didn't work either. About £13 million of tax was at stake.
3. Barnes (Upper Tribunal, 30 July)
This scheme aimed to exploit a mismatch between two tax regimes. UK government bonds (gilts) generating an interest coupon were borrowed for one day when an interest coupon was due. A payment representative of that coupon was then made to the lender, for which tax relief was claimed. At the same time the scheme envisaged that no tax would be due in respect of the interest coupon received. The scheme has been described by the First Tier Tribunal as a "designed and marketed tax avoidance scheme" which had been taken up by well over 100 individuals. The total tax at stake was around £100 million. There was no mismatch but the law was changed in 2005 making this clear and the rules were reformed further in 2008, making this type of scheme unworkable for the future. 4. These three schemes follow a landmark decision in June, (Greene King, 14 June) where the First Tier Tribunal decided that a scheme to avoid tax actually produced the result that tax was payable twice. This case involved finance provided within a group of companies. The aim was that one group company would get tax relief on payments to another group company, without tax on the second company’s receipt. The judges said that the appellants had no evident difficulty with getting relief for payment that was not matched by taxation of the receipt. They could not legitimately complain if the scheme failed in its purpose and instead resulted in their paying tax twice.
All of the decisions mentioned above may be subject to appeal.
HMRC press release
THE IMPORTANCE OF TIMELY ACTION WHEN MAKING REASONABLE ADJUSTMENTS FOR DISABILITY
29 August 2012
Most employers will be aware of the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disability. However, an issue which is often overlooked is that making the adjustment in a timely manner can be as important as making it at all. Pinsent Masons have published a useful article about a recent employment tribunal decision which serves as a reminder that a delay in making a reasonable adjustment can be discriminatory in itself even if an employer ultimately makes the reasonable adjustment. Employers have a duty, under the Equality Act 2010, to make reasonable adjustments where a disabled employee is put at a substantial disadvantage compared to others, by a "provision, criterion or practice" (PCP) of the employer. These adjustments can be wide ranging and may involve making adjustments to the employer's premises, making adjustments to the employee's working arrangements and/or providing auxiliary aids. Reasonable adjustments may be required at various stages of a disabled person's employment, for example, at the recruitment and selection stage, during the employee's day- to-day employment, during selection for redundancy or promotion and during disciplinary proceedings, etc. An employer's failure to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled employee will amount to disability discrimination. An employer's duty is not just to make reasonable adjustments but to make them in a timely manner. This is an issue which often arises in practice and a delay in making reasonable adjustments can result in employers facing tribunal claims and liability for discrimination.
CIPP Policy News Journal
12/04/2013, Page 59 of 362
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker