News archive

Inner House case relating to an agreement for lease of subjects at the Maxim office park in North Lanarkshire. Tritax were owners of the development and Regus were to take a lease of part of the development. Monies were to be made available to Regus in respect of its fit out costs as an incentive.  Regus did not comply with restrictions on the type of tenant imposed by sale agreements and so HUB (a company created to run the restaurant and other facilities at the development) was interposed to sub-let to Regus.

In terms of the agreement for lease, HUB were to deliver a letter to Regus (although the letter was not addressed to Regus) from the Bank of Scotland relating to sums which the Bank held on deposit in respect of the fit out costs. This letter formed the crux of the case and was in the following terms:

“We understand that Heads of Terms have been agreed between TAL CPT and Regus (Maxim) Limited for the lease of the first floor of Building 1 at Maxim.

It may assist the proposed tenant to have confirmation from us that, on behalf of the landlord (Tritax Eurocentral EZ Unit Trust) and TAL CPT, we hold the sum of £913,172 to meet the landlord’s commitment to fit-out costs. These funds will be released in accordance with the drawdown procedure agreed between the parties, whereby the proposed tenant’s contractors will issue monthly certificates.

This is subject always to agreement of wider commercial terms with the incoming tenant.”

Regus carried out the fitting out works and issued invoices to HUB who confirmed that the costs were properly incurred and that the contribution should be paid to Regus. However, the bank refused to release the costs as there had been a default in the facility agreement and they were exercising a right of retention over the sums referred to in the letter.   Regus sued for payment of the costs from the bank. In the Outer House Lord Menzies had dismissed the action. He found that he was unable to construe the letter as amounting to a unilateral undertaking by the bank of a legally enforceable obligation to pay the sum to Regus. On appeal to the Inner House, Regus relied on two arguments:

1. The letter was an undertaking in terms of which the bank were obliged to make payment.
2. That the letter contained negligent misrepresentations acted on by Regus to its detriment and the bank were obliged to make reparation to the Regus for breach of a duty of care.

The court rejected Regus’s appeal. For a promissory obligation of the type argued for by Regus, clear words are required. The letter merely confirmed that, at the date of the letter, the bank held the funds on behalf of Tritax and TAL (the developer/development manager). It did not contain an unconditional obligation on the bank to pay the funds to Regus on demand as the bank’s own debt. The bank’s freedom to pay out the money would depend on the terms and conditions on which it held the funds and the letter also spelt out that release of the money was governed by an agreed procedure. In addition, the sentence referring to wider commercial terms made it plain that the confirmation was not unconditional. For the same reasons, whilst the letter made the representation that the bank held the funds; it did not make a representation that the money would be released whatever the circumstances when Regus came to demand payment.

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.

Let’s start with the independence debate.  Michael Moore has confirmed that the UK Government will not be bringing forward a proposal for further devolution.  I wonder if that will change if the opinion polls change.  This at least gives us a clear choice.  The choice being between “Calman minus” combined with the extremely unlikely scenario of Westminster devolving serious tax and fiscal powers after a ‘NO’ vote, and control over all tax and fiscal powers by 2016.

I think the ‘NO’ campaign has made a mistake here.  How those whose preferred choice is ‘devo plus’ or ‘devo max’ vote holds the key to which side wins in 2014.  Are they more likely to vote ‘NO’ as a result of Michael Moore’s statement?  The ‘NO’ campaign has not had a good start to the year.  The independence will cost £1 gaffe, support for the Scottish Government’s timetable for the transition to independence, the ridiculing of the claim that Scotland would need to ratify 8,500 treaties and then there was the loss of the UKs ‘AAA’ rating.  A serious proposal for further tax and fiscal powers would at least been a positive move by the ‘NO’ campaign and a change from the continuing negativity.

Now to a man who it seems can do anything.  Olympics gold medals, not a problem.  Forcing the HM Treasury into a u-turn, not a problem.  The UK Government has after all decided to grant a tax amnesty to non-resident athletes attending the London Grand Prix event this July. Olympic champion sprinter Usain Bolt announced that he would not attend unless his global earnings from sponsorship and endorsements were exempted, but until now HM Treasury had resisted the demand.  More on this from the STEP Journal can be found here.

A report by the House of Commons’ influential Public Accounts Committee says that promoters of so-called boutique tax avoidance schemes are “running rings around HMRC in a game of cat and mouse that HMRC is losing”.  It suggests that HMRC should publicly name those who sell ‘abusive’ schemes to as many clients as possible before HMRC shuts the scheme down.  This is estimated to cost the HM Treasury £5bn a year.  The Committee claimed that HMRC only knows about 46% of tax avoidance schemes, and that promoters who run the schemes find it unacceptably easy to put forward a “reasonable excuse” for not disclosing the scheme in order to escape a fine.  More on this from Accountancy Age can be found here and the Guardian here.

The UK government is to disqualify companies and individuals from bidding for public contracts if they have taken part in failed tax avoidance schemes.  This applies from 1 April 2013. Bidders will have to notify procurement departments if any tax return in the past 10 years has been found incorrect as a result of an HMRC challenge, or has contravened the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Scheme rules.  More on this from HM Treasury can be found here.

A mansion tax is back in the news.  Although as it is a local taxation proposal it is not just a matter for the UK Parliament.  Local taxation is controlled by the Scottish Parliament.  A point missed by most reports.  The Liberal Democrats proposal would see either a 1% levy on homes worth over £2m or the introduction of new council tax bands for expensive homes.  More on the Liberal Democrat proposal from the Guardian can be found here.  The Labour Party has also announced plans to introduce a mansion tax on all homes worth more than £2m in order to fund the reintroduction of the 10p tax rate abolished in 2007.  More on the Labour proposal from the BBC News website can be found here.

An ongoing programme of jobs cuts helped play a major part in HMRC exceeding their cost-savings target for 2011/12, according to a report by the National Audit Office.  The report can be found here.  The figures give an indication of the scale of the cuts suffered by HMRC.  Spending slashed by £269m over the 12 months to 31 March 2012.  This was 19% more than the anticipated £249m.  A reduction of £140m was made by axing 2,400 full-time equivalent members of staff. The department plans to have lowered its running costs by £950m between the UK Government’s 2010 sending review and the end of the 2014/15 tax year.  It expects to see the loss of 10,000 full-time equivalent employees and 300,000 square metres of estate.

Press reports indicate that the inheritance tax nil rate band is to be frozen for several more years beyond the already announced date of April 2015, as part of the UK Government’s plans for funding elderly care in England.  More on this from the Herald can be found here and the BBC news website here.  Another example of the problem that can arise under devolution when the tax power remains at Westminster, inheritance tax, and control over an associated area such as social care is devolved.

Now to the least surprising story of the month.  The Confederation of British Industry has warned that the new Financial Transaction Tax announced by the European Commission may have a detrimental effect on UK jobs and growth.  Matthew Fell, the CBI Director for Competitive Markets, said: “it is particularly worrying that the increased scope of the tax will now cover businesses’ risk management activities, as well as hitting financial services in non-participating member states, like the UK, because of extra-territoriality”.  More on this story from the Telegraph can be found here.

Now to Europe and how the EU is demanding action against tax-planning.  The European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has published a report proposing that member states revoke the banking licences of financial institutions that help their customers evade taxes.  More on this can be found here.

The heavy tax increases imposed by the Greek Government last year have actually caused a sharp fall in tax receipts. January’s tax revenues in Greece fell to €4.05bn, 16% down on the January 2012 figures, due to a collapse in consumption and a corresponding decrease in indirect tax payments.  More on this can be found here.

An interesting opinion piece can be found in the New York Times challenging the ‘Myth of the Rich Who Flee From Taxes’.  It was prompted by US Masters golf champion Phil Mickelson’s recent threat to decamp from California because the state’s top rate of income tax is increasing from 10.3 to 13.3%.  I agree with the conclusion reached.  It really is a myth although it does not stop those arguing against serious tax and fiscal powers for the Scottish Parliament from using it. The piece from the New York Times can be found here.

And lastly, well done to the Scottish teams who beat Ireland at the weekend.

Case from the Court of Appeal for England and Wales concerning a developer’s claim for damages against a consulting engineer who failed to perform tasks by an agreed date. The developer (a farmer) sought damages in respect of the fall in the value of his development (due to the property slump) during the period of the delay.

In terms of an oral agreement (followed by a formal letter of engagement) reached with the developer on 6 September 2006, the engineer was to design a road and drainage to the developer’s site and to obtain s38 approval (allowing adoption of the road by the roads authority in terms of the Highways Act 1980) by March 2007. An initial s38 approval was not obtained until 17 February 2008 and even then some parts had not been finalised. In April 2008 the developer engaged another consulting engineer who obtained the necessary approval in June 2008. The judge found that the first engineer’s breach of contract delayed the development by 15 months and that had resulted in loss to the developer because of the reduced value of the development.

The question for the appeal court was whether the developer’s loss was too remote to allow recovery. The appeal court dismissed the engineer’s appeal agreeing with the judge’s finding that that the loss was not too remote as it was reasonably foreseeable as a serious possibility if there was a delay. It also agreed with the judge’s finding that the case was not one of the unusual cases where the nature of the contract and the commercial background, or other relevant special circumstances, mean that an implied assumption of responsibility for losses that can be reasonably foreseen was inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal’s comments on the length of delay are also worth noting:

 “It may well be that the reason for the absence of many cases of this kind is that the property market does not move as quickly as certain other types of market involving commodities and other goods, and it takes a very lengthy delay in breach of contract before a provable loss of value can occur. A few days or even a few weeks delay is unlikely to give rise to a demonstrable loss on the property market. It was the appellant’s delay of 15 months, in the Judge’s words an egregious delay, which in the present case gave rise to a quantifiable loss.”

The full judgement is available from BAILII here.

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

The Public Guardian has announced that from 1st April 2013, substitute attorneys will be required to confirm by way of signature, that they are willing to act at the point of registration.

This change in practice will impact on the Schedule 1 certificate, which is incorporated in the power of attorney document, as it will be necessary to state the names of any substitute attorneys in Section 4 of the certificate.  These requirements will apply to continuing and/or welfare powers of attorney signed after 1st April 2013.

The power of attorney registration form that we currently provide is being modified and will include a facility for substitute attorneys to confirm their willingness to act.

This form will be available from the “Power of Attorney Registration Forms and Guidance Notes” section of the website by the end of this month.  This version of the form may be used prior to 1st April 2013.

More on this can be found here.

The latest addition to our website is our “Know How” page.

This page not only includes our popular “Property and Conveyancing Casebook” but a “Training and Practice Notes” section.

This includes VAT and inheritance tax slides with notes.  These are aimed at a LLB or Diploma in Legal Practice class.  The format and content can though be easily altered to suit a different audience.

There are also Practice Notes on landfill tax and aggregates levy.  These Practice Notes provide a comprehensive introduction to these taxes.

If you would to know more about these materials please feel to contact us.  See the “Who we are” section of our website.

My speech at this morning’s Borders Business Forum event.

Good morning

Before I start, can I just say how great it was to see Scotland win last Saturday.  Not just win, but play so well and with as usual a massive contribution from the Borders.  We will remember Stuart Hogg’s try for a long, long time.

Now to why we are here today and why I think we need a forum for businesses in the Borders.

Let’s look back for a minute.

In his book, the “Waverley Route”, David Spaven discusses some of the reasons why we lost our railway.  One of these was the fractured response from various groups and organisations in the Borders, including business organisations.

Ironically the mixed messages from the Borders also did not help the campaign for the return of our railway.  It gave a great deal of ammunition to those opposed to the re-opening of part of the Waverley line.

Then there was the campaign, in which I was involved, to save the Border Reivers professional rugby team.  Again the lack of a unified response meant there was little chance of us persuading the SRU to change its mind.

Now ask ourselves: are we really putting enough pressure on the Scottish Government on improving the A7, the A68 and the dualling of the A1 to the English Border?

Then there is the bigger picture.

It is no exaggeration to say that these are momentous times in Scotland.  There will be a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014.  Scotland could again be independent by March 2016.  There is also the possibility of a referendum on UK membership of the European Union.

It is very easy for politicians to ignore us if we are not clear in what we are asking or arguing for.

These, in my opinion, are just some of the reasons why we need a Borders Business Forum.

The idea of a Borders Business Forum is not that we will agree on everything.  Of course we won’t.

There are though certain issues that we could come together and debate and hopefully find a common voice.

These issues might include the campaign to extend the Waverley line to Carlisle, superfast broadband of which we have just heard about, the quality of our TV and media coverage and the dualling of the A1 to the English Border.  There are of course many others.

When I took over as Convener of the Scottish Borders Chamber of Commerce I made trying to organise some kind of forum for business organisations in the Borders one of my priorities.

This did not start well.  I was told by many that this could not be done including by officials here at Scottish Borders Council.  Well here we are.

I was told that it would be easier if the various business organisations simply merged.  Easier for whom?  I was also told that there were around 50 such organisations as if this was the worst thing in the world.

My response was simple.  Why is this necessarily a bad thing?  Surely we should be celebrating the fact that so many business people in the Borders freely give up some of their spare time to help other businesses.  I was then simply ignored until after the local elections last year.

So what has changed?  One of the main changes is that we have a new administration at Scottish Borders Council.

I would like to place on record my thanks to Councillor Stuart Bell and his officials for not only hosting today’s event but for making a real effort to engage seriously with the business community here in the Borders.

The role of Scottish Borders Council has been crucial in getting so many of us here today.  For one thing, the Council seemed to be the only body that had regular contact with the various Borders business organisations.

When I have thought of a Borders Business forum I have not imagined a body that imposes its thoughts and ideas on all the business organisations in the Borders.  It is not a governing body.  Business organisations, and indeed any business, can play as much of a role as they wish and that they are comfortable with.

The Borders covers a large and diverse area.  That is why we need local business organisations.  We also need special interest business organisations.  We also need business organisations that are part of larger bodies.  We already have these.

What we don’t have is a forum where our business organisations can come together as we are doing today and debate issues such as broadband.

It is for the business organisations to decide if they wish to have such a forum and if they do what it then does.

A Borders business forum might also bring other practical benefits.

We generally do different things.  Although we work well together I am sure we can do better.  I would like to see the contact details for all our business organisations made easily accessible.  The same with all our events.  I would like to see more joint events.  These are just some of the things that a Borders Business Forum might help to bring about.

There are also so many great things going on here in the Borders just now that we need to let more people know about.

The new visitor centre at Abbotsford House, Eyemouth Harbour can now receive cruise ships, our first crematorium is now in operation, a second is planned, the Borders Book Festival, the Border Union Show, the new 3G sports arena, plans are now in place for a purpose-built mountain bike chairlift at Innerleithen, our common ridings, our “Sevens” tournaments, our first palliative care unit, a site has been found for the Bill McLaren museum and of course the start of construction of our railway.   I am sure everyone here today could add to this list.

One last point.  Why am I involved with the Chamber?  To be honest, it was more luck than choice. I could have just as easily joined the FSB or another business organisation here in the Borders or in Edinburgh.  I like a lot of people am as often away from the Borders as here.

The important thing for me is that the business organisation I belong to is willing to help and speak up for businesses in the Borders.  If that is the Chamber, great.  If it is another organisation then that is great too.  My priority is the Borders.

Think of how much stronger we would be if we shared more of our knowledge and resources.

Think how strong our voice could be if we speak as one on the major business issues affecting the Borders.

Thank you

James Aitken

Convener Scottish Borders Chamber of Commerce

16 February 2013

Outer House case in which Santander sought to recover losses from the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland after the Keeper accepted a forged discharge (discharging a security held by Santander) for registration. The discharge was subsequently reduced and the Land Register was rectified to show Santander’s security. However, the security only took effect as at the date of rectification meaning that a second security registered in favour of the Bank of Scotland (after the discharge was registered but before the rectification took effect) received prior ranking to the Santander security. The Bank of Scotland later sold the property in terms of their security and no proceeds went to Santander (who were still owed more that £240k in terms of the loan secured). Santander claimed that their loss arose as a result of the fault and negligence of the Keeper.

Lord Boyd found in favour of the Keeper. After deciding that the Keeper’s decision to register the discharge was a matter on which the court could adjudicate (i.e. it was not a policy decision purely at the Keeper’s discretion), the question for the court was whether the Keeper owed a duty of care to the Bank. This would depend on whether the Caparo test was satisfied. In order to satisfy the Caparo test Santander had to show that the loss was foreseeable, the relationship between Santander and the Keeper was sufficiently proximate and that it was fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the Keeper. It was the last of these requirements on which Santander’s claim failed. Lord Boyd (after noting that the Bank had assumed certain risks in lending to its client whereas the Keeper had made no assessment of the fraudster’s creditworthiness or honesty or whether the value of the property would fully secure the loan), found that in the circumstances: where the loss was caused by the criminal acts of Santander’s client, it was not fair, just or reasonable that the Keeper should be liable.

