Asked by: Andrea Jenkyns (Conservative - Morley and Outwood)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what contingency plans HMRC has for exporting companies in the north to avoid delays at the customs at alternative ports and airports in the event that Channel ports are under pressure in the event of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.
Answered by Mel Stride - Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Delivering a deal negotiated with the EU remains the Government’s top priority. However, in the event of a ‘no deal’, HMRC will prioritise the flow of trade, ensuring the border remains secure, while collecting the taxes due.
HMRC have engaged with a broad range of traders and stakeholders to help them prepare for export procedures in the event of a no deal. Although the treatment of goods exported from the UK into the EU will be a matter for the EU, to minimise delays, the Government has streamlined the export process at Roll on Roll off locations to reduce delays and ensured that some customs processes can take place away from the border. The UK has also negotiated accession to the Common Transit Convention (CTC). This allows both imported and exported goods to move smoothly across international borders without the payment of duties until they reach their final destination, and removes the need for multiple import/export declarations as goods move through different territories. Information on CTC can be found on Gov.uk
Asked by: Andrea Jenkyns (Conservative - Morley and Outwood)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many promoters of loan schemes relating to the loan charge 2019 have been prosecuted.
Answered by Mel Stride - Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
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.
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.
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.
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.
Asked by: Andrea Jenkyns (Conservative - Morley and Outwood)
Question to the HM Treasury:
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.
Answered by Mel Stride - Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
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.
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.
Asked by: Andrea Jenkyns (Conservative - Morley and Outwood)
Question to the HM Treasury:
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.
Answered by Mel Stride - Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
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.
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.
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.
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.