Let’s start with an issue that is at last beginning to reach the top of the political agenda, tax avoidance.

The UK National Audit Office has released a report suggesting that HMRC is being “overwhelmed” by the scale of tax avoidance, claiming that the UK is losing out by more than £10bn in lost tax revenue.  The Comptroller and Auditor General, Amyas Morse, stated: “HMRC must push harder to find an effective way to tackle the promoters and users of the most aggressive tax avoidance schemes”.  But according to the NAO, between 2004 and 2011 approximately 2,300 avoidance schemes were disclosed to HMRC.  A report on this can be found on the BBC news website which can be found here.  The NAO report can be found here.

That shows the scale of the problem.

Then there is the sight of a number of Chief Executives from several of the world’s top companies giving evidence to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee on the issue of tax avoidance.  Representatives from Google UK, Starbucks and Amazon were answering questions on tax arrangements for multinational companies.  Their responses show how big business views this issue and interference by politicians.  More on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

Also on this issue.  The Managing Director of John Lewis, Andy Street has said that the failure to resolve the issue would risk driving UK firms out of business.  Street’s comments were aimed at Amazon, which is accused of failing to pay the correct rate of UK corporation tax. He said that UK companies would be “out-invested” and “out-traded” by the US-based internet retail giant.  More on this from the Telegraph can be found here.

There is also some evidence that HMRC is losing this “battle”.  The European Court of Justice has ruled that the UK Government must refund several UK-headquartered multinationals up to £5bn worth of corporation tax.  The companies, led by British American Tobacco, were found to have been treated unfairly by HMRC which retrospectively blocked tax refund claims dating as far back as 1973.  HMRC said it was “very disappointed” at the ruling.  Glad that it was not “happy”.  More on this, again from the Telegraph, can be found here.

Then there is the tax tribunal decision in favour of the former Rangers Football Club.   The decision of the first tier tribunal was not unanimous and HMRC is considering an appeal.  More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.

An example of what HMRC is trying to do also highlights the scale of its task.  HMRC has launched a taskforce to pursue landlords in the south east of England who fail to declare rental income.  It is expected to recover £4m out of the estimated £550m of tax evaded annually by landlords across the UK.  A press release from HMRC on this matter can be found here. 

The statement from UK Business secretary Vince Cable sums up nicely the quandary for politicians.  Cable has called for action against corporate tax avoidance but also stressed the need to encourage investment.  He pointed to anger amongst small and medium sized businesses that multinational corporations are able to avoid tax without consequence.  More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.

I liked this: “High-street shops turn fire on Amazon’s tax avoidance”.  More on this can be found here.

Now to the fiscal powers debate.

Edward Troup, the person responsible for the collection of the Scottish rate of income tax at HMRC, has told MSPs that the Scottish Government would have to pay the costs of any changes to the Scottish rate of income tax.  More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.  This is in fact one of the reasons why I think a tax needs to be devolved in its entirety.

Also on this issue, and some sensible observations by Iain Gray, convener of Holyrood’s Audit Committee.  Gray said that the Scottish Parliament must be able to exercise greater oversight of HMRC when the Scottish Parliament will become responsible for raising half the income tax in Scotland from 2016.   More on this from the Herald can be found here.

The Devo Plus group, which was set up by Reform Scotland, has published its latest paper on further powers that could be devolved to the Scottish Parliament as long as Scotland votes NO.  More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.  The paper  can be found here. Notable that the Conservative representative acknowledged that he was there in a personal capacity and not representing his party.  Ruth Davidson has of course made her opposition to further powers clear.  The problem with this approach is an obvious one.  Can anyone say with a degree of certainty that major powers will be devolved to Scotland if Scotland votes NO.  To see how far apart the opposing sides in the independence debate are have a look at one of my recent blogs.  This blog lists the tax powers that Westminster has already said no to.  My earlier blog can be found here. Even the Liberal Democrats, the party that historically has went the furthest on this issue, now wishes to devolve only a handful of additional tax powers.

Now to some commentary on the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report on the economic possibilities of an independent Scotland.  The excellent piece by Ian Bell in the Herald can be found here.  The argument that Scotland’s oil wealth is a potential problem for Scotland is simply ridiculous.

