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

1082271

registered interest
date	05/03/2019
answering body	Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Crowdfunding
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the competitiveness of the UK peer-to-peer lending sector compared to (a) the US, (b) China and (c) the rest of the world.
tabling member constituency	Windsor
tabling member printed	Adam Afriyie
uin	228623
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/03/2019 answer text <p>The Government has introduced a robust and proportionate regulatory regime for peer-to-peer (P2P) lending, balancing the need for consumer protection with allowing the sector to grow, innovate and provide competition in the lending market.</p><p> </p><p>The British Business Bank’s Small Business Finance Markets 2018/19 report sets out that P2P business lending increased to nearly £2.3bn in 2018, and assesses the P2P business lending markets in the UK, the USA and China. The report notes that the increased regulation in the P2P market in the UK has been mostly seen as positive, in contrast to China where regulators were slow to address the sector, leading to opportunities for fraudulent activity.</p><p> </p><p>The UK has been independently ranked by EY and Deloitte as the world’s leading hub for Fintech – the best place in the world to start and grow a Fintech firm. The Government is committed to ensuring that it remains the best place in the world for Fintech, and has set out how it intends to do that in the ambitious Fintech Sector Strategy, launched in March 2018.</p> answering member constituency Salisbury answering member printed John Glen question first answered 13/03/2019 17:03:31 answering member 4051 label Biography information for John Glen
tabling member	1586 label Biography information for Adam Afriyie

1082303

registered interest
date	05/03/2019
answering body	Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Medical Treatments: Tax Allowances
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to EIM21774 of the Employment Income Manual, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the tax exemption for employer-funded medical treatment; and what estimate he has made of the (a) cost to the public purse of implementing that exemption, (b) savings accrued to the public purse of the use of that exemption and (c) amount that has been claimed by employers under that exemption since its introduction.
tabling member constituency	Cleethorpes
tabling member printed	Martin Vickers
uin	228637
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/03/2019 answer text <p>Employers normally incur expenditure on employee healthcare for a business purpose and can deduct this when calculating the employer’s own taxable profits.</p><p>However, from 1 January 2015, the Government also exempted any benefit in kind or payment of earnings, up to an annual cap of £500 per employee, from a charge to income tax when an employer meets the cost of recommended medical treatment. There is also a corresponding National Insurance contributions disregard.</p><p>Medical treatment is recommended where it is provided in accordance with a recommendation from an occupational health service in order to help an employee return to work after a period of absence due to ill-health or injury. The 28 consecutive day qualifying period makes sure that the tax exemption is targeted at those cases in greatest need of support. Evidence showed that sickness absence cases lasting four weeks or longer were at the greatest risk of turning into long term cases.</p><p>The Government ensured that this exemption would be easy to understand and administer, so employers do not need to inform HMRC about payments for treatments covered by the £500 per employee per year limit. This means that information is not available to assess the direct impact of the exemption. However, the Government estimated in 2014 that employees working for approximately 10,000 businesses each year would benefit and Table 2.2 of Budget 2014 set out the expected cost to the Exchequer of £20 million per annum by 2018-19.</p><p>The Government keeps all taxes under review.</p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride grouped question UIN 228638 228639 question first answered 13/03/2019 16:38:16 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
tabling member	3957 label Biography information for Martin Vickers

1082304

registered interest
date	05/03/2019
answering body	Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Medical Treatments: Tax Allowances
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussion he has had with the Secretary of State for (a) Work and Pensions and (b) Health and Social Care on reform of the tax exemption for employer-funded medical treatment.
tabling member constituency	Cleethorpes
tabling member printed	Martin Vickers
uin	228638
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/03/2019 answer text <p>Employers normally incur expenditure on employee healthcare for a business purpose and can deduct this when calculating the employer’s own taxable profits.</p><p>However, from 1 January 2015, the Government also exempted any benefit in kind or payment of earnings, up to an annual cap of £500 per employee, from a charge to income tax when an employer meets the cost of recommended medical treatment. There is also a corresponding National Insurance contributions disregard.</p><p>Medical treatment is recommended where it is provided in accordance with a recommendation from an occupational health service in order to help an employee return to work after a period of absence due to ill-health or injury. The 28 consecutive day qualifying period makes sure that the tax exemption is targeted at those cases in greatest need of support. Evidence showed that sickness absence cases lasting four weeks or longer were at the greatest risk of turning into long term cases.</p><p>The Government ensured that this exemption would be easy to understand and administer, so employers do not need to inform HMRC about payments for treatments covered by the £500 per employee per year limit. This means that information is not available to assess the direct impact of the exemption. However, the Government estimated in 2014 that employees working for approximately 10,000 businesses each year would benefit and Table 2.2 of Budget 2014 set out the expected cost to the Exchequer of £20 million per annum by 2018-19.</p><p>The Government keeps all taxes under review.</p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride grouped question UIN 228637 228639 question first answered 13/03/2019 16:38:16 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
tabling member	3957 label Biography information for Martin Vickers

1082305

registered interest
date	05/03/2019
answering body	Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Medical Treatments: Tax Allowances
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has any plans to amend the Income Tax (Recommended Medical Treatment) Regulations 2014 to incentivise employers to support staff returning to work after a period of sickness absence; and what assessment he has made of the effect of the 28 consecutive day qualifying period on the number of staff returning to work.
tabling member constituency	Cleethorpes
tabling member printed	Martin Vickers
uin	228639
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/03/2019 answer text <p>Employers normally incur expenditure on employee healthcare for a business purpose and can deduct this when calculating the employer’s own taxable profits.</p><p>However, from 1 January 2015, the Government also exempted any benefit in kind or payment of earnings, up to an annual cap of £500 per employee, from a charge to income tax when an employer meets the cost of recommended medical treatment. There is also a corresponding National Insurance contributions disregard.</p><p>Medical treatment is recommended where it is provided in accordance with a recommendation from an occupational health service in order to help an employee return to work after a period of absence due to ill-health or injury. The 28 consecutive day qualifying period makes sure that the tax exemption is targeted at those cases in greatest need of support. Evidence showed that sickness absence cases lasting four weeks or longer were at the greatest risk of turning into long term cases.</p><p>The Government ensured that this exemption would be easy to understand and administer, so employers do not need to inform HMRC about payments for treatments covered by the £500 per employee per year limit. This means that information is not available to assess the direct impact of the exemption. However, the Government estimated in 2014 that employees working for approximately 10,000 businesses each year would benefit and Table 2.2 of Budget 2014 set out the expected cost to the Exchequer of £20 million per annum by 2018-19.</p><p>The Government keeps all taxes under review.</p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride grouped question UIN 228637 228638 question first answered 13/03/2019 16:38:16 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
tabling member	3957 label Biography information for Martin Vickers

1082346

registered interest
date	05/03/2019
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 promoters of loan schemes relating to the loan charge 2019 have been prosecuted.
tabling member constituency	Morley and Outwood
tabling member printed	Andrea Jenkyns
uin	228754
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/03/2019 answer text <p>This Government is committed to tackling avoidance in all its guises. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has a suite of powers to tackle and challenge those who promote or otherwise enable tax avoidance and HMRC is using its powers to challenge major promoters of avoidance schemes, including disguised remuneration (DR) avoidance schemes. In recent years, HMRC has been investigating over 100 promoters and others involved in avoidance, including disguised remuneration arrangements.</p><p> </p><p>In the last couple of years, HMRC has also taken litigation action against 6 scheme promoters for failure to disclose under the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes (DOTAS) regime, with others deciding to disclose to avoid litigation. Further cases will be litigated in the year ahead.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC has used its powers under the Promoters of Tax Avoidance Schemes (POTAS) legislation to challenge promoters and made three successful complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority about misleading advertising; two of which relate to disguised remuneration schemes.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC considers criminal investigation and referrals to prosecuting authorities where appropriate. Since the formation of HMRC’s Fraud Investigation Service on 1 April 2016, more than 20 individuals have been convicted for offences relating to arrangements which have been promoted and marketed as tax avoidance schemes, resulting in over 100 years custodial and more than 7 years suspended sentences being ordered overall. Additional matters are the subject of ongoing enquiries.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride grouped question UIN 228755 question first answered 13/03/2019 16:21:51 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
tabling member	4490 label Biography information for Dame Andrea Jenkyns

1082347

registered interest
date	05/03/2019
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 people have been convicted of offences relating to arrangements which have been promoted and marketed as tax avoidance schemes and sentenced to over 95 years custodial in relation to the promotion of loan schemes.
tabling member constituency	Morley and Outwood
tabling member printed	Andrea Jenkyns
uin	228755
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/03/2019 answer text <p>This Government is committed to tackling avoidance in all its guises. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has a suite of powers to tackle and challenge those who promote or otherwise enable tax avoidance and HMRC is using its powers to challenge major promoters of avoidance schemes, including disguised remuneration (DR) avoidance schemes. In recent years, HMRC has been investigating over 100 promoters and others involved in avoidance, including disguised remuneration arrangements.</p><p> </p><p>In the last couple of years, HMRC has also taken litigation action against 6 scheme promoters for failure to disclose under the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes (DOTAS) regime, with others deciding to disclose to avoid litigation. Further cases will be litigated in the year ahead.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC has used its powers under the Promoters of Tax Avoidance Schemes (POTAS) legislation to challenge promoters and made three successful complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority about misleading advertising; two of which relate to disguised remuneration schemes.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC considers criminal investigation and referrals to prosecuting authorities where appropriate. Since the formation of HMRC’s Fraud Investigation Service on 1 April 2016, more than 20 individuals have been convicted for offences relating to arrangements which have been promoted and marketed as tax avoidance schemes, resulting in over 100 years custodial and more than 7 years suspended sentences being ordered overall. Additional matters are the subject of ongoing enquiries.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride grouped question UIN 228754 question first answered 13/03/2019 16:21:51 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
tabling member	4490 label Biography information for Dame Andrea Jenkyns

