Schedule 24
Finance Bill
9:45 am
Mark Hoban (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Fareham, Conservative)
One of the representations that we received from outside bodies was about the phrase
“it is reasonable to assume”
in proposed new section 486D(1). The concern is that that is a subjective test, whereas normally a much more robust test is used for anti-avoidance measures. In such cases, the principal purpose is to avoid tax, and that is demonstrable. Here, Inland Revenue or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs might think that “it is reasonable”. However, others might disagree about whether it is reasonable to make such an assumption. Will the Financial Secretary give some clarity as to why that wording was chosen, particularly as it was not the wording in the original drafts that were consulted on?