The Times has reported that sales of homes valued between £2m and £5m in Greater London have fallen by 29% per cent in the third quarter, according to figures from the Land Registry.  I was interested to read that “industry experts” have blamed the fall on changes to stamp duty land tax in the last UK Budget.  London Central Portfolio, a high-end residential property investment fund, said: “The fall in transactions is almost definitely a result of the uncertainty and negative sentiment caused by the tax changes announced in the 2012 Budget”.  It seems that uncertainty can be caused by something other than the debate on Scottish independence. The report in the Times can be found here.

And finally to France.  The French Government has announced new measures against tax avoidance and fraud for companies and individuals. Failure to disclose the origin of offshore assets will attract an automatic 60% tax rate.  The French tax authorities will also demand an explanation of all individual payments exceeding €200,000.  Vive la France.

I have updated this blog as we now have updated “GERS” figures and the Scottish Labour party has published its interim “Devolution Commission” report.  Its findings are similar to the Liberal Democrat proposal.

Although the Scottish Conservatives now appear to be moving towards arguing for the devolving of further tax powers there is as as yet no firm proposal from them.

Listed below are the taxes, duties and charges that Westminster has so far refused to pass control to the Scottish Parliament.

In bold are the additional powers the Liberal Democrats are putting forward for devolving.  This information is from its “Home Rule Commission” published in October 2012.

In red are the additional powers the Scottish Labour party might argue for devolving.  I say “might” as its report is an “interim” report only.

The figures are mostly from the “Government Expenditure & Revenue Scotland 2011-12” (GERS).  The figures are included to give an idea as to the level of revenue produced by a particular tax and are a number of millions of pounds.

1. Full control over income tax including the underlying law dealing with reliefs etc (some additional powers but not complete control)  (similar proposal from Labour) 10,790
2. National insurance contributions  8,393
3. Corporation tax (assignation of revenue only)  2,976
4. North Sea revenue  10,573
5. Fuel duties  2,296
6. Capital gains tax (partial control only) (similar proposal from Labour) 246
7. Inheritance tax (to be devolved)  (possibly)  164 
8. Other stamp duties – stamp duty and SDRT on shares (estimated)  276
9. Tobacco duties  1,129
10. Alcohol duties  (includes spirit, wine, beer and cider duties)  981
11. Betting and gaming duties  115
12. Air passenger duty (even though included in Calman) (not clear if to be completely devolved)  (similar proposal from Labour)  213
13. Insurance premium tax  251
14. Climate change levy  64
15. Aggregates levy (even though included in Calman) (not clear if to be completely devolved) (similar proposal from Labour)  52
16. Vehicle excise duty  (possibly)  475 
17. Bank levy (estimate as no separate Scottish figure)  180
18. Licence fee receipts  325
19. Crown Estate revenue  (not clear if to be completely devolved) (if Scottish Parliament accepts UK Government terms)  10
20. VAT cannot be devolved but VAT revenue could be assigned  9,554

Taxes already devolved to be devolved under Scotland Act 2012

1. Income tax (still only partial control over tax bands and will cost Scottish Parliament millions of pounds a year to administer even if not used)  (estimated partial control over)  5,395
2. Council tax  1,987
3. Business rates  1,933
4. Stamp duty land tax (Scottish Parliament control by April 2015)  330
5. Landfill tax (Scottish Parliament control by April 2015)  97

The Scotland Act 2012 also does not resolve the imbalance between the amount the Scottish Parliament is responsible for spending and which it raises.  The Scotland Act 2012 only takes us to about a third. 

Where to start.

In a speech to mark her first year as Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson outlined an aspiration to cut income tax by more than 1p when new powers come to Holyrood.  More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.  Now compare this with a survey that claims that three quarters of Scots think taxes should be raised for those with the highest incomes and wealth. More on the survey from the Herald can be found here.  These stories show how Scotland, both the politicians and the general public, are beginning to wake up to the fact that tax is not necessarily just a UK matter.

