Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Stephen Timms (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 7 July 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance Bill.


Finance Bill

My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely the danger to which new clause 5 could give rise, with the difference that building something or progressing with a development is, in principle, good and laudable, whereas avoiding tax is not. There is therefore an even stronger reason not to follow that route. New clause 5 states that HMRC will have a "reasonable" amount of time to comply with the clearance request. Again, I agree with the hon. Member for Fareham. What constitutes "reasonable" in that context? It can take a considerable time before HMRC is in a position to make such a judgment and it could easily be impossible to do that in a timeframe that might be considered reasonable by the taxpayer. I therefore question the usefulness of that sort of clearance to those who are genuinely trying to pay the right amount of tax at the right time, and I strongly argue against adopting the new clause because it would help those whose purpose is purely and clearly to avoid tax. As I said earlier, however, that is not to say that I want to close the door on tightening the disclosure arrangements. Indeed, there may be opportunities for us to do that.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
495 c856-7 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Companies Corporation tax Beer Competition Income tax Excise duties Low incomes Public houses Tax allowances Tax avoidance Taxation Tourism Rented housing Tax rates and bands Revenue and Customs Trade competitiveness Office of Tax Simplification
Legislation
Finance Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk