Originally posted by Rob79
View Post
Mr Venables is indeed an experienced QC in the field of taxation. He has held various significant posts in the Tax Bar and related organisations.
There are quite a few other QC's specialising in tax and a simple Google search would uncover most of them.
Barristers though offer an "opinion". It is not a guarantee that a particular arrangement will work or is even legal. It's just their view of those arrangements.
You'd like to think that their view is informed by years of experience, legal training and with an eye to developments in the future. In the vast majority of instances I suspect that this is the case.
The normal process for promoters using QC's is for a set of "Instructions" to be prepared that describe the arrangements and which then analyse the tax position and ask questions in areas of uncertainty. Those Instructions are usually prepared by lawyers although they don't have to be following changes in rules to allow direct access a few years ago. You still need some professional qualifications (accounting, tax, insurance) etc but most promoters would have such people on their staff.
The QC answers the questions he's given in the context of the Instructions. The answers are collected into a written form which if it follows a meeting are usually called "Notes of Conference". The QC is then asked to sign off such Notes. If he does so, they become "Settled Notes of Conference".
So far, so good.
How much of those Notes a promoter shares with his potential clients is up to him. Showing the entire Note will jeopardise the Privilege that the Notes have, i.e. they are confidential and HMRC cannot have them. Usually therefore selected parts are disclosed in public materials. Sometimes the whole Note is available to read but not be copied or taken away.
From this it's easy to see that a statement that "this is QC approved" may not be that valuable. You don't know what the QC has been asked; did the arrangement happen exactly as described; have the QC's answers been presented in context; how many QC's were visited before the right answer was derived; were matters discussed in conference, such as risk, that never made it to the Note; etc.
Opinion shopping is common. Some QC's are known to have more "assertive" views on particular areas of taxation than others.
Also don't forget that a QC who gives an opinion may often be approached to defend the arrangements in Court if required.
So QC's are almost always honest professional people with an interest in being right (helps them gain business) but who are protected by giving an "opinion" which is capable of being corrupted once it leaves them.
That is not to say that promoters always do this, but that the system is capable of being manipulated.
There are quite a few other QC's specialising in tax and a simple Google search would uncover most of them.
Barristers though offer an "opinion". It is not a guarantee that a particular arrangement will work or is even legal. It's just their view of those arrangements.
You'd like to think that their view is informed by years of experience, legal training and with an eye to developments in the future. In the vast majority of instances I suspect that this is the case.
The normal process for promoters using QC's is for a set of "Instructions" to be prepared that describe the arrangements and which then analyse the tax position and ask questions in areas of uncertainty. Those Instructions are usually prepared by lawyers although they don't have to be following changes in rules to allow direct access a few years ago. You still need some professional qualifications (accounting, tax, insurance) etc but most promoters would have such people on their staff.
The QC answers the questions he's given in the context of the Instructions. The answers are collected into a written form which if it follows a meeting are usually called "Notes of Conference". The QC is then asked to sign off such Notes. If he does so, they become "Settled Notes of Conference".
So far, so good.
How much of those Notes a promoter shares with his potential clients is up to him. Showing the entire Note will jeopardise the Privilege that the Notes have, i.e. they are confidential and HMRC cannot have them. Usually therefore selected parts are disclosed in public materials. Sometimes the whole Note is available to read but not be copied or taken away.
From this it's easy to see that a statement that "this is QC approved" may not be that valuable. You don't know what the QC has been asked; did the arrangement happen exactly as described; have the QC's answers been presented in context; how many QC's were visited before the right answer was derived; were matters discussed in conference, such as risk, that never made it to the Note; etc.
Opinion shopping is common. Some QC's are known to have more "assertive" views on particular areas of taxation than others.
Also don't forget that a QC who gives an opinion may often be approached to defend the arrangements in Court if required.
So QC's are almost always honest professional people with an interest in being right (helps them gain business) but who are protected by giving an "opinion" which is capable of being corrupted once it leaves them.
That is not to say that promoters always do this, but that the system is capable of being manipulated.
It just never ceases to amaze me how many variants of the 'loan' scheme are being devised
Leave a comment: