The GAAR advisory panel has published three new opinions on matters referred to it by HMRC.
The GAAR advisory panel has published three new opinions on matters referred to it by HMRC. HMRC is only able to issue counteraction notices (other than provisional counteraction notices) to make adjustments, and impose penalties, for abusive tax arrangements under the GAAR once the panel has given its opinion. This brings to four the number of opinions issued by the panel since its creation in 2013. The first was published in August.
Two of the latest opinions relate to similar schemes set up by companies to reward key employees using a purchase and sale of gold bullion, with a future obligation to repay sums to an employee benefit trust. These two sets of arrangements were substantially the same as those involved in the first opinion released in August. The panel came to the same conclusion, namely: that the entering into and carrying out of the arrangements was not a reasonable course of action in relation to the relevant tax provisions.
The third opinion involved the use of offshore trusts to avoid the distributions legislation and close company loans to participators rules, routing a payment of £500,000 through the trusts to cancel out a loan of £460,000 owed by Mr A to a company of which he was the sole director and shareholder. The panel again reached the conclusion that the entering into and carrying out of the arrangements was not a reasonable course of action in relation to the relevant tax provisions.
The GAAR advisory panel has published three new opinions on matters referred to it by HMRC.
The GAAR advisory panel has published three new opinions on matters referred to it by HMRC. HMRC is only able to issue counteraction notices (other than provisional counteraction notices) to make adjustments, and impose penalties, for abusive tax arrangements under the GAAR once the panel has given its opinion. This brings to four the number of opinions issued by the panel since its creation in 2013. The first was published in August.
Two of the latest opinions relate to similar schemes set up by companies to reward key employees using a purchase and sale of gold bullion, with a future obligation to repay sums to an employee benefit trust. These two sets of arrangements were substantially the same as those involved in the first opinion released in August. The panel came to the same conclusion, namely: that the entering into and carrying out of the arrangements was not a reasonable course of action in relation to the relevant tax provisions.
The third opinion involved the use of offshore trusts to avoid the distributions legislation and close company loans to participators rules, routing a payment of £500,000 through the trusts to cancel out a loan of £460,000 owed by Mr A to a company of which he was the sole director and shareholder. The panel again reached the conclusion that the entering into and carrying out of the arrangements was not a reasonable course of action in relation to the relevant tax provisions.
