header-logo header-logo

21 February 2008 / Judith Inghams
Issue: 7309 / Categories: Features , Public , Tax , Commercial
printer mail-detail

A rush of blood to the head?

Changes to Capital Gains Tax for non-domiciliaries create as many anomalies as they remove, says Judith Ingham

For the second time in as many years, an innocent sounding heading in an HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) note conceals an upheaval in the world of trusts taxation. On the first occasion, it was “alignment” in the 2006 Budget Notes which heralded fundamental changes to the inheritance tax treatment of trusts contained in the Finance Act 2006. This time, it was the label “anomalies” in the 9 October 2007 Pre Budget Report (PBR) which was the signpost to a revolution in the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) treatment of trusts made by non-domiciliaries. And, this time, there is a further sting in the tail—the draft clauses issued on 18 January 2008 (which it is proposed should be included in the Finance Bill 2008) went a lot further than the PBR implied. And, following significant lobbying since 18 January, we now have a raft of clarifications (some published in an HMRC letter of 12 February and others in the form of oral statements

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll