Following a Panorama and Private Eye exposé, David Heaton has resigned from the GAAR (general anti-abuse rule) advisory panel less than two months after being appointed. I was interviewed for the GAAR advisory panel and one of the questions concerned how Private Eye would describe the candidate concerned. Certainly, press interest in the members of the GAAR advisory panel was expected and the chairman of the advisory panel, Patrick Mears, took this into account in recommending panel members. Therefore, one possible interpretation of events is that the press and public expectations of panel members is even more anti-tax planning than was expected.
My concern is that David Heaton’s resignation amounts to ‘jury nobbling’. That is perhaps too strong a term and I know that other distinguished legal commentators do not see it the same way. However, a GAAR advisory panel post is unpaid and is a significant time commitment for the wider benefit of the tax profession. Given the potential reputational damage that can now befall a panel member, it is difficult to see why any active tax adviser would wish to be a member of it. That means, at best, it is likely to be constituted from retired tax advisers and at worst those with no practical day to day experience of the subtlety of the issues concerned, but instead with other agendas in mind. This is a very worrying development.
Overall, it looks as if the GAAR is going to be a tougher regime going forward than many tax advisers and accountants may have anticipated. A good understanding of it, the guidance and how it is likely to develop in future is therefore essential in ensuring that clients do not unwittingly fall foul of it.
This is an abridged version of the commentary available on the Francis Clark website.
Following a Panorama and Private Eye exposé, David Heaton has resigned from the GAAR (general anti-abuse rule) advisory panel less than two months after being appointed. I was interviewed for the GAAR advisory panel and one of the questions concerned how Private Eye would describe the candidate concerned. Certainly, press interest in the members of the GAAR advisory panel was expected and the chairman of the advisory panel, Patrick Mears, took this into account in recommending panel members. Therefore, one possible interpretation of events is that the press and public expectations of panel members is even more anti-tax planning than was expected.
My concern is that David Heaton’s resignation amounts to ‘jury nobbling’. That is perhaps too strong a term and I know that other distinguished legal commentators do not see it the same way. However, a GAAR advisory panel post is unpaid and is a significant time commitment for the wider benefit of the tax profession. Given the potential reputational damage that can now befall a panel member, it is difficult to see why any active tax adviser would wish to be a member of it. That means, at best, it is likely to be constituted from retired tax advisers and at worst those with no practical day to day experience of the subtlety of the issues concerned, but instead with other agendas in mind. This is a very worrying development.
Overall, it looks as if the GAAR is going to be a tougher regime going forward than many tax advisers and accountants may have anticipated. A good understanding of it, the guidance and how it is likely to develop in future is therefore essential in ensuring that clients do not unwittingly fall foul of it.
This is an abridged version of the commentary available on the Francis Clark website.
