News and Views from the Pinsent Masons Tax team Special Edition for High Net Worth Advisers

Transcription

1 PM-Tax News and Views from the Pinsent Masons Tax team Special Edition for High Net Worth Advisers In this Issue Articles Introduction by Jason Collins UK tax risks for offshore trustees and corporate service providers by Fiona Fernie and Jason Collins New corporate offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion by Tori Magill Stronger sanctions: plans to strengthen tax avoidance sanctions and deterrents by Fiona Fernie HMRC s use of Accelerated Payment Notices (APNs) by Paul Noble New worldwide disclosure facility: HMRC tightens the screws by Fiona Fernie Tax changes for non-uk domiciled individuals by Seema Dodhia Divorce and family law after Brexit by Kate Francis A view from Singapore by Valerie Wu Meet our team Events Thursday 29 September Pinsent Masons LLP 2016

2 PM-Tax PM-Tax Our Comment Articles Introduction by Jason Collins Welcome to this special edition of PM-Tax, which is specially designed for advisers of high net worth individuals, offshore trustees and corporate service providers. You may already be familiar with PM-Tax; our regular tax publication containing news and views from our award winning tax team on topical tax issues. Whilst most editions of PM-tax are more focused on issues of interest for our corporate clients, we intend to produce quarterly special editions like this one, which focus on issues relevant to advisers to wealthy individuals. I hope this edition will give you an insight into the expertise of our tax investigations team, led by Fiona Fernie. Over the last few years a vast number of new measures have been announced to clamp down on tax evasion and what the government regards as unacceptable tax planning. The pace of change has been difficult to keep up with. This edition contains a useful roundup from Fiona Fernie and myself for offshore trustees and corporate service providers of the changes that could impact upon them and their clients. We also have an update from Paul Noble on the controversial accelerated payment notices (APNs) which have caused financial difficulties for many, as well as a piece from Tori Magill looking at the new corporate offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion. This new offence will mean that all businesses will have to put policies and procedures in place to avoid falling foul of the new offence. This will be especially relevant to professional services firms and will extend to offshore businesses dealing with UK individuals. It will also apply where it is non-uk tax evasion which is facilitated if there is a connection with the UK. We also bring you opinions from Fiona Fernie on whether the recently announced worldwide disclosure facility will be effective and expressing concern at the ambit of the proposals for tax advisers and others to be subject to swingeing penalties if they enable avoidance and for scheme users to be denied a reasonable care defence to penalties. Seema Dodhia brings us up to date on where we are on the proposed changes for non-doms following the latest consultation documents and Singapore based tax partner, Valerie Wu looks at the increasing popularity in Asia of family offices as a method of managing family wealth. Matrimonial law expert Kate Francis considers whether Brexit will impact upon divorce and family law in England and Wales. If you have any questions about any of the issues raised in this edition, I would encourage you to contact Fiona or another member of the team. You can find their contact details and some brief details of their experience and specialisms at the end of the publication. Jason Collins Partner, Head of Tax T: +44 (0) M: +44 (0) E: jason.collins@pinsentmasons.com 2

3 PM-Tax Articles UK Tax Risks for Offshore Trustees and Corporate Service Providers by Fiona Fernie and Jason Collins Offshore trustees and corporate service providers now face a barrage of tax risks and compliance requirements when providing services to UK resident individuals or individuals with UK source income and gains. The latest risks and requirements are outlined below. Anyone providing offshore trust services needs to review their practices to ensure that they do not fall foul of new requirements or become liable to a penalty. Background Increasing pressure on the UK government to combat unacceptable tax avoidance and close the tax gap has resulted in an unprecedented series of legislative changes targeting individuals with offshore income and gains and those providing professional advisory and trustee services to those individuals. Many of these changes introduce either reporting requirements about offshore income and gains, or new penalties for tax avoidance or for non compliance with requirements. Offshore trustees need to understand these changes when providing professional services to individuals with offshore income and gains. This article outlines some of the main risks and requirements of which offshore trustees and corporate service providers need to be aware. Our experienced tax investigations team can provide a variety of services and levels of support to help offshore trustees fully understand the requirements and tax risks that they now face. The table below lists the various tax changes that offshore trustees and corporate service providers need to be aware of and whether they involve penalties, criminal offences or additional compliance requirements. New Penalties New Criminal Offences New Compliance Requirements Enablers of tax avoidance Strict liability offence of failing to report Requirement to correct offshore tax offshore income and gains irregularities before September 2018 Enablers of offshore tax evasion or non-compliance Failure to correct offshore tax irregularities before September 2018 Corporate offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion Requirement to be listed on the register of persons of significant control over a UK company Requirement to be listed on the register of persons of significant control over a non-uk company owning UK real estate Requirement to register settlors and beneficiaries of trusts which generate UK tax consequences Penalties for enablers of tax avoidance The UK government is proposing tough new penalties on any individual or company who provides assistance and advice on how to avoid tax. A consultation document was published in August outlining the new penalties, which were first announced in the March 2016 Budget. The current proposals are very wide and could catch traditionally accepted tax planning, as well as genuinely abusive tax arrangements. Under the new proposals, enablers of tax avoidance could be liable for a fine of up to 100% of the tax underpaid by each user of failed avoidance arrangements. Under the proposals, enablers will include: those who develop, or advise/assist those developing, tax avoidance arrangements and schemes; IFAs, accountants and others who earn fees and commissions in connection with marketing tax avoidance arrangements, whether or not their activities amount to the promotion of arrangements; and company formation agents, banks, trustees, accountants, lawyers and others who are intrinsic in, and necessary to, the machinery or implementation of, the avoidance. See my article later in this edition of PM-Tax for further details. 3

4 >continued from previous page PM-Tax Articles UK Tax Risks for Offshore Trustees and Corporate Service Providers (continued) Penalties for enablers of offshore tax evasion or non-compliance New legislation has been introduced in the Finance Act 2016 that will provide for new penalties to be levied on enablers of offshore tax evasion or other non-compliance. An enabler will be a person who has encouraged, associated or otherwise facilitated another person in carrying out offshore tax evasion or non-compliance. Non-compliance includes conduct falling short of evasion. Penalties will include both naming and shaming enablers and financial penalties of up to 100% of the potential lost revenue. Penalties may be reduced following certain disclosures and assistance by enablers in HMRC investigations into the tax evasion or non-compliance. The penalties will apply in relation to offshore tax evasion or non-compliance in relation to UK income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. It is not yet clear when the new penalties will take effect. Strict liability criminal offence of failing to report offshore income and gains A new strict liability criminal offence is being introduced if a UK taxpayer fails to notify HMRC that they are chargeable to UK income tax or capital gains tax in respect of offshore income, assets or activities, or fails to file a tax return or include such income or gains on a tax return. The offence will only apply if the underpaid or understated tax is more than 25,000. Under the new strict liability offence there will be no requirement to prove that the failure to declare the income or gains was deliberate. The proposed maximum penalty for the offence is a prison sentence of up to six months. The offence will not apply if the taxpayer took reasonable care or had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the UK tax obligations. The offence will not apply to trustees or personal representatives when acting as such. HMRC has confirmed that income and gains reportable under the Common Reporting Standard will be excluded from the offence. The offence is included in the Finance Act 2016, although it is unclear when the new offence will come into force. It is not currently expected to take effect before April Requirement to correct offshore tax irregularities before September 2018 In August, the government announced proposals to introduce a new legal requirement to correct (RTC) past offshore tax non-compliance, with new tougher sanctions for those who do not comply. The RTC will enable any person to rectify UK tax irregularities relating to offshore interests by 30 September The RTC will cover all offshore non-compliance, and not just tax evasion. If the irregularities or mistakes are not corrected by 30 September 2018, HMRC will be able to levy penalties up to 200% of the tax due. Trustees and service providers will need to advise and assist beneficiaries and shareholders about the RTC. The proposals are subject to a public consultation that closes in October. Corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion New legislation is expected to be passed this year under which companies and partnerships will commit a criminal offence if their employees or other people associated with them criminally facilitate tax evasion. If UK tax is evaded, the offence will apply to businesses based outside the UK as well as those in the UK. If non-uk tax evasion is facilitated, an offence would be committed if the employee or other person is linked to a UK entity or UK branch of a foreign company, or if any part of the facilitation takes place in the UK. The offence will apply even if the senior management of the business were not involved or aware of what was going on. A person is associated with a business if they perform services for or on behalf of the business. Associated persons could include: contractors, suppliers, intermediaries and other group companies. The associated person must be acting in that capacity when carrying out the criminal facilitation. For the offence to apply, the employee or associate would have to know they are helping with tax evasion, so it will not catch those whose representatives act unwittingly. However, knowledge will include turning a blind eye. It will also not catch situations where the associated person is facilitating tax avoidance although special care would be needed to ensure that staff and associated persons understand where the line between tax avoidance and evasion is drawn. An example of knowingly facilitating tax evasion could include a member of staff of a trust and company service provider deliberately suppressing Common Reporting Standard information or other tax reporting for a customer. The new offence is intended to change the behaviour and attitudes of corporates towards tax evasion by their customers, clients, contractors, or suppliers. 4

5 >continued from previous page PM-Tax Articles UK Tax Risks for Offshore Trustees and Corporate Service Providers (continued) Banks, corporate trustees and other financial businesses dealing with cash, assets and investments will be particularly affected when this is introduced and will need to ensure that they have adequate training, policies and procedures in place to avoid liability. See Tori Magill s article for further thoughts on this new offence. Requirement to be listed on the register of persons of significant control over a UK company Since 6 April 2016, certain UK companies and limited liability partnerships (LLPs) have been required to formally identify and keep a register of the individuals who are persons with significant control (PSC) over them and to include this information in an annual return. The information on PSCs is being made available on a public register of beneficial ownership of UK companies and LLPs. Trustees, settlors, protectors and beneficiaries can all potentially be PSCs. The company or LLP may be required to serve legal notices on potential PSCs to gather the PSC information, and may serve a legal notice on any other person believed to have information about a PSC. PSCs themselves are under a positive duty to ensure that their details have been entered on the PSC register. Failure to comply, or the provision of false information, will be a criminal offence in the UK, punishable by up to two years imprisonment. Requirement to be listed on the register of persons of significant control over a non-uk company owning UK real estate The UK government has proposed a new requirement whereby non-uk companies which own UK real estate will need to keep a register of persons with significant control (PSC). It is expected to follow a similar approach to the PSC rules already in place for UK companies. It is intended that the information will need to be provided for both new purchasers and pre-existing ownership. Currently, it is not clear how much information will need to be provided and how much information will be available to the general public, but trustees and company directors need to be aware of the proposed requirement to provide information. Requirement to register settlors and beneficiaries of trusts which generate UK tax consequences The UK government is introducing a requirement for trustees to register the details of settlors and beneficiaries of trusts which generate UK tax consequences. It is not clear when this new requirement will be introduced but, since it is required to implement the 4th EU anti-money laundering directive, it must be completed by Summer Fiona Fernie is the partner leading our Tax Investigations team. She has 30 years experience in assisting clients subject to investigations/enquiries by HMRC, with particular focus on COP8 and COP9 (Contractual Disclosure Facility) cases, large complex investigations, and those with an offshore element. She also assists clients who have technical tax disputes with HMRC or who want to make a voluntary disclosure of tax irregularities to HMRC, whether via one of the available disclosure facilities or via an independent approach outside a formal facility. E: fiona.fernie@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0) Jason Collins is our Head of Tax, who specialises in representing clients who are the subject of a tax audit and resolving complex disputes with HMRC. Jason is also a leading expert on Country-by-Country reporting, FATCA and the OECD s Common Reporting Standard, advising companies, financial institutions and individuals across the world on the application of automatic exchange of information, with a particular focus on trusts, investment companies and funds. E: jason.collins@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0)

6 PM-Tax Articles New corporate offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion by Tori Magill This is based on an article which was first published on Tori Magill considers the latest proposals which could hit professional services firms and other businesses which fail to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion by their employees or representatives. In April HMRC launched another consultation on the proposed corporate criminal offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion. The revisions to the draft legislation and the rationale behind the policy showed that whilst some of the tax profession s concerns about the scope and practicality of applying the policy had been taken on board, much of the original criticism had yet to be considered in detail. The consultation closed in July and we are awaiting the publication of the Criminal Finances Bill, which (rather than a Finance Bill) will contain the legislation for the new offence. The offence still has a wide ambit. It applies to companies or partnerships wherever in the world they are established if UK tax evasion is being facilitated. It could therefore have particular significance for banks and trust and corporate service providers operating outside the UK, but dealing with UK-based clients. For the offence to be triggered where non-uk tax is being evaded, a UK entity or branch has to be involved or any part of the facilitation has to take place in the UK. The facilitation aspect of the offence must be committed by a person acting for or on behalf of the relevant body. This means that the actions of the employees, contractors and representatives of all limited companies, PLCs and partnerships are squarely within the scope. The facilitation of UK tax evasion by the corporate s employee or representative includes encouraging, assisting, aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring, doing anything that constitutes taking steps with a view to, or being knowingly involved in the commission of a UK tax evasion offence. The overseas offence is committed by facilitating another person to commit an overseas tax evasion offence, provided the offence is also an offence in the UK. The provision of tax advice is specifically covered in the consultation, as one of the HMRC examples differentiates between the agent who knowingly engages in the facilitation of tax evasion (whose firm is within the scope of the offence), and the innocent adviser who had no knowledge (whose firm would not be in the frame). An omission to act can also be considered facilitation, where the advisor can be proven to have failed to perform a statutory legal duty. HMRC cite the example of the deliberate failure to submit a Suspicious Activity Report under the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations. HMRC are unlikely to attempt to use this offence on a firm that promptly reports a suspected facilitation offence; thus the legal reporting requirements may turn into a useful safeguard. The main safeguard is likely to be the evidential burden on HMRC, who must prove both the tax evasion offence and the facilitation offence to the criminal standard before the corporate can be found guilty of failing to prevent the facilitation by their employee or representative. There is however, no requirement that these predicate offences must have been already investigated and prosecuted independently of the proceedings commencing against the corporate for its failure. HMRC already hold significant documentary evidence of the professional firms that they consider were the facilitators of past evasions. If this offence is aimed at changing behaviour from within an organisation, it is not unreasonable to assume that HMRC will be most interested in the firms they believe to be what they have previously termed, the centres of infection. It is not difficult to see the application of this offence to the corporates whose advisers sell the most aggressive marketed avoidance schemes that HMRC consider easily cross the line and constitute tax evasion. The corporate offence will of course not apply retrospectively, so HMRC will be unable to use historic admissions of fraudulent conduct in COP9 contract settlements or admissions made by participants in offshore disclosure facilities as evidence of the predicate tax evasion offence. This does not detract from the valuable intelligence held which will undoubtedly be used as part of the risk assessment process when deciding whether it is appropriate to commence proceedings against a corporate for failing to prevent facilitation of tax evasion after the legislation comes into force. Tori Magill is a Tax Director specialising in criminal investigations, civil fraud, and avoidance investigations. Tori also has litigation and dispute resolution expertise, with experience gained in HMRC s highest profile investigation roles. As a former Group Leader in HMRC s Specialist Investigations directorate, Tori was responsible for HMRC s most complex fraud and avoidance investigations and litigation. E: tori.magill@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0)

7 PM-Tax Articles Stronger sanctions: plans to strengthen tax avoidance sanctions and deterrents by Fiona Fernie This article was published in Taxation on 1 September 2016 Fiona Fernie has concerns about HMRC s plans to strengthen tax avoidance sanctions and deterrents. Key Points Government plans to strengthen tax avoidance sanctions. The wide definition of tax avoidance is worrying. HMRC s powers are strengthened. The taxpayer s defence appears limited. Will such measures lead to all tax planning being outlawed? In Budget 2016, the government indicated that it would explore options to sanction those who enable tax avoidance. HMRC followed this up on 17 August 2016 with a consultation document, Strengthening Tax Avoidance Sanctions and Deterrents: A Discussion Document. This is broadly divided into four areas that look at proposals on: penalties for enablers of tax avoidance that is defeated; penalties for those who use tax avoidance that is defeated; what constitutes tax avoidance; and further ways to discourage avoidance. The first, second and fourth are clearly dependent on the third and it is the definition of defeated tax avoidance laid out in the consultation document that gives me the first cause for concern. This is because the proposed definition is incredibly wide-ranging and could end up capturing conventionally accepted tax planning. Certainly, the proposed definition of tax avoidance arrangement does not appear to be confined to mass-promoted schemes or those that have a large amount of tax at stake. The definition of tax avoidance arrangement includes any agreement, understanding, scheme, transaction or series of transactions (whether or not legally enforceable) and the wording of the proposals suggests that measures will cover not only all schemes counteracted by the general anti-abuse rule (GAAR) or notifiable under the disclosure of tax avoidance scheme (DOTAS) rules, but also those that have been the subject of a targeted avoidance-related rule or unallowable purpose test in a specific piece of legislation. This makes me wonder whether HMRC may be able to argue that even small-scale bespoke tax planning can fall foul of these proposals should a tribunal find against the taxpayer. A further concern is the definition in Finance Bill 2016 of a relevant defeat. The draft legislation states that arrangements to which the new provisions will apply will be those in relation to which there is a final determination of a tribunal or court that they do not achieve their purported tax advantage or, in the absence of such a decision, there is agreement between the taxpayer and HMRC that the arrangements do not work. Because the proposals can be implemented in relation to a defeated arrangement only this will surely mean that no taxpayer has any incentive to agree with HMRC that a scheme does not work. In particular, this will be the case if he has taken professional tax advice a fact that is likely to be the mainstay of his contention that he took reasonable care, (more on which later). I cannot believe that HMRC wishes to increase the number of tax arrangements that are taken to litigation, although this seems to be the likely result of the proposals. Who is an enabler? The definition of enabler in the document is extremely wide. The proposal is to base the definition of enabler on the broad criteria used for the offshore evasion measure set out in the 2015 consultation Tackling Offshore Evasion. The broad criteria used were: Acting as a middleman arranging access and providing introductions to others who may provide services relevant to evasion. Providing planning and bespoke advice on the jurisdictions, investments and structures that will enable the taxpayer to hide their money and any income, profit or gains. Delivery of infrastructure including setting up companies, trusts and other vehicles that are used to hide beneficial ownership, opening bank accounts, and providing legal services and documents that underpin the structures used in the evasion, such as notary services and powers of attorney. Maintenance of infrastructure providing professional trustee or company director services including nominee services, providing virtual offices, IT structures, legal services and documents that obscure the true nature of the arrangements such as audit certificates. 7

8 >continued from previous page PM-Tax Articles Stronger sanctions: plans to strengthen tax avoidance sanctions and deterrents (continued) Financial assistance helping the evader to move their money or assets out of the UK and/or keeping it hidden by providing ongoing banking services and platforms, providing client accounts and escrow services, moving money through financial instruments, currency conversions and the like. Non-reporting not fulfilling their reporting, regulatory or legal obligations, which in itself helps to hide the activities of the evader from HMRC. Although there will be carve-outs similar to those in DOTAS for benign advisers such as those who provide company law advice or those who just submit returns and were not consulted about the scheme, I wonder whether those who give a second opinion on a tax avoidance arrangement might be caught. This would be the case when an adviser tells the taxpayer that the arrangement works technically but there are risks of a Ramsay or GAAR challenge and the taxpayer implements the scheme anyway. In the section of the consultation document on penalties for those who use defeated tax avoidance schemes, taxpayers are encouraged to take independent legal advice separately from that received by the promoters and designers of tax avoidance arrangements. But if giving independent advice in this way draws advisers into the net as enablers, who will want to give it? The meaning of reasonable care This brings me to my next concern: the fact that, as with so many of HMRC s recent proposals, the department s powers are strengthened but the only defence for the taxpayer appears to be showing that he took reasonable care. Although, in principle, that sounds a sensible approach, HMRC can be somewhat rigid when considering what constitutes reasonable care in the absence of any real definition. This was demonstrated recently in Steady (TC5225). The difficulties that arise for taxpayers as a result of HMRC s approach might be assisted by the proposal set out in the consultation to define what constitutes reasonable care. But the reality is that any definition will be too narrow to be of much help to the taxpayer. Further, I am more than a little perturbed by the prospect of moving the burden of proof, that reasonable care was taken, on to the taxpayer. The balance of power is already heavily weighted towards HMRC. Taxpayers often feel that dealing with HMRC is akin to David facing Goliath, and the department must recognise that, for most taxpayers who are subjected to an enquiry, dealing with HMRC s questions is not their day job. The burden on taxpayers to ensure they are tax-compliant is already considerable in terms of time and cost and many individuals employ advisers to help them. This is in part because they do not have a deep understanding of tax and partly because their resources are too stretched to cope without assistance. Thus, if a taxpayer has taken advice from a reputable professional with no obvious reason to doubt its credibility, HMRC should recognise that, for many taxpayers with no tax training, that does constitute reasonable care. Retrospection and discouragement I am also concerned by the apparent lack of limitation on applying these rules retrospectively. It seems that the intention is that the new rules will apply to schemes defeated after a set date, even if they were implemented some years ago. I cannot believe it is right that arrangements put in place several years ago, based on the law at that time, should bring the designers of the planning and its users into the scope of the proposed sanctions. This is particularly so given that the consultation s foreword refers specifically to HMRC s 2015 penalties discussion document and the five key principles underpinning its approach to penalties. The first of those is that penalties should be intended to encourage compliance and prevent non-compliance. The document states unequivocally (and the statement is repeated in the consultation paper) that penalties are not to be applied with the objective of raising revenues. The imposition of penalties in relation to historic cases makes little sense in that context. Any proposal for penalties whose primary purpose is to influence taxpayer and adviser behaviour in the future should, in my view, apply only to arrangements entered into after a specific date. The final part of the document looks at ways to discourage tax avoidance other than through the imposition of financial penalties. The most interesting feature of these proposals is the concept that real-time interventions, targeted at particular decision points, could sharpen enablers and taxpayers perceptions of the consequences of offering and/or entering into tax avoidance arrangements. Certainly, it can only be positive that potential enablers and users are informed as soon as an arrangement becomes subject to HMRC challenge. The knowledge that such an intervention has taken place, particularly in view of the likely issue of accelerated payment notices (APNs) or partner payment notices (PPNs) as a result, must surely provide the deterrent the government and HMRC are looking for and make taxpayers think twice before entering an equivalent arrangement. Conclusion The consultation addresses a very important issue. Clearly, no reputable adviser has any objection to an attempt to stamp out tax advice that deliberately tries to significantly bend the rules without breaking them, because those who give such advice potentially give the profession a bad name. However, as is so often the case, the devil is in the detail. The document raises several significant concerns, largely because the definitions it uses are so wide-reaching both in terms of the type of arrangement caught by the proposals and in terms of what constitutes an enabler. 8

9 >continued from previous page PM-Tax Articles Stronger sanctions: plans to strengthen tax avoidance sanctions and deterrents (continued) I would like to see the proposals amended so that they take effect only in relation to tax arrangements that are mass-marketed or if the tax at stake is in excess of 1m, and which are also defeated at tribunal. Without such provisions, we are in danger of creating a situation in which all tax planning is outlawed. It must be right that individuals remain entitled to minimise their tax bills as long as they do so properly within the law. After all, tax is a cost like any other and I am not aware of many people (if anyone) who would voluntarily pay more for goods or services than the lowest price on offer from a reputable retailer. Fiona Fernie is the partner leading our Tax Investigations team. She has 30 years experience in assisting clients subject to investigations/enquiries by HMRC, with particular focus on COP8 and COP9 (Contractual Disclosure Facility) cases, large complex investigations, and those with an offshore element. She also assists clients who have technical tax disputes with HMRC or who want to make a voluntary disclosure of tax irregularities to HMRC, whether via one of the available disclosure facilities or via an independent approach outside a formal facility. E: fiona.fernie@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0)

10 PM-Tax Articles HMRC s use of Accelerated Payment Notices (APNs) by Paul Noble Despite a number of legal challenges to the APN regime, HMRC continues to expand the number of schemes where it will issue notices. Accelerated Payment Notices (APNs) are notices issued by HMRC which demand the upfront payment of disputed tax where an avoidance scheme has been used, prior to any formal hearing. The tax must be paid within 90 calendar days and there is no right of appeal. APNs were introduced in 2014 and are particularly controversial because they can apply to schemes which were notified to HMRC under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS) regime many years before HMRC had the power to issue APNs. There are concerns over the use of these powers because they allow HMRC to demand and receive payment in advance before arguments are heard and determined. Recipients can end up facing bills for many millions- some may even face the prospect of bankruptcy as a result. A particular concern with APNs has always been the fact that there is no statutory right of appeal against their issue. However, a recipient can make written representations objecting to the APN on the fairly narrow grounds that either the conditions for issue have not been met or the amount specified as disputed tax is incorrect. In most instances, after a period of consideration HMRC reject representations but the delay afforded by this can prove valuable to those affected. HMRC recently added another 15 schemes to the list of those subject to the measures, bringing the total to 1,181. It has also revealed that it has issued 60,000 APNs since the new rules were introduced in 2014 and these have resulted in the up front payment of 3 billion of disputed tax. The widening of APNs application comes despite a number of setbacks and legal challenges associated with their use over recent months. With representations only being able to be made on fairly narrow grounds those wishing to challenge the fundamentals of HMRC s application of the APN rules need to look to judicial review. There have been a number of judicial review challenges which have been unsuccessful in the High Court and the appeal in the Rowe case, where Pinsent Masons are acting, is due to be heard in the Court of Appeal in December. In these cases HMRC have so far successfully argued that APNs do not bring about a fundamental change to the tax system but merely redress the balance whilst a dispute continues. However, HMRC has recently been forced to back-down and withdraw a number of notices relating to two schemes, as it was shown that the conditions for issuing the notices had not fully been met. These successes are noteworthy they show that genuine concerns over the lawfulness of these notices are being taken seriously, and are likely to encourage further legal challenge. They also highlight the importance of a recipient considering the grounds on which an APN is issued extremely carefully to determine whether any procedural or legal flaws exist. The decisions do not, however, provide any real cause for complacency, as the growing list of schemes covered by the measures show. Anyone who suspects that an arrangement which they have entered into constitutes avoidance should be wary- HMRC is quite clearly adopting a policy of issuing a notice and then asking questions later. It must be remembered that disputes involving APNs are to some extent a sideshow as the underlying tax dispute will still exist and at some point this will need resolution either through settlement with HMRC or the Tax Tribunal. The recent decision of the First-tier Tribunal in the cases of Ingenious Film Partners and Inside Track partnerships highlight the fact a tax liability determined by the Tribunal may in fact be less than the APNs issued previously and that payment of an APN need not necessarily be seen as a conclusive end to a dispute. Paul Noble is a Tax Director specialising in contentious tax and private client matters. Paul is a former Tax Inspector and a Chartered Tax Adviser and has over 20 years of experience in advising on tax investigations involving both private clients and corporates. Paul has wide-ranging experience of contentious tax matters including cases of tax fraud, tax avoidance, disclosure of tax irregularities and is adept at pro-actively resolving tax disputes and advising on HMRC powers. E: paul.noble@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0)

11 PM-Tax Articles Worldwide Disclosure Facility: HMRC tightens the screws by Fiona Fernie This article was first published on on 21 September 2016 Several weeks ago HMRC finally announced the details of the new Worldwide Disclosure Facility (WDF): the last chance saloon in a long list of such facilities to encourage individuals who have irregularities in their tax affairs to come forward and put them right. But how much of an incentive is there in reality? The WDF applies to unpaid or omitted tax relating to income arising from an offshore source assets held outside the UK and activities carried out wholly or mainly in another territory. It also covers transfers of funds to another territory connected to unpaid or omitted UK tax. The Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility (LDF) which closed for registrations on 31 December 2015 applied to similar issues and offered a whole host of beneficial terms for settlement. This included a reduced assessment period, significantly mitigated penalties and guaranteed non-prosecution as long as the taxpayer made a full and frank disclosure. In contrast the new WDF offers no such terms, citing only that coming forward now will result in lower penalties than would be imposed if HMRC catches up with the taxpayer before they have come forward. This begs the question of whether anyone who has already passed up the opportunity to disclose under both the LDF and its predecessor facilities will do so now. HMRC has pointed out that the Common Reporting Standard (CRS), when fully operational, will provide them with an enormous amount of information in relation to taxpayers with money held offshore, which is not available to them now. They suggest that this is a strong incentive for individuals to regularise their tax affairs. I am less convinced. Although I am fully supportive of HMRC s efforts to crack down on tax evasion and ensure that everyone pays the correct amount, I am unsure whether people will really register the potential impact of CRS and seek to use the facility until it is too late. Despite the beneficial terms of the LDF, there were a significant number of people who missed the opportunity. Some did not realise that they were eligible, some thought they could keep moving their funds to stay ahead of the game. Others thought that, even with the imminent impact of CRS, there would be so much information exchanged in relation to so many taxpayers, that HMRC would never be able to look at the details of all of them and there was therefore no need for action. The UK-Swiss agreement was another case in point. Whilst the announcement did encourage a significant number of people to use the LDF, I also received a number of anonymous calls after the announcement and prior to implementation of the agreement asking whether it was possible for the individual calling to move their funds to another jurisdiction, in order to escape its impact. Furthermore I received a number of calls after the agreement had been implemented from individuals who had refused permission for their details to be disclosed, bemoaning the fact that withheld tax had been deducted from their Swiss account and asking what they could do to remedy the situation. I expect significant numbers of taxpayers in the current situation to opt to do nothing and regret it later. The lack of any tangible beneficial terms in the WDF is only likely to exacerbate the situation thus increasing the level of resource required by HMRC to close the tax gap. I understand that there is a huge level of inertia on the part of taxpayers not least because the concept of a last chance saloon has been mooted by HMRC a number of times before. However, CRS will give HMRC access to unprecedented amounts of information on taxpayers overseas wealth and activity and they do have sufficient resources to investigate those individuals. In addition, HMRC has proposed a number of other measures which make it essential for individuals to take this opportunity seriously including the introduction of a legal requirement to review tax affairs and correct errors relating to offshore interests; an aim to increase the number of prosecutions undertaken by HMRC; and a change in the law to make it easier for HMRC to prosecute. The message from HMRC is clear: this really is the last carrot either take it or expect to be subjected to an enormous stick. Fiona Fernie is the partner leading our Tax Investigations team. She has 30 years experience in assisting clients subject to investigations/enquiries by HMRC, with particular focus on COP8 and COP9 (Contractual Disclosure Facility) cases, large complex investigations, and those with an offshore element. She also assists clients who have technical tax disputes with HMRC or who want to make a voluntary disclosure of tax irregularities to HMRC, whether via one of the available disclosure facilities or via an independent approach outside a formal facility. E: fiona.fernie@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0)

