Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Clause 60

Part of Finance Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 12:15 pm on 16th June 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of John Pugh John Pugh Shadow Minister (Health), Shadow Minister (Treasury) 12:15 pm, 16th June 2009

I rise to test my understanding of the term “anti-fragmentation” in the clause. It seems to me that the term restricts the banks in two ways. First, it restricts them in how they proportion the cost of overseas transactions under the Finance Act 2005. Secondly, it curtails their ability to dodge that regime by arranging income to be received by a non-banking company under their control. The explanatory notes say that clause 60

“will clarify the existing legislation that prevents banks avoiding the intention of the DTR legislation by artificially arranging for income to be received by a non-banking company”.

That rather creates the perception of the banks as a slightly slippery customer, if one considers what might be behind it. It certainly makes the case for HMRC vigilance and Treasury intelligence. It also endorses the strong public suspicion over banking behaviour in general. Can I tempt the Minister to indicate which bank’s behaviour is being targeted and how many banks are in receipt of taxpayer funds?