Enter Your E-mail

Mark McLaughlin questions the government's commitment to clarity and simplification in light of the Finance Act 2011 and in particular the 'Disguised Remuneration' legislation.

The Finance Act 2011 recently added approximately another 400 pages to the already excessive volume of UK tax legislation. This is hardly conducive to a simpler tax system, or congruent with the Government's stated commitment to reduce the volume of tax legislation.

Arguably one of the worst examples of complex tax legislation ever is included in Finance Act 2011. I am referring to the new 'disguised remuneration' rules, or to be precise 'Employment income provided through third parties'. This legislation was introduced "...to tackle arrangements using trusts and other vehicles to reward employees which seek to avoid, defer or reduce tax liabilities".

The disguised remuneration rules account for almost 70 pages of Finance Act 2011. This is considerably more than when the legislation was originally drafted. The main reason for this is that the original rules were so widely drawn that leading professional bodies warned the Government of it resulting in tax charges in situations where the rules were not intended to apply. Unfortunately, rather than taking the opportunity to draft the legislation again, the Government decided to amend the existing version instead.

The result? Take a look at Finance Act 2011, and Schedule 2 in particular. Does this look like legislation from a Government committed to clarity and simplification to you? In this editorial, I was going to tell you exactly what I thought of this legislation. However, discretion has won the day, so I will let you be the judge instead.

Commentators have warned that the legislation will still catch taxpayers in unintended circumstances. If you eventually happen to be one of those unfortunate taxpayers, you an perhaps take comfort and solace in the knowledge that the Government seems to believe that you will be suffering for the greater good.