12 PM-Tax Articles Tax changes for non-uk domiciled individuals by Seema Dodhia The UK government has confirmed that it will go ahead with changes to the tax regime for non-uk domiciled individuals from 6 April Non-UK domiciled individuals need to take advice on the implications for their particular circumstances. Following the announcements in the March 2016 Budget on the proposed changes to the non-uk domicile taxation regime and the inheritance tax position of UK residential property, a further consultation document has been released providing further guidance on these changes. The UK government has confirmed that it intends to proceed with the proposed changes, with the changes taking effect from 6 April We set out below a summary of the changes, but specific advice should be sought by individuals prior to undertaking any planning arrangements. Deemed Domicile The government has confirmed that the previously outlined proposed changes to deemed domicile will take effect on 6 April An individual will become deemed domiciled in the UK if they have been resident in the UK for 15 out of the last 20 years. This will mean that from year 16 they will be UK domiciled for income tax, CGT and IHT purposes, resulting in their worldwide income and capital gains being subject to UK tax. Their worldwide estate will also be subject to UK IHT. Individuals who were born in the UK with a domicile of origin in the UK will regain this domicile if and when they return to the UK. This will be the case even where they have acquired a domicile of choice outside the UK. These individuals will be subject to tax on their worldwide income and capital gains as soon as they return to the UK. The government has, however, announced a grace period for IHT purposes, such that affected individuals will only be subject to UK IHT on their worldwide assets if they have been resident in the UK in one of the two tax years immediately prior to the year under consideration. Therefore those individuals who are expecting to only return to the UK for a short period will not need to take any action in respect of IHT providing they leave the UK again within two years. Calculations of the numbers of years when individuals will only need to remain non-uk resident to determine when they become deemed domiciled must be carried out using the residence rules that were applicable in the relevant years. The government has also announced that individuals will only need to remain non-uk resident for four consecutive years, rather than the six years initially proposed, to no longer be considered a long term UK resident and therefore deemed UK-domiciled. Currently non-uk domiciled individuals can claim the remittance basis automatically and retain their personal allowance if their foreign income or gains are less than 2,000. This provision will remain unchanged. Rebasing of assets Individuals who become deemed domiciled in April 2017 will be able to rebase directly held foreign assets to their market value on 5 April 2017 to ensure that they do not have to pay capital gains tax on the element of the gain in value which accrued whilst they were non-domiciled. Rebasing will apply on an asset-by-asset basis and individuals can choose to rebase only those assets that are standing at a gain. Those individuals who become deemed domiciled after April 2017 will not be able to rebase their foreign assets. Sale of assets whilst non-resident The government has confirmed that some relief will be available to those individuals who sold assets during a period of temporary non-residence which commenced prior to the announcements in the original consultation, and who would have expected to use the remittance basis of taxation to avoid crystallising a capital gains tax liability when they returned to the UK. There will be a transitional rule to ensure that the reforms do not have retrospective effect in relation to this small group of individuals. Mixed Funds A number of non-uk domiciled individuals hold mixed funds outside the UK, i.e. a fund containing a mixture of income, capital gains and capital. When funds are brought to the UK from a mixed fund, they are deemed to be remitted in the order which gives rise to the highest possible tax liability. Those individuals who become deemed domiciled in the UK from April 2017 run the risk of never being able to remit the clean capital element to the UK. 12

13 >continued from previous page PM-Tax Articles Tax changes for non-uk domiciled individuals (continued) The government has announced a temporary window of twelve months from April 2017 for those individuals to rearrange their mixed funds and separate out the various elements. This treatment will only apply to liquid funds held in bank accounts. Therefore, individuals are advised to seek guidance on completing an analysis of their affected accounts. Trusts The original consultation proposed punitive changes in relation to benefits received by non-uk domiciled individuals who have settled offshore trusts. It suggested that benefits received by non-uk domiciled individuals from an offshore trust would be taxed at a flat rate whilst those with a UK domicile would only be taxed on benefits received which had been matched to available income and capital gains within the offshore trust structure. The government has recognised the potential punitive effect on non-uk domiciliaries and has decided not to pursue the flat rate benefits charge. Instead the proposals are: A settlor who retains an interest in a trust and who is deemed domiciled at the time of settling the trust will be taxed on capital gains as they arise. Where a settlor is not deemed domiciled in the UK when settling the trust and no additions to the trust are made after he becomes deemed domiciled, but he, his spouse or minor children/stepchildren subsequently receives an actual benefit from the trust, the settlor will also be taxed on capital gains as they arise UK resident beneficiaries who are deemed domiciled in the UK and who receive a benefit from a trust or an underlying entity will be subject to CGT, regardless of where the benefit is received Where a settlor retains an interest in a trust, the trust income is treated as arising directly to the settlor for income tax purposes. Under the current rules, UK income in such trusts is therefore taxed as it arises but non-uk income can be taxed on the remittance basis. Deemed domiciled settlors will be subject to non-uk income as it arises subject to certain exceptions Where a trust was settled at a time the settlor was either non-uk domiciled nor deemed domiciled, then the foreign sourced income will not be taxed on the settlor as it arises but will be taxed on him if he, his spouse or any other relevant person receives a benefit. Trusts settled by individuals who were born in the UK with a UK domicile of origin will be treated as relevant property trusts if and when the settlor returns to the UK and for the time the settlor is resident in the UK, even if they are settled at a time when the settlor is non UK resident and has a non UK domicile of choice. Business Investment Relief The government is also consulting on changes to business investment relief (BIR), which applies where individuals who are taxed on the remittance basis invest their foreign income and gains in UK businesses by seeking views on how to amend and expand the scheme to encourage increased take-up and suggestions on how to simplify any unnecessarily complex aspects of the rules. Non-UK domiciled individuals need to obtain advice prior to April 2017 to understand how the new rules will affect their UK tax position going forward. UK Residential Property Under current rules, non-uk domiciles are not subject to UK inheritance tax (IHT) on UK residential properties which are owned through offshore structures, e.g. offshore companies. Similarly trusts which own UK residential property through an offshore company are not subject to the IHT charges that arise on UK assets every ten years. From 6 April 2017, all UK residential property will be subject to UK IHT. For individuals owning shares in an offshore company which in turn owns UK residential property, UK IHT charges could arise on their death or on certain lifetime transfers. The current rate of IHT is 40% for transfers on death and 20% on chargeable lifetime transfers. For offshore trusts owning UK residential property where the settlor does not benefit, the property will be deemed to be owned directly at trust level and will be subject to the ten-year anniversary charge, currently at 6%. De-Enveloping Although the government announced in the Budget that it may consider introducing a relief to enable people to de-envelop properties held in a corporate structure without triggering stamp duty land tax (SDLT) or capital gains tax (CGT) charges, the consultation document has made it clear that no such reliefs will be available. Therefore, UK residential property owned by offshore companies will be subject to both Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED) and (from April 2017) will be within the scope of IHT, removing any perceived tax benefit from owning UK property in this way. Nonetheless, it is imperative to get tax advice prior to making any ownership changes since de-enveloping could crystallise significant capital gains and a liability to SDLT, without generating any disposal proceeds to pay the tax. Seema Dodhia is a Tax Manager and qualified Chartered Tax Adviser. Seema specialises in the residence and domicile field, providing advice to both high net worth individuals and trustees, especially where there is an offshore element. She also assists clients subject to HMRC investigations. E: seema.dodhia@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0)