The full decision is available from Scottish Courts here.

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

Pawson deceased v HMRC 2012 UKFTT 51 (TC)

The executors of the late Nicolette Pawson are launching a fighting fund to take their case to the England and Wales Court of Appeal, following their defeat by HMRC at the Upper tax Tribunal last month.

The case turns on whether furnished holiday lets are eligible for business property relief from inheritance tax.

“Mr Justice Henderson decided that the services provided ‘were all of a relatively standard nature [with] nothing to distinguish it from any other actively managed furnished letting business of a holiday property’.”

The Upper tax Tribunal decision can be found here, my earlier blog on this can be found here and an excellent piece from the STEP journal on this can be found here.

Sheriff court case considering the repairing obligations contained in a lease of commercial premises between (the partners and trustees of) the Bridge Street Partnership (the landlord) and William Hill (the tenant).

In terms of the lease the tenant was obliged to “render the Premises into a satisfactory tenantable state and adequate for the Tenant’s purposes” and to maintain the premises to “at least such satisfactory tenantable state”. In a subsequent clause the tenant was also required to return the premises (at the expiry of the lease) to the landlord “in such good and substantial repair and condition as shall be in accordance with the obligations undertaken by the Tenant under the Lease”. The sheriff found that this meant that William Hill was obliged to leave the premises in a satisfactory tenantable state and adequate for William Hill’s purposes as tenant. The sheriff principal allowed an appeal by the Partnership which argued that the phrase “adequate for the tenant’s purposes” referred to an obligation on the tenant to fit out the premises for its purposes rather that an obligation to leave the premises in that state.

Business common sense
The sheriff principal noted that the lease was a full repairing and insuring lease, the overall commercial purpose of which is that the landlord lets the premises in return for rent, and passes on to the tenant the whole responsibility for its upkeep and maintenance. This generally means that the landlord has little or no interest in the works which the tenant might carry out to suit its particular purposes, provided that the property is returned to the landlord at the end of the lease in its original condition. Here, there was nothing in the lease to suggest that the landlord wanted the lease returned as a licenced betting shop.

A construction of the lease as a whole
In agreeing with the Partnership’s interpretation of the lease, the sheriff principal took account of the following:

1. the lease provided that the tenant accepted the premises “in their present condition”;
2. the term “satisfactory tenantable state” had been repeated in the context of the continuing nature of the repairing obligation during the currency of the lease (rather than just at its commencement) but the reference to the tenant’s purposes had not;
3. the tenant was required to remove its fixtures and fittings on termination and, if  adequacy for the tenant’s purposes was the standard by which the repairing obligation was to be tested, it made little sense that all such fixtures and fittings required to be removed; and
4. it was impossible to see how a chartered surveyor (or, indeed, the court) could apply what were ultimately two different tests to the same premises. Part of the premises might be in a satisfactory tenantable state but not be adequate for a licensed betting shop, or vice versa.

 The full judgment is available from Scottish Courts here.

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

Where to start.  So much has already happened in 2013.

Let’s start with the independence debate.  I had finally finished my chapter on “the battle for a Scottish tax system” and then another devolution proposal appears and Ruth Davidson almost says something of interest on the tax and fiscal powers debate.

The latest devolution paper is called “devo more” and it is from The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR).  I know it is difficult to keep up.  Again it starts from the premise of what is best for the UK not necessarily Scotland.  Personal income tax, partial control of VAT, excise duties on alcohol and tobacco and air passenger duty would be devolved.  Alan Trench, of the University of Edinburgh, who wrote the report, said it was “clear devolution must go further to meet popular demand and his plan minimises the adverse effects on other parts of the United Kingdom.”  The IPPR report can be found here.

It is a pity that there was not more interest shown in putting together a serious proposal for tax and fiscal powers for the Scottish Parliament during Calman.  Let’s not forgot that none of the “NO” parties  has come close to arguing for the powers recommended for devolving in “devo plus”, let alone “devo max”, to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.  The Liberal Democrats have even gone backwards form what they proposed under the Steel Commission.  See my earlier blog on this which can be found here.

Then we had Ruth Davidson’s speech which promised a lot and delivered almost nothing.  Davidson promised no new tax or fiscal powers, no timetable for even considering the issue and no confirmation that she has moved on from saying that corporation tax and welfare powers should not be devolved.  What did she say, or rather what did she hint at:  “Sources close to Davidson confirmed that she will consider setting up a new commission to examine the devolution of more powers to the Scottish Parliament.”  For more on Davidson’s speech see Alan Cochrane’s report in the Telegraph which can be found here.

The stance of the “NO” parties is a continuation of what I call the “Calman doctrine”.  Do nothing unless under pressure, then if under pressure 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.

Time, and credibility, is fast running out for the “NO” campaign parties if they are to come up with a serious tax and fiscal proposal.  The most recent “Scottish Social Attitudes Survey” was clear.  Independence had 35% support and “devo max” 32%.  That is a clear majority for almost all powers, including tax and welfare powers, to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

Now to the UK tax system.  It seems that no-one is happy.

Two recent stories show why a Scottish tax system is needed.   The first one relates to carbon capture.  The article on this from the Herald can be found here.   The second relates to air passenger duty.  The article on this from the Scotsman can be found here.

Then there is the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee.  It has called for the re-establishment of a single annual UK Budget, saying that the UK’s Autumn Statement has increasingly taken on the character of a second Budget resulting in uncertainty and costs for business and the economy.  A report published by the Committee says:  “The primacy of the Budget as the main focus of fiscal and economic policy making should be re-established”.  More on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

The impressive chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, Margaret Hodge, has claimed that new tax laws are excessively influenced by major corporations and accountancy firms.  Hodge has argued that working groups set up by the UK Government to discuss tax reforms were overly dominated by those with vested interests in reducing their tax contributions.  More on this from the BBC news website can be found here.

Even business leaders are seemingly unhappy.  The UK Government’s plans to reform tax laws forcing large companies to be more transparent regarding their tax affairs have been criticised by business leaders.  The fear is that such laws would stifle the UK’s economic recovery as businesses would be reluctant to locate in the UK.  More on this from the Guardian can be found here.

HMRC offers poor value for money, according to a report by the National Audit Office.  The report claims that more than 20 million phone calls went unanswered last year, whilst callers who did get through were made to wait on average 282 seconds, up from 107 seconds last year, costing the public £33 million on call charges.  More on this can be found here.

It has been claimed that the UK Government will have raised taxes 300 times and ordered 120 tax cuts by the end of their proposed term of government.  More on this claim from the Telegraph can be found here.  One of the more controversial UK tax proposals is termed a “bedroom tax”.  More on this can be found here.

David Cameron has told the World Economic Forum conference in Davos that he will use the UK’s G8 presidency to launch a campaign against ‘unethical’ tax avoidance by multinational companies using ‘an army of clever accountants’.  The accountancy profession whilst I am sure not unhappy at being termed clever, took umbrage with what Cameron said.  More on this from the STEP journal can be found here.  Interestingly Cameron again brings ethics into the tax debate.  That said, does he intend to include the Crown Dependencies and the British overseas Territories in this campaign?  If not, this is nothing but a press release.

Members of France’s socialist cabinet have denounced the famous actor Gerard Depardieu, who has shifted his residence just over the Belgian border in order to escape the Hollande government’s tax rises.  Depardieu has retorted with an open letter to the newspapers, accusing the French Government of punishing success and talent, and offering to give up his passport.  More on this can be found here.

Let’s end with some news on a Financial Transaction Tax.  Eleven EU member states are to introduce a tax on financial transactions expected to generate £35bn in annual revenues.   As a tax avoidance measure, the European Commission has amended the relevant directive to catch any transaction where either of the parties is domiciled in the tax area, or is trading on behalf of a client in the tax area.  That will mean that this will also apply to some UK transactions.  The European Commission is now expected to present proposals on the detail of this new taxation scheme which will need to be accepted by unanimous agreement of the participating states.  More on this can be found here.   Whether to introduce a Financial Transaction Tax is just one of the many tax decisions Scotland will be able to decide for itself if it decides to vote “YES” in 2014.

Have a great weekend and in particular to all those representing Scotland this weekend.