Contractor UK Bulletin Board - View Single Post - BN66

DonkeyRhubarb · 30th April 2008, 15:48

So what is effectively happening is legislation to clarify the meaning of existing legislation from 1987 which was already clear that UK residents should pay tax at UK rates on income recieved from profits of a foreign partnership regardless of the wording of relevent taxation treaties.

Slippery word "clarify".

PWC and the Institute of Taxation do not share your willing acceptance:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...30/430we03.htm

RETROSPECTION

It is one of the general principles of UK tax law that tax changes are not made with retrospective effect. That said, the Paymaster General's statement that accompanied the December 2004 Pre-Budget Report gave warning of possible retrospective action against avoidance schemes—but only in a limited area and only back to 2004.

To find that a measure (BN 66) is being introduced which will have retrospective effect back to 1987 is unacceptable. It is not even on an area dealt with by the PMG's statement. The subject of the change may be an avoidance scheme, but that is not an excuse for such far-reaching action which is well beyond "clarification", as claimed by the note. This is a dangerous precedent for the integrity of the UK's tax system.

30th April 2008, 15:48	#17
DonkeyRhubarb Fingers like lightning Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 634	So what is effectively happening is legislation to clarify the meaning of existing legislation from 1987 which was already clear that UK residents should pay tax at UK rates on income recieved from profits of a foreign partnership regardless of the wording of relevent taxation treaties. Slippery word "clarify". PWC and the Institute of Taxation do not share your willing acceptance: http://www.parliament.the-stationery...30/430we03.htm RETROSPECTION It is one of the general principles of UK tax law that tax changes are not made with retrospective effect. That said, the Paymaster General's statement that accompanied the December 2004 Pre-Budget Report gave warning of possible retrospective action against avoidance schemes—but only in a limited area and only back to 2004. To find that a measure (BN 66) is being introduced which will have retrospective effect back to 1987 is unacceptable. It is not even on an area dealt with by the PMG's statement. The subject of the change may be an avoidance scheme, but that is not an excuse for such far-reaching action which is well beyond "clarification", as claimed by the note. This is a dangerous precedent for the integrity of the UK's tax system.