14 PM-Tax Articles Divorce and family law after Brexit by Kate Francis The impact of Brexit on English family law was perhaps not the first thought of many in the wake of the referendum result; but as the dust begins to settle Kate Francis considers how Brexit could affect families and their assets. The use of trusts in a family context, as a means of passing wealth to future generations and protecting assets has a long (and sometimes colourful) history. Unfortunately for as long as there have been families there have been family disputes, to which trusts, and the trustees who govern them, are by no means immune. A divorcing beneficiary risks absorbing large amounts of trustees time. If the divorce is taking place in England then the underlying trust assets themselves are at risk, even if the trust assets are held in, or indeed the trust itself is administered offshore. Following the UK s decision to leave the EU the potential challenges of matrimonial proceedings for trustees have taken on a whole new layer of complexity. This means more uncertainty, more of trustees time and more cost. In truth we cannot say how the new legal landscape will lie, and therefore the protection or vulnerability for international families and their wealth, until the UK has negotiated its exit from the EU and we know the deal that has been brokered. To begin to guess at what the impact of Brexit will be we need to look at what is covered by EU legislation at present. This includes: Jurisdiction for divorce: the court of the member country first seized (i.e. the court in which the divorce and financial proceedings are first started) currently retains jurisdiction, even if the couple have a closer connection to another member state. As different member states treat the division of finances on divorce rather differently, England in particular is known as a more generous jurisdiction to the receiving party, this has created conditions in which spouses often race to seize a court in a certain jurisdiction. The English court has been swift to reiterate that those choosing to divorce in England will have English law applied to their divorce and not the law of another country of their choice or to which they are more closely connected. Maintenance orders: this covers both conflicts between different countries and the applicable law to deciding maintenance obligations and also ensuring that there are common rules between the member states for the swift recovery of maintenance across the EU. The interpretation of maintenance orders under the EU legislation is generous and requires member states to enforce orders that might not even be available under their own domestic law. These provisions are particularly helpful where a spouse tries to avoid his/her obligations by moving either himself/herself to another country or moves assets or holds assets in another country. Such measures are increasingly common therefore, given the increase in international families. In order to enforce such orders a member state is able to take short-term protective measures to pursue persons and/or assets, including assets held within a trust. Child disputes: including the jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to children, enforcement of orders relating to children such as custody and regarding child maintenance and also child abduction. Before the UK voted to leave the EU, trustees were used to, even if they did not relish, family proceedings throwing up any number of issues, such as disclosure, being joined to the proceedings or (if the trust or trust structure is considered a nuptial settlement ) the risk the trust(s) (whether in England or elsewhere in the world) could be varied, even if to the detriment of other beneficiaries. Post Brexit English family law will continue to be governed by EU law until the negotiations are concluded. After that the UK will have to create afresh its own legislation to deal with these issues but nobody yet knows what our legislation will look like on the other side. Speculation at this juncture is of little help but the two most likely scenarios are: the UK may take the opportunity to amend some of what it considers some of the more onerous pieces of legislation giving us greater control over the law but a much more complex and therefore difficult and expensive task to deal with multi-national families or assets in multiple jurisdictions; or the UK will adopt mirror legislation of its own to attempt to replicate the ease with which it can enforce its orders within the EU. 14

15 >continued from previous page PM-Tax Articles Divorce and family law after Brexit (continued) Absent a crystal ball we cannot say for certain, but in the limbo of an uncertain legal future, assets held in trusts outside of England and Wales are likely to face particular attention for divorcing couples. The current EU legislation creates continuity between the member states. Without that continuity (and absent the UK creating its own mirror legislation) former spouses are likely to find it harder to enforce hard-won orders against each other/assets. It is not unreasonable to assume that in that scenario spouses will be all the more eager to join trustees to proceedings to secure enforcement over the assets by other means. Kate Francis is a Senior Associate with a wealth of experience working for trusts, high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth individuals on a wide range of private wealth disputes. Her core areas of work include high profile, often novel and complex, family financial matters involving issues of crossjurisdictions, forum shopping and trust structures. She also advises on commercial disputes within families, anonymity and privacy issues, complex trust disputes and contentious probate proceedings. E: kate.francis@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0)

16 PM-Tax Articles A view from Singapore by Valerie Wu Singapore based tax partner, Valerie Wu considers how families in Asia are increasingly establishing family offices as a vehicle for managing their wealth. Families in Asia are becoming increasingly aware of the need to make provision for the passing of their wealth from one generation to the next. And some are very under-prepared. In one case I came across, the patriarch of the family had an estate of S$100 million (around 56 million), but all he had in place was a will. Everything was left to his wife, who was in her 70s, with no provision for the couple s six legitimate children. The children ended up engaging their own lawyers and arguing for their rights to a share of the wealth. Some of these extremely wealthy families don t even have a will. At the other end of the extreme, there are families who have implemented planning on the advice of their bankers but for some, it may turn out to be a hotchpotch of different pieces of planning which are poorly organised and do not address the fundamental issues pertinent to the particular family. As is the case in the UK, many families in Asia are now thinking about consolidating the different structures and portfolios they have, through family offices. A family office can be anything from an investment holding company for the assets, or a one-stop shop that provides holistic management of the family wealth and the family business. Increasingly, families are exploring the use of private trust companies (PTCs) in Singapore. This allows the family to dictate the business strategy, the investment strategy, and who the investment managers are. The family may select the private banker they most enjoy working with, and take them out of the bank to work in the family office. Family offices also facilitate activities like philanthropy. Giving away a proportion of your wealth has always been a part of Chinese culture, but it has evolved significantly over time. The first generation of immigrants who moved to Singapore from mainland China liked to send money back to their villages in China. Their children developed clan associations such as the Hokkien clan. These clans fund domestic projects, such as setting up schools and other infrastructure. And today, there s a new trend in giving money to particular causes and charities outside of Singapore that are meaningful to the individual. Valerie Wu is a Partner based in our Singapore office and specialises in tax, trust and fund work, particularly in the context of private wealth transfer and succession planning matters. She has been regularly advising clients ranging from families / family offices, trustees, private bankers, and fund managers for the past 18 years in key capacities, as a partner in private practice, as Head of Legal of an asset management subsidiary of Singapore s sovereign wealth fund, and as Director of Wealth Planning Asia Pacific for a European trustee. E: valerie.wu@pinsentmasons.com T: A certain critical mass is required in order to set up a family office, though. A minimum of S$50 million ( 28 million) would be a sensible starting point, as it is also the entry point to qualify for certain tax incentives in Singapore. 16