The Scottish Government has backed the latest call for control over air passenger duty to be passed to the Scottish Parliament.  This is a matter worth remembering when you hear comments from the NO campaign on how they “hope” to give the Scottish Parliament further powers.  Let’s not forget how few tax powers are included in the latest Scotland Act.  It is “Calman minus” just as the Liberals recent Home Rule Commission is “Steel minus”.  More on this can be found here.

First it was Rangers now it is Hearts that is in trouble with HMRC.  The surprise is no-one is surprised.  Hearts owe HMRC approximately £500,000 in unpaid tax.  More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.

The UK Government seems to be doing a fair bit of thinking just now which is always worrying.

The UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has called for a change in international tax standards to reflect changes in business, such as the rise of e-commerce, which makes it easier for companies to shift taxation away from jurisdictions where profit is being generated.  More on this from the Guardian can be found here.  In addition, Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the UK Treasury, has pledged to crack down on corporate tax avoidance following revelations that the supermarket chain Asda may have used overseas transfers to its parent company Walmart to avoid up to £250m in tax.  More on this from the Times can be found here.  Lots of words but can we expect real action?

The Chief Executive of HMRC, Lin Homer, has been put under pressure by the UK Treasury Select Committee to explain why multinationals have been allowed to pay less tax than small businesses in the UK.  The Comptroller and Auditor-General of the National Audit Office, Amyas Morse, said that large companies often put pressure on HMRC by threatening to pull out of the country altogether.  More on this from the Times can be found here.  A connected story from the Daily Mail and involving Margaret Hodge, chairman of the UK Public Accounts Committee, can be found here.

Under “road charging” proposals being considered by the UK Government, motorists could face a new two-tier system in which drivers would pay a lower rate of tax if they do not use the UK’s trunk road network.  Have any of the UK media outlets considered the fact that this is also a matter for the Scottish Parliament?  Of course not.  The new system would comprise a basic charge for the use of local roads, and a secondary charge for those motorists wanting to use motorways and A-roads.  More on this from the Guardian can be found here.

Is it just me or is it really the case than almost every change in the law is met with the accusation that it breaches some part of EU law?  The latest example is the UK Government’s planned changes to child benefits.  The UK Treasury has dismissed the claims by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales.  More on this from the Telegraph can be found here.

David Gauke, Exchequer Minister to the UK Treasury, has argued that HMRC needs to pay more to recruit the best tax experts in order to combat tax avoidance by major multinational companies.  Edward Troup, Director-General for Tax and Welfare at HMRC, welcomed the proposal, saying: “I think it’s on the record now to have more staff and higher pay”.  More on this from the Times can be found here.  This is an issue that we in Scotland will also have to respond to when setting up our own tax system.

It is often claimed that that the UK Government favours London and the south-east of England. This is another such claim.  The UK Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, has faced criticism from property groups and retailers after his announcement that a revaluation of business rates has been pushed back to 2017.  The British Property Federation said that it was unfair to expect tenants to continue to pay a levy based on “top-of-the-market” 2008 rents. The UK Government argues however that a revaluation would lead to rate increases for many businesses, especially in the south-east.  More on this from Accountancy Age can be found here.

Now to a story that keeps bubbling up to the surface and clearly is not going away.  First it involved government officials such as the head of the Student Loans Company, then it was the BBC now it is teachers.  HMRC has said that supply teachers hired via recruitment agencies using off-shore firms are causing a shortfall in National Insurance contributions.  An HMRC spokesman said: “These kinds of arrangements are not compliant with tax and National Insurance legislation and the end client, or the employment businesses, may be liable for any underpaid tax and National Insurance”.  More on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

Anyone who regularly looks at HMRC press releases will see HMRC increasingly publicising stories such as this.  An Isle of Wight tax advisor who stole £52,000 by claiming tax repayments using his clients’ names was jailed today at Newport Crown Court.  The press release from HMRC can be found here.

Let’s end with matters slightly further afield.  Hong Kong has imposed a 15% emergency tax on foreign buyers of residential property in an attempt to hold back the island’s property bubble. Stamp duty for short-term speculators has also gone up from 15 to 20%.  Similar measures have been imposed by the Singaporean Government.  More on this from the excellent STEP Journal can be found here.

One last point.  Patriotism takes many forms and that includes paying your taxes.

Have a good week.

I would recommend this book to any solicitor in Scotland that deals with trusts.  Rennie Galbraith has produced a much needed second edition of his drafting guide.  It is published by W.Green.

I particularly liked the section on the use of Scottish terminology and the influence of English law on Scottish trust law.

“The influence of English law and practice of trust is still extremely prevalent today and certainly at a more than superficial level.   The reasons for this do not reflect well on the Scottish legal profession, those responsible for teaching the profession or those responsible for Scottish legislation.  English terminology abounds and, as a result principally of “English” legislation, which refers to “settlors” rather than “trusters” and “trusts with interests in possession” rather than “liferent trusts”.  The vast bank and array of trust taxation law tends to use English terminology.  Indeed, the trust law relating to charities could be described as almost a complete transplant of English law to the law of charities in Scotland”.

Where to start?  There is so much happening just now it is difficult to keep up.  It is though a fascinating time to be living in Scotland.

The signing of the Edinburgh Agreement ends the “phoney war”.  So besides this historic agreement what else has been happening?

Let’s start with the publication of the report by the Liberal Democrats Home Rule Commission.   The report can be found here.  There are a number of problems with this report.  The first is the likelihood of the Liberals being part of and having a major influence in a future UK Government.  At best the Liberals will form part of a UK coalition government where they will be a junior partner.  Even if they were to persuade the senior party to implement their plans the Scottish Parliament would not see any new powers until at best 2020.

Then there is the accusation: why should anyone take the Liberal Democrats seriously on tax and fiscal powers?  The Liberal Democrats are in power just now and all we have is “Calman minus”.  They are not even devolving control over the Crown Estate in Scotland and that is party policy.

Then there is the report itself.  The report barely goes beyond Calman.  Inheritance tax is to be devolved and also some parts of capital gains tax.  This report does not even go as far as their last fiscal powers report, the “Steel Commission”.

One last point.  It must be remembered that the Liberals have historically been willing to go further than the other main UK parties on devolving power to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament.  The Steel Commission report provides evidence for this argument.  What their latest report shows is that the Liberals are moving away from devolving serious tax and fiscal powers to the Scottish Parliament.  That is disappointing and makes you wonder.  If this is all the Liberal Democrats are offering what will Labour or the Conservatives come up with?

The answer to that question is likely to be not much.  Johann Lamont has finally announced the membership of her “further devolution commission”.  What is the likelihood of this commission coming up with a proposal close to “devo max” or even “devo plus”?  Almost none.  Why?  Remember the struggle to persuade the Labour party to legislate the Calman proposals.  Think of how few powers are contained in the Scotland Act.  Think of the reaction to senior Labour party members to any call for further tax and fiscal powers to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. Think of Alistair Darling’s recent comments and in fact of any Labour MP who talks on this subject.  An article from the BBC news website on the Labour party’s commission can be found here.

Then there is the Conservative party.  It is clear that most Conservatives see the European Union debate as the main debate.  Scotland is but a side show.  The idea of a “Constitutional Convention” is laughable.  It simply means, let’s kick this matter into the longest of long grass for another generation.  Ruth Davidson has already got her retaliation in first and stated that corporation tax or welfare powers should not be devolved.  In any case, this convention won’t even see the light of day in any meaningful way until after the referendum.  Does anyone actually believe that the Conservatives will even consider any further powers for the Scottish Parliament if Scotland votes No?

Staying with the Conservatives, Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, seems to be everywhere these days.  That includes arguing for greater powers for the London Assembly.  Johnson has asked George Osborne, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, for London to be allowed to retain any stamp duty raised on property sales.  Johnson argued that London inhabitants face higher tax rates than households elsewhere in the UK, and would use the taxes to fund house building and regeneration schemes.  More on this from the Telegraph can be found here.

The BBC is to offer staff contracts to some of its biggest names in a U-turn after months of accusations that it is enabling tax avoidance.  It is claimed that up to 25,000 people employed at the BBC do not pay tax at source.  More on the U-turn by the BBC can be found here and on the background to this story here.

