Taxation of Pensions Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 37, line 37, after “arrangement”,”, insert

““nominee’s flexi-access drawdown fund”,”.

This Amendment, and Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, insert two missing definitions into the amendments made by the Bill in each of the two subsisting versions of section 576A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 2 to 39.

[Mr Gauke]

Amendments 1 to 8 are all of a minor and technical nature, amending various definitions and removing unnecessary sections. I would be happy to explain those in more detail if hon. Members are interested, but if they are not, I will move on to amendments 9 to 39.

As hon. Members will recall, we had a very useful debate in Committee about the new information requirements for individuals that are set out in part 6 of schedule 1 to the Bill. I said at the time that the Government were keen to work with industry and consumer groups to ensure that the requirements are proportionate, and that we would consider the issue further. We have therefore continued to have constructive discussions with the pensions industry about the impacts of the Bill. As a result of this ongoing consultation, we have tabled a number of amendments that we believe are a proportionate response to the concerns raised. These changes will make the reporting requirements that individuals need to meet easier to comply with, while still ensuring that they have access to the right information to help them pay the right amount of tax. Government amendments 9 to 39 therefore make a number of changes to the information requirements in the Bill to provide that individuals have to tell schemes that they have flexibly accessed their pension savings only if they are an active member of that scheme, and to increase the time they have to comply from 31 days to 91 days.

It might be helpful if I start by setting out why these information requirements are required. As we have discussed many times during the course of this Bill’s passage through the House, when an individual accesses their pension flexibly, their annual allowance for tax-relieved defined contribution pension contributions will reduce from £40,000 to £10,000. That will protect the Exchequer and ensure that the new system cannot be exploited to achieve unintended tax advantages by individuals’ diverting their salary into their pension and withdrawing it immediately with tax relief. It is therefore important that individuals understand the tax consequences of saving into a pension after accessing their savings flexibly. For that reason, the Bill placed a new requirement on individuals to tell all their pension providers once they had flexibly accessed a pension. This was intended to ensure that individuals do not use the new system to gain a tax advantage that is not intended. However, the Government have always been clear that they are keen to ensure these requirements are proportionate. Having considered the issue carefully, we are amending the Bill to provide that people need to tell only the schemes to which they are contributing or that they contribute to in the future. They will also have an extended period of 91 days in which to do so. These changes will make the new system easier for individuals and schemes to comply with, while also ensuring that the new annual allowance is implemented effectively. Again, I would be happy to explain these amendments in more detail if hon. Members are interested.

Finance Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Our plans on the annual investment allowance are clear: this is a temporary increase until December 2015. If the hon. Lady disagrees with that and has a different policy, I would be grateful to hear what it is. She talks about certainty. She has repeated the position that her party has taken this week, which is that this country should have the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7. The second lowest corporation tax rate in the G7 is 26.5% in Canada. That would allow a future Labour Government to increase corporation tax not just from 20% to 21%, but up to 26%. Is that the policy of the Labour party?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. As interesting as some Members might find the debate on corporation tax and the future policy, that is not the subject of the new clause that we are discussing. Although the subject is linked to the question of allowances, it is not the substantive point. I would be grateful if Members addressed their remarks mainly to the new clause. They may use supporting arguments, but they must not allow those supporting arguments to become the only things that are debated.

National Insurance (Contributions) Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (a), at end insert—

‘(13) The Treasury shall publish a review of the level of youth unemployment as at December 2013 and the effect on the level of youth unemployment if the amendments made in this section were required to be brought into force on 6 April 2014.’.

[Mr Gauke]

New clause 3 brings forward an important initiative announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement of last week. He announced that employers employing workers under the age of 21 would no longer have to pay employers’ class 1 national insurance contributions. Proposed new section 9A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and its Northern Ireland equivalent bring this into effect by introducing a zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs for all employers on the earnings of employees under the age of 21. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear, the Government believe this measure will, alongside other initiatives on apprenticeships and work experience placements, help to address the problem of youth unemployment in the United Kingdom. The measure will apply both to new and existing employees aged under 21 and is not time limited.

Air Passenger Duty

Debate between David Gauke and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Is the implication of the hon. Gentleman’s question that he managed to identify the position of Labour Front Benchers, because I could not particularly?

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) delivered a thoughtful speech in which he set out the evolution of his own thinking and made the case for regional airports. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised a point on behalf of her constituents who originally come from the Caribbean. Such a point was also made in interventions, so let me reiterate that APD must adhere to international rules on aviation tax—a point that she acknowledged—specifically the Chicago convention. The capital city convention in APD ensures that the duty complies with the rules. She asked why we could not reform the bands. We could move to having two bands, and we did examine that as part of the 2011 consultation, but no banding structure can be entirely free of anomalies, and a revenue-neutral move to two bands would require an increase in APD for about 90% of passengers, including those flying to Europe and the United States. We were not attracted to that approach.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) raised a point about Scotland, following on from the contribution by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. He rightly said that there would be an implication if the tax were devolved to Scotland and then abolished, because the cost of that would have to be found from the block grant. We have not estimated what that would be, but such a decision would have consequences to comply with EU state aid rules. It is also worth pointing out that we would need to take into account any market distortions that would be created and that the cost would have to take into account any lost revenue for neighbouring English airports, for example. That is not an insignificant point.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) spoke about domestic flights. It is worth pointing out that several European countries put VAT on domestic flights, whereas the UK does not—the rate is 19% in Germany, 21% in the Netherlands and 27% in Hungary. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) made the point that we would like to get rid of most taxes, but we are not in a position to do so. He also highlighted the fact that rates have increased with inflation. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) argued that there would be a net gain for the Exchequer if APD were abolished, but we do not agree—I shall set out the reasons why in a moment.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) spoke against the tax and also hoped that we could all unite behind the motion. I am terribly sorry to say that I have to disappoint him on both fronts. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) summed up the debate, arguing that we should perhaps follow the example of the Republic of Ireland, which is not always an argument that I hear from him.

As I have made clear, APD makes a crucial contribution to tackling our fiscal challenges. The tax raises nearly £3 billion in annual revenue. Contrary to the claims of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which has been cited frequently, scrapping APD would not be costless; it would result in a significant loss to the Exchequer. Unless we were to give up on our fiscal goals—my hon. Friends have been absolutely right to highlight the need for us to maintain discipline on reducing the deficit—the lost revenue would therefore need to be found elsewhere, either by increasing other taxes or by further reducing our public spending. In the course of the debate, I have heard few realistic proposals as to how that could be done. Not only would scrapping APD create substantial costs to the Exchequer, but the benefits of such a step would be small compared with those of the policies that the Government have already put in place.

We are not persuaded by the case that has been put before us. We cannot take risks with the public finances, so we will not be supporting the motion.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 13, Noes 284.

Finance Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Baroness Primarolo

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 5—Restrictions on buying capital allowances.

New clause 12—Anti-abuse measures—

‘(1) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall review the possibility of bringing forward measures as part of the GAAR to work in conjunction with other G8 countries to require multi-national companies to publish a single easily comparable statement of the amount of corporation tax they pay in the UK.

(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall review the effect of incorporating a global standard for public registration of ownership of companies and trusts via a convention on tax transparency, including a requirement on companies to publish a single easily comparable statement of the amount of corporation tax they pay in the UK, on Treasury tax receipts.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall consider, when counteracting tax advantages arising from tax arrangements that are abusive, what steps HM Government could take, working alongside developing country governments, to assess how UK companies could report their use of tax schemes that have an impact on developing countries, and how the UK could assist in the recovery of that tax.

(4) Within six months of the passage of Royal Assent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall place copies of the review in the House of Commons Library, and consult with G8 countries on their effectiveness.’.

Government new schedule 1—Transfer of deductions.

Government new schedule 2—Restrictions on buying capital allowances.

[Mr Gauke]

This Government are determined to crack down on tax avoidance by the small minority of individuals and companies who are unwilling to pay their fair share of tax. This Bill includes some important anti-avoidance provisions, including the general anti-abuse rule—the GAAR—a major new development in UK tax law and a key part of this Government’s drive to tackle tax avoidance, and, in particular, abusive tax avoidance schemes. The Government have also made it clear that we will continue to legislate to close down specific loopholes if there is a clear case for doing so.

Before addressing the GAAR and the Opposition’s new clause 12, let me discuss new clauses 4 and 5, and new schedules 1 and 2. At this year’s Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Government proposed to introduce legislation in the Finance Bill 2013 to prevent companies from entering into arrangements to access, as part of a business transfer, various forms of unrealised corporation tax losses from unconnected third parties—a practice that, for the sake of brevity, I will refer to for the rest of the evening as latent loss buying. Legislation on that matter was not included in the Finance Bill published in March, in order to allow more time for consultation with interested parties. Technical detail on the circumstances and manner in which the proposed legislation would operate was published on 20 March. That was followed on 28 March by the publication of draft legislation for a period of technical consultation. New clauses 4 and 5 and new schedules 1 and 2 introduce those targeted latent loss buying rules to this Finance Bill, and take on board comments received during the technical consultation.

Let me set out a little background to these new clauses and schedules. The UK’s loss relief system provides a measure of parity between taxing profits and relieving losses over the life cycle of a business, ensuring that businesses with different patterns of profit and loss pay a broadly similar amount of tax. Relief is based on long-standing underlying principles that: brought-forward trade losses should only be relievable against future profits from the same trade, carried on by the same legal entity; tax losses should not be transferable against profits of unconnected parties; and the movement of losses between companies should be allowed only where they are under common economic ownership for the accounting period when the losses arise. Within those principles, companies can gain relief for losses through being set off against profits in a number of ways. However, loss relief and business reorganisation rules are designed to prevent companies from passing the benefit of a loss to an unconnected third party. Those tax rules are designed to prevent companies from “selling” losses to some unconnected company that has taxable profits.

However, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is now seeing a marked increase in companies entering into different arrangements to access deductions not caught by those existing rules. Indeed, we are expecting the new rules to bring in revenue of close to £1 billion over the next five years. A particular pressure point arises where it is possible to dictate or predict the amount and timing of reliefs, allowances and deductions. Where those are sizeable, they can encourage tax-motivated reorganisations through which unconnected entities may get access to what are, in effect, unrealised losses.

Where the amount and timing can be dictated or predicted, ownership or part-ownership changes can take place in advance of the crystallisation of the amount, enabling the current loss-buying rules to be bypassed. Such arrangements may take the form of selling all or some of the shares in a company or the assets of a company, where either there are allowances that could have been claimed but were not by the previous owner or where it is known that a debit will be created in a future accounting period. Arrangements can, however, be more complex and contrived, and may also involve moving profits into a company to use up relevant deductions.

These new clauses and schedules therefore deliver on what the Chancellor announced at the Budget. They bring the tax treatment of unrealised amounts, involved in a transfer between unconnected parties, more closely into line with the long-standing treatment of realised losses. The proposed changes introduce three separate rules to combat latent loss buying. The first rule expands the application of current rules in chapter 16A of part 2 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001—I am sure you have fond memories of that Act, Madam Deputy Speaker. The other two rules are targeted anti-avoidance rules—TAARs—to be included in a new part of the Corporation Tax Act 2010. One seeks to counter tax-motivated reorganisations between unconnected parties involving other forms of relevant deductions, and the other seeks to counter arrangements that aim to transfer profits to companies so that the relevant deductions can be used.

A draft of the legislation was published for technical consultation on 28 March and nine responses were received: four from legal firms, two from accountancy firms and three from individual businesses. The majority of representations related to the technical application of the legislation rather than the underlying policy intent and have been addressed in the provisions before us today. I hope that is helpful to the House and anticipates some of the questions that might be raised by those on the Opposition Front Bench. Of course, I am happy to deal with any further questions later this evening.

Let me turn to what I suspect will take up most of the time for our debate this evening—that is, new clause 12. As I have said already, the GAAR is an important new tool, but it is not a panacea. New clause 12 focuses on much broader issues to do with the taxation of multinational companies, which have already been extensively debated during the course of the Bill and fall beyond the scope of the GAAR. Let me once again explain why that is the case.

New clause 12 first asks for a review of ways to require companies to publish a clear statement of their UK tax payments. That is not a matter for the GAAR. I am aware that the GAAR does not do what people want it to do by tackling a wider range of tax issues, particularly those involving multinational companies. We have never pretended otherwise.

The GAAR can of course apply to multinational companies if they engage in abusive schemes, but the broader issues concerning where and how their profits are taxed are grounded in how the international tax system operates. That is why we are driving forward the OECD’s work on improving international tax standards through the G8 and G20. Both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have set out clearly that international tax problems need international solutions.

We accept that tax rules have not kept up with the age of electronic business, but the answer is not for the UK to take unilateral action. That approach would do the UK no favours as a location for business investment. It would risk setting in train a disparate approach among our trading partners, with serious consequences for international trade and growth and hence for jobs in the UK.

The OECD report on base erosion and profit shifting, which was endorsed by the G20 in February this year, shows that to tackle the issue effectively requires collective action to strengthen international tax standards. The Government have been at the forefront in taking forward work on the issue through the OECD.

Living Standards

Debate between David Gauke and Baroness Primarolo

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

At Work and Pensions questions earlier, the Secretary of State made it clear that because of the support of Jobcentre Plus and other agencies, he did not expect anybody to opt out of work as a result of the changes. Does the Minister stand by that? If so, let me give him this challenge. If any family comes into my constituency office to tell me that it is no longer worth them going to work because of these changes, will he personally respond to their financial queries, which I will put in front of him? I suspect that other Members will be doing exactly the same to explain to their constituents why this Government have now made it no longer worth going to work. This seems to be a complete aberration and against his own policy—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Interventions need to be brief.

[Mr Gauke]

Given that we ask lone parents to work 16 hours a week before they are entitled to working tax credits, I would say that it is not right to have the same threshold for a couple. Asking and incentivising them to work 24 hours a week is perfectly reasonable. Under the universal credit that we are going to introduce shortly, every hour extra worked will be worth while, as there will not be the same threshold. Essentially, we are working within the system that we inherited from the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Members know that they should not stand and point at the Minister; they should ask him to give way. If he declines to give way, it means that they have to sit down and try again later.

[Mr Gauke]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Increasing the working hour requirements for a couple is entirely fair. It is absolutely right that a couple with children should put in more hours than a lone parent before receiving working tax credits. This also creates a clear work incentive signal to potential second earners who could benefit from working tax credits if they moved into work or increased their hours.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Baroness Primarolo

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I beg to move amendment 33, page 33, line 33, after ‘buyers)’ insert—

( ) in subsection (2)(b) after “under the law of” insert “Scotland or”;

( ) ’.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 34 to 36.

[Mr Gauke]

Schedule 4, which is introduced by clause 29, makes consequential provisions in connection with the disapplication of stamp duty land tax in Scotland, and is in two parts. Part 1 provides for general amendments to stamp duty land tax legislation in consequence of stamp duty land tax ceasing to apply in Scotland, and part 2 provides for the Scottish Government to supply information to HMRC regarding Scottish land tax.

Amendment 33 makes changes to the stamp duty land tax first-time buyers relief to ensure that a person who has previously bought a property in Scotland cannot qualify for relief when he or she subsequently purchases a property in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Amendment 34 omits a further reference to Scottish land law terminology.

Amendments 35 and 36 omit provisions in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2005 and the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, which is an Act of the Scottish Parliament relating to functions of the keeper of the registers of Scotland. Those relate to the registers of Scotland’s automated registration of title to land system, which includes facilities for returns and payment of stamp duty land tax.

Lastly, amendment 36 makes detailed modifications to the provisions in the Finance Act 2009 in relation to alternative finance investment bonds or sukuk. Those modifications reflect the fact that the stamp duty land tax relief will no longer apply to sukuk in relation to land in Scotland, although the provisions for capital gains and capital allowances will continue to apply. Those changes are essential to the proper operation of stamp duty land tax after the tax is disapplied in Scotland.

Amendment 33 agreed to.

Amendments made: 34, page 35, line 36, at end insert—

‘( ) In paragraph 10 (tenants’ obligations etc that do not count as chargeable consideration), in sub-paragraph (1)(a) omit “(in Scotland, the leased premises)”.’.

Amendment 35, page 36, line 9, at end insert—

‘Finance (No. 2) Act 2005

In section 47 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2005 (e-conveyancing) omit—

(a) subsection (1);

(b) subsection (6)(b).’.

Amendment 36, page 36, line 12, at end insert—

‘Finance Act 2009

(1) Schedule 61 to the Finance Act 2009 (alternative finance investment bonds) is amended as follows.

(2) Paragraph 1 (interpretation) is amended as follows.

(3) In sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) before the definition of “HMRC” insert—

““effective date”, for a transaction relating to land in Scotland, is the date which would be the effective date (under section 119 of FA 2003) if Part 4 of FA 2003 applied to land in Scotland;”;

(b) omit the definition of “qualifying interest”.

(4) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—

(1A) In this Schedule “qualifying interest”—

(a) in relation to land in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, means a major interest in land (within the meaning given by section 117 of FA 2003) except that it does not include a lease for a term of years of 21 years or less;

(b) in relation to land in Scotland, means—

(i) the interest of an owner of land, or

(ii) the tenant’s right over or interest in a property subject to a lease,

except that it does not include a lease for a period of 21 years or less.”

(5) Paragraph 5 (conditions for operation of relief) is amended as follows.

(6) In sub-paragraph (6) (Condition D)—

(a) after “Condition D” insert “(which applies in the case of land in England and Wales or Northern Ireland)”;

(b) omit paragraph (b).

(7) In sub-paragraph (7) (charge or security for purposes of Condition D)—

(a) omit “or security”;

(b) in paragraph (a) omit “, or a security ranking first granted over,”.

(8) In paragraph 6(1)(a) (relief from stamp duty land tax) for “the United Kingdom” substitute “England and Wales or Northern Ireland”.

(9) In paragraph 7 (withdrawal of relief in certain circumstances)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) after “This paragraph applies if” insert “paragraph 6 applies but”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (2) after “This paragraph also applies if” insert “paragraph 6 applies but”.

(10) In paragraph 9 (discharge of charge when conditions for relief met) omit “or security”.

(11) In paragraph 11(2) (disapplication of CGT relief if charge not given) for “the United Kingdom” substitute “England and Wales or Northern Ireland”.

(12) In paragraph 12(1)(b) (CGT relief on second transaction) for “the United Kingdom” substitute “England and Wales or Northern Ireland”.

(13) In paragraph 18(5) and (6) (discharge of charge if original land replaced)—

(a) for “the United Kingdom” substitute “England and Wales or Northern Ireland”;

(b) omit “or security”.

(14) In paragraph 19(1) (HMRC to notify Registrar of discharge)—

(a) omit “or security”;

(b) omit paragraph (b).

Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 (asp 1)

In section 9(1) of the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 (Keeper of the Registers of Scotland: financial arrangements) omit “(other than payments of stamp duty land tax)”.’.—(Mr Gauke.)

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30

Scottish tax on disposals to landfill

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.