One minute with David Yates KC, barrister practicing at Pump Court Tax Chambers.
What’s keeping you busy at work at the moment?
I am lucky to have a lot of variety. One minute it will be transfer pricing, then DIMF, then questions concerning the remittance basis for non-UK domiciles. In short, a good mix of advisory and litigation for corporates and HNW clients together with some ongoing work for HMRC.
If you could make one change to a tax law or practice, what would it be?
There are quite a few bad provisions out there but ITEPA 2003 s 222 (challenged unsuccessfully in Chilcott v HMRC [2010] EWCA Civ 1538) has to be one of the worst. I would simply alter it so that any tax charge is reversed if the employee does make good to the employer at any time. The issue is that any underlying liability is often unappreciated by the employer/employee until well after the 90 day time limit has expired and the employee has to make good in any event (under restitution) but still gets taxed as if the tax has been paid for them.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
Well, I certainly know a lot more about tax now which would have been handy in the early days! But in terms of perspective, I wish I had figured out earlier in my career that most colleagues are genuinely happy to help – you only have to ask! I certainly try to emulate those who have helped me over the years.
Are there any new rules that are causing a particular problem in practice?
The new regime for uncertain tax treatment for large businesses will certainly keep CFOs occupied – in particular, ascertaining what is a ‘known’ HMRC position. The idea seems neat enough on paper, but in reality I can see it causing a lot of headaches in many situations where the position is simply unclear.
Has a recent tax case caught your attention?
I am going to keep an eye on the Bluecrest case ([2022] UKFTT 204 (TC)) – the first case dealing with the salaried LLP members rules. I have to say I find the issues in that case not easy to resolve given the brevity of the legislation. However, I do not think the reasoning of the tribunal on Condition B is going to be the last word on the matter.
What’s your view on the Autumn Statement?
The choices are made are politically understandable, i.e. the government has relied on fiscal drag/lowering thresholds and allowances to boost taxes that already are a large part of the tax take (e.g. income tax and NICs). Leaving aside the extension of the energy profits levy, there doesn’t feel to be anything ‘new’. Whilst some commentators have been highlighting the shortcomings of the current regime for NICs, the remittance basis and business rates, one gets the sense that this government has no appetite for large structural changes – at least until an election is in view perhaps.
And finally, you might not know this about me but…
I am a big rowing enthusiast, albeit my enthusiasm far outstrips my ability. I am never happier than when out on the water.
One minute with David Yates KC, barrister practicing at Pump Court Tax Chambers.
What’s keeping you busy at work at the moment?
I am lucky to have a lot of variety. One minute it will be transfer pricing, then DIMF, then questions concerning the remittance basis for non-UK domiciles. In short, a good mix of advisory and litigation for corporates and HNW clients together with some ongoing work for HMRC.
If you could make one change to a tax law or practice, what would it be?
There are quite a few bad provisions out there but ITEPA 2003 s 222 (challenged unsuccessfully in Chilcott v HMRC [2010] EWCA Civ 1538) has to be one of the worst. I would simply alter it so that any tax charge is reversed if the employee does make good to the employer at any time. The issue is that any underlying liability is often unappreciated by the employer/employee until well after the 90 day time limit has expired and the employee has to make good in any event (under restitution) but still gets taxed as if the tax has been paid for them.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
Well, I certainly know a lot more about tax now which would have been handy in the early days! But in terms of perspective, I wish I had figured out earlier in my career that most colleagues are genuinely happy to help – you only have to ask! I certainly try to emulate those who have helped me over the years.
Are there any new rules that are causing a particular problem in practice?
The new regime for uncertain tax treatment for large businesses will certainly keep CFOs occupied – in particular, ascertaining what is a ‘known’ HMRC position. The idea seems neat enough on paper, but in reality I can see it causing a lot of headaches in many situations where the position is simply unclear.
Has a recent tax case caught your attention?
I am going to keep an eye on the Bluecrest case ([2022] UKFTT 204 (TC)) – the first case dealing with the salaried LLP members rules. I have to say I find the issues in that case not easy to resolve given the brevity of the legislation. However, I do not think the reasoning of the tribunal on Condition B is going to be the last word on the matter.
What’s your view on the Autumn Statement?
The choices are made are politically understandable, i.e. the government has relied on fiscal drag/lowering thresholds and allowances to boost taxes that already are a large part of the tax take (e.g. income tax and NICs). Leaving aside the extension of the energy profits levy, there doesn’t feel to be anything ‘new’. Whilst some commentators have been highlighting the shortcomings of the current regime for NICs, the remittance basis and business rates, one gets the sense that this government has no appetite for large structural changes – at least until an election is in view perhaps.
And finally, you might not know this about me but…
I am a big rowing enthusiast, albeit my enthusiasm far outstrips my ability. I am never happier than when out on the water.
