Report comment

Some at least of these proposals are worrying. Enough has been said about whiplash reform. Further regulating tax advisors will be interesting. I think it unlikely any tax advisor (except the truly criminal) would advise on a scheme that was plainly unlawful. Truth is, much legislation is open to interpretation, and it seems wrong in principle that an adviser should be liable if it turns out the scheme advised on was unlawful. What if the advice was along the lines of 'it's right dodgy but conceivably could be OK, but on your head be it'? Privilege would surely have to be set aside to see the terms of the advice ('more transparency'). Suppose the advice was balanced the other way - 'there are risks but we consider there is a better than evens chance this scheme will work'? Should the advisor then pay too? Perhaps the intention is to stifle the giving of tax advice?

As for "Legislation would ensure that ‘all promises and undertakings made in the course of takeover bids can be legally enforced afterwards’", it is difficult to work out what is meant (a corporate lawyer may have a better idea). Surely 'promises and undertakings' are enforceable if carried through into the contract documents? Is there to be a criminal element introduced here too?