Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 6 July 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance Bill.


Finance Bill

My hon. Friend is certainly right on the first count: as I said earlier, a modest three-bedroomed former council house in my constituency will certainly take an estate within the scope of inheritance tax. On his second point, there is a constant debate about the line between acceptable tax planning and unacceptable tax avoidance. That line is not clear or easily defined and those who have been involved with this Finance Bill accept that there are some difficult decisions to be made. In one sense my hon. Friend’s comments are incontrovertible: people who have held up their hands and acknowledged that the game is up, and seek to unwind the schemes that they have set up in order to comply with the intention of the legislation, should not now be subject to an excessive penalty wholly disproportionate to the mischief in which they are alleged to have engaged. I think that that is wholly unintentional, because earlier this year the Government took steps to ensure that people who made elections were not subjected to a double tax charge. I have to believe that it is the Government’s intention that people should be able to unravel and escape from these schemes without facing the double tax charge. I hope that the Paymaster General will be able to confirm that this afternoon.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
436 c348 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Children Debts Land Insurance companies Law Excise duties Freight Fuels Inheritance tax Double taxation Investment trusts Oil Property transfer Reform Tax avoidance Taxation VAT Trusts Rural areas Stamp duty land tax Sunset clauses
Legislation
Finance Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk