'A major challenge to our independence' – City partners raise concerns over proposed fines for tax avoidance advice
City partners are concerned that tougher penalties would compromise their independence and apply to routine tax planning
August 17, 2016 at 11:11 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
City partners have criticised government proposals to fine advisers involved in helping clients avoid tax.
The consultation, published today by HM Revenue & Customs, says that advisers – including lawyers, banks and accountancy companies – whose tax avoidance schemes are defeated in court may have to pay up to 100% of the tax avoided in fines.
Private client and tax partners are concerned the financial penalties would compromise their independence. In addition, they argue there is no clear dividing line between aggressive tax avoidance schemes and legitimate tax planning.
Currently, advisers who help their clients avoid tax by exploiting loopholes face little risk. However, their clients can be hit with heavy fines.
The rules would aim to target what the report calls "enablers" of tax avoidance, such as bankers, accountants and lawyers who are "intrinsic in, and necessary to, the machinery or implementation of, the avoidance".
Osborne Clarke private client partner Andrew Goodman said the legislation could pose a "major challenge to lawyers' independence". He continued that lawyers could be put in an "unattractive position", where they would have to explain to clients: "There are other things you could do but I can't advise you because it is too risky."
Other partners question how HMRC would distinguish between tax avoidance and routine tax planning carried out by mainstream accountancy and law firms. "It's going to be a difficult job to find where the dividing line is," said one City tax partner.
Withers private client partner Christopher Groves added that HMRC could use the new rules "to attack legitimate planning".
He also argued that the market for aggressive tax avoidance schemes "has been pushed to the margins" and that "reputable firms don't do that kind of work anymore".
The consultation is open for comments until 12 October.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllClifford Chance Under Fire for Human Rights Assessment of Saudi Arabia World Cup Bid
5 minute readThe Week in Data Nov. 7: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
Trump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand & Uncertainty
Netflix Offices Raided by Authorities in Paris and Amsterdam
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250