I was interested to see that the Labour party at its recent conference proposed to reinstate the 50% top rate of income tax and apply a two year suspension of stamp duty on properties worth less than £250,000.  I wonder if they realize that these will be matters for the Scottish Parliament to decide as a result of the Scotland Act by the time the next UK general election takes place.

The UK Government is seemingly intensifying its attack on tax planning by corporations and wealthy individuals.  Extra measures include a 50% expansion of HMRC’s High Net Worth Unit, more resources for the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility and a new policy of refusing to award government contracts to companies that use “aggressive tax avoidance” schemes.  More on this from HM Treasury can be found here.  When thinking about this it is worth also reading about Starbucks.  Two House of Commons committees are due to question tax officials about how Starbucks has been able to avoid paying tax on £1.2bn of sales since 2009.  More on this from the Guardian can be found here.

Plans put forward to add an additional fee to visitors’ hotel bills have been abandoned by the City of Edinburgh Council in response to objections from business leaders.  The Council planned to reduce its spending on festivals, events and promotional initiatives by setting up a “transient visitor levy”, aimed at raising more than £3m a year.  More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.

The McLaren Formula One team have successfully argued that a £32m fine they paid after a 2007 Ferrari spying controversy should be tax deductible.  McLaren had argued the fine was not a statutory penalty but one incurred under Formula One rules, making the fine a business expense.  HMRC disagreed but a tax tribunal has found in favour of McLaren.  More on this from the Telegraph can be found here.

Now to an old favourite, a Financial Transactions Tax.  European Union Tax Commissioner Algirdas Semeta says he is now sure there are enough Member States to force through an EU wide Financial Transactions Tax. Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, Germany, France, Belgium, Austria, Slovenia, Estonia and Slovakia have committed to this new source of new revenue.  A press release from the European Commission on this can be found here.  The UK Government has also confirmed its opposition to a Financial Transactions Tax.  More on the UK Government’s stance can be found here.  This issue provides further evidence of the growing disengagement with the European Union by the UK Government.

Germany’s Roman Catholics are to be denied the right to Holy Communion or religious burial if they stop paying a special church tax.  Can you imagine this happening in Scotland?  An article from the BBC news website on this can be found here.

The French Government is to revise its 2013 Budget proposal to raise the entrepreneurs’ rate of capital gains tax on equities from 19% to 45%.  The retreat follows a campaign against the tax by an organised group of business owners called Les Pigeons (‘The Mugs’ or ‘Suckers’).   An article on this from Reuters can be found here.

Let’s end with a story from America.  It seems that Chinese immigrants are less keen on an American passport.  Citizens of the People’s Republic of China who emigrate to America used to apply for US citizenship as a matter of course, but now America’s  world wide taxation policy is making some of them regret it.  An article on this story from the South China Morning Post can be found here.

Let’s start with the independence debate.  I would normally refer to this as the “fiscal powers” debate but there seems little point as that ship appears to have sailed.  Some things are becoming clearer.  There is not going to be a second question.  The likelihood of serious additional fiscal powers being devolved to the Scottish Parliament if Scotland votes ‘No’ also now seems increasingly unlikely.

It is not difficult to imagine the appetite for even listening to arguments for additional fiscal powers at Westminster in that event.  That is where the Devo Plus campaign has got it wrong.  And I say this as one of the authors of the Reform Scotland Fiscal Powers papers on which their proposal is based.  Devo Plus are arguing for a ‘No’ vote and also that there should not be a second question.  Do they really think Westminster will seriously consider devolving further powers to the Scottish Parliament if Scotland votes ‘No’?  An article by Jeremy Purvis who leads the Devo Plus campaign can be found here.  On a personal note it is disappointing to see that Reform Scotland have now taken a stance on Scotland’s constitutional question by its support for Devo Plus.

The fact that only the Liberal Democrats are going to have a further devolution proposal by the time the referendum takes place reinforces this argument.

So if there is not to be a second question, what do those who have supported devo max previously do?  The impact and importance of Jim McColl’s announcement in favour of independence should not be under estimated.  A BBC news website report on this can be found here.

Now to taxing the wealthy.  Just now politicians seem to talk of little else.  Let’s ignore for now what actually constitutes wealth.

Let’s start with an article by George Kerevan on the Scotsman.  Kerevan argues against taxing the wealthy, believing that it is arbitrary, complicated to administer, and does not raise enough money relative to the trouble it takes to collect it.   His article can be found here.

Nick Clegg wants to ensure that the rich “pay their fair share”.  He has vowed to block further welfare cuts until a mansion tax is agreed with his Tory coalition partners. Vince Cable has also spoken out against tax havens and non-domiciles.  Then there is Danny Alexander.  He has promised tax investigations for all those who own assets worth more than £1 million.  The cynic in me says: I have heard a lot of this before and not just on tax reform.  What about the banks.  Has anything of substance actually been done?

Then there is the evolving love in between Ed Balls and Nick Clegg.  Ed Balls told the Independent newspaper that a future Labour UK Government could impose an annual levy on expensive properties, unlike Nick Clegg though, he favours a permanent rather than temporary wealth tax.  The article in the Independent can be found here.  This does seem more like mischief making than serious policy making given how long the last UK Labour Government were in power.

One reason for my cynicism is a claim made by the SNP this week.  The claim is that there are fewer, not more, tax inspectors.  I have blogged before on how HMRC’s budget has been reduced and of the large number of HMRC redundancies.  If we are serious about tackling tax evasion then you need a properly resourced tax collection agency.  Transparency would not go a miss either.  How about publishing tax returns?  The SNP press release on this can be found here.

So what can be done?  HMRC’s High Net Worth Unit has brought in £500 million in extra tax from the UK’s 5,000 wealthiest people since it launched three years ago. The amount collected is well over the original target of £100 million a year.  A press release from HMRC on this can be found here.  And of course this was achieved in a time where HMRC’s budget has been cut.

Finally on this issue, an excellent article by Iain MacWhirter in the Herald.  MacWhirter points to the relative insignificance of the cost of the so called “free services” as compared with the salaries and pensions of the higher-earning public sector workers.  The article in the Herald can be found here.

These services are of course not “free”.  They are paid for by taxation.  Taxation is simply a series of political choices.

The introduction of a 15% rate of stamp duty land tax on corporate buyers in this year’s UK Budget, it is claimed, has had a dramatic impact on the high-value London property market.  The article from the online STEP journal can be found here here.  I must admit to struggling to see why this is a bad thing.

About 60% of all taxpayers’ complaints against HMRC are upheld on appeal, according to figures from Pinsent Masons. Some 58,110 complaints were made last year, of which more than 33,000 were accepted either by an internal HMRC review or by the Adjudicator’s Office.  A report on this can be found here.

Barclays Bank is to cut back on its UK tax planning unit, after a dispute with the tax authorities over ‘aggressive’ schemes tarnished its public image.  A report on this can be found here.

Now to matters slightly further afield.

Firstly to America and the never ending saga of Mitt Romney’s tax affairs.  Romney has at last published his 2011 tax return.  It turns out Romney and his wife paid $1.936 million in taxes on gross income of $13.7 million.  That is a tax rate of 14.1%.  The article from the online STEP journal can be found here.  I suspect that this is not the end of this matter.

Francois Hollande has revealed details of his 75% top rate of income tax for France’s wealthiest citizens.  Newspaper reports suggest there are likely to be concessions for married couples, performers and sports stars.  Meanwhile the richest man in France, Bernard Arnault, has applied for Belgian nationality to escape the tax.  An article on this from the Guardian can be found here.  Again, I suspect that this is an issue that is going to run and run.

A Spanish newspaper has reported that the country is about to double capital gains tax on short term gains to 52%.  This gives a sense of the level of problems now faced by Spain.  An article on this can be found here.

Have a good weekend.

HMRC has won what might turn out to be a very significant victory in a case involving Stamp Duty Land Tax planning and in particular sub-sale relief. 

A report on this from STEP on-line Journal can be found here.

