View more on these topics

Statement of intent

Last week I considered the high-profile media attack on tax avoidance in the UK. I will look at the perceived need for, and the progress towards, a general anti-abuse rule in the UK in a forthcoming article.

As I noted previously, the history of UK tax avoidance has predominantly been about supplementing existing legislation with so-called targeted anti-avoidance legislation, or assessing the taxpayer under existing anti-avoidance provisions and relying on the judicial system to enforce a ‘purposive’ or ‘substance over form’ interpretation so as to achieve the desired outcome.

I will look first at the legislative approach. There have been many examples of this over the past few years. Good examples in this year’s Budget are the two specific provisions in relation to life assurance policies.

The first of these provisions was aimed at countering perceived avoidance using ‘cluster policies’ (segments) where there would typically be some manipulation of premiums and benefits between segments designed to:

  • give the policyholder an entitlement to a stream of cash payments from the plan with no immediate tax charge; and
  • defer the possible tax charge until the latest possible time by ensuring all of the investment growth on the plan accrued to just one (the last to be encashed) policy segment.

The Budget proposals aimed to prevent this planning from working in the future through new legislation that would remove any scope to defer income tax in this way by recognising the economic position and treating all such interdependent policies as a single policy for the purposes of the chargeable event legislation.

It is important to note this new provision in no way affects policies that are properly structured as genuinely independent policy segments and have no artificial allocation of premiums and benefits between them. In this respect, the Government has stated: “Standard industry arrangements which divide a sum invested across a number of identical but genuinely distinct and economically self-contained policies will not be affected.”

The second proposed legislative change to counter (officially) perceived abuse targets the ability to use past chargeable event gains made under a policy (that were not subject to tax when made) to later reduce exposure to income tax for the policyholder.

The change would apply where chargeable event gains have arisen earlier in the life of a policy or contract but the gains were not chargeable to tax under the income tax rules for these products (because, for example, the earlier gains were attributable to a person who was not a UK resident).

Under the law as it stood before this amendment, it would seem a chargeable event gain arising (perhaps due to a part encashment) was deductible from the final gain regardless of whether any tax was due on the earlier gain.

A large policy excess (for example, an amount taken significantly in excess of the accumulated 5 per cent allowances) taken from an offshore bond when the policyholder was non-UK resident would not have given rise to a UK tax charge, despite an excess.

If the offshore bond was encashed when the policyholder was a UK resident then the previous gain under the policy, despite no tax having been paid, could be set against the final gain. In the right circumstances, this could give rise to a substantial deficiency to set against other taxable income.

The new measure removes this opportunity. An amendment to section 491(2) ITTOIA 2005 restricts any offset of earlier gains to gains that have been taken into account in calculating the total income of the policyholder.

Both these changes take effect in relation to relevant policies and contracts made on or after March 21, 2012, and for pre-existing contracts where certain events (for example, a variation resulting in an increase in the benefits secured, any assignment of the policy or the holding of the policy as security for a debt) take place on or after March 21, 2012.

The point, in relation to this look at the legislative approach to supplementing or introducing anti-avoidance provisions, is that this new legislation was introduced to supplement a significant body of existing chargeable event legislation that was clearly insufficient to prevent the avoidance that was legitimately taking place through the use of these arrangements.

When the legislative approach to avoidance by the introduction of targeted anti-avoidance provisions is used, the legislation is generally effective from the date the change is announced with no retrospection. In some cases, as for these two provisions relating to life assurance policies, provision is made to bring pre-existing policies into the new legislation if certain events or alterations take place on or after the date of change.

There are exceptions, though. For example, as a sign of the Treasury’s growing impatience with ‘loophole exploitation’ in relation to stamp duty land tax avoidance, it has been stated that if the recently drafted anti-avoidance legislation on SDLT inadvertently leaves open ways of exploitation then any new legislation will apply retrospectively.

This is an example of the need to make very clear statements of ‘official intent’ because of the potential inefficiency of targeted anti-avoidance legislation without the backing of a GAAR and when faced with a highly innovative avoidance industry.

Recommended

1

Arch cru investors await compensation decision

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is set to decide whether it will pay £38.3m in compensation to Arch cru investors who have brought 750 claims against their advisers. In its annual report and accounts for 2011/12 last week, the FSCS says at the year end it had received around 750 claims against 27 different IFAs […]

RDR chief calls for clarity on meaning

The FSA says advisers are best placed to explain to clients the difference between independent and restricted advice, regardless of whether they agree with the regulator’s definition of independence. Speaking at a Defaqto RDR conference in London last week, FSA associate and member of the RDR implementation team Colin Wilcox said it is up to […]

Marcus Agius Barclays TSC

Agius: We should have changed our Libor compliance

Barclays chairman Marcus Agius has admitted the bank should have changed how much scrutiny was given to Libor by its compliance department as the credit crunch made the rates less predictable. Giving evidence to the Treasury select committee this morning, Agius said historically the behaviour of the Libor rate had been predictable, was seen as […]

Andrea Leadsom TSC
2

Leadsom: Osborne should apologise for Labour Libor link claim

Treasury select committee member and Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom has called on Chancellor George Osborne to apologise for attempting to link Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls to the Libor rigging scandal. Leadsom said that yesterday’s evidence to the committee from Bank of England deputy governor Paul Tucker “completely squashed” the issue. In an interview with the […]

How do you choose the best online service?

By Ross Jackson, senior marketing manager There are many different protection online services available in the market and no doubt you’ll have used a few when submitting protection business. But why should you have to put up with slow, unresponsive sites for your business when you’re used to dealing with slick, modern user experiences in your […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

    Leave a comment

    Close

    Why register with Money Marketing ?

    Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

    News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
    Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

    Money Marketing Events
    Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

    Research and insight
    Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

    Have your say
    Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

    Register now

    Having problems?

    Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

    Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm

    Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com