notwithstanding that income shifting has taken place, there is no
overall tax
advantage.
The consultation document Income
shifting: a consultation on draft legislation seeks comments on
the draft guidance as well as the legislation, to ensure that the
legislation is clear to businesses and their advisers, and that administrative
burdens are minimised.
The consultation period closed on 28 February 2008.
Comment
In a nutshell, the draft provisions effectively remove the spouse
exemption from the settlement provisions where the income and capital
concerned comes from a partnership or company. However, this is not
an addition to the settlement provisions, they remain intact (and
as revised after Arctic Systems). We have here all new draft legislation.
The underlying problem in trying to legislate to prevent "income
splitting" is that not every case is clear cut, and that in the
modern era spouses in business tend to make varying contributions
to business over time.
A problem touched on in the Arctic Systems appeal to the House of
Lords by Malcolm Gammie QC was the question as to whether you could
ever compare in truly commercial terms a business partnership made
between a married couple (the term includes Civil Partnerships here)
to one between two otherwise unconnected persons. Aside from the fact
that if the couple get on they might have a major commercial advantage
over rivals because they can "talk shop" at all hours, and
work more flexibly. The other difference is that if you have your
spouse in business with you, they will often work more hours which
means that arms length comparisons are not always possible.
Andrew Hubbard, Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) Vice-President
agrees, he says "The reality is that family businesses do not
and cannot possibly operate on a fully arms length basis."
The CIOT says that it has grave concerns about the implications of
the draft legislation and takes the pragmatic view that fundamental
reform to the structure of small business taxation is necessary if
small businesses are to be able to plan their tax affairs with any
degree of certainty.
Andrew Hubbard adds: "The CIOT accepts that what it prefers
to regard as income sharing within members of the family unit is an
issue which would need to be considered as part of that reform, but
regards it as wholly wrong for the government to deal with this one
issue in isolation."
Francesca Lagerberg, Chairman of the Technical Committee at the ICAEW
Tax Faculty, said:
"The proposed income shifting rules are very widely drafted.
They will catch many owner-managed businesses involving husbands and
wives and other family members. The difficulty will be working out
whether they are caught by the definition or not. Many spouses do
not have formal meetings to discuss their business arrangements, they
just have their own way of working together."
The ICAEW is urging businesses to review the HMRC consultation document
and to respond to its questions before the legislation is finalised.
"The more practical examples that HMRC receive, which show where
this will cause real difficulty, the better the chance of change"
says Ms Lagerberg. "If HMRC wants to make this work it will need
to consider offering some form of clearance procedure to help taxpayers
work out where they stand."