Decision of the Lands Valuation Appeal Court regarding an appeal by the assessor against a decision of the Dundee Valuation Appeal Committee. (After noting that strict adherence with the legislation would create a situation that was inequitable and unfair) the Committee had allowed 49 appeals by Land Securities and others against the valuation of shops in the Overgate Centre in Dundee on the basis that a fall in the retail rental values caused by the recession (agreed to have happened on 1 April 2009) amounted to a material change in circumstances after the valuation date. The valuation date was 1 April 2008 and took effect two years later on 1 April 2010.

The issue for the court was whether a material change of circumstances which had occurred during the 2005 roll at a date (agreed to be 1 April 2009) after the valuation date for the 2010 roll should be reflected in the 2010 roll. The ratepayers did not argue that the values entered on the 2010 roll should be reduced due to a supervening material change of circumstances. Instead their contention was that the values should not have been entered into the roll in the first place.

 This argument did not find favour with the court. The Lord President said:

 “In my opinion, this argument is fallacious. It overlooks the basis on which a revaluation is carried out. It confuses the date at which a value has to be struck with the date on which it will come into force. The fundamental principle on which a revaluation is carried out is that all of the lands and heritages entered in the new roll are valued to a common base. With one exception, there is no warrant in the legislation for the assessor’s adjusting tone date[1] valuations in respect of changes in value that occur between the tone date and the revaluation date. Inevitably, there will be increases and decreases in the values of various groups or classes of lands and heritages during that period; but for there to be consistency in the roll it is essential that all lands and heritages in the new roll must be valued as at one fixed date. The exception is the power given to the assessor in section 1(6)(c) of the 1975 Act (supra) to take account of a material change of circumstances in the period after the roll has been made up and before it has come into force.”

Appeals can be made under s 3(2) and 3(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975. The right of appeal under section 3(4) extends to a material change of circumstances occurring between the date of delivery of the roll and the date on which the roll comes into force. It does not apply to a material change of circumstances occurring before the entry was made.

Section 3(2) also provides a general right of appeal against a new entry. It would have been open to the ratepayers to appeal under section 3(2) (within the 6 month time limit) in respect of a material change of circumstances occurring after the date of delivery of the roll. That did not assist the ratepayers in this case. The change of circumstances on which they relied had affected values by 1 April 2009 and there was no suggestion that the 2010 roll had been made up by that date.

The court allowed the assessor’s appeal and recalled the decision of the Committee.

The full judgement is available from Scottish Courts here.

A similar decision was reached in respect of properties at the Mercat Shopping Centre in Kirkcaldy in The Assessor for Fife v. Mercat Kirkcaldy Limited and others. The full text of that judgement is available here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.

Last year HMRC queried more than 10,000 estate valuations, according to figures obtained by UHY Hacker Young. The average challenge netted extra tax of £27,000.

More on this from IFA Online can be found here.

Outer House case considering whether a rating authority was entitled to levy rates on the owner of a newly erected and unoccupied building without first having served a completion notice (under schedule 3 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966) on the owner.

Cosmopolitan and Almondvale argued that demands for rates at office premises in Bellshill were illegal as the Council had not served a completion notice on them to establish a deemed date of completion of the office. As such they sought repayment of £289k on the grounds of unjustified enrichment.

However, Lord Hodge held that the action by Cosmopolitan and Almondvale was irrelevant. He found that the language in the 1966 Act did not indicate that the completion notice procedure was intended to be the only method by which the owner and rating authority could establish the date of completion of a building. There was also no policy reason for adopting such an approach.

Taken together, s24 of the 1966 Act and regulation 2 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (Scotland) Regulations 1994 require the levying of rates on all relevant buildings which have been unoccupied for a continuous period of more than three months. In order to be classified as unoccupied for rating purposes a newly erected building must be complete in the sense that it is capable of occupation. The date of completion of a building is a question of fact and is one which the rating authority and the owner can agree upon or contest in litigation. The completion notice procedure provides an additional mechanism by which a rating authority can establish an undisputed deemed date of completion.

The full judgement is available from Scottish Courts here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.