LLP tax changes ‘will put City at risk’

Topics: Tax law,Government & politics

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (6)
  • Save

Related images

  • John Redwood

A proposed crackdown on tax avoidance by limited liability partnerships will increase systemic risk to the financial sector, a debate organised by City firms heard yesterday.

However a high-profile Conservative former minister warned opponents of the new measures that they will need to come up with hard evidence urgently if they are to sway ministers.

Advertisement

John Redwood MP (pictured) was summing up a debate organised by the New City Initiative, an alliance of asset management firms, on new measures to be introduced in April to tackle ‘disguised employment’ among members of LLPs.

The new rules will tax members of LLPs as employees unless they can demonstrate that they have a financial stake in the partnership, are rewarded according to profits and play an active part in its management. 

Martin Shah, tax partner at City firm Simmons & Simmons, said the measures were already having an impact on law firms. ‘We are very concerned with the proposals,’ he said.

'If they are promulgated in the form set out it will lead to decisions being made for tax reasons rather than commercial reasons. We also have significant concerns about the timing.’

Dominic Johnson, deputy chair of the New City Initiative, said that the changes might discourage investment in the City, and encourage businesses to choose limited company rather than partnership status, which he said would increase systemic risk.  

‘If you meddle with the structure of LLPs you increase risk.’

However Redwood said that ‘the view from SW1’ is that tax avoidance is automatically a bad thing. ‘You are not going to win this argument unless you help me engage in the general argument, which is that you need a concept of good and bad avoidance.’

He said the only way Westminster would become interested in the LLP issue would be if there was firm evidence that partnerships would move elsewhere. ‘You need to put evidence that this is going to be the case, quickly,’ he said. 

HM Revenue & Customs is expected to publish final guidance on the new rules on 17 February. 

Readers' comments (6)

  • Goodbye more firms!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The bloody rich always want more favours, at the expense of the poor. Eat the rich.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The farce of salaried partnership exposed at last:

    - not partnership at all
    - a magic beans swap for an actual promotion
    - a wheeze to mislead the public into thinking that a firm is of more substance than it actually is
    - no share in the profits (or the losses, which you might yet be held responsible for if you are conned into signing the wrong form)
    - all the aggro of filling out tax returns for your old salary
    - responsibility without informed consent

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "The new rules will tax members of LLPs as employees unless they can demonstrate that they have a financial stake in the partnership, are rewarded according to profits and play an active part in its management"

    When I was a partner this was what a partnership was. So, those at risk are those who :

    "Do not ... have a financial stake in the partnership, are not rewarded according to profits and do not play an active part in its management"

    Not partners in other words. What's the problem?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anthony Margrave seems to hit the nail on the head. As he is right, how does it put the City at risk?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The tax position of salaried partners needs this exposure. Most salaried partners are employees by any reasonable measure and should be taxed accordingly i.e., on PAYE. Why the fuss? There is little or no difference between the functional responsibilities of most salaried partners and general managers in other businesses so why the different tax treatment?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (6)
  • Save

Mr Justice Foskett

Linklaters escapes ‘unprecedented’ disclosure order

29 July 2016By

High Court says strong grounds required to direct a review of e-disclosure in claim against mining company. 

Thirlwall

Judge orders SDT to try again after botched strike-out

29 July 2016By

Mrs Justice Thirlwall says the prosecution case was not an abuse of process.

Legal aid desert map

Shocking infographic highlights housing ‘advice deserts’

28 July 2016By

Law Society chief executive Catherine Dixon urges government to commission providers to prevent conflicts of interest.