What does this sentence mean?

[swicz]

Hi guys,

I just received a settlement offer contract that I need to sign and I understand everything that is written in it besides this sentence:

"I acknowledge that the Agreement does not constitute a relevant defeat for the purpose of the serial tax avoidance legislation at Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2016."

Could someone please explain what this mean? I am not sure about phrase "constitute a relevant defeat".

Cheers!

[northernladuk]

I'll take a guess as no one else has answered. Isn't this because you've taken a settlement rather than been taken to court and been defeated.

A bit like a case where the other party will pay out but not accept liability/responsibility. The Winchester case for example.

That's my take on it anyway.

[Iliketax]

Hi guys,

I just received a settlement offer contract that I need to sign and I understand everything that is written in it besides this sentence:

"I acknowledge that the Agreement does not constitute a relevant defeat for the purpose of the serial tax avoidance legislation at Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2016."

Could someone please explain what this mean? I am not sure about phrase "constitute a relevant defeat".

Cheers!

Have a read of this: Information about the Serial Tax Avoidance Regime - GOV.UK

tl;dr - it's good that it is not a relevant defeat.

[webberg]

One of the triggers of having a "Serial Tax Avoidance" label attached to you is that you did something that was "defeated" by HMRC.

That "defeat" could be a Court decision or could be you agreeing with HMRC's view of the situation.

Two defeats puts you on the naughty step. More importantly it means that subsequent defeats of arrangements will lead to an increase in penalties.

So as said above, it's "good" that settlement is not a defeat.

[swicz]

Great, thank you all.