Government plans to tax City firms to fund criminal courts slammed as 'tax on success'
Law Society president hits out at government plans to tax City law firms warning it could drive firms away from London
October 22, 2015 at 12:05 PM
3 minute read
Lawyers have slated government plans to introduce a tax on City law firms in a bid to raise tens of millions of pounds to fund criminal courts as a "a tax on success".
Firms are understood to have been invited to a meeting by the City of London Law Society to discuss the plans which could see a levy introduced on large commercial law firms.
Legal Week understands senior partners from City law firms are set to meet next week and that officials and ministers from the government have also been invited to attend.
According to The Times today, justice secretary Michael Gove is considering taxing the UK's largest law firms as a way of offsetting revenue the exchequer will lose from a separate plan to abolish controversial charges for defendants in the criminal courts.
It reports that the charges on criminal defendants, introduced in April, are expected to raise up to £90m each year.
The paper reports that a 1% levy on leading firms' revenue is among the options under discussion. This could raise around £175m from the top 50 UK law firms alone.
President of the Law Society Jonathan Smithers has slammed the plans.
He warned such a tax could "prompt firms to consider whether to continue to operate out of England and Wales" which he argued would "have an impact on the wider UK economy".
He said: "This is simply a tax on success. Singling out the legal profession to pay a levy on top of the tax they pay as businesses could damage the legal sector's competitiveness and thereby its international standing as the jurisdiction of choice."
Smithers added: "Solicitors employ thousands of people and generate the greater part of the legal sector's net exports of £3.1bn every year. Solicitors provide significant voluntary contributions by providing free legal advice to those in need and other charitable activities which support the wider community."
Partners argued that it would be very difficult to draft such as levy on top law firms.
One senior partner said: "It would be difficult for the government to structure something that worked.
"Presumably it would be a levy on profits as declared, which would make it very difficult because we are basically self-employed."
Jonathan Blair, managing partner at Bond Dickinson, said he was keen to see the full details of the government's proposals but that it "seemed like a fairly blunt instrument to use to tackle an issue in a legal market that is still recovering".
He added: "A 1% tax is not an insignificant additional cost in a time when clients are rightly demanding more from their legal providers.
"Whilst it is clear a review of the way the justice system is funded is necessary, providing a further tax to firms who already pay business taxes and do a great deal of pro bono work within the communities doesn't seem to set the right precedent."
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said the UK currently had a "two nation justice system".
He added: "Those who have benefited financially need to do more to protect access to justice for all and we are discussing with the profession how this can be taken forward."
The City of London Law Society declined to comment.
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 AllA&O Shearman, Hogan Lovells & 10 Top Stories That Shaped Africa in 2024
4 minute readBorden Ladner Gervais Cyber Expert Warns of Growing Threats From AI-Boosted Ransomware Attacks
3 minute readBaker & Partners, LCWP Lead on $1B Fraud Claim by Malaysia's 1MDB Against Amicorp
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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