One minute with George Bull, a former senior tax partner at RSM UK.
You’ve recently retired after working in tax for more than 40 years. How has the profession changed during that time, and how do you see it evolving?
Since I began my career in taxes in 1976, the tax profession has changed enormously. Demands for tax services, including compliance, advisory and contentious services, have mushroomed with the increasing complexity of tax law, the significant impact which tax can have on business and personal decisions and, of course, the consequences for taxpayers who get it wrong.
While most tax practitioners are members of professional bodies and conduct themselves to the highest standards, taxpayers remain vulnerable to unregistered practitioners whose advice may have shortcomings. There are far too many cases where what purports to be tax advice simply does not work. Clients then find they have no support from the unregulated advisers on whom they had relied, and no funds to pay HMRC because the tax saving has been spent. Such unregulated tax advisers simultaneously represent a risk to taxpayers and to the Exchequer.
Having contributed to UCL’s independent review of legal services regulation, I believe that it will only be a matter of time before all tax advisers are subject to regulation.
What’s a key lesson you’ve learned?
Seek professional satisfaction by following trails which genuinely interest you, even if they are less well trodden by others. For many years, I was heavily involved in providing tax services to UK professional firms. This expanded into a broader management remit including mergers, acquisitions and international expansion. There was a particular point when I recognised that the UK had the potential to become an Anglophone bridgehead for US law firms wishing to develop EU practices. However, with different – some would say incompatible – structures, regulation and tax systems in the affected jurisdictions, client firms urgently needed guidance. At the same time, LLPs were being created in the UK for the first time. The intellectual challenges were immense but following that trail led to one of the most rewarding periods of my professional life.
Name a memorable moment from your career.
I had been invited to give a breakfast presentation to the senior management team of a client law firm in New York. Chatting over bagels and lox before the presentation began, I was asked whether I had a family and how many children I had. The warmth of the conversation was swept away by a sudden chill when I answered ‘four’. The CFO later explained that law firm partners living in Manhattan worked on the yardstick of needing $1m of profit share per child...
Any advice for policymakers?
Every country deserves a tax system which looks as though it was designed to be that way. MPs must raise their eyes beyond their re-election prospects and consider the legacy they are creating now.
Two examples illustrate the problem. First, a recent tribunal case on the VAT position of flapjacks has once again shone a light on the UK’s outdated and inflexible approach to taxing food products. With the government priding itself on having ‘got Brexit done’, when will it finally bring these rules into the 21st century?
Second, there’s the burning question of what will replace fuel duty. Notwithstanding the UK’s statutory obligations in respect of the climate emergency, when quizzed by a Parliamentary committee about the 2030 deadline, HMRC indicated no urgency to bring forward new proposals until 2029. The most likely alternative is a form of per-mile road charging. This cannot be achieved in the legislative timetable between a consultation, a Budget announcement and the resulting Finance Act. Huge infrastructure changes, invasive to businesses and citizens alike, will be required. Action is required now.
At the heart of tax policy making is the urgent need to decide who should pay how much tax and on what. Policymakers must recognise this challenge and push it higher on the political agenda. If they do not, the UK faces the grim prospect of having a tax system which is not fit for future purpose.
One minute with George Bull, a former senior tax partner at RSM UK.
You’ve recently retired after working in tax for more than 40 years. How has the profession changed during that time, and how do you see it evolving?
Since I began my career in taxes in 1976, the tax profession has changed enormously. Demands for tax services, including compliance, advisory and contentious services, have mushroomed with the increasing complexity of tax law, the significant impact which tax can have on business and personal decisions and, of course, the consequences for taxpayers who get it wrong.
While most tax practitioners are members of professional bodies and conduct themselves to the highest standards, taxpayers remain vulnerable to unregistered practitioners whose advice may have shortcomings. There are far too many cases where what purports to be tax advice simply does not work. Clients then find they have no support from the unregulated advisers on whom they had relied, and no funds to pay HMRC because the tax saving has been spent. Such unregulated tax advisers simultaneously represent a risk to taxpayers and to the Exchequer.
Having contributed to UCL’s independent review of legal services regulation, I believe that it will only be a matter of time before all tax advisers are subject to regulation.
What’s a key lesson you’ve learned?
Seek professional satisfaction by following trails which genuinely interest you, even if they are less well trodden by others. For many years, I was heavily involved in providing tax services to UK professional firms. This expanded into a broader management remit including mergers, acquisitions and international expansion. There was a particular point when I recognised that the UK had the potential to become an Anglophone bridgehead for US law firms wishing to develop EU practices. However, with different – some would say incompatible – structures, regulation and tax systems in the affected jurisdictions, client firms urgently needed guidance. At the same time, LLPs were being created in the UK for the first time. The intellectual challenges were immense but following that trail led to one of the most rewarding periods of my professional life.
Name a memorable moment from your career.
I had been invited to give a breakfast presentation to the senior management team of a client law firm in New York. Chatting over bagels and lox before the presentation began, I was asked whether I had a family and how many children I had. The warmth of the conversation was swept away by a sudden chill when I answered ‘four’. The CFO later explained that law firm partners living in Manhattan worked on the yardstick of needing $1m of profit share per child...
Any advice for policymakers?
Every country deserves a tax system which looks as though it was designed to be that way. MPs must raise their eyes beyond their re-election prospects and consider the legacy they are creating now.
Two examples illustrate the problem. First, a recent tribunal case on the VAT position of flapjacks has once again shone a light on the UK’s outdated and inflexible approach to taxing food products. With the government priding itself on having ‘got Brexit done’, when will it finally bring these rules into the 21st century?
Second, there’s the burning question of what will replace fuel duty. Notwithstanding the UK’s statutory obligations in respect of the climate emergency, when quizzed by a Parliamentary committee about the 2030 deadline, HMRC indicated no urgency to bring forward new proposals until 2029. The most likely alternative is a form of per-mile road charging. This cannot be achieved in the legislative timetable between a consultation, a Budget announcement and the resulting Finance Act. Huge infrastructure changes, invasive to businesses and citizens alike, will be required. Action is required now.
At the heart of tax policy making is the urgent need to decide who should pay how much tax and on what. Policymakers must recognise this challenge and push it higher on the political agenda. If they do not, the UK faces the grim prospect of having a tax system which is not fit for future purpose.
