Weekly tax brief - 19 April 2016

In this edition of RSM’s weekly round-up of the most important tax news, we cover the latest developments.


Would you publish your tax return? 94 per cent say no!

19 April 2016

It’s been the question on everyone’s lips since a number of MPs decided to publish their tax returns - would you be happy to share your tax details with the wider public? We wondered what our readers thought, and the results were overwhelming…

Delaware - when is a tax haven not a tax haven?

19 April 2016

We’re still feeling the fall-out of the ‘Panama Papers’ leak, with finance ministers from five of Europe’s most significant tax authorities agreeing last week to agree a standard of automatic exchange of beneficial ownership information. Now the OECD is keen to do the same, nudging the last few outstanding jurisdictions to sign up to the same. But hang on – why is the US missing from this list?

Tackling tax evasion by corporations

19 April 2016

The Prime Minister has pledged to introduce a criminal offence for corporations that fail to clamp down on tax evasion. But following the ‘Panama Papers’ scandal, might the government be tempted to take a heavy-handed approach to tackle this very controversial and topical issue? The consultation has just been published – so will it soothe the furrowed brows of concerned CEOs or send their blood pressure rocketing?

Don't ask for more information yet, get your house in order first

19 April 2016

Much has been made in the press lately about ‘tax transparency’, triggering a rush of MPs to publish their tax returns for all to see. But how has this benefitted the public, and is there a wider issue here for HMRC to address?

Is HMRC doing enough to tackle tax fraud?

19 April 2016

Still smarting over criticism of their attempts to tackle tax fraud, what more can HMRC do to reduce the billions of pounds lost as a result of fraud?

Chinese VAT reforms could result in loss of profits

19 April 2016

Reforms to the Chinese VAT system may result in services provided to Chinese customers by a non-established business being considered to be ‘VAT-inclusive’. Without renegotiation of fees, businesses may actually be paid less than the invoiced value of their services.

The curious case of the ATM supplier and the First World War

19 April 2016

Here’s a question – what’s the difference between a business that supplies cash for ATM machines, and a company trading with the enemy during the First World War? Actually there’s no difference at all according to the tax tribunal…