provide a degree of certainty for individuals and businesses alike.  There should be no major changes for two or even three years to the tax legislation, and system of administration, that the Scottish Government inherits in the event of a “yes” vote.

I was not surprised to read that the Scottish Government is struggling to persuade HM Treasury that the new Scottish police and fire services should be exempt from VAT.  This is likely to mean an annual VAT cost of between £22 and £36m.  Under the current structure police forces are treated like local authorities and are exempt from VAT.  However, if they merge they may be subject to VAT.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.  My earlier blog on this can also be found here.

The new definition of a charity will apply to all UK charity tax reliefs from April 2012.  More information on this can be found here.  I still find it odd that when it seems that everyone is talking about tax simplification, that bodies wishing to become a charity have to meet various conditions set by OSCR (Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator) and then by HMRC.  The reason for this is that the definition of a charity in Scotland is different from that used in England and Wales.  HMRC apply English and Welsh law.  This means if Scottish charities wish to claim the various UK charity tax reliefs then they also have to submit an application to HMRC.  What utter nonsense.  If the UK Government were serious about tax simplification, the fact that you are registered as a Scottish charity should be enough to allow a charity to claim the various UK tax reliefs.  The same issue applies in Northern Ireland as it now has its own charity regulator.

I was interested to see that the European Parliament has finally voted to approve the cross border inheritance law proposed by the European Commission to clarify which jurisdiction’s succession law should govern an international estate. The UK and Ireland remain opted out of the regulation.  A report on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

François Hollande, the Socialist candidate for the French presidency, has provided more detail of his plan for a 75% top rate of income tax.  He now says there will be a ceiling on the total tax paid by an individual in one year; and that the rate will be only temporary until the public sector budget is balanced.

Finally to Greece and some encouraging news.  The head of the European Union’s Greek task force, Horst Reichenbach, has reported the collection of almost €1bn (£830m) in back taxes.  Almost double the target figure.  A good start but still a fraction of the amount outstanding as they believe there is around €8bn in uncollected tax revenues.  More on this from a report on the BBC news website can be found here.

Have a good weekend.

I would like to start with an observation.  Over the last few weeks I have attended a number of tax and law update seminars.  Without exception the speakers have commented on the constitutional debate.  Why should that surprise me?  Even a few months ago this would not have happened.  There might have been the odd mention of the Scotland Bill but even that would just be in passing.  As one of the few lawyers who were willing to discuss tax issues in a constitutional context over the last few years I find this a welcome development.  You never know someone may even listen to my call for a review if all government tax, law and registration services in Scotland.

Most Scottish local authorities will by now have sent out their 2012/13 council tax bills.  This is of course an unusual bill as we know in advance that it will be the same as last year.  One notable exception is Stirling Council which it seems almost by accident reduced its council tax.  Although I get the sense that the council tax “freeze” is being taken for granted it cannot go on forever.  It is obviously important politically and not just because we are just a few weeks away from our local elections.  That said, at some point there needs to be a new review of how we finance local government.  As someone who believes that our councils should have a degree of choice in this matter I would like to see this review begin as soon as possible.

The fiscal powers debate had a fairly quiet week.  No new “commissions” have been announced which is a relief.  An old favourite of those who oppose devolution and independence did though rear its head again.  Ruth Davidson talked about giving Scotland something called “real devolution”.  For “real devolution” read “no more powers for the Scottish Parliament”.  Ruth Davidson said: “I want to talk about devolution – not devo max or devo plus, or devo mix, or I can’t believe it’s not devo – but real devolution from Holyrood to people and communities across Scotland.”  This in my opinion is   similar to the argument that the Scottish Parliament already has lots of fiscal powers that it simply fails to use.  That particular argument is rarely seen outwith the opinion pages of the Scotsman.

An example of this type of thinking was given recently when the UK  Government decided not to devolve control over the Crown Estate to the Scottish Parliament.  Instead the UK Government passed some control over Crown Estate revenue to the National Lottery.  A decision that I think it is fair to say was unexpected.  More on Ruth Davidson’s statement can be found here.  I will ignore the fact that Ruth Davidson appears to be at odds with what the Prime Minister said on his recent visit.

I have been following with interest the debate on introducing a “minimum price” for alcohol.  This is a rare example of a policy where the aim is clearly to change behaviour and not just raise revenue.  I have written before on how policy makers sometimes disingenuously argue that a policy is to change behaviour rather than increase revenue or vice versa.  Personally I have struggled to understand the opposition to this policy.  That said, do I think that a policy of minimum pricing on its own is enough?  Of course not, nor does the Scottish Government and the myriad of health professionals who support this policy.

Do I think that an even better policy could be developed if powers over alcohol duty were to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament?  Yes I do.  This was also pointed out in the Scottish Government’s paper on “Devolving Excise Duty in the Scotland Bill”.  Specifically this would allow the Scottish Government to “align the revenue benefit with the public spending costs of alcohol consumption.”  This would also ensure that the main downside of a minimum price policy, extra revenue for the retailers of alcohol, can be balanced out.  Lastly devolution, as I often say, is complicated.  It makes sense to devolve those tax powers that are clearly connected with already devolved areas of responsibility such as health.  The Scottish Government paper can be found here.  A report from the BBC news website on this issue can also be found here.

The UK coalition government are clearly worried as to how they are being perceived on the now rather unfortunate phrase: “we are all in this together“.  The Deputy Prime Minister is reportedly softening his proposals on a so called “tycoon tax”.  I am not sure why this idea is being called a “tycoon tax” as this is simply a minimum net tax rate for a person’s total income.  In a speech to the Liberal Democrat conference on Sunday he made no mention of a minimum tax rate less than 48 hours after announcing it.  This idea is not a new idea.  Most recently it has been advocated by President Obama.  It is also has the advantage of a being a fairly simple idea.  The Deputy Prime Minister has suggested a 20% rate.  President Obama a 30% rate.  The Obama proposal appeared shortly after it was reported that Republican candidate Mitt Romney, a multimillionaire, had a net tax rate of around 13%.  More on this can be found here.

Let’s finish with London.  Ken Livingstone has denied claims that he has not paid the “correct” amount of tax on his income.  Livingstone also claims that he is the victim of a “smear campaign”.  This story has some similarities with the furore that greeted the news that highly paid public officials were being paid via a company.  My earlier blog on this can be found here.  I have to admit to some sympathy with Livingstone on this one.  Yes there is an element of hypocrisy here but Livingstone is not an elected politician, albeit a candidate, nor is he is a public official.  An article from the Guardian on this can be found here.

Have a good weekend and let’s hope for some good news from Rome.