17 PM-Tax People Meet our Team Fiona Fernie is the Partner leading our Tax Investigations team. She has 30 years experience in assisting clients subject to investigations/enquiries by HMRC, with particular focus on COP8 and COP9 (Contractual Disclosure Facility) cases, large complex investigations, and those with an offshore element. She also assists clients who have technical tax disputes with HMRC or who want to make a voluntary disclosure of tax irregularities to HMRC, whether via one of the available disclosure facilities or via an independent approach outside a formal facility. E: fiona.fernie@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0) Jason Collins is our Head of Tax, who specialises in representing clients who are the subject of a tax audit and resolving complex disputes with HMRC. Jason is also a leading expert on Country-by-Country reporting, FATCA and the OECD s Common Reporting Standard, advising companies, financial institutions and individuals across the world on the application of automatic exchange of information, with a particular focus on trusts, investment companies and funds. E: jason.collins@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0) Julian Diaz-Rayney is a Partner with deep specialist expertise in sports and media law. He has acted for top-flight football clubs, sporting bodies and leading individuals on a range of matters including contractual disputes, disciplinary proceedings and sponsorship agreements. E: julian.diaz-rainey@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0) Richard Hart is a Partner who runs a de facto family office for ultra-high net worth individuals and advises on a wide range of transactions including the acquisition, financing, refurbishment and disposal of prime real estate, and the sale and purchase of high value luxury goods and assets, artwork, gemstones and artefacts of cultural significance. His team also offer traditional private client services, such as immigration, employment and personal tax and estate structuring. Richard s client base is wholly international and he is a trusted advisor to a number of prominent families across the Middle East. E: richard.hart@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0) Michael Pulford is a Partner who specialises in commercial litigation and dispute resolution and has a broad experience of claims including contractual disputes, claims involving fraud, property disputes and partnership disputes. He has particular experience of acting in high end matrimonial finance cases often with cross jurisdictional issues. E: michael.pulford@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0)

18 >continued from previous page PM-Tax People Title (continued) Valerie Wu is a Partner based in our Singapore office and specialises in tax, trust and fund work, particularly in the context of private wealth transfer and succession planning matters. She has been regularly advising clients ranging from families / family offices, trustees, private bankers, and fund managers for the past 18 years in key capacities, as a partner in private practice, as Head of Legal of an asset management subsidiary of Singapore s sovereign wealth fund, and as Director of Wealth Planning Asia Pacific for a European trustee. E: valerie.wu@pinsentmasons.com T: Paul Noble is a Tax Director specialising in contentious tax and private client matters. Paul is a former Tax Inspector and a Chartered Tax Adviser and has over 20 years of experience in advising on tax investigations involving both private clients and corporates. Paul has wide-ranging experience of contentious tax matters including cases of tax fraud, tax avoidance, disclosure of tax irregularities and is adept at pro-actively resolving tax disputes and advising on HMRC powers. E: paul.noble@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0) Tori Magill is a Tax Director specialising in criminal investigations, civil fraud, and avoidance investigations. Tori also has litigation and dispute resolution expertise, with experience gained in HMRC s highest profile investigation roles. As a former Group Leader in HMRC s Specialist Investigations directorate, Tori was responsible for HMRC s most complex fraud and avoidance investigations and litigation. E: tori.magill@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0) Kate Francis is a Senior Associate with a wealth of experience working for trusts, high-net-worth and ultra-high-networth individuals on a wide range of private wealth disputes. Her core areas of work include high profile, often novel and complex, family financial matters involving issues of cross-jurisdictions, forum shopping and trust structures. She also advises on commercial disputes within families, anonymity and privacy issues, complex trust disputes and contentious probate proceedings. E: kate.francis@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0) Seema Dodhia is a Tax Manager and qualified Chartered Tax Adviser. Seema specialises in the residence and domicile field, providing advice to both high net worth individuals and trustees, especially where there is an offshore element. She also assists clients subject to HMRC investigations. E: seema.dodhia@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0) John Hardman is a Tax Manager in our Tax Investigations team where he assists both corporate and private clients with tax enquiries, including fraud and avoidance matters. John has extensive experience in Employment taxes and undertook investigations for HMRC before leaving the department. John assists private clients in regularising onshore and offshore tax matters and assists corporate clients under PAYE/NIC investigation by HMRC. John also advises on exchange of information, the use of HMRC s information powers and negotiating with HMRC to settle tax avoidance schemes. E: john.hardman@pinsentmasons.com T: +44 (0)

19 PM-Tax Events Events Failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion webinar As part of a series of free webinars, Pinsent Masons will be running a webinar on the proposed new offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion. Jason Collins and Tori Magill from the Pinsent Masons tax team will discuss how in-house compliance, legal and tax teams should prepare for the new proposed failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion offence. Under this offence, organisations will be liable for the acts of their staff and other associated persons who knowingly facilitate tax evasion, including for tax liabilities in another country. Companies will have a defence if they implement and operate procedures to try to prevent facilitation. At this webinar, Jason and Tori will talk you through how the offence will operate and what reasonable procedures you can implement to ensure compliance. Date: 3 November Time: 1pm 2pm You attend the webinar online with a PC and a telephone and are able to ask questions of the presenters. The webinar is free, but due to WebEx capacity restrictions, spaces may be limited and are allocated on a first come first served basis. Register here. Responding to a crisis seminar An officer of a Trust Company discovers that money belonging to a client has gone missing. He/she suspects that one of the company directors has made inappropriate use of the money. What now? Pinsent Masons invites you to a seminar where experts from our regulatory, tax investigations, fraud, litigation and insurance teams will discuss how to respond to a similar crisis. Using a scenario-based approach, the seminar will include the following key elements: What immediate steps should be taken in the first 72 hours? What action can be taken to maximise the likelihood that the assets will be recovered? What should and must be disclosed to the regulators and to HMRC? What approach should be taken to dealing with the police and the press? How can the likelihood of subsequent adverse legal action be minimised? What insurance covers might be applicable and what notification needs to be made? To guide you through the issues, our panel of experienced practitioners from Pinsent Masons will include: Alan Sheeley, Head of Civil Fraud and Asset Recovery Michael Ruck, Financial Services, Regulatory and Investigations Expert; formerly Advanced Associate Lawyer at the Financial Conduct Authority Michael Pulford, Head of Trust Litigation Fiona Fernie, Head of Tax Investigations Nick Bradley, Head of Insurance Date: Tuesday 29 November 2016 Time: Registration: 4.00pm-4.30pm; Seminar: 4.30pm-6.30pm; Drinks and canapes: 6.30pm-8.00pm Venue: Duke of Richmond Hotel, Cambridge Park, St Peter Port, Guernsey, GY1 1UY To register please contact Jayne Benusan. 19