Welcome to this month’s edition of Bite Sized. Please accept my apologies for not circulating a Bite Sized in October but due to the various resident non-domicile changes which are planned, it has been an extremely busy time.
Autumn Statement 2016
We waited… and waited… and waited… and then realised that we hadn’t missed anything. Philip Hammond had actually not said that much, other than to scrap the Autumn Statement going forward. Please click on the following link to read our Autumn Statement briefing document.
Resident non-domicile (RND) changes
Draft legislation is expected on 5 December 2016. Edwin Coe will be drafting our briefing document post-review of the legislation. Hopefully we will find a few last minute tweaks to make the process even more user-friendly but we pretty much know what it is going to say. One thing is for certain, RND clients need to engage with their tax advisors, trustees and private bankers to ensure that they are correctly structured pre 6 April 2017 and anyone holding UK property via an offshore vehicle needs to review that holding sooner rather than later to allow time for legal and funding amendments to be made before the deadline.
First-tier Tribunal considers meaning of ‘deliberate’ action
In Chadburn v HMRC  UKFTT 755 (TC), Chadburn submitted estimated returns to HMRC. Chadburn admitted his record keeping was very poor and because of this he had submitted estimate figures on his tax return. Chadburn did not dispute HMRC’s revised assessments but disputed the penalties levied by HMRC. HMRC asserted that Chadburn knew the estimates were wrong and his actions were deliberate. Chadburn’s appeal was rejected by the Tribunal.
Although this case related to a period covered by earlier legislation, it highlights the care that needs to be taken when submitting estimated figures on tax returns.
Unexplained Wealth Orders
Have you not heard of these yet? They are new proposed powers for HMRC to apply to the High Court for an order requiring an individual or company to explain the source of their assets. Certain criteria must be met, which includes the value of the asset must exceed £100,000. There must be reasonable grounds for suspecting that the subject of the order has insufficient income to have obtained the asset and that the person subject to the order is suspected of involvement in crime (or is a politically exposed person).