I was interested to see that OSCR, Scotland’s charity watchdog, has authorised Scotland’s 23,500 charities and voluntary organisations to take an active role in the independence debate if they wish.

One issue that is important to the charity sector is tax.  Charities for the most part do not pay tax.  Another important issue for the charity sector is administration and in particular when applying to become a charity.

It will be a surprise to many that just because a charity is registered with OSCR it is not automatically entitled to the various applicable tax reliefs.  A charity has to make a separate application to HMRC.

This causes two complications.  Charity law in Scotland differs from that of the rest of the UK.   For example Scotland’s list of “charitable purposes” is different. That is the first complication.

The second complication is that HMRC apply English and Welsh charity law principles.  This means that there is potentially less work for let’s say an English registered charity, as its original application to its Charity Commission was based on English and Welsh legal principles. A Scottish charity has to also ensure its application to HMRC meets English and Welsh charity law.

It this a huge issue? No.  Is it an issue that can cause problems?  Yes.  Was there a simple solution?  Of course there was.

The simple solution was if a charity is recognised by OSCR it should automatically be recognised by HMRC.  This was a matter I and others argued for before the Calman Commission.  Tax simplification is often talked about but rarely achieved.  This was an obvious opportunity.

How did I get on I hear you ask?  Not only did Calman not agree to this relatively simple measure but recommended that that some parts of Scottish charity law should be re-reserved.

The Scotland Act 2012 did not in fact re-reserve this area of responsibility in whole or even part.  I suspect that the main reason for this was how this would have looked at this particularly politically sensitive time.   The Scotland Act did in fact do nothing on this particular matter.

Possibly something for charities in Scotland to reflect on.

I  have been asked a number of times recently to comment on a likely timescale for additional tax and fiscal powers if Scotland votes ‘NO’ in September 2014.

Estimating a likely timescale is not that difficult a task.  It may though be a pointless task if as is likely this issue is for all intents and purposes ignored by Westminster.

Recent delays to the devolving of additional fiscal powers to both Northern Ireland and Wales give an indication of the sense of priority these matters even now are given at Westminster. Add to this the background of the 2015 UK General Election and the debate surrounding the UK’s membership of the European Union.  This means that the likelihood of Westminster devoting anything more than a token amount of time and effort to yet another debate on which tax and fiscal powers to, or more realistically not to, devolve to the Scottish Parliament cannot be high.

The debate for additional powers is also not going to be all one way.  Those arguing for additional powers after a ‘NO’ vote will also have to counter those calling for powers to be removed from the Scottish Parliament or even that the Scottish Parliament be abolished.

That said, one recent example does gives us some idea of how long these things take.

• SNP win May 2007 Scottish General Election
• Calman Commission set up December 2007
• Interim report published December 2008
• Main report published June 2009
• 2010 UK General Election and change of government resulted in a review of the matter
• Scotland Act May 2012
• Powers to be devolved in April 2015 and 2016

So 8 or 9 years and that is where very few powers were being devolved and there was a large amount of consensus between the main UK parties.

8 or 9 years may though be unduly optimistic.  Calman was set up within six months of the SNP’s victory. Would something similar be set up so quickly in the event of a ‘NO’ vote given how close the next UK General Election was?  I suspect not.  That means any additional powers are not likely to be in the control of the Scottish Parliament for at least a decade.

Also worth remembering that three of the six tax powers recommended by Calman were omitted from the Scotland Act 2012.

Tax issues are and will continue to play a central role in the Scottish independence referendum debate.  The debate is not just about whether tax powers reside in Edinburgh or London.  What about Brussels or each local authority?  What about tax avoidance?  What about the type and form each tax takes?  If Scotland votes ‘YES’ should it retain the UK system for a number of years before any major changes are made?

The presentation is in three main parts and continues on from my blog: “Tax powers so far refused by Westminster”.  This blog can be found here.

