Proceeding contribution from Mark Field (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 27 October 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on National Insurance Contributions Bill.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
The Paymaster General has made a good case for dealing with some contrived schemes that operated for over a decade, but I suspect that the previous Government closed them all down. However, given the complexity of the tax system, which creates an obvious incentive in a grey area to characterise what might have been described as income in the past as capital because of the lower tax rates, how many of the 100 schemes that were being marketed on 2 December 2004 are straightforward rather than the extreme contrivances that we all agree should have been closed down?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 438 c472
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Incentives Income tax Employees' contributions Employers' contributions National insurance Personal income Pay Payments National insurance contributions Small businesses Stocks and shares Tax avoidance Taxation Tax yields Enterprise management incentives Retrospective legislation
- Legislation
- National Insurance Contributions Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 00:21:22 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270628
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270628
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270628