Commentary: The City should vote Brown (but maybe not the country)
Some tax lawyers, perhaps feeling a twinge of sympathy for a time when the UK used to have manufacturing clients, are in the knocking camp but, by most City lawyers' yardsticks, you would have to call Gordon Brown's last Budget a result.
March 28, 2007 at 10:12 PM
4 minute read
Some tax lawyers, perhaps feeling a twinge of sympathy for a time when the UK used to have manufacturing clients, are in the knocking camp but, by most City lawyers' yardsticks, you would have to call Gordon Brown's last Budget a result.
The ruthless, cynical but effective tactic of cutting corporation tax from 30% to 28% will clearly benefit the highly profitable, highly mobile banks and financiers that are the Square Mile's bread and butter. Of course, small business and capital-intensive manufacturers (which are less likely to relocate abroad) will pay for most of that largesse. Fair? No, but it will probably work.
The theme of boosting the City and chasing mobile capital was further underlined by moves to introduce legislation allowing tax relief on Islamic finance and proposals to cut taxes on property investment funds. The Islamic finance initiative in particular, swiftly supported by London major Ken Livingstone, looks to be exactly the kind of opportunistic but workable policy-making that has underpinned the growth of the City under Labour. The goal of making London the Western financial capital for Sharia-compliant financing has certainly taken a major step forward.
It was a telling contrast that on the day of the Budget the US Securities and Exchange Commission finally pushed through the foreign de-registration reforms that are intended to mitigate the impact of Sarbanes-Oxley on foreign listers.
This comes a hardly-nimble two years after initially being proposed, and the fact that US policy-makers are trying to make New York more attractive to foreign companies by making it easier to leave is a stark reminder of just how far Manhattan's drawing power has faded.
There are some tax specialists who feel that not enough has been done to make the UK competitive, with Brown criticised for allowing the UK to lose some of its tax competitiveness against European Union rivals. But the UK is hardly competing with Ireland and the accession countries and it has lower taxes and less regulation thancomparable major economies such as France and Germany.
So overall, the general verdict from tax specialists was that the Budget was likely to achieve its key aims.
Allen & Overy tax partner Brenda Coleman says: "The message is that the Treasury is listening and saying we need to send a sign to big business and companies in the UK that we are looking at the compliance burden and trying to cut down on administration for businesses."
This being a Brown budget, advisers are hunting for surprises in the footnotes. Issues cited last week include the upcoming review of the tax treatment of foreign profits, moves to tax planning gains on property and the impact of the changing definition of offshore funds.
Tax lawyers unsurprisingly also take aim at Brown's incessant fiddling. Linklaters tax chief Guy Brannan speaks for many, arguing that "in the long term there needs to be a more radical overhaul of the system" to deal with much of the Chancellor's legacy. Ashurst's John Watson adds: "It says everything about the over-complexity of the tax system that HM Revenue & Customs have already had to correct three of their Budget Notes. If they cannot get it right, God help the taxpayer."
But what will tax advisers do when have to get by without the micro-managing Chancellor who has rained down an unprecedented stream of highly lucrative fiddling for 10 years?
Gord certainly helped the lawyers.
See Deal Week blogs for more on the Budget and Barclays' ABN Amro bid.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 2Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 3Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 4Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
- 5Foreign-Company Lobbyists Would Need to Register Under Proposed DOJ Regulation
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