Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1043728

	registered interest
	date	18/01/2019
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Government's review of the loan charge is planned to (a) seek external evidence about, (b) evaluate all aspects of and (c) be able to recommend any changes to the loan charge.
	tabling member constituency	Richmond Park
	tabling member printed	Zac Goldsmith
	uin	210060
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/01/2019 answer text <p>The government chose to accept New Clause 26 during the passage of the Finance Bill, and will lay a report in line with the requirements of that New Clause no later than 30 March 2019. The report will include a comparison with the time limits for the recovery of lost tax relating to disguised remuneration loans.</p><p> </p><p>The government also consulted extensively on the detail of the charge on disguised remuneration loans after it was announced at Budget 2016.</p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride grouped question UIN 210061 question first answered 23/01/2019 14:32:49 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
	tabling member	4062 label Biography information for Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

1043729

	registered interest
	date	18/01/2019
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps he is taking to ensure that members of the public can contribute to the review of the 2019 Loan Charge.
	tabling member constituency	Richmond Park
	tabling member printed	Zac Goldsmith
	uin	210061
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/01/2019 answer text <p>The government chose to accept New Clause 26 during the passage of the Finance Bill, and will lay a report in line with the requirements of that New Clause no later than 30 March 2019. The report will include a comparison with the time limits for the recovery of lost tax relating to disguised remuneration loans.</p><p> </p><p>The government also consulted extensively on the detail of the charge on disguised remuneration loans after it was announced at Budget 2016.</p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride grouped question UIN 210060 question first answered 23/01/2019 14:32:49 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
	tabling member	4062 label Biography information for Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park

1007007

	registered interest
	date	14/11/2018
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much revenue has accrued to the public purse since 2011 from preventing individuals and companies using accounting derecognition rules in relation to loans and derivatives to avoid paying corporation tax.
	tabling member constituency	Bootle
	tabling member printed	Peter Dowd
	uin	191458
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>Legislation was introduced with effect from 6 December 2010 to address avoidance schemes under which profits were said to fall out of account, or tax relief for losses were claimed, as a result of the way in which financial assets were recognised in accounts. Since that date, existing schemes have been unwound and there have been no further known iterations of these schemes. The measure has therefore been successful in protecting revenues, but it is not possible to say how much would otherwise have been lost.</p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride question first answered 19/11/2018 15:35:42 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
	tabling member	4397 label Biography information for Peter Dowd

1007010

	registered interest
	date	14/11/2018
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much revenue has accrued to the public purse since 2011 through the prevention of tax avoidance resulting from the creation for corporate investors of a credit for UK tax where no tax has been paid.
	tabling member constituency	Bootle
	tabling member printed	Peter Dowd
	uin	191459
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>Legislation was introduced with effect from 27 February 2012 to address a tax avoidance scheme which sought to obtain tax credits for a corporate investor in relation to distributions made by an Authorised Investment Fund where no underlying tax had in fact been suffered. Separately, legislation was introduced with effect from 15 September 2011 to address tax avoidance which sought to obtain a tax advantage in relation to manufactured overseas dividends, involving claims to repay or set-off withholding tax which had not actually been suffered.</p><p> </p><p>Since these measures were introduced, there have been no known further iterations of these avoidance schemes. They have therefore been successful in protecting revenues, but it is not possible to say how much would otherwise have been lost.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride question first answered 19/11/2018 15:49:21 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
	tabling member	4397 label Biography information for Peter Dowd

1007013

	registered interest
	date	14/11/2018
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much revenue has accrued to the public purse since 2011 from enabling HMRC to require a security from employers where there is a serious risk that tax due under PAYE or class 1 NICs will go unpaid.
	tabling member constituency	Bootle
	tabling member printed	Peter Dowd
	uin	191460
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>HMRC do not measure revenue accruals from Security payments relating to PAYE and/or NICs as this type of intervention is a deposit in absolute terms, which is either used against unpaid liabilities as may be appropriate, or returned to the customer once the risk of non- payment has been reasonably mitigated; therefore the deposits are not additional monies outside of any such liability.</p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride question first answered 19/11/2018 15:55:36 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
	tabling member	4397 label Biography information for Peter Dowd

1007014

	registered interest
	date	14/11/2018
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much revenue has accrued to the public purse since 2011 from the (a) introduction of anti-avoidance measures which have modified tax rules that apply to overseas life insurance companies and (b) application of the transfer of business rules when non-profit business is transferred to a non-EEA country.
	tabling member constituency	Bootle
	tabling member printed	Peter Dowd
	uin	191461
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>Legislation was introduced following the 2010 Summer Budget to counter an avoidance scheme involving the transfer of insurance business with unrecognised profits. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is not aware of any instances of this avoidance entered into after the legislation was announced, but it is not possible to say how much tax would otherwise have been lost.</p><p>The changes referred to in the question relating to overseas life insurance companies and to transfers of business to non-EEA countries, also proposed in the 2010 Summer Budget, were not anti-avoidance measures. Subsequently Ministers decided not proceed with these measures so HMRC and industry could focus on the substantial changes to the tax rules for life insurance companies introduced in Finance Act 2012.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride question first answered 19/11/2018 15:52:56 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
	tabling member	4397 label Biography information for Peter Dowd

1007030

	registered interest
	date	14/11/2018
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much revenue has accrued to the public purse since 2013 from the introduction of anti-avoidance measures related to the introduction of a General Anti-Abuse Rule.
	tabling member constituency	Bootle
	tabling member printed	Peter Dowd
	uin	191462
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/11/2018 answer text <p>The General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR), introduced in 2013, is expected to raise £235m. The success of the GAAR should not be measured by how much it is expected to raise or the number of times the rule has been invoked.</p><p> </p><p>The principle purpose of the GAAR is to deter taxpayers from entering into abusive tax arrangements in the first place, and initial evidence suggests that GAAR is having this effect. Before HMRC can use the GAAR, it must first refer the case to the GAAR Advisory Panel, an external body separate to HMRC. To date the GAAR Advisory Panel has agreed with HMRC’s view on all cases referred to them. Their opinions are published on GOV.UK.</p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride question first answered 19/11/2018 15:42:11 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
	tabling member	4397 label Biography information for Peter Dowd

1023963

	registered interest
	date	12/12/2018
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much revenue has accrued to the public purse from anti-avoidance measures to tackle disguised remuneration since 2011.
	tabling member constituency	Bootle
	tabling member printed	Peter Dowd
	uin	201706
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/12/2018 answer text <p>Disguised Remuneration (DR) schemes are contrived arrangements that pay loans in place of ordinary remuneration with the sole purpose of avoiding income tax and National Insurance contributions.</p><p> </p><p>The Government introduced legislation in 2011 to target arrangements intended to disguise remuneration, which were forecast to raise £3.8bn. At Budget 2016, the Government announced a package of changes, including the charge on disguised remuneration (DR) loans, which are estimated to raise £3.2 billion for the Exchequer by 2021. Further information can be found in the ‘Disguised remuneration: further update’ policy paper, published on 22 November 2017: <a href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disguised-remuneration-further-update/disguised-remuneration-further-update" target="_blank">www.gov.uk/government/publications/disguised-remuneration-further-update/disguised-remuneration-further-update</a>.</p><p> </p><p>Since the announcement of the charge on DR loans, HMRC has agreed settlements on disguised remuneration schemes with employers and individuals of over 650 million pounds. More than 90% of this amount was collected from employers, with less than 10% from individuals. If scheme users repay the loan or agree a settlement for the tax that they owe with HMRC, they will not face the charge.</p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride question first answered 17/12/2018 16:33:15 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
	tabling member	4397 label Biography information for Peter Dowd

1028689

	registered interest
	date	19/12/2018
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many providers of tax avoidance schemes paid HMRC a penalty in 2018.
	tabling member constituency	Bootle
	tabling member printed	Peter Dowd
	uin	203919
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/01/2019 answer text <p>HMRC’s top priority in dealing with the promoters of tax avoidance schemes is to change their behaviour so that they stop this activity altogether. HMRC uses a range of powers to achieve this, including the Promoters of Tax Avoidance Schemes legislation. As a result of HMRC’s concerted action against them, a number of major promoters have co-operated with HMRC and have either stopped selling schemes or ceased in business altogether.</p><p>Providers of tax avoidance schemes face penalties if they fail to comply with their obligations under the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes or Promoters of Tax Avoidance Schemes regimes, or if they enable another person to use tax avoidance arrangements which HMRC later defeats.</p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride question first answered 07/01/2019 17:48:04 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
	tabling member	4397 label Biography information for Peter Dowd

1041477

	registered interest
	date	14/01/2019
	answering body	Treasury
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name	Treasury
	answering dept sort name	Treasury
	hansard heading	Tax Avoidance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many (a) large and (b)medium-sized companies have used HMRC's profit diversion compliance facility in each of the last five years.
	tabling member constituency	Bootle
	tabling member printed	Peter Dowd
	uin	208290
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/01/2019 answer text No multinational businesses have used the Profit Diversion Compliance Facility yet as it was only launched on 10 January 2019.<p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride question first answered 17/01/2019 16:20:19 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
	tabling member	4397 label Biography information for Peter Dowd