One minute with Kate Alexander, partner in Baker McKenzie’s corporate tax department in London.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
I’m continuing to work across a wide range of matters from disputes, including my first judicial review, financing and IP structuring in particular in response to Pillar Two, together with a lot of questions on PEs as clients expand into new markets and launch novel products. This variety is the reason I love my job. I’m also enjoying a new challenge of taking on the role of global chair of our technology media and telecommunications industry group, which is exposing me to lots of new fascinating commercial and legal issues.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
I would repeal the UK DST. I do not like the principle of an income style tax that taxes revenues rather than profits. Furthermore, whilst broadly a tax based on consumption, it does not always get levied on the end-consumer and therefore risks distorting competition.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
The importance of investing in relationships. I spent most of my early years worrying about whether I was good enough at tax and focused my energies on trying to understand the law. Whilst I always cared about my clients and colleagues, I wish I’d realised earlier that they deserved most attention as they would be the constancy in my career; the law would constantly change and I would, therefore, never truly master it!
Are any new rules causing a particular problem in practice?
The imminent implementation of Pillar Two is causing a lot of heartache. I think we’ve all found ourselves spending more time learning about book to tax differences under US GAAP, IFRS and Pillar Two GAAP than we ever anticipated (or desired!).
For clients, it means a huge compliance burden to convert their data into Pillar Two GAAP and then digest what it means in practice across multiple jurisdictions, each with their own particular implementation of ostensibly identical rules. Understanding the interactions between IIRs, QDMTs and UTPRs, together with their respective implementation timings, makes it very difficult for companies to give clear messages to their boards on the potential impact on tax rates.
What tax development are you keeping an eye on?
I’ve been closely following the recent case law developments on the degree to which tax considerations can be relevant to an arrangement before they become a ‘main purpose’. This has potentially significant implications for both third party and intragroup restructurings. Some have suggested that the ‘but for’ test in BlackRock ([2022] UKUT 199 (TC)) may prevent any form of intra-group financing. At the same time, cases such as Burlington ([2022] UKFTT 290 (TC)) and Euromoney ([2022] UKUT 205 (TCC)) support the view that affairs can be structured to access a treaty or specific relief contained within the tax statute: it does not automatically mean the arrangement has a main purpose of tax avoidance. Will 2023 be the year when this is finally determined? I suspect not, as cases will inevitably turn on their specific facts, but I will be looking out to see how the courts’ thinking develops, especially on how much weight to put on subjective intentions.
You might not know this about me but...
I’m in a job-share as a Brownie leader with another tax adviser! What are the chances of that? When our local pack was faced with closure, we both wanted to help but workloads meant we couldn’t commit to every week, so we came up with a novel solution. You’ll be pleased to hear that most of the time there is no tax involved. Although it was quite fun when we had to talk to the Brownies about our job, as we brought in copies of the legislation for the girls to pass around so they could truly appreciate the ‘weight of the law’! It’s incredibly rewarding doing something totally different, and a recent favourite moment of mine was seeing the sense of achievement on the girls’ faces when they learned how to light a fire for the first time.
One minute with Kate Alexander, partner in Baker McKenzie’s corporate tax department in London.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
I’m continuing to work across a wide range of matters from disputes, including my first judicial review, financing and IP structuring in particular in response to Pillar Two, together with a lot of questions on PEs as clients expand into new markets and launch novel products. This variety is the reason I love my job. I’m also enjoying a new challenge of taking on the role of global chair of our technology media and telecommunications industry group, which is exposing me to lots of new fascinating commercial and legal issues.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
I would repeal the UK DST. I do not like the principle of an income style tax that taxes revenues rather than profits. Furthermore, whilst broadly a tax based on consumption, it does not always get levied on the end-consumer and therefore risks distorting competition.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
The importance of investing in relationships. I spent most of my early years worrying about whether I was good enough at tax and focused my energies on trying to understand the law. Whilst I always cared about my clients and colleagues, I wish I’d realised earlier that they deserved most attention as they would be the constancy in my career; the law would constantly change and I would, therefore, never truly master it!
Are any new rules causing a particular problem in practice?
The imminent implementation of Pillar Two is causing a lot of heartache. I think we’ve all found ourselves spending more time learning about book to tax differences under US GAAP, IFRS and Pillar Two GAAP than we ever anticipated (or desired!).
For clients, it means a huge compliance burden to convert their data into Pillar Two GAAP and then digest what it means in practice across multiple jurisdictions, each with their own particular implementation of ostensibly identical rules. Understanding the interactions between IIRs, QDMTs and UTPRs, together with their respective implementation timings, makes it very difficult for companies to give clear messages to their boards on the potential impact on tax rates.
What tax development are you keeping an eye on?
I’ve been closely following the recent case law developments on the degree to which tax considerations can be relevant to an arrangement before they become a ‘main purpose’. This has potentially significant implications for both third party and intragroup restructurings. Some have suggested that the ‘but for’ test in BlackRock ([2022] UKUT 199 (TC)) may prevent any form of intra-group financing. At the same time, cases such as Burlington ([2022] UKFTT 290 (TC)) and Euromoney ([2022] UKUT 205 (TCC)) support the view that affairs can be structured to access a treaty or specific relief contained within the tax statute: it does not automatically mean the arrangement has a main purpose of tax avoidance. Will 2023 be the year when this is finally determined? I suspect not, as cases will inevitably turn on their specific facts, but I will be looking out to see how the courts’ thinking develops, especially on how much weight to put on subjective intentions.
You might not know this about me but...
I’m in a job-share as a Brownie leader with another tax adviser! What are the chances of that? When our local pack was faced with closure, we both wanted to help but workloads meant we couldn’t commit to every week, so we came up with a novel solution. You’ll be pleased to hear that most of the time there is no tax involved. Although it was quite fun when we had to talk to the Brownies about our job, as we brought in copies of the legislation for the girls to pass around so they could truly appreciate the ‘weight of the law’! It’s incredibly rewarding doing something totally different, and a recent favourite moment of mine was seeing the sense of achievement on the girls’ faces when they learned how to light a fire for the first time.
154b629c-a3db-43b3-86bb-22735d230f31.jpg?sfvrsn=ca7ede18_1)
