UK Amendment Expands HMRC Investigative Powers and Liability Risk

Stephen Kessinger
May 11, 2017

In a move that creates increased liability and risk for non-compliant institutions and individuals in the United Kingdom, HM Treasury recently published an Amendment to the International Tax Compliance Regulations. In summary, the Amendment grants HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) additional power to police AEOI compliance and expands potential liability to both financial institutions and their employees.

HMRC’s New Powers To Gather Information and Penalize Individuals

While the Amendment does provide some necessary clarity on a number of FATCA, CRS and DAC requirements, the provisions detailing HMRC’s new information gathering powers and expanded individual liability should be of immediate concern. The Amendment — and the debate leading to its enactment — shows the UK is determined to pursue both tax cheats and the individuals and institutions who facilitate these illegal activities. Previously, HMRC’s information gathering powers were limited by Schedule 36 to the 2008 Finance Act, which allowed the UK to review documents to determine a taxpayer’s “tax position.” In the AEOI context, HMRC could review documentation — like a self-certification — necessary to determine whether an individual’s tax return is correct. While third parties could also be required to provide documentation, this individual-centric approach left HMRC little power to police those financial institutions charged with reporting the information. Now, HMRC can go one step further and request information allowing them to evaluate if the reporting financial institution is also in compliance. Leaders of financial institutions need to be specifically concerned as the Amendment imposes individual liability for those who facilitate tax evasion. Partners, trustees, and managers of investment schemes will be subject to penalty for any breach of their obligations to accurately report payments or failing to meet their due diligence standards –  amongst other requirements.

What Else Can We Expect from the HMRC?

As part of its goal to expand its ability to investigate, review, and prosecute both financial institutions and individuals, the UK government has been working on passing the Criminal Finances Bill. Upon enactment, it creates corporate criminal liability for institutions failing to affirmatively prevent the facilitation of tax evasion. UK Financial Secretary Jane Ellison stated that her office now has the ability to fine and even publish the names of those who are caught facilitating tax evasion, including individual employees within the financial institution involved as well as accountants, lawyers, and other advisors. Under the old rules, the Government needed to demonstrate the complicity of the institution’s Board of Directors before imposing individual liability. Under the new rules, HMRC has the power to investigate and penalize employees, regardless of Board involvement. This broad expansion of HMRC’s regulatory authority gives UK financial institutions significant cause to review their AEOI compliance program. The Amendment allows the HMRC to gather any information related to AEOI compliance and Financial Institutions need to be ready to meet this requirement. Likewise, under the Criminal Finance Bill, an institution can avoid liability by demonstrating it employs reasonable tax evasion “prevention procedures.” To best avoid these liabilities, organizations should document these procedures and demonstrate their persistent use. The Bottom Line: The UK has demonstrated a clear commitment to enforcing their information reporting rules and rooting out tax evasion. As legal requirements expand and the risk of both financial and criminal liability expands, a robust compliance solution can go a long way in providing peace of mind.

Take Action

Learn more about the Sovos AEOI Solution.

Sign up for Email Updates

Stay up to date with the latest tax and compliance updates that may impact your business.

Author

Stephen Kessinger

Stephen Kessinger is a Regulatory Counsel for Sovos Compliance. Within Sovos’ Regulatory Analysis function, Stephen focuses on AEOI reporting, including FATCA, CDOT and CRS. Before joining Sovos, Stephen earned his B.A. from the University of Vermont, and his J.D. from Roger Williams School of Law. He currently is a member of the Massachusetts and Rhode Island Bar Associations.
Share this post

North America
June 6, 2024
Observations and Predictions: The Future of Tax and Compliance

When I became the CEO of Sovos one year ago, I knew that I was stepping into an innovative company in an industry primed for a seismic transformation. However, even with this knowledge in place, I must admit that the speed and scope of change over the past year has been extraordinary to witness. Here […]

EMEA IPT
July 8, 2024
Hungary Insurance Premium Tax (IPT): An Overview

Regarding calculating Insurance Premium Tax (IPT), Hungary is the only country in the EU where the regime uses the so-called sliding scale rate model.

North America ShipCompliant
July 3, 2024
The Prospects and Perils of AI in Beverage Alcohol

I recently had the privilege of speaking on a panel at the National Conference of State Liquor Administrators (NCSLA) Annual Conference, a regular meeting of regulators, attorneys and other members of the beverage alcohol industry to discuss important issues affecting our trade. Alongside Claire Mitchell, of Stoel Rives, and Erlinda Doherty, of Vinicola Consulting, and […]

North America ShipCompliant
June 27, 2024
Shifting Focus: How to Make Wine Country Interesting to Millennials

Guest blog written by Susan DeMatei, President, WineGlass Marketing WineGlass Marketing recently conducted a study to explore how Millennials and Gen X feel about wine, wine culture and wine country. The goal was to gain insight into how we can make wine, wine club and wine country appealing to these new audiences. We’ll showcase in-depth […]

North America Sales & Use Tax
June 24, 2024
Illinois to Adjust Sales Tax Nexus Rules in Light of PetMeds Threat

Illinois is poised to change their sourcing rules again, trying to find their way in a world where states apply their sales tax compliance requirements equally to both in-state and remote sellers. With this tweak, they will effectively equalize the responsibilities of remote sellers with no in-state presence, to those that have an Illinois location. […]

EMEA VAT & Fiscal Reporting
June 21, 2024
ViDA Rejected Again – Europe Misses Another Chance to Harmonize e-Invoicing

During the latest ECOFIN meeting on 21 June, Member States met to discuss if they could come to an agreement to implement the VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) proposals. At the ECOFIN meeting in May, Estonia objected to the platform rules being proposed, instead requesting to make the new deemed supplier rules optional (an […]