Big Four firms accounted for 92 of the 177 disclosures of schemes promoted by accountancy firms in the two years to 30 September 2009, according to figures released by HMRC following a ruling by the Information Commissioner.
Big Four firms accounted for 92 of the 177 disclosures of schemes promoted by accountancy firms in the two years to 30 September 2009, according to figures released by HMRC following a ruling by the Information Commissioner.
More than half of the 130 direct tax avoidance disclosures made in the year to 31 March 2009 related to schemes promoted by accountancy firms. Law firms accounted for 14 of the disclosures.
A tax arrangement must be disclosed when it will, or might be expected to, enable any person to obtain a tax advantage; that tax advantage is, or might be expected to be, the main benefit or one of the main benefits of the arrangement; and it falls within any of the hallmarks set out in regulations.
HMRC guidance says: ‘On its own the disclosure of a tax arrangement has no effect on the tax position of any person who uses it. However, a disclosed tax arrangement may be rendered ineffective by Parliament, possibly with retrospective effect.’ The complainant had requested in September 2008 a breakdown of the DOTAS regime statistics, showing the numbers of disclosures that related to Big Four firms, other accountancy firms, banks and other financial institutions, law firms and others. The Information Commissioner reported that in response to that request, HMRC provided data showing one combined figure for accountancy firms and another for financial institutions. HMRC indicated that it did not keep a running total of the numbers of disclosures made by the Big Four because ‘it had no necessity to analyse information in this way’.
When the Commissioner visited HMRC’s offices in August 2009, HMRC had prepared a table in the form requested. HMRC considered, however, that the exemption in Freedom of Information Act 2000 s 44 (read with reference to the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005) applied to the request, and that the sample size of four ‘would allow the identity and information about particular firms to be deduced’.
The Commissioner was satisfied that the breakdown requested would not specify the identity of the person to whom the information related. It was information requested about the Big Four as a group and not about each of the firms individually. But he ruled that HMRC should not include in the breakdown any period where none, or only one or two, of the Big Four made disclosures of a particular type of scheme. Information for such periods would be combined and shown under the general heading of ‘accountants’.
Big Four firms accounted for 92 of the 177 disclosures of schemes promoted by accountancy firms in the two years to 30 September 2009, according to figures released by HMRC following a ruling by the Information Commissioner.
Big Four firms accounted for 92 of the 177 disclosures of schemes promoted by accountancy firms in the two years to 30 September 2009, according to figures released by HMRC following a ruling by the Information Commissioner.
More than half of the 130 direct tax avoidance disclosures made in the year to 31 March 2009 related to schemes promoted by accountancy firms. Law firms accounted for 14 of the disclosures.
A tax arrangement must be disclosed when it will, or might be expected to, enable any person to obtain a tax advantage; that tax advantage is, or might be expected to be, the main benefit or one of the main benefits of the arrangement; and it falls within any of the hallmarks set out in regulations.
HMRC guidance says: ‘On its own the disclosure of a tax arrangement has no effect on the tax position of any person who uses it. However, a disclosed tax arrangement may be rendered ineffective by Parliament, possibly with retrospective effect.’ The complainant had requested in September 2008 a breakdown of the DOTAS regime statistics, showing the numbers of disclosures that related to Big Four firms, other accountancy firms, banks and other financial institutions, law firms and others. The Information Commissioner reported that in response to that request, HMRC provided data showing one combined figure for accountancy firms and another for financial institutions. HMRC indicated that it did not keep a running total of the numbers of disclosures made by the Big Four because ‘it had no necessity to analyse information in this way’.
When the Commissioner visited HMRC’s offices in August 2009, HMRC had prepared a table in the form requested. HMRC considered, however, that the exemption in Freedom of Information Act 2000 s 44 (read with reference to the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005) applied to the request, and that the sample size of four ‘would allow the identity and information about particular firms to be deduced’.
The Commissioner was satisfied that the breakdown requested would not specify the identity of the person to whom the information related. It was information requested about the Big Four as a group and not about each of the firms individually. But he ruled that HMRC should not include in the breakdown any period where none, or only one or two, of the Big Four made disclosures of a particular type of scheme. Information for such periods would be combined and shown under the general heading of ‘accountants’.
