Legal professional privilege for tax advice should be abolished, according to Deloitte’s head of tax policy, because it is usually only claimed in cases of the most ‘egregious’ tax planning.
Legal professional privilege for tax advice should be abolished, according to Deloitte’s head of tax policy, because it is usually only claimed in cases of the most ‘egregious’ tax planning.
The law firm Pinsent Masons hosted a debate on legal privilege on Monday in conjunction with The Times. Bill Dodwell argued that ‘the reason that a taxpayer would want to claim tax advice was privileged would be to prevent HMRC from seeing the advice because it could give evidence of a tax avoidance motive’, the firm reported.
The debate followed a Supreme Court ruling in January concerning the insurance company Prudential, which had argued that tax advice given by PwC in relation to a tax scheme should attract legal professional privilege (LPP) and therefore should not have to be disclosed to HMRC. Pinsent Masons noted that in a majority judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that LPP should only apply to communications between lawyers and their clients and not to accountants or other professionals. Any extension of LPP was a matter for Parliament, not the courts.
Legal professional privilege for tax advice should be abolished, according to Deloitte’s head of tax policy, because it is usually only claimed in cases of the most ‘egregious’ tax planning.
Legal professional privilege for tax advice should be abolished, according to Deloitte’s head of tax policy, because it is usually only claimed in cases of the most ‘egregious’ tax planning.
The law firm Pinsent Masons hosted a debate on legal privilege on Monday in conjunction with The Times. Bill Dodwell argued that ‘the reason that a taxpayer would want to claim tax advice was privileged would be to prevent HMRC from seeing the advice because it could give evidence of a tax avoidance motive’, the firm reported.
The debate followed a Supreme Court ruling in January concerning the insurance company Prudential, which had argued that tax advice given by PwC in relation to a tax scheme should attract legal professional privilege (LPP) and therefore should not have to be disclosed to HMRC. Pinsent Masons noted that in a majority judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that LPP should only apply to communications between lawyers and their clients and not to accountants or other professionals. Any extension of LPP was a matter for Parliament, not the courts.