1. The present position and the “battle for Scottish tax powers”

2. What the Unionist parties are likely to offer in the event of a ‘NO’ vote

3. Compare and contrast this with a ‘YES’ vote

If you would like to find out more about this presentation please feel free to contact me at: james@legalknowledgescotland.com

Where to start with so much happening in “tax land” just now.

Let’s start with the increasing interest by the UK and other governments in offshore tax havens and in particular the creation of “beneficial ownership registers”.  The issue here is that it is often very difficult to find out who the actual owner of an asset is.  The “legal owner”, the name stated on a land register or a share register, may be different to the so-called beneficial owner, the person who actually benefits from the asset in question.  This distinction can also be of use when trying to avoid tax and in particular hiding ownership and/or benefit from a particular tax authority.

This issue was on the agenda at the recent G8 summit in Northern Ireland.  Partial agreement was reached but it is not clear if trusts as well as companies will be included, which countries will actually set up these registers, who will have access to these registers and how long this is going to take.  More on the “Loch Erne Declaration” from the BBC news website can be found here.

There is no shortage of ideas surrounding tax these days. For example, Justin King, the chief executive of Sainsbury’s, has called on the UK Government to follow the US by introducing a “marketplace fairness tax” for online retailers and predicted that the need to revamp the corporate tax system will be a battleground at the next election.  More on this from the Telegraph can be found here.

Google only seems to be in the news these days when its tax affairs are being discussed.  The House of Common’s Public Accounts Committee has called on HMRC to fully investigate Google’s tax arrangements in a report critical of the company’s corporation tax avoidance. More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.

Ed Miliband and George Osborne have traded charges of hypocrisy over party funding as it emerged that Labour had received a donation of shares from TV shopping channel magnate John Mills. Mr Mills admitted he had given the party shares rather than cash because it was “tax efficient”. Labour suggested the Chancellor’s involvement in the matter was hypocritical, given the Tories’ own efforts to seek donations that avoided tax. More on this from the Guardian can be found here.

Now to the ever increasing range of Scottish taxes, charges and duties.  Scotland is to follow the Republic of Ireland, Wales and and Northern Ireland in introducing a charge on plastic bags.  The charge is to be 5p and the funds are to go to good causes.  Regulations will be introduced in the Scottish Parliament in time for businesses to start charging by October 2014. The information released so far seems sensible and well thought out and in particular the effort to reduce any burden on small businesses is to be welcomed.  More on this can be found here.                                                                                 

More than half-a-million Scots are in danger of being worse off when the Scottish Parliament gains new powers over income tax because the current system would not allow them to claim tax relief on their private ­pensions.  More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.  This simply confirms how ill thought out the Scotland Act’s income tax proposal is.  Dividing control of a tax between two legislatures is rarely sensible or workable.

Now to the Scottish Conservatives and their never ending debate on further powers for the Scottish Parliament.  Coverage of their recent conference was dominated by the differences of opinion on this issue within the Scottish Conservative party.  More on this can be found from the Scotsman here and the Telegraph here.

The Scottish Green party is urging the Scottish Government to be bolder on land reform and to look at measures including land value tax.  I agree that this is something that needs to be looked at.  More on this can be found here.

When I read stories such as this I know that tax simplification is never going to happen.  David Cameron has said that married couples are to be given a tax break in the near future.  The tax break will be worth up to £150.  The income tax legislation is already complicated enough and, given the state of HMRC just now, I can guess its  private reaction to ideas such as this.  More on this from the Telegraph can be found here.

I wonder what the rest of Scotland thinks of this suggestion.  If Edinburgh’s £776m tram system is to have any chance of making even a small profit over the next fifteen years a tax concession will be required.  It is claimed that a large part of somehthing called the “sinking-fund” might be tax deductible but the City of Edinburgh Council has confirmed that it has not yet made approaches to HMRC to confirm that this is indeed the case.  More on this can be found in the Times of 27 June.

Now to matters slightly further afield.  The European Commission has published its plans to require EU member states to automatically exchange information about all forms of taxpayers’ income including dividends and capital gains, as well as the bank balances of all EU residents.  This is further evidence of the increasing role the EU is playing, and intends to play, in tax and financial matters.  More on this can be found here.

In addition, Italy, Belgium, Greece, Poland and Finland’s Aland Islands have failed to implement the European administrative co-operation directive, which requires member states to automatically exchange information on their residents’ taxable income. The implementation deadline expired six months ago, and the European Commission says it will take the countries to the European Court of Justice if they persist in ignoring the directive, which is soon to be extended to cover other types of income.   More on this from Reuters can be found here.

Taxpayers have brought litigation against the Canada Revenue Agency’s use of its general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) on 52 occasions since it was introduced, and won exactly half of them, according to new CRA figures. Three-quarters of the litigated cases turned on whether there was misuse or abuse of the GAAR or another statute.  More on this can be found here.  This is of particular interest given that we will soon have a UK GAAR.

Now to the USA and back to the “beneficial ownership” issue.  The US President’s office has promised to introduce comprehensive legislation requiring the disclosure of beneficial ownership information, which currently does not exist in the US either at state or federal level. The promise is part of an action plan issued after last week’s G8 summit.   More on this from STEP can be found here.

The US Supreme Court has held that the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage must be granted the spousal estate tax exemption, despite provisions of the Federal “Defense of Marriage Act” restricting federal benefits to traditional mixed-sex couples.  More on this from STEP can be found here.

Lastly to Cyprus.  An expert commission appointed by Cyprus’s central bank has concluded that its financial centre can only survive if it is reformed to be less dependent on tax breaks for clients in particular countries, with strictly and visibly enforced anti-money laundering controls, and able to offer an international standard of wealth management services.  More on this from STEP can be found here.

“By 2014 Scottish retailers will charge a minimum of 5p per bag in a bid to reduce carrier bag use.

Environment Secretary Richard Lochhead announced the move today which follows a consultation that was held last year to gauge public opinion. He said shoppers would be encouraged to reuse carrier bags to cut down on the 750 million bags used in Scotland each year.”

The Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales have already introduced such a charge.

More on this can be found here.

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.

Let’s start with the incredible revelation that large multi-national companies put a great deal of effort into paying as little tax as possible.  The debate surrounding this issue is long overdue.  I am also glad to say that there has been some great commentary on this issue.

Examples include:  Ian Bell’s: “It’s not an accident Westminster’s financial system allows tax avoidance … it’s designed that way”.  His article from the Herald can be found here.

Joyce McMillan outlines the wider debate and criticises the focus at Westminster on benefit fraud rather than tax avoidance.  Her article from the Scotsman can be found here.

George Kerevan’s article titled: “Taxing questions for complicit governments” from the Scotsman can be found here.  This is from the article: “The current generation of highly profitable internet companies have taken (legitimate) transfer pricing to extraordinary new limits. Google manages to operate almost tax-free in the UK, France and Germany, despite generating more than £35 billion in revenues in all three countries.”

Alsion Rowatt writing in the Herald comments on the increasing evidence of multinational corporations’ tax avoidance and criticises the HMRC for not keeping up with the internet age.  This article can be found here.

And from the Guardian: “The bosses of some of Britain’s largest multinational corporations have urged David Cameron to stop moralising and rein in his rhetoric on tax avoidance.”  The article in full can be found here.

For an example as to how far some companies will go look no further than our utility companies.  More on this from the Telegraph can be found here.

To summarise.  Companies rarely consider “morality” when deciding how much tax to pay.  I use the word “decide” intentionally.  These companies after all have a duty to their shareholders.  The fact is that UK and international taxation law is full of holes and has always been.  The politicians know this.  The politicians have always known this.  In the so called good times this issue was simply ignored.  Is there an easy answer? Of course not.  Do the politicians desperately want to be seen to be doing something? Of course.  Is there a huge amount of hypocrisy around this issue?  Yes.  Do governments want inward investment?  Yes.  Will they offer tax breaks to achieve this?  Yes.  Is the headline rate of tax the only deciding factor for companies?  Of course not.  Is there a growing perception in the UK that the taxation favours certain sectors over others?  I believe so.  Is this debate going to continue?  I hope so.

Now to the fiscal powers debate and two stories on the Scottish Conservatives.  The headlines contain the phrases “under attack” and “under fire” and show how difficult a position Ruth Davidson is in.  It seems she is damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t.  The Scotsman article can be found here and the Herald article here.

The head of one of the UK’s largest quarries has accused tax collectors of “arrogant and high-handed behaviour” ahead of a case this week involving millions of pounds in unpaid aggregates levies.  Aggregates levy was of course one of the taxes recommended for devolving under Calman.  The article from the Scotsman can be found here.

Now to London.  Boris Johnson continues to argue that London should have the same fiscal powers as those available to the devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales.  This is a debate that is going to run and run.  More on this can be found here.

HMRC has begun a campaign to make professional football managers and coaches regularise their tax position. It has forced the English Football Association to provide a list of its 3,300 registered coaches, and has written to them all warning that “we have received extensive data about coaches from sources in the football community”.  Presumably HMRC knows that football is played in Scotland as well.  More on this can be found here.

Now to Europe and another example of the increasing role it is playing in tax matters.  The European Commission will present a legislative proposal to require the EU-wide automatic exchange of all types of information on taxable incomes, including dividends, capital gains, salaries, directors’ fees, pensions, life insurance and rents, rather than just interest as now. It will be implemented by an amendment to the EU Directive on Administrative Cooperation which came into force in January.  More on this can be found here.

Now to the USA.  Criminal investigations by the Internal Revenue Service rose 9% to 5,125 in the last fiscal year.  The number of convictions has risen to 2,634 aided by a 93% conviction rate.   More on this can be found here.  I suspect the trend is similar in the UK.

Again from the USA and a story that will I am sure run and run.  The IRS has admitted that its staff gave special scrutiny to the tax-exempt status of organisations supporting the conservative Tea Party alliance during the 2012 presidential election campaign. The IRS says it was trying to distinguish between political organisations as such, and social welfare organisations that are not allowed to engage in political campaigning as their primary activity.  US President Obama has now sacked the Head of the IRS, Steven Miller and the FBI has launched a criminal investigation into the affair.  Two articles on this from the Wall Street Journal can be found here and here.

And finally to France.  The French Government has dropped plans for corporate governance legislation to cap executive pay. Instead the 2014 Budget will introduce the long-threatened 75% levy on employers who pay salaries over €1m.   More on this from Reuters can be found here.

Have a great weekend.

Let’s start with Scotland.

According to a new report by the Scottish Government, the tax-take per person is higher in Scotland that the rest of the UK.  Finance Secretary John Swinney says the analysis of tax revenue over three decades proves the country “more than pays its way”.  More on this from the Herald can be found here and the Scottish Government here. 

One of the UK’s foremost ­experts on devolution has warned that new tax-raising powers for the Scottish Parliament have “serious limitations”.  Speaking to Holyrood’s ­finance committee, Gerard Holtham, who chaired a commission in Wales examining the case for more devolved powers for the principality, backed a much wider remit to allow the Scottish Parliament to vary individual bands within the income tax system.

Under the forthcoming Scotland Act powers, Holyrood will take control of a new Scottish rate of income tax, allowing MSPs to reduce or increase the levy as they see fit.  However, they will not be able to change the rates within the system, meaning that any change will apply to lower, middle and higher rates equally.  As I have argued on numerous occasions the Scotland Act 2012 income tax proposal is a mess and does not devolve any meaningful power to the Scottish Parliament.  More on this from the Scotsman can be found here here.

Interesting to see how the First Minister of Wales is following the First Minister of Northern Ireland.  They are both trying to use the Scottish independence referendum as a means to pressure the UK Government into devolving tax and fiscal powers.  More on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

An explanation as to why the First Ministers feel that they have to use this type of argument is shown by the failure of the UK Government to devolve air passenger duty.  Not all of the Calman Commission proposals were implemented by the UK Government.  Air passenger duty was one of the taxes although recommended for devolving was not devolved.  That is why the Scotland Act 2012 is called “Calman minus”.  That is also why we are still hearing calls for air passenger duty to be devolved.  More on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

It also seems that London does not want to be left behind.  Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, is again calling for new financial powers for London.  The proposals, by the London Financial Commission who were appointed by Johnson, call for London to have the power to raise property and tourism taxes, and various housing and infrastructure spending powers.  More on this from the Guardian can be found here.  No matter the result of the Scottish independence referendum pressure on the UK Government to devolve power away from London, and ironically to London, will continue.  What is particularly interesting is that this does not just mean Scotland but almost every part of the UK.

The UK Chancellor should stop discriminating against visiting foreign musicians and artists by denying them tax breaks which are offered to top foreign footballers and athletes, leaders of Britain’s biggest orchestras have argued.  More on this from the Telegraph can be found here.

Launched in June 2010 by the UK coalition government, the National Insurance “holiday scheme” was aimed at cutting staffing costs for newly-established businesses outside London and the south-east of England.  Eligible firms do not have to pay NI contributions for their first ten employees, with a maximum saving of £5,000 per staff member in their first year.  However, the initiative, which is due to end in September, has failed to live up to its promise and it seems only a few companies have benefited from it. More on this from the Scotsman can be found here.

The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has claimed that the UK’s largest accountancy firms are using inside knowledge from staff seconded to HM Treasury to help leading companies and wealthy individuals avoid paying UK taxes.  The Public Accounts Committee has also recommended that these companies should be prevented from advising the UK Government on tax law.  In its report on this issue they also claim that these firms have “undue influence over the tax system”.  More on this from the BBC News website can be found here.

A controversial “sweetheart” tax deal between HMRC and Goldman Sachs worth up to £20m, was agreed in part to avoid embarrassment to George Osborne, according to the UK Government’s former head of tax.  Dave Hartnett has said that he decided to settle the long-running dispute after Goldman Sachs threatened to pull out of a prized new tax framework a week after the UK Chancellor had announced that the bank had signed up to it. More on this can be found here.

HMRC raises yield from wealthy taxpayers again.  The top 1% of earners paid 26.5% of the total income tax take in 2012/13, according to figures from HMRC.  More on this from the STEP journal can be found here.

The Scottish Government has published a bill aimed at tackling illegal dumping. The Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill will transfer responsibility from the UK Government for administering the tax and encourage the proper disposal and recycling of waste.  More on this can be found here.

The Financial Transactions Tax has been in the news again.  The negative reaction from the City of London is as expected.  What is slightly more surprising is how far the UK Government will go to prevent this tax from coming into existence.  The UK Government has launched a legal challenge against plans for a European Financial Transactions Tax.  More on the UK Government’s challenge from the BBC news website can be found here and more generally from the Telegraph here.

Now to an example of European cooperation.  The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer has signed an information exchange agreement with the finance ministers of France, Germany, Italy and Spain in yet another attempt to crack down on tax evasion.  Under the agreement, banks in these countries will be forced to reveal financial details of foreign clients.  More on this can be found here.

Now to matters further afield and a relatively new area for taxation, the internet.  By a vote of 75 to 24, US senators adopted an amendment to a Democratic budget resolution that, by allowing states to “collect taxes on remote sales,” is intended to eventually usher in the first national, i.e. American  internet sales tax.  More on this can be found here and here.

Now to Greece.  The International Monetary Fund has criticised Greece for making very little progress in tackling its notorious tax evasion problem.  It says the rich and self-employed ‘are simply not paying their fair share’ and the tax authorities are still bedevilled by ‘pervasive political interference’.  The IMF also said that Greece is making progress in overcoming deep-seated problems in the midst of a very serious and socially painful recession. More on this can be found here. 

Finally the not unexpected news that Silvio Berlusconi’s four-year conviction for tax fraud on TV rights bought by his Mediaset TV empire has been upheld.  Mr Berlusconi had appealed against a sentence passed by a lower court in 2012, which had found him guilty of tax fraud, but the appeals court reinstated the 2012 conviction and said he should serve four years in jail. More on this can be found here here.

Have a good weekend. 

There were few surprises arising from the publication of Scottish Labour’s Devolution Commission’s interim report.

The starting point for these commissions is always the same.  They look around for reasons why a particular power should not be devolved.  They do not look at what could be achieved by control of that power being passed to the Scottish Parliament.

The main problem that I have with this report is that we have heard all this before and in fact quite recently.  The Calman Commission taught all of us with an interest in seeing the creation of a Scottish tax system how its opponents behave.   I like to call this the Calman doctrine.

“Make a huge fuss about having someone look at the issue, take your time, offer as little as possible, exaggerate any problems, minimise or ignore any advantages and ensure HMRC and HM Treasury remain in control.”

Calman also taught us that even if a report is produced and its recommendations are accepted not all of those recommendations actually make it to a Scotland Act.  That is why the Scotland Act 2012 is called “Calman minus”.

The absence of common sense is also a problem.  Why not look at which powers are already devolved and then devolve the areas of taxation most closely connected to these already devolved powers.  For example inheritance tax and succession law, tobacco and alcohol duties and health and vehicle excise duty and transport.  This would greatly help the development of policy and at the same time provide the Scottish Parliament with a serious number of economic levers.

Simplification for both the UK tax system and the new Scottish tax system is not even considered.

So what does report say?

The main taxes other than income tax are quickly dealt with and also the largest area of law not yet devolved, welfare.  The report rules out devolving National Insurance and with it any control of the welfare state, corporation tax and North Sea revenue.  That immediately restricts what can be done.    As VAT can only be devolved if Scotland becomes independent, of the 5 major sources of revenue, that only leaves income tax.

The report is quite clear and does not recommend devolving complete control of income tax.  At most it recommends devolving control of the rates, thresholds and allowances.  Almost all of the underlying law that governs how income tax is charged, or the type of reliefs, or the collection rules or who pays and when would not be devolved.   That means that income tax would have two masters.  As with the Scotland Act income tax proposal this is a recipe for disaster.

The report then looks at a number of minor taxes and uses a number of the “usual suspect” reasons as to why they should not be devolved.  They generally do not say that a particular minor tax should not be devolved but rather there is an “issue”.   The main issues are “concerns about avoidance” and “subject to EU law”.  This covers fuel duties, tobacco duties, alcohol duties, stamp duties other than SDLT which is already being devolved, insurance premium tax, betting and gaming duties, most of capital gains tax and a number of other minor taxes on income and wealth.  It is not clear what is proposed regarding climate change levy. Revenue from our TV licences and the National Lottery are simply described as “not relevant”.

So, along with slightly more control of income tax, what is left?  Possibly air passenger duty and aggregates levy as recommended by Calman but not included in the Scotland Act, possibly vehicle excise duty, possibly part of capital gains tax, possibly inheritance tax and possibly control of the Crown Estate.  The recommendations are not that dissimilar to the Liberal Democrat Home Rule Commission proposal.  Please see my earlier blog on this which can be found here.

The conclusion is simple.  The vast majority of tax revenue and taxes will remain controlled by the UK Government.   In any case, the response from a number of Labour MPs to the interim report tells us all we need to know as to the likelihood of these relatively minor proposals being enacted.

“A new bill introduced to the Scottish Parliament [on] April 17th could see Scotland adopt a new tax to replace UK Landfill Tax and tackle illegal waste disposal while bringing benefits to community and environmental groups.

Finance Secretary John Swinney introduced the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Bill, which will see Scotland take responsibility from the UK Government for administering landfill tax.  If passed, the Bill will help tackle the problem of unauthorised dumping activity and encourage the proper disposal and recycling of materials.

The Bill also introduces a Scottish communities fund which will support environmental organisations and provide assistance to communities living in close proximity to landfill sites. “

More on this can be found here.