You may have read recently that HMRC’s are upping the battle against tax evasion and avoidance introducing new penalties against ‘enablers’ of unacceptable tax avoidance schemes. Entirely understandable as the country faces continued funding issues in the public sector.
So, HMRC’s specific avoidance measures now consists of the following:
- DOTAS (Disclosure Of Tax Avoidance Schemes) – their early warning system;
- GAAR (General Anti-Abuse Rule) – used to determine whether schemes are abusive; and
- A series of measures to punish those who use, promote and enable tax avoidance.
I still get plenty of emails and tax planning across my desk, despite the HMRC measures. But should you be concerned? The simple answer is no, provided you stick with tried and tested solutions. This includes investing in offshore bonds and properly promoted IHT planning solutions, such as loan trusts and discounted gift schemes. All of which are perfectly acceptable.
What’s the difference between Evasion v Avoidance?
There is a very clear legal distinction between evasion and avoidance.
Evasion is illegal. It involves those individuals or businesses who deliberately don’t pay the taxes they owe. For example, holding money in ‘secret’ accounts offshore and not declaring the interest. Or a failure to declare cash in hand earnings. If you like wilful evasion of paying tax.
Tax avoidance schemes, on the other hand, are designed within the letter of the law but not necessarily in the spirit of legislation. They serve little purpose other than saving tax.
Acceptable planning v Avoidance
Individuals are allowed to arrange their financial affairs to make full use of the allowances and exemptions on offer. And this includes transferring assets between spouses/civil partners to make use of two sets of allowances.
The Government introduces tax breaks to influence our behaviour. For example, investing into a pension would not be considered as avoidance – the legislation is specifically designed to encourage people to save for retirement.
When it comes to gifting lump sums into trust, as well as any potential IHT saving for the settlor, the amount gifted will be usually enjoyed by someone other than the settlor. The purpose is more than just saving tax. With regard to discounted gift schemes, HMRC has even issued detailed guidance on how discounts should be calculated.
Neither are normal investments in offshore bonds avoidance. The word ‘offshore’ often conjures up negative thoughts, but in the case of legitimate investments, this is not the case. They are strictly controlled by tax legislation which not only prescribes how they will be taxed, but also places an onus on providers to supply chargeable event certificates to bondholders and the HMRC whenever a taxable gain arises.
HMRC are more concerned with the minority of individuals and companies who bend the rules. The schemes used are often complex (not to mention costly, sometimes incurring costs of up 15% of the amount invested) and, although legal, involve artificial transactions which serve little or no purpose other than to produce a tax advantage.
The anti-avoidance measures
HMRC’s initial approach to stamp out avoidance was via specific legislation. The problem with this was that as one door closed, some planners would seek a way to open another.
To stem the flow of avoidance schemes, the Government felt that a broader approach was needed.
First came the DOTAS regime. The idea behind this is to give HMRC early warning of new tax avoidance schemes that are being marketed and to give them the opportunity to consider whether they might wish to attack them or not. The DOTAS regime has now been extended to cover arrangements where IHT mitigation was the objective.
This was followed by the introduction of the GAAR. This applies to tax arrangements which are, in HMRC’s opinion, abusive. Tax arrangements are abusive if entering into them cannot be regarded as a reasonable course of action given all the circumstances. Typically, such arrangements would involve one or more contrived or abnormal steps which are necessary in order to generate the tax advantage.
The latest anti avoidance measure for 2017 is the imposition of a financial penalty on the enablers of a scheme that fails the GAAR test. Enablers include anyone involved in the design or promotion of a scheme and who may ultimately benefit from a client using the scheme, e.g. by charging them a fee. The intention is clearly to deter anyone from promoting these types of schemes in the first place.
Conclusion
You should be reassured that planning with the tried and trusted is fine – but if it looks too good to be true, it probably is and would be sensible to avoid.
Action call
If you tax planning is of importance to you, get in contact with us today. We may be able to help you avoid an unnecessary problems in the future.
If you or your family would like to talk us about your financial plans for future, please get in touch for a no-obligation meeting. Go to our website www.miadvice.co.uk and contact us via our “Get in touch” form on our home page or Contact Martin Dodd on 01902 742221.
Email us at [email protected]
It is advisable to take advice from a professional financial adviser when making major financial decisions.
Check out our other recent articles here
This article has been prepared in good faith and based on Midlands Investment Agency’s understanding of the law and interpretation thereof at the time of creation. The contents should not be regarded as specific advice and we always recommend that specific advice is sort from a qualified professional. No responsibility can be accepted by Martin Dodd or Midlands Investment Agency Ltd., for any loss that may occur by a person acting or refraining from acting on the basis of this article.