1082348

registered interest
date	05/03/2019
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, in how many companies involved in loan charges has the (a) employer and employee been a single individual and (b) scheme promoter been the employer.
tabling member constituency	Morley and Outwood
tabling member printed	Andrea Jenkyns
uin	228756
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/03/2019 answer text <p>This information is not available as the charge on outstanding disguised remuneration (DR) loan balances does not come into force until 5 April 2019. 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. The loans are provided on terms that mean they are not repaid in practice, so they are no different to normal income and are, and always have been, taxable.</p><p> </p><p>The Government estimates that around 75% of tax resulting from the loan charge will be paid by employers rather than individuals. Since the DR loan charge was announced, HMRC has agreed around 6,000 settlements of DR scheme use with employers and individuals, worth over £1 billion. So far, around 85% of tax secured has come from employers, and less than 15% from individuals.</p> answering member constituency Central Devon answering member printed Mel Stride question first answered 13/03/2019 16:22:52 answering member 3935 label Biography information for Mel Stride
tabling member	4490 label Biography information for Dame Andrea Jenkyns

1082396

registered interest
date	05/03/2019
answering body	Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	PAYE
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many employers use the HMRC Basic PAYE tool for their payroll data calculations.
tabling member printed	Baroness Altmann
uin	HL14233
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/03/2019 answer text <p>The Basic PAYE Tool (BPT) is a downloadable tool which HMRC has made available, at no cost to the customer, to enable small employers to run their payrolls in compliance with the PAYE legislation. Information on the number of employers who use the BPT is not readily accessible and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.</p> answering member printed Lord Bates question first answered 19/03/2019 15:31:10 answering member 1091 label Biography information for Lord Bates
tabling member	4533 label Biography information for Baroness Altmann

1082399

registered interest
date	05/03/2019
answering body	Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Workplace Pensions: Tax Allowances
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many employers have been asked to repay overpaid tax relief as a result of employers submitting pension contributions which incorrectly based their payments on the wrong assumption about whether the pension scheme used Relief at Source or Net Pay for administering tax relief.
tabling member printed	Baroness Altmann
uin	HL14236
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/03/2019 answer text <p>Errors made by employers and pension providers have resulted in individuals receiving either no tax relief on their pension contributions, or receiving tax relief twice.</p><p> </p><p>In the Pension schemes newsletter 105 (November 2018), HMRC invited pension schemes who think that any of their members have been given the wrong amount of tax relief to email HMRC. HMRC would then work with them to help correct their tax position.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC is working with pension schemes and can’t give more detail of the dealing of these cases as this could prejudice future compliance activity.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Bates question first answered 19/03/2019 13:10:54 answering member 1091 label Biography information for Lord Bates
tabling member	4533 label Biography information for Baroness Altmann

1082413

registered interest
date	05/03/2019
answering body	Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	Treasury
hansard heading	Public Expenditure
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what rules they apply to any applications from the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly to transfer monies for capital expenditure to revenue expenditure.
tabling member printed	Lord Empey
uin	HL14250
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/03/2019 answer text <p>Any transfers from capital to resource budgets must be approved by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.</p><p> </p><p>Transfers from the Devolved Administrations’ capital to resource budgets for the past three years are set out in the table below.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>£million</p></td><td><p>2016-17</p></td><td><p>2017-18</p></td><td><p>2018-19</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Scottish Government</p></td><td><p>0.0</p></td><td><p>0.0</p></td><td><p>0.0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Welsh Government</p></td><td><p>0.0</p></td><td><p>0.0</p></td><td><p>24.8</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Northern Ireland Administration</p></td><td><p>0.0</p></td><td><p>33.5</p></td><td><p>138.7</p></td></tr></tbody></table> answering member printed Lord Bates grouped question UIN HL14251 question first answered 19/03/2019 13:10:28 answering member 1091 label Biography information for Lord Bates
tabling member	4216 label Biography information for